a 
 
 ( 
 
^'-^ " "'^-rtf f rrwiT'^ -^' jB.i ^i^^ixi X 
 
 THE 
 
 OVER-TAXATION of IRELAND 
 
 
 >* 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 DELIVERED BY 
 
 HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P. 
 
 (SOUTH LONGFORD) 
 
 IN THE 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, ON 29TH MARCH, 1897 
 
 WITH 
 
 3ntro^uctfon, 5ubej anD tlablcs 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED ON RESOLUTION OF THE 
 
 IRISH PARLIAMENTARY PARTY 
 
 EDITED BY ALFRED WEBB 
 
 M 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 SEALY, BRYERS AND WALKER 
 
 MIDDLE ABBEY STREET 
 
 
 iiliim ■ lifcii iliMfc-- 
 
 PfllOl 8IXPEN0B 
 
HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P. 
 
 ON 
 
 THE OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND 
 
THE 
 
 OVER-TAXATION of IRELAND 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 DELIVERED BY 
 
 HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P. 
 
 (SOUTH LONGFORD) 
 
 IN THE 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, ON 29TH MARCH, 1897 
 
 WITH 
 
 introduction, 5nDej anO XTables 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED ON RESOLUTION OF THE 
 
 IRISH PARLIAMENTARY PARTY 
 
 EDITED BY ALFRED WEBB 
 
 Dublin 
 
 SEALY, BRYERS AND WALKER 
 
 MIDDLE ABBEY STREET 
 
(i "i i 1 -J .'^ 
 
 K5 
 
 \^^ 
 
 VO 
 
 Printed by 
 
 SEAt.Y. ]".RYERS & WaLKER 
 
 MiDDLE ABBEY STREET 
 
 Dt'BLiN 
 
Jntrobuction. 
 
 As this speech by the HON. Edward Blake may fall into 
 the hands of some not fully aware of the circumstances 
 under which it was delivered, it is well to preface it with 
 a few words of explanation. 
 
 " At various times" (I quote from the Report hereafter 
 referred to of the Eleven Commissioners) " since the pass- 
 " ing of the Act of Legislative Union between Great 
 " Britain and Ireland, complaints have been made that the 
 " financial arrangements between the two countries were 
 " not satisfactory, or in accordance with the principles of 
 " that Act, and that the resources of Ireland have had to 
 " bear an undue pressure of taxation. 
 
 " Inquiries into the truth of these allegations have 
 " frequently been called for, and Committees of the House 
 "of Commons were appointed in 1811, 1812, and 181 5, to 
 " investigate the financial results which followed the pass- 
 " ing of the Act of Union. Another Committee of the 
 " House of Commons was appointed in 1864, which took 
 " valuable evidence, collected much documentary informa- 
 " tion, and reported in the year 1865. Nothing practical, 
 ** however, followed from the Report of that Committee, 
 "and complaints still continued. In the year 1890 Mr. 
 " Goschen, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, consented 
 " that a further inquiry should be made by another Com- 
 " mittee of the House of Commons. The terms of reference 
 ** to that Committee comprised several points, and amongst 
 " others ' the equity of the financial relations in regard to 
 ** • the resources and population of the Three Kingdoms * 
 
* INTRODUCTION, 
 
 " was referred to them. This Committee was appointed too 
 " late in the session to make any substantial progress, and 
 " confined itself merely to calling for financial information. 
 " For various reasons the Committee was not re-appointed, 
 "and a change of Government taking place in 1892, Mr. 
 " Gladstone announced his willingness, in connexion with 
 "the Home Rule Bill of 1893, to have the financial 
 " relations between the two countries investigated by 
 " Commission." 
 
 The Commissioners, appointed in May, 1894, were: — 
 The Right Hon. Hugh C E. Childers (since deceased) ; 
 Lord Farrer, Lord Welby, The Right Hon. O'Conor Don, 
 Sir Robert G. C. Hamilton (since deceased) ; Sir Thomas 
 Sutherland, K.C.M.G., M.P. ; Sir David Barbour, K.C.S.I ; 
 The Hon. Edward Blake, M.P. ; Bertram W. Currie, Esq. ; 
 VV. A. Hunter, Esq., M.P. ; C. E. Martin, Esq. ; J. E. 
 Redmond, Esq., M.P. ; Thomas Sexton, Esq., M.P. ; 
 Henry F. Slattery, Esq. ; G. W. Wolff, Esq., M.P. 
 
 The following were the terms of reference : — " To 
 " inquire into the Finan cial Relations between Great 
 " Britain and Ireland, and their relative taxable capacity, 
 " and to report : — i. Upon what principles of comparison, 
 *' and by the application of what specific standards, the 
 " relative capacity of Great Britain and Ireland to bear 
 " taxation may be most equitably determined. 2. What, 
 *' so far as can be ascertained, is the true proportion, under 
 *' the principles and specific standards so determined, 
 " between the taxable capacity of Great Britain and 
 •' Ireland. 3. The history of the Financial Relations 
 •' between Great Britain and Ireland at and after the 
 " Legislative Union, the charge for Irish purposes on the 
 " Imperial Exchequer during that period, and the amount 
 "of Irish Taxation remaining available for contribution to 
 •' Imperial expenditure ; also the Imperial expenditure to 
 '• which it is considered equitable that Ireland should con- 
 ♦' tribute." 
 
 The Commission reported late last year, and the result 
 
INTRODUCTION. vu 
 
 Avas laid before Parliament in a Blue Book, with accom- 
 panying two volumes of evidence. Of the thirteen surviving 
 Commissioners, eleven (The O'Conor Don, Lord Farrer, 
 Lord Welby, Mr. Blake, Mr. Currie, Mr. Hunter, Mr. 
 Martin, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Slattery, Mr. 
 Wolff,) agreed as follows : — 
 
 " L That Great Britain and Ireland must, for the 
 " purpose of this inquiry, be considered as separate entities. 
 
 " IL That the Act of Union imposed upon Ireland a 
 " burden which, as events showed, she was unable to bear. 
 
 "in. That the increase of taxation laid upon Ireland 
 "between 1853 ^"^1 i860 was not justified by the then 
 " existing circumstances. ^ 
 
 " IV. That identity of rates of taxation does not 
 " necessarily involve equality of burden. 
 
 " V. That whilst the actual tax revenue of Ireland is 
 " about one-eleventh of that of Great Britain the relative 
 " taxable capacity of Ireland is very much smaller, and is 
 " not estimated by any of us as exceeding one-twentieth." 
 
 The difference between this one-eleventh and one- 
 twentieth amounts to about ^2,750,000 per annum extra 
 taxation. 
 
 Separate Reports were made : jointly by The O'Conor 
 Don, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Martin, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. 
 Wolff (28 pages) ; jointly by Lord Farrer, Lord Welby, 
 and Mr. Currie, (22 pages) ; Lord Welby (7 pages) ; jointly 
 by Mr. Sexton, Mr. Blake and Mr. Slattery (45 pages) ; 
 Mr. Blake, Draft (3 pages) ; Sir David Barbour (18 pages); 
 Sir Thomas Sutherland (10 pages) ; and a Draft Report 
 by the deceased Chairman, Mr. Childers (62 pages). 
 
 All has been published as a Parliamentary Return 
 [C 8262, 1896] with two volumes of evidence [C 7720, 1895, 
 I and II]. 
 
 The following general conclusions are arrived at in the 
 able and exhaustive Report of Mr. Sexton : — ** Having 
 "regard to the relative taxable capacity of Ireland (i) at 
 " the period of the Union, and (2) at the present time ; 
 
viii INTRODUCTION, 
 
 " also to the continual increase of British population, and 
 ** more rapid multiplication of British wealth, contrasted 
 *' with the decline of Irish manufacture and trade after the 
 '* Union, and the great reduction of Irish population, manu- 
 " facturing industry, and agricultural income since the 
 '* famine, it does not appear that Ireland's fair proportion 
 "of Imperial revenue collected since the Union amounted 
 '' to more at the utmost than an average of 3 millions per 
 ''annum; or a total, up to 1894, of about 280 millions. 
 " The revenue actually raised in Ireland during the period 
 '* of the separate exchequers and ' contributed ' since then 
 '* (according to Treasury computations) has amounted to 
 ♦' about 570 millions, or an average approximately of 6 mil- 
 " lions a year, being double the amount stated as the fair 
 " proportion of Ireland in view of her relative capacity." 
 
 The clearness with which Ireland's case was educed 
 from the mass of evidence is largely due to the ability of 
 Mr. Sexton's examination and cross-examination of the 
 witnesses, of which, said the Chairman, the Right Hon. The 
 O'Conor Don, " it would be impossible for me too highly 
 " to speak." " It may, perhaps," he added, " be invidious 
 " to mention any other name, but I feel so strongly that 
 •' we are much indebted to another member of the Com- 
 ** mission that I cannot refrain from mentioning him, I 
 "refer to the Hon. Edward Blake, M.P. To Mr. Blake's 
 " wise foresight, to his conciliatory address, to his large- 
 *' minded views, and his clearness and precision in enun- 
 " ciating them, we are much indebted for having secured 
 " practical unanimity in what is called the Joint Report ; 
 " and as Chairman of the Commission I feel bound to 
 "notice the important assistance he has rendered in bring- 
 •• ing about that agreement which has proved of so much 
 " value." 
 
 The Report has excited widespread interest and agitation 
 in Ireland — all political parties being united on this ques- 
 tion. Interrogated regarding their intentions. Government 
 declined to remedy the grievance exposed, expressed itself 
 
INTRODUCTION. ix 
 
 dissatisfied with the inquiry as not covering the whole 
 ground, and announced its intention of appointing a fresh 
 Commission, the terms of reference to which would in- 
 clude a consideration of Imperial expenditure in Ireland, 
 as a set off for excessive taxation. It, however, gave an 
 opportunity for debate ; and Mr. Blake, acting on behalf 
 of the Irish Parliamentary Party, on 29th March, moved 
 the resolution that will be found prefixed to his speech. 
 A three days' debate followed. The motion was negatived 
 by 317 votes to 157. 
 
 The speech delivered by Mr. Blake on that occasion was 
 generally felt to be a masterly and comprehensive state- 
 ment of the Irish case ; and as a mark of their sense of its 
 great and permanent value, and of the service to the 
 National cause rendered by Mr. Blake in making it, it was 
 unanimously resolved at a meeting of the Irish Party — 
 
 "That the speech delivered by the Hon. Edward Blake in moving the 
 resolution on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland be 
 printed and published at the expense of the Party." 
 
 At the request of the Party, I have undertaken the 
 task of seeing this speech through the press and arranging 
 for its publication and distribution. It has been to me a 
 congenial duty. 
 
 I have ventured to prefix an Index, and, with efficient 
 assistance, to add some Tables illustrative of the argument. 
 
 It is to be hoped that this broad statement of Ireland's 
 case will bring home to the minds of many, who have 
 never before examined the question, a realization of the 
 economic injustice under which Ireland has been suffering. 
 
 A. W. 
 
 Dublin, Ma^\ 1897. 
 
5nbey. 
 
 Abatements and exemptions at Union, 
 
 P- 13- 
 Agricultural distress, 1896, 40, 
 
 Agricultural Wealth, Decline in, 
 
 Table XI. 
 
 Agriculture and manufactures in Great 
 
 Britain and in Ireland, 5. 
 
 Balfour, Mr., on classification of 
 
 Treasury, 42. 
 
 tf »' on free-will, 31. 37. 
 
 i» ,, at Manchester, 16,47. 
 
 „ ,, on Whiskey-tax, 34. 
 
 Barbour, Sir David, Conclusions 
 
 reached by, 8. 
 Beer and Spirits, Taxation as between, 
 
 36. 
 
 Births and Deaths in Great Britain and 
 
 Ireland, 5, and Table VIII. 
 
 Blind, Deaf-mutes, and Lunatics in 
 
 Great Britain and in Ireland, 5, and 
 
 Table XIII. 
 
 British trade. Lord Salisbury on, 45. 
 
 Britain not tributary to Ireland, 42. 
 
 British local rates, Argument from, 
 
 41. 
 
 ,, fiscal policy. Effects of, 28. 
 
 „ professions at Union, 12. 
 „ and Irish taxation before 1800, 
 
 II. 
 ,, and Irish taxation. Contrast 
 
 between, 28. 
 „ and Irish surpluses, 9. 
 
 Capital, Great Britain and Ireland, 6, 
 
 and Table VI. 
 
 '• 
 
 II 
 
 Capacities, Comparative national, of 
 two countries, 1 5. 
 Castlereagh on abatements and 
 
 exemptions at Union, 13. 
 ,, professions at Union, 13. 
 
 Childers, Mr., on expenditure in 
 Ireland, 20. 
 ,, Conclusions reached 
 
 by, 7- 
 ,, on expenditure, 47. 
 ,, on provisions of Act 
 of Union, 14. 
 Claim, Irish, admitted, no difficulty 
 concerning remedy, 48. 
 Coffee, Cocoa and Tea, Consumption 
 
 of. Table X. 
 Commerce of Great Britain, 6. 
 Commission, Financial ReLitions, 
 
 Constitution of, 8. 
 Commission, Methods of procedure, 8. 
 
 ,, Proposed, 16, 47. 
 
 Congested Districts in Ireland, 4. 
 Consolidation Act, 18 16, 24. 
 Constabulary Vote, 42. 
 Contribution, Ireland's, lo. 
 Contribution, Need for limitation of, 
 
 23- 
 
 Course of Taxation since i860, 27' 
 Courtney, Mr., on whiskey tax, 34. 
 Carrie, Mr., Conclusions reached by, 
 
 8. 
 ,, on expenditure in Ire- 
 land, 21. 
 
 •I 
 
 Deaf-mutes, Blind, Lunatics in 
 
 Ireland, 5, and Table XIII. 
 
Xll 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Deaths in the Three Kingdoms, 
 
 Table VIII. 
 
 Debt, Irish, increase after Union, 22. 
 
 Difficulty of change, no excuse for 
 
 continued injustice, 37. 
 
 Divided expenditure, none proposed 
 
 in 1864, 38. 
 
 „ „ not allowed by 
 
 Union Act, 17. 
 
 Drain on Irish Resources, Table IV. 
 
 Drink expenditure in Great Britain 
 
 and in Ireland, 35, and Table II. 
 
 Economic results of Union, 3. 
 Economy, Incentives to, now wanting, 
 
 44. 
 Education Vote considered, 43. 
 Emigration, Results of, on physical 
 condition of people, 5. 
 Emigration Statistics, Table IX. 
 English Commissioners, their finding, 
 
 31- 
 
 M M ori free-will 
 
 regarding taxation, 32. 
 England, meat producer and 
 
 consumer, 4. 
 Expenditure in Ireland, 21. 
 
 ,, „ Mr. Childers on, 
 
 20. 
 I, ,, Mr.Currieon,2l, 
 
 M ,, Lord Farrer on, 
 
 21. 
 M M Sir R. Hamilton 
 
 on, 21. 
 >» M Mr. Hunter on, 
 
 20. 
 M >) Mr. Martin on, 
 
 20. 
 i> M O'Conor Don on, 
 
 20. 
 M i> Mr.Redmondon, 
 
 20. 
 >• M Mr. Sexton on, 
 
 21. 
 ~^"P~~ >» Mr. Slattery on. 
 
 21. 
 
 Expenditure in Ireland, Lord Welby 
 
 on, 21. 
 
 ^ „ Mr. Wolff on, 20. 
 
 ^ „ made and kept 
 
 Imperial, 41. 
 
 Expenditure, Proposed division of, 16. 
 
 Famine advance debt wiped off, 26. 
 Famines since Union, 4. 
 Farrer, Lord, and colleagues opinions,^ 
 
 42. 
 ,, ,, on expenditure in Ireland,. 
 
 21. 
 „ ,, conclusions arrived at, 7. 
 
 ,, ,, considers no new commis- 
 
 sion needful, 42. 
 ,, ,, on surpluses, 10. 
 
 Finance considerations at Union, 12. 
 Financial Relations Returns, their 
 
 origin, 39. 
 Fiscal policy, British, general effects 
 
 of, 28, 
 Fitzgerald, Vesey, 1815, on common 
 
 taxation, 24. 
 Food, Irish exports and imports, 4. 
 Foster's, Speaker, anticipations 
 
 regarding Union, 1 1. 
 Free Trade, effect of, on Britain and 
 
 Ireland, 25. 
 Free-will in bearing taxation, Mr. 
 
 Balfour on, 31. 
 French War, Results of, n. 
 
 Giffen, Sir Robert, conclusions arrived 
 
 at by, 8. 
 Goschen's, Mr., action in 1890, 39. 
 Government line in debate, 46. 
 Grattans Parliament, Progress during, 
 
 ic. 
 
 Hamilton, Sir Edward, Conclusions 
 arrived at by, 8. 
 •» ,, on Constabulary vote 
 
 43. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 xm 
 
 Hamilton, Sir Edward, on expendi- 
 ture in Ireland, 21. 
 ,, ji on relative resources, 
 
 9- 
 
 ,, „ on Union Treaty, 40. 
 
 Home Rule discussions. Questions 
 
 raised by, 38. 
 
 „ ,, considered remedy by 
 
 Irish people, 48. 
 ,) „ Responsibility entailed 
 
 by refusal of, 48. 
 Hunter, Professor, Conclusions ar- 
 rived at by, 8. 
 If ,, on expenditure 
 
 in Ireland, 20. 
 
 Imperial Army, number and cost of, 
 
 45- 
 „ contribution, Objection to 
 
 proposed, 44. 
 „ debt, Requiiements and bur- 
 then of. 45. 
 ,, giants in aid of rates. Separ- 
 ate con^iderationshown 
 in, 40. 
 ,, Navy, requirements and bur- 
 then of, 44. 
 Income Tax imposed on Ireland, 26. 
 „ of Great Britain and Ireland, 
 
 Table VI. 
 Indirect taxation supposed no griev- 
 ance, 30. 
 „ „ as between a single 
 
 and two countries, 30. 
 ^ ,, hard on poor, 30. 
 
 Ireland not an English county, 16. 
 ,, ever a separate taxable entity. 
 
 ,, as meat producer, 4. 
 „ Individuality of, 13. 
 
 „ xmited on financial question, 2. 
 Ireland's case, 10. 
 
 ,, contribution, lo, 15. 
 „ prOjjress under Grattan's 
 Parliament, il. 
 ,, Taxable Capacity, Table V. 
 
 Irish claim. Consequences of refusal, 
 
 of 48. 
 ,, complaints and Parliamentary 
 
 enquiries, 38. 
 , Debt prior to 1 800, n. 
 ,, exemptions, 27. 
 ,, Income, 6. 
 
 ,, Lords' protest at Union, 12. 
 ,, no responsibility for extrava- 
 gance, 43. 
 ,, people. Physical condition of, $• 
 ,, revenue lessens after Union, 22. 
 ,, resources. Drain on, Table IV. 
 ,, scale of expenditure abnormal* 
 
 43- 
 
 ,, surplus under Union Act, 19. 
 
 ,, taxation raised after Union, 22. 
 ,, ,, a general grievance, 29. 
 „ „ Total, burden beyond 
 
 means, 29. 
 
 Joint Report on increases of taxation, 
 
 27. 
 
 Liverpool, Lord, in 1S15, on common 
 
 taxation, 24. 
 Loans and advances, Former, 46. 
 Local rates, Increase of, 27. 
 Lords', Irish, protest at Union, 12, 22. 
 Lunatics, Deaf-mutes and Blind, in 
 Ireland, 5 and Table XIII. 
 
 Martin, Mr., on expenditure in Ireland, 
 
 ao. 
 Manchester speech of Mr. Balfoui, 
 
 16 
 
 Manufactures and agriculture in 
 
 Ireland, 5. 
 Marriages in the Three Kingciom, 
 
 Table VIII, 
 Miscellaneous charges debited to 
 
 Ireland, 43. 
 Money and postal orders, Ir'Ui, 6. 
 
XIV 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 O'Conor Don, on expenditure in 
 
 Ireland, 20. 
 Overtaxation proved, 10. 
 
 Parliamentary enquiries and Irish 
 
 complaints, 38. 
 Pauperism in Great Britain and 
 
 Ireland, 4, and Table XII. 
 People, Condition of Irisii, 4. 
 Pitt on Finance Relations at Union, 
 
 i 12. 
 ,, „ Ireland's condition prior to 
 
 1782, 10. 
 ,, ,, Irish securities, 2. 
 ,, ,, motives for Union, 12. 
 ,, ,, subsistence allowance, 14. 
 Plunkett's, Mr., amendment, 46. 
 Population, Decrease in Irish, 3. 
 Population of Great Britain and 
 
 Ireland, 1780 to 1896, Table X. 
 Postal and Money Orders, statistics as 
 
 regards, 6. 
 Progress of Ireland under Grattan's 
 
 Parliament, II. 
 
 Protection of Ireland at Union, illusory 
 
 under new ideas, 19. 
 
 Quota system, 11. 
 
 Railway freight in Ireland, 6. 
 
 ,, Passengers, Irish, 6. 
 Rebellion, Results of, 1 1. 
 Redmond, Mr., on expenditure in 
 
 Ireland, 20. 
 Relief Distress Acts necessary, 4. 
 Resources, Irish, 6. 
 
 Salisbury, Lord, on purposes of 
 
 Government, 45. 
 Senior, Mr., on English and Irish 
 
 taxation, 29. 
 Separate conditions and rights of 
 
 Ireland, 30. 
 
 Separate cf^nsideration acknowledged 
 
 in 1890, 39. 
 
 Sexton, i.xr., on free-will in taxation, 32 
 ,, „ on expenditure in 
 
 Ireland; 21. 
 
 Slattery, Mr., on expenditure in 
 
 Ireland, 21. 
 
 Specific remedy, Demand for, 47. 
 
 Spirits, Consumption of, in Great 
 Britain and Ireland, 35, Table II. 
 
 Spirit Duties equalized, 26. 
 
 Subsistence allowance, 14. 
 
 Surplus, Irish, under Union Act, 19- 
 
 Tables, 49. 
 
 Taxable capacity, Relative British and 
 Irish, 7, and Table V. 
 Taxation, British and Irish, before 
 
 1800, II. 
 ,, Common, when adopted, 23. 
 ,, on commodities, 28. 
 ,, Course of, 1816 to i860, 25. 
 „ Methods of. Table VII. 
 „ in Great Britain and Ireland, 
 1782-3 to 1893-4, Table TIL 
 „ per head in 1790, 1820, 1894, 
 
 -■. ^ 
 
 ,, prior to 1800, II. 
 ,, indirect. Rationale of, 33. 
 Taxable Surplus, Great Britain and 
 Ireland, Table VI. 
 Tea, Coffee, Cocoa, Consumption of. 
 
 Table X. 
 Tobacco, Consumption of, Tab^e X. 
 
 Union Act allows no division of Ex- 
 penditure, 17. 
 „ as quoted by Mr. Childers, 
 
 14- 
 
 f, only safe ground regarding 
 
 finance, 45. 
 
 ,, provisions for expenditure, 
 
 17- 
 True view regarding finan- 
 cial provisions of, 44. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 XV 
 
 Union, British professions at, 12, 
 
 Castlereagh, professions at, 13. 
 Changes since^ population, 3. 
 debates, 11. 
 Economic results of, 3. 
 Famines since, 4. 
 Financial considerations at, 12. 
 Financial conditions 
 
 established, by, 16. 
 General outcome of changes 
 
 since, 6. 
 makers predictions falsified, 
 
 22. 
 motives, 12. 
 proposals, 11. 
 
 »> 
 t> 
 »» 
 
 »» 
 
 » 
 
 
 Unsound Union estimates regarding 
 
 taxable capacity, 12. 
 
 United Kingdom expenditure under 
 
 Union Act, 17. 
 
 Valuation, Poor-law, 4. 
 
 Wolff, Mr., on expenditure in Ireland, 
 
 20. 
 Welby, Lord, Conclusions arrived at 
 
 by, 7- 
 ,, on expenditure in 
 
 Ireland, 21. 
 Whiskey tax paid most by sober, 34. 
 Whittaker's, Mr., amendment, 46. 
 
" But remember when you have completed your system of 
 
 impoverishment, that nature still proceeds in her^ ordinary 
 
 course, that discontent will increase with misery!' 
 
 —Edmund Burke. 
 
 '• There is no debt with so much prejudice put off as 
 that of justicer—YU}ThSS:\\. 
 
OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, i^th MARCH, 1897. 
 
 Hon. Edward Blake spoke as follows in support of 
 his motion — 
 
 " That in the opinion of this House the Report and Proceedings of 
 the Royal Commission on the Fmancial Relations of Great Britain and 
 Ireland establish the existence of an undue burthen of taxation on 
 Ireland, which constitutes a great grievance to all classes of the Irish 
 community, and makes it the duty of the Government to propose; at an 
 early day, remedial legislation." 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw attention to the Report of 
 the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations between 
 ■Great Britain and Ireland, and to state the nature of the 
 Irish case made out by that Report. I am glad to acknow- 
 ledge that it has been favourably regarded in influential 
 quarters on both sides of the House. But I am not insen- 
 sible to the fact that there exists on the part of some 
 members an indisposition, perhaps I might say an aversion 
 to the discussion of Irish grievances ; some entertaining a 
 conviction that there is no use in spending more time over 
 Irish affairs, since, whatever is said or done, the people are 
 still unreasonably dissatisfied ; and others cherishing the 
 belief that Ireland is spoiled and favoured, rather than 
 wronged and neglected. I feel too that the argument must 
 be tedious, devoid of dramatic interest, full of wearisome 
 detail. And most of all am I deeply conscious of my own 
 inadequacy for the task which has been imposed upon me. 
 
2 HON, EDWARD BLAKE, M.P. 
 
 Therefore I very earnestly supplicate the kind indulgence 
 of the House while I attempt to sustain the motion of which 
 I have giv'en notice. 
 
 Sir, this differs from many former Irish questions. In those 
 there was not so much as in this a united 
 l.cuveen"?his Iceland. In those the dominating British de- 
 and other legation often assumed to be impartial judges, 
 questions. disinterested persons, deciding between con- 
 flicting Irish factions. The Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer said a while ago that in the discussion of this 
 matter " a judicial mind " was essential. And the voices of 
 the Irish Members are little regarded, because they are saU 
 to be parties, and therefore not fit judges in the case. 
 
 But who, may I ask, arc the other parties? If we be the 
 plaintiffs, who are the defendants ? You, the British mem- 
 bers ! But your position is more powerful, and therefore 
 more invidious, than ours. We, even if happily united on 
 this question here as much as in Ireland, would be only 
 one-seventh of this magisterial bench. You can neutralise 
 us with near five hundred judges to spare. Thus, in the 
 decision, we are impotent ; you all-powerful. You. then, 
 are the judges ; and we must plead with our adversaries to 
 give judgment against themselves. On what then can we 
 depend ? Whence cometh our hope ? We can rest only 
 on the security declared in 1800 by a great British Minister 
 to be adequate, when, speaking of this very contingency,. 
 he said — 
 
 "But it has been said. 'What security can you give Ireland for the 
 performance of the conditions.'' If I were asked what security were 
 necessary', without hesitation I would answer ' None.' The liberality, 
 the justice, the honour of the people of Great Britain have never yet 
 been found deticient." 
 
 It is for you who speak for Britain to-day to make good 
 Pitt's words of a century ago. 
 
 Sir, I will limit to the utmost my large demand upon 
 your patience. There are numerous questions, readily dis- 
 cussible ad naiiscmn, involvincr economical and statistical 
 problems, expert opinions, historical and legal views,. 
 
- ON OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. ^^ 
 
 columns of figures. By expanding all these, and by dilat- 
 ing upon the precise extent of the grievance and the 
 possible kinds of redress, it would be easy to obscure or 
 sink the issue. I would gladly aim, if possible, rather at 
 broad outlines and general results, and in some matters 
 rely on expert authority ; but, after all, tedious details arc 
 inevitable. 
 
 First let me ask the House to consider the gravity of the 
 issue ; and let me emphasise it by a brief 
 
 ixonomic enumeration of some startling facts, new and 
 
 results of ^ 
 
 iJritain's rule old, collected by the Commission. For almost a 
 since Union. ^^j-jtury Britain has ruled Ireland under the 
 Union. I ask British members to recall the economic con- 
 ditions of the two islands — the ruling and the ruled. They 
 .should give pause before the dismissal of our plaint. 
 
 Take population. It is a great test, and involves a great 
 
 element of strength. At the beginning Ire- 
 
 opu a ion. j^^^ j^^^ ^^^ millions against a little over ten 
 
 millions in Britain. She has now four and a-half millions, 
 less by half a million, or lo per cent, cf a loss in the century. 
 Britain has now thirty-four millions, having increased by 
 twenty-four millions, or 240 per cent. Had Ireland in- 
 creased proportionately she would have had over sixteen 
 millions ; her relative loss is eleven and a half millions. 
 Slie had half as many : she has little more than one-eighth 
 of Britain. But even this view is inadequate. Only half a 
 century ago Ireland had eight and a half millions. She lost 
 two millions directly and indirectly through the famine ; 
 and since then so many more that, after eliminating the 
 natural increase, her population has actually diminished by 
 four millions, or 47 per cent, in half a century, an absolutely 
 unexampled condition, Britain half a century ago had 
 twenty millions ; she has increased by fourteen millions, 
 i)r 70 per cent. A proportionate Irish increase would 
 make an Irish population of over fourteen millions. Her 
 relative loss is near ten millions, or 70 per cent, in half a 
 century. ■ 
 
4 HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P. 
 
 Take next the condition of the people. Of this dread- 
 fully reduced population there are large 
 Condition masses whose scale of existence is far below 
 people. that of the corresponding masses of Britain ; 
 
 while Britain's increased numbers enjoy a 
 steady and rapid advance in the standard of comfort. 
 In Britain the scale of living and the margin available 
 for emergencies make famine unknown and 
 impossible. In Ireland the scale is so 
 low and the margin so narrow that even a single 
 bad crop tends in important areas to famine, necessitating 
 public aid. In 1879-1880, in 1886, in 1891, in 1894, you 
 were obliged to pass Relief of Distress Acts for Ireland. 
 In England there is no Congested Districts Board. In 
 Ireland one-sixth of the country and near one-eighth of 
 the population are thus dealt with. The average Poor- 
 Law valuation of the area \s £1 os. 2d. Many equally 
 poor districts are excluded from the Act. There is pain- 
 ful evidence of chronic penury and want in those parts ; 
 reports which, if they could be alleged of a British district, 
 would absolutely appal this House. 
 
 Britain imports from Ireland and abroad for her 
 masses vast quantities of the best foods, in 
 addition to what she raises. Ireland raises 
 great supplies of the best foods, which she is obliged 
 largely to export to Britain, and to replace by inferior 
 commodities, Indian corn and American bacon — the best 
 her poverty-stricken masses can afford to use. Ireland 
 is, in proportion to population, the fourth meat producer 
 in the world, but only the sixteenth meat consumer. For 
 England the conditions are reversed. She is the sixteenth 
 meat producer, but the fourth meat consumer. 
 
 The average Poor- Law valuation of all Ireland is under 
 
 £1, about equal to the poorest East London 
 
 °^"^* union. The paupers of Ireland were per 
 
 1,000 in 1864,52; of Britain, 49 ; nearly equal proportions. 
 
 In 1895 they were in Ireland 95, being nearly doubled ; for 
 
ON OVER-TAXATIOy OF IRELAND. 5 
 
 Britain, 26, being almost halved. From equality they 
 have become near 4 to i ; an increase, however, partly due 
 to the assimilation of the systems as to out-door relief. 
 Emigration has been draining from Ireland those in the 
 
 prime of life. The very young and the very 
 condkion ^^^ remain. Thus the absolute and relative 
 
 efficiency of the population has been lowered. 
 Inferior conditions have produced other painful results. 
 The proportion of deaf-mutes is near one-third larger than 
 in England ; of blind, two-fifths ; of lunatics, one-third. 
 And, on the other hand, the proportion of births over 
 deaths is in Ireland less than half that in Britain. 
 
 Take manufactures and agriculture. Irish manufactures 
 
 have largely declined. While between 1841 
 
 Manufactures and 1 89 1 thc whole population decreased 
 
 Agriculuire. 42 per cent, the manufacturing population 
 
 decreased 61 per cent. Now only 27 per 
 cent, of the Irish population is urban. In thc same time 
 thc manufactures of Britain have immeasurably increased, 
 and now 71 per cent, of her population is urban. The 
 figures are about reversed. Thus, Ireland has become 
 more and more dependent upon tiie land ; 73 per cent, of 
 her people live in the country, and 64 per cent, are directly 
 dependent upon agriculture It follows that she has 
 suffered enormously, absolutely and relatively, by thc fall 
 in prices, accentuated by the loss of local town markets ; 
 and her gross and net returns from agriculture have been 
 very greatly reduced, involving the loss of a large propor- 
 tion of her yearly resources. Britain has become more 
 and more independent of agriculture. Under 29 pt- r cent, 
 of her people arc rural ; and therefore she has been less 
 affected as a country by the fall in prices ; wliile agricul- 
 ture itself has been helped by the wide-spreading urban 
 districts, which have turned large agricultural areas into 
 market gardens, and town supp y-farms ; a ^roccsi which 
 ought to be much accelerated. 
 
6 ' HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P. 
 
 Take commerce. Ireland has hardly any foreign com- 
 merce or investments, and a large part of her 
 Commerce. , . .... 11. 
 
 yearly mcome is dramed away by absentee 
 
 landlords and mortgagees, Britain is still the gieat 
 manufacturer, merchant, carrier, and lender of the world, 
 whose wealth she drains. Though Ireland still has a 
 population of between one-seventh and one-eighth of 
 Britain's, the number of her railway passengers is but onc- 
 thirty-seventh ; of tons of railway freight, one-seventieth ; of 
 telegrams, one-eighteenth, and of money and postal orders, 
 one-nineteenth — facts which prove her comparative stag- 
 nation. 
 
 Take resources. Sir Robert Giffen's conclusion is that, 
 
 taking into account all circumstances, the 
 Resources. . . . . , . , 
 
 mcomes of the wagc-earnmg classes m Ire- 
 land are, man for man, little more than half those of Great 
 Britain. The gross income or yearly resources of Ireland 
 are estimated too highly at 70 millions ; those of Britain 
 too low at 1,400 millions, or twenty-fold. The capital of 
 Ireland was reckoned in 1820 at 563 millions, or over one- 
 third that of Britain, which was 1,500 millions. Ireland is 
 thought now to have 400 millions, or near one-third re- 
 duction, and Britain over 10,000 millions, or over seven- 
 fold increase. Ireland has gone down relatively from over 
 one-third to under one-twenty-fifth. 
 
 Sir, these comparisons might be easily multiplied and 
 
 enlarged upon, but the bald statements prove 
 ^csulu^ that the conditions of the two islands you 
 
 govern are wholly different and increasingly 
 diverging in the extent of their resources, in the kinds of 
 their resources, and in their economic circumstances and 
 interests. They show that your rule has advanced your- 
 selves, but failed to prosper her. They prove that her 
 situation demands the just and generous consideration of 
 the rich and powerful rulers of the weak and poor island 
 whose destinies you control. 
 
ON OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND, 7 
 
 Let me add this one contrasting fact — that on which our 
 
 present claim is founded. The one great 
 
 The one con- point in which Britain exhibits a decHne and 
 
 Taxation. Ireland an advance is in the scale of taxation! 
 
 In Ireland the taxes on commodities which 
 
 strike the masses, were per head, in 1790, 4s. ; in 1820, lis.; 
 
 in 1894, 22s. — they were doubled. In Britain they were, 
 
 in 1820, 48s. ; in 1894, 24s. — they were halved. The Irish 
 
 taxes which had been under one-fourth have become almost 
 
 equal, notwithstanding the relative poverty of the country. 
 
 Sir, may I deal, before considering our rights under the 
 
 Union Act, with one cardinal point of 
 
 Maximum economic fact ; the relative taxable capacity 
 
 estimate of ^ -^ 
 
 Relative Tax- of the two islands, as contrasted with their 
 ""^'^Report?^^' actual taxation. For the purposes of this 
 debate it is enough to show the maximum 
 estimate of Ireland's relative capacity, reached by any one 
 of twelve out of thirteen commissioners. The Joint Report 
 finds that — ^ ^ ' " :* 
 
 "While the actual tax revenue of Ireland is about one-eleventh of 
 that of Britain, the relative taxable capacity of Ireland is very much 
 smaller, and is not estimated by any of us to exceed one-twentieth.'' 
 
 This conclusion was reached after two years' examina- 
 tion and consideration by eminent experts, 
 
 rcrsonncl p . .-•.•• 1 -n re • 1 
 
 of British financiers, statisticians, and 1 reasury orhcials. 
 
 section of Let mc, because of the imputation of bias. 
 Commission. ,, , , . 1 1 1 . 
 
 leave out all the Irish members, though some 
 
 of them, at any rate, ought to count in this question. Let 
 
 mc consider the British members only, who also, by the 
 
 same reasoning, may have been unconsciously biassed 
 
 against us. It was reached substantially by Mr. Childcrs, the 
 
 first chairman, a distinguished economist and financier, an 
 
 ox-Chancellor of the Exchetiucr, a man retired from party 
 
 politics, who devoted the last years of his life to this great 
 
 public service, in the discharge of which he died. It was 
 
 reached by Lords Farrer and Wei by, who had filled the 
 
 liighest posts in the British Treasury, and in the Board of 
 
8 . HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P. 7- 
 
 Trade — posts demanding and developing^ the qualities 
 most required for the work ; and whose public services 
 had been rewarded by seats in the Upper Chamber, which 
 was honoured and strengthened by their accession to its 
 ranks. It was reached by the late Mr. Currie, a man of 
 the highest reputation in these walks, who had proved his 
 powers in other posts ; and by Professor Hunter, a late 
 colleague of ours, whose brain-power, knowledge, and 
 industry are well-known here. It was reached substan- 
 tially by Sir David Barbour, dissentient on other grounds, 
 whose distinguished career abroad may, perhaps, permit 
 him to be admitted as impartial, though marked by Irish 
 birth. There remains just one British member; perhaps the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer would say tJie just one — a col- 
 league of ours who does not give assent, proceeding on other 
 Hues, but, not as I understand, negativing the conclusion. 
 It has indeed been said that even these British members- 
 are tainted, too, because they are favourers of Home Rule. 
 But this is not now a question, though you may make it 
 one, of Home Rule. The claim to Home Rule is made on 
 other grounds. It is an absurd contention (as has been 
 shown by the hon. member for Plymouth, whose sympa- 
 thetic treatment of our case I gladly acknowledge) that 
 such opinions could vitiate their judgment on this economic 
 question. Then you must, as I submit, give great weight 
 to the conclusions of that body of men, experts, but of like 
 passions with ours, and subject to the same infirmities, 
 who have yet found against themselves and you. It was 
 reached on the evidence of Sir Robert Giffen and Sir 
 Edward Hamilton, and others, great British public ser- 
 vants — the one the able head of the Treasury and the 
 other an economist and statistician of eminent repute, 
 heightened by his display on this occasion. It was reached 
 after collecting, weighing, and sifting all information sug- 
 gested from every quarter, and valuing and applying all 
 tests — population, imports and exports, consumption of 
 duty-paid good^, consumption of commodities of primary 
 
"" ON OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. ^^ 
 
 use, assessment of death duties, assessment of income tax, 
 other incomes and wages, yearly wealth, aggregate pro- 
 duction, capital, comparative progress of capacity, relative 
 effects of fiscal policy, and so on, with statistical facts too 
 numerous to name. 
 
 It was reached after examination of the principles of 
 
 taxation and their application, including some 
 ^^^''j™"™ ^°° which made a serious difference amongst us, 
 
 mainly because some of us thought that the 
 gross income was relatively smaller, and that a larger 
 application was needed of the principles of equality of 
 sacrifice, of deduction of a subsistence allowance, and of 
 the relative taxable weakness of a poor as compared with 
 a wealthy country. Some of us believed, and now believe, 
 that a just application of these principles would show the 
 Irish relative capacity much less, and her taxable surplus 
 almost exhausted, while the British is hardly touched. 
 We saw an Irish surplus over living allowance of perhaps 
 fifteen millions mainly abstracted by taxation, and a 
 British surplus of perhaps eleven hundred millions less 
 than tithed by taxation. We saw the Irish relative taxable 
 capacity steadily diminishing. We thought, in accordance 
 with Sir Robert Giffen, that a far lower proportion would 
 be true, and also that a maximum contribution should be 
 fixed so as to meet the proved danger of excessively in- 
 creased expenditure. I quite agree that a rigorous appli- 
 cation of these figures and principles is not to be hoped 
 for yet. It still is true that — 
 
 "To him that li.ith shall be .jjiven, and he shall have more abun- 
 dantly ; and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that 
 which he hath." 
 
 But a nearer approach should be made ; and I hope some 
 day to maintain this view in this place. Meantime, I ask 
 you to remember that this is stated only as a maximum. 
 Sir Edward Hamilton himself, towards the close of the in- 
 quiry, put the relation of resources as one twenty-second 
 apart, as I understand, from the question of subsistence 
 
lo ■ HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P. re- 
 
 allowance, and Lord Farrer has lately, in another place, 
 declared his conviction to be that the maximum named is 
 too high. For my present purpose, this is enough and 
 
 more than enough. It so far proves a great 
 
 "0™°"'^ disproportion — go far establishes a substantial 
 
 Taxation grievance — so far calls for a remedy. I would 
 
 only ask you to remember that the contribu- 
 tion of Ireland is between one-eleventh and one-twelfth, or 
 nearly twice her maximum relative taxable capacity, and 
 thus reaches a minimum excess of two and three-quarter 
 millions. As 1 have said, on the question of precise degree 
 the Commission was divided. All the facts and arguments 
 are now before the Government, which should propose a de- 
 cision to be settled some other day on broad lines by Par- 
 liamentary adjustment and compromise. I cannot then 
 accept this as the just estimate ; I ask you to accept it only 
 as a maximum. Indeed, I am not sure that this proposi- 
 tion is now disputed. It takes mc only part of the way in 
 my argument ; but I strongly argue that by itself it creates 
 an urgent case for relief on the grounds of fair play and 
 generous consideration due from the strong to the weak. 
 But, sir, the case of Ireland stands higher. It stands 
 
 upon treaty and justice, equity and right. 
 True basis of Ireland has been found by the Commission 
 
 Ireland s GihC. • , , ... r ^ 
 
 Report. entitled to separate consideration as a nscal 
 entity in this question of contribution ; and 
 the finding is of weight. This is, however, not a question 
 especially for experts. It is based on historical, legal, and 
 equitable considerations, peculiarly for the final decision of 
 this House, and I must ask your patience while I briefly 
 state its grounds. 
 
 In 178J, Ireland had partly emerged from that condition 
 
 ' of servitude as to her trade and manufactures 
 
 1 -S2T)'^iSoo. described in 17S5 in wounding words by Pitt, 
 
 Grattan's adding ** Ireland had been made completelv 
 
 I'arliament. . . ' 
 
 subservient to the interests and o])ulencc of 
 Great Britain;" and further, "Such a system, however 
 
ON CVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. n 
 
 necessary it might be to the partial benefit of districts in 
 Britain, promoted not the real strength and prosperity of 
 the Empire." From 17S2 to 1800 Ireland had a measure 
 of independence, though under a defective constitution. 
 During the first ten years there was peace. The country, 
 though poor, was improving ; manufactures, productions, 
 and exports expanded ; the establishments were moderate; 
 the taxation was one million, equal to 4s. a head, all on 
 consumption ; and it met the expenditure. Then came 
 the French war, followed by the Rebellion, after which 
 a large army was planted on the country during the 
 negotiations for the Union. These calamities had, by 
 1800, raised the taxation to two and a-half millions, 
 or I OS. a head. There was a deficiency of over sixteen 
 millions — ten millions for the war ; six millions for the 
 Rebellion and if.rmed occupation. To meet this a debt of 
 twenty-eight millions had been created, the charge for 
 which was one and a-quarter millions. This condition 
 was, of course, abnormal and temporary. The taxation 
 of Britain at the same time, of which two-thirds was 
 upon consumption, was ^3 a head, or six-fold that of 
 Ireland. 
 
 Then came the proposals for Union. They excited 
 
 alarm at the danger of over-taxation of Ire- 
 
 rSoo. land. Speaker Foster, and other Irish mem- 
 
 ProposaLs. bcrs, in language which sounds prophetic noiv, 
 
 anticipated the sad future. These alarms it 
 
 was necessary to soothe. 
 
 There was no pretence that Ireland was able to bear 
 ,, . . , the British rate of taxation. Her absolute 
 
 liritish 
 
 .Acknowicdg- and relative poverty was acknowledged, and 
 
 I nion^l)"- calculations were made professing to show 
 
 kites' Quota thc relative resources and to fix the just pro- 
 
 portion of contribution of each country to the 
 
 common burden to be assumed by the United Kingdom. 
 
 Tlic bases were unsound, narrow, defective, now exploded ; 
 
 and, besides, they included some unfit Irish, and excluded 
 
m HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P. 
 
 some proper British elements of calculation. The result 
 was an erroneous estimate of relative taxable capacity of 
 two to fifteen. Mark that the population was one to two ; 
 the quota, one to seven and a-half. The justice of the esti- 
 mate was disputed. The Irish Lords protested, calculating 
 that one to eighteen or twenty was the truth ; and they 
 were justified by the event. The principle of proportionate 
 contribution was sound ' but its application was false, and 
 its results were ruinous. 
 
 It was thought possible that a change might be made later 
 . . allowing equal and indiscriminate taxation, 
 
 Indiscnmi- , . , . 
 
 nate suDject to abatements and exemptions for 
 
 Taxation Ireland. The main difficulty present to 
 
 system. , -^ * 
 
 men's minds was the debt. Apparently the 
 promoters contended that the leading end, namely — 
 contribution according to resources — could be accom- 
 plished by the alternative arrangement. But it is clear 
 that this was not absolutely held, for in April, 1800, Pitt 
 said — 
 
 " It were a consummation much to be wished that the finances of 
 both countries were so nearly alike that the systems of both could be 
 identified. But as, from the different proportions of debt, different 
 staj,'"es of civilisation and commerce, and the different wealth of the 
 nations, that desirable object is rendered impracticable for some time 
 to come," 
 
 And so on. Thus there was a clear acknowledgment of 
 the elements of our case — the materiality of 
 professions. ^^ differences in civilisation, commerce, and 
 wealth of the nations. The British professions 
 were all against any increase of Irish burdens. Pitt as- 
 sured the House — 
 
 "That the Union was not sought from a pecuniary motive ;"^ 
 "it must infuse a large portion of wealth into Ireland, and supply 
 its want of industry and capital ; " " there was no ground for the 
 apprehension that Britain would tax Ireland more heavily, ' " or that 
 Ireland would be subject to an increase of taxes or to a load of debt ;" 
 •' the contribution to be imposed on Ireland would not be greater 
 than her own present necessary expenses ; " " Ireland would continue 
 to contribute in its accustomed proportion;" and that "one of the 
 
^„ _ ON OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. 13 
 
 objects of the Act was to ensure that Ireland should never be taxed 
 but in proportion as we tax ourselves." 
 
 Viscount Castlereagh in the Irish House said 
 "^rlSs? the same. He stated that the plan of 
 revision — 
 
 " Gave to Ireland the utmost possible security that she could not be 
 taxed beyond the measure of her comparative ability, and the ratio of 
 her contribution must ever correspond with her relative wealth and 
 prosperity." 
 
 He, however, suggested that if indiscriminate taxation 
 were adopted it would have this effect, saying that — 
 
 " By no means whatsoever could the kingdoms be made to con- 
 tribute so strictly according to their means as being subject to the same 
 taxes, equally bearing on the great objects of taxation in both coun- 
 tries." -.. 
 
 Thus this suggestion was not to defeat but 
 Abatements to maintain the principle of proportionate con- 
 Exemptions, tribution of the two countries, and. therefore, 
 
 it was coupled with appropriate security, 
 being made — 
 
 " Subject to abatements and exemptions in Ireland and Scotland, 
 which circumstances might from time to time demand." 
 
 On this provision, Castlereagh said — 
 
 " While Ireland is thus secured against any injustice in substituting 
 a system of common taxes in lieu of proportionate contribution, the 
 Union Parliament will always be able to make abatements in Ireland, 
 us the Parliament of Great Britain has always done in Scotland since 
 the Union, when from local circumstances the high duty cannot be 
 levied without either rendering the revenue unproductive or pressing 
 too hard upon the poorer classes." 
 
 Mark these words. They explode the idea that the com- 
 parative poverty of the poorer classes in 
 .Separate Tax- Ireland is to be ignored. It is to be recog- 
 able entity nised. The individuality of the country, 
 
 always. ^ ^ 
 
 the separate entity, so to speak, is in this 
 respect, maintained. And indeed it is absurd to argue 
 that a country full of contrasts with Britain in all respects, 
 for which you are every day legislating separately, whose 
 whole body of law is different from yours, should be in this 
 
14 HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P::-- 
 
 matter, in which also its distinctions are fundamental, 
 /ccogniscd and increasing, treated as one with you. 
 
 Pitt, indeed, could not decline to recognise the rule 
 we invoke as between a poor and a rich 
 Albwance^ country, for 'n 1785 he said, as to these two 
 islands — , ^^^ : . • 
 
 "The smallest burden on a poor country was to be considered when 
 compared with those of a rich one, by no means in proporiion to the 
 several abilities, for if one country exceeded another in wealth, popu- 
 lation and established commerce, even in a proportion of two to one, 
 he was nearly convinced that that country would be able to bear near 
 ten times the burden that the other would be equal to." 
 
 The reason is that in order to pay taxes we must live ; 
 and that laerefore a subsistence allowance must be made ; 
 and even the margin after that allowance cannot be 
 heavily touched without disaster. Some economists think 
 that fifteen per cent, is the extreme point on an average ; 
 and, of course, the narrower the margin, the sooner the 
 extreme point would be reached. These considerations 
 show that it was intended to secure and maintain a due 
 recognition of the inferior capacity of Ireland, as a country, 
 so long as that inferiority existed ; first by the creation 
 and revision of the quota ; and later, if the other plan were 
 adopted, by due consideration in the levying, and due 
 exemptions and abatements from the taxes. 
 
 If, then, it be possible so to read the Act it ought to be 
 so read. Sir, it is not only possible but in- 
 iTnion Act : evitable. Look at the Union Act, as quoted 
 Quota. in Mr. Childers' Report. The seventh arti- 
 
 cle, after providing separately for the debt, 
 enacts — , - ; ; ^; , ,., ,., r. : . --^-'• 
 
 "That for twenty years the contribution of Britain and Ireland 
 respectively towards the expenditure of the United Kini:jdom shall be 
 defrayed in the proportion of fifteen parts for Britain and two parts for 
 Ireland; and at the expiration of twenty years the future expenditure 
 of the United Kingdom shall be defrayed in such proportion as 
 Parliament shall deem just and reasonable — (i) on comparison of 
 imports and exports; (2) on comparison of consumption of beer, 
 spirits, sugar, wine, tea, tobacco, and malt ; (3) or according to the 
 aggregate proportion of both the above comparisons ; (4) or on com- 
 
-- -' ON OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. 15 
 
 parison of income, in c:ise a general like income tax was established. 
 The Parliament was afterwards to proceed in like manner to revise and 
 fix the proportion of burdens at mtervals of from twenty to seven years, 
 and the fixed proportion was to be raised in each country by such 
 taxation in that country as Parliament deemed fit." 
 
 So far all is quota ; and all is clear. Then the Act pro- 
 vides that — 
 
 "fi) If, at any future day, the separate debt of each 
 
 Union Act : country be liquidated or reach equal proportions, and 
 
 indiscriminate (2) if it shall appear to Parliament that the respective 
 
 Taxation. circumstances of the two countries will thenceforth 
 
 admit of their contributing indiscriminately by equal 
 
 taxes imposed on the same articles in each, to the future expenditure 
 
 of the United Kingdom, it shall be competent to Parliament to declare 
 
 that all future expenditure and the debt charge shall be so defrayed 
 
 indiscriminately and by equal taxes imposed on the same articles in 
 
 each country ; and thenceforth from time to time, as circumstances may 
 
 require, to impose and apply such taxes accordingly, subject only to 
 
 such abatements and exemptions in Ireland and in that part of Great 
 
 Britain called Scotland, as circumstances may appear from time to time 
 
 to demand." 
 
 Note that it was not on the sole condition of the attain- 
 ment of the quota by the debt, but also on the 
 The principle determination of Parliament that ''the circnm- 
 
 of com par alive 
 
 iS'aiional stanccs of the two countries would admit of it," 
 contmuesl\ill ^^^^^ '^^^ change could take place. And thus, 
 even thereafter, the principle of regulating the 
 contribution by national circumstances remained. Note 
 again that even if the change did take effect, yet the im- 
 position of equal taxes on the same articles was subject in 
 Ireland, though not in any English county, to abatements- 
 and exemptions. It was recognised therefore that the plan 
 might not produce the stipulated result, which was still 
 intended, of contribution according to ability ; and a 
 remedy was provided for all time. I implore you not to 
 minimise that remedy ! This safeguard against national 
 injustice under the indiscriminate system was designed tO' 
 preserve to Ireland substantially the same immunities. 
 Does anyone pretend that it was designed that her con- 
 dition should be injuriously affected by the later change > 
 Could the Act of Union have been carried on any such 
 suggestion ? 
 
i6 HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P, 
 
 Ireland is not placed in the position of an English 
 
 county. You a^^k why should not Wiltshire 
 
 Ireland not or East London complain. Some answers 
 
 an English -r-i . • 11 
 
 county. are — 1 hey have not our clause : they have no 
 distinctive position : they are protected as 
 parts of the ruling island. 
 
 It is thus clear that Ireland has always been entitled to 
 claim that she should be taxed by the United 
 Kingdom Parliament only in substantial pro- 
 portion to her relative taxable capacity, and it is clear 
 also that, regard being had to that relative capacity, she 
 has been overtaxed by this Parliament. 
 
 Well, Sir, one would say the question is ended ! But it 
 is now argued that this is only half the issue ; 
 Proposed that there is a question of the application of 
 Expenditure. United Kingdom taxation ; that it is to be 
 divided into four sets of estimates ; one for 
 England, one for Scotland, one for Ireland, and one for the 
 United Kingdom ; that the contribution of each of the three 
 countries is to be charged first with its own estimate ; that 
 the obligation to proportionate contribution applies only to 
 the newly proposed United Kingdom estimate ; and there- 
 fore that it is only in respect to the balance available for 
 this new and separate estimate that any question of over- 
 taxation can arise. It is to the recognition and applica- 
 tion of this new principle that the proposed Commission is 
 mainly directed ; and against that proposal we protest. 
 The First Lord of the Treasury said at Manchester, on 
 the eve of the session, that those who argue 
 Ola^h^ste'^r *^^^ Ireland's capacity is one-twenty-first are, 
 necessarily committed to the view that she 
 should pay one-twenty-first to what he is pleased to call 
 Imperial objects; and he argued that the expenditure of the 
 Imperial Parliament is to be divided into three amounts — 
 one to be debited to Britain, one to Ireland, and one to re- 
 main as the true Imperial Budget, in respect of which latter 
 alone, no matter what the results ot the other accounts. 
 
i. ON OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. 17 
 
 her taxable proportion is to be paid by Ireland. This he 
 called " clear and logical " ; and he declared that the result 
 of this method would be to show that Ireland was not over- 
 taxed, but under-taxed by the present system. And it is 
 to establish this result that he intends the new Commission. 
 Sir, I will show later the circumstances under which 
 this novel and schismatical doctrine was pro- 
 Act allows no niulgatcd, and is now advanced, and its ex- 
 
 division of traordinary, far-reachincf, and separatist con- 
 Expenditure. 1 ,, , , 
 
 sequences, wholly opposed to the general 
 
 conception of Unionist policy. And I will then deal 
 with certain exceptional provisions which demand 
 separate consideration. At present I deal with the con- 
 tention only in its general aspect and on the basis of 
 the treaty, in order to relieve the House from recurrence to 
 that fundamental instrument. Now, what support does 
 the general contention derive from this, the only effective 
 quarter ? None ! Absolutely none ! The treaty rightly 
 regards all expenditure by the Parliament of the United 
 Kingdom as United Kingdom expenditure. Its basis is 
 that all expenditure decided on by that Parliament, as in 
 its view required, wherever or of whatever nature, without 
 regard to the locality in which it is made, shall form one 
 total, to be contributed to by each country according to 
 its relative taxable capacity. The United Parliament, in 
 which Britain had an overwhelming majority, had power 
 to fix the objects and the scale of expenditure. Ireland 
 could not lay burdens on Britain, or vote herself one 
 necessary shilling. Britain could lay burdens on Ireland, 
 and could refuse to vote her an unnecessary shilling. The 
 dread of Ireland was that she might be over-taxed and 
 under-supplied ; and the Treaty was framed to meet this 
 apprehension. You may say — "What! is Britain to pay and 
 Ireland to spend ? " Not so. The United Kingdom is to 
 expend on objects which practically the British majority 
 decides are proper, in whatever part of the kingdom the 
 expenditure may take place, and to whatever extent Par- 
 
i8 . HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P. - t -- 
 
 liament may think necessary. And, to the aggregate 
 expenditure so settled, each country is to contribute in 
 proportion to its capacity. But you, the Unionists, are 
 now arguing that the expenditure is in effect federal, and 
 must be subject to separate accounts ! 
 
 Let me recur to the Treaty to demonstrate the truth. 
 
 It contains one, and but one, provision for 
 
 rroviSonf '^for separate contribution by each country, namely. 
 
 Expenditure, to the debt charge ; and this was established 
 
 in justice to Ireland, because her debt was so 
 
 much lighter that to consolidate the debt would have 
 
 involved a disproportionate burden. But this exception 
 
 from the general rule marks more clearly, in reason and 
 
 in law, that in all other matters there was to be no separate 
 
 accounting. It goes on to provide for the defrayal of the 
 
 '^' Expenditure of the United Kinc^dom" 
 
 in the quota proportions, and for the defrayal, after twenty 
 years, of — 
 
 "the future expenditure of the United Kingdom (other than the 
 interest and charge of the debt to which either country shall be 
 separately liable)" 
 
 in proportions to be ascertained as provided. Thus the 
 whole expenditure of the United Kingdom, apart from 
 the debt charges, was so to be defrayed. But the Act la}s. 
 down that — 
 
 " For defraying the said expenditure, according to the rules above 
 laid down, the revenues of Ireland shall hereafter constitute a consoli- 
 dated fund which shall be charged in the first instance with the interest 
 and sinkmg fund of the debt of Ireland, and the remainder shall be 
 applied towards defraying the proportion of the expenditure of the 
 United Kingdom to which Ireland may be liable in each year." 
 
 It provides that the proportion of the contribution to 
 which Britain and Ireland would be liable shall be raised 
 by such taxes in each country as the Parliatncnt of the 
 United Kingdom shall determine, with a provision against 
 certain increases in Irish duties. It then enacts that — 
 
 " If at the end of any year any surplus shall accrue from the revenue*^ 
 of Ireland, after defraying the interest and sinking fund and the pro- 
 
Oy OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. 19. 
 
 portion of the contributions and separate charges to which Ireland 
 shall then be liable, taxes shall be taken off to the amount of such 
 surplus, or the surplus shall be applied by the Parliament of the United - 
 Kingdom to local purposes in Ireland, or to make good any deficiency 
 in the Irish revenue in time of peace, or to be invested to accumulate 
 for the benefit of Ireland in time of war." 
 
 It is thus clearly shown by the specific appropriation of 
 the whole revenues of Ireland that there is no place what- 
 ever for the proposed plan. Every shilling to be raised 
 from her is appropriated ; and no possibility exists of such 
 an application as is now suggested. Again, the House will 
 remark the provision for the application of a surplus to 
 local purposes in Ireland. It is not every expenditure in 
 Ireland that is local ; the place alone does not make it 
 " local ; " the purpose itself must also be local. The Act also 
 provides for the application for twenty years " to local 
 purposes in Ireland " (repeating the same phrase) to be 
 decided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, of a 
 sum equal to the average grants by the Irish Parliament for 
 the prior six years in premiums for the internal encourage- 
 ment of agriculture or manufactures, or for the maintenance 
 of institutions for pious and charitable purposes. Now, Sir, 
 it seems to me too clear for argument that no such principle 
 as is now set up was contemplated or agreed to at the 
 Union under the quota system. And I need not say that 
 no such practice was attempted. 
 
 But the Act, when providing for a possible change to 
 
 indiscriminate taxation, only provides a new 
 
 under^^ mcthod for supplying the same expenditure, 
 
 common taxa- on the same principle of just contribution, and 
 
 contains no hint of authority for any different 
 
 dealing. It provides for this possible change only — 
 
 "If it shall appear to Parliament that the respective cirrum-^tances 
 of the two countries will admit of their contributing indiscruninately to 
 the future expenditure of the United Kingdom." 
 
 It enacts that in that case — 
 
 " All future expenses thenceforth to be incurred " -^^^;^^- r^-^-^ 
 
 shall be defrayed accordmgly, subject to abatements and 
 
20 HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P. ^ - 
 
 exemptions. This is the same expenditure, provided for 
 according to the same general principle, namely, relative 
 resources, by another method. It introduces no further 
 change. Under the new idea the protection of Ireland 
 would be quite illusory, for she might be taxed beyond the 
 quota by the United Kingdom Parliament, which might 
 make provision for large expenditure in Ireland, forming a 
 prior charge on the quota. How could this be met, save by 
 extra taxation } Yet the quota limit was provided to meet 
 all taxation. 
 
 Now, Sir, as this is a cardinal point, I fear I must trouble 
 
 the House with the views of that great majority 
 
 The Reports of the Commissioners who, by separate yet 
 
 this head. accordant reports, reached my conclusion. Mr. 
 
 Childers says : — 
 
 " We think that the nature of public expenditure in Ireland and the 
 possibility of reducing it would be a very proper subject for a separate 
 inquiry. It does not, however, seem that, because the cost of central 
 administration in Ireland is greater relatively to oopulatiOi id \vea.:h 
 than it is in Great Britain, this, by itself, is any reason why the people 
 of Ireland should contribute to the public revenue a share in excess 
 of her relative wealth." " It was. in our opinion, the clear intention 
 of the prnmotors of the Act of Union that so far as related to taxation, 
 or the raising of revenue (whether contributing, as she did, according 
 to a certain ratio till 1S17, or whether, as subsequently, by way of in- 
 discr.minate taxation, subject to exemptions), Ireland should have a 
 distinct position and a separate consideration. But it was equally their 
 intention that all expense, including no less that upon civil government 
 in Ireland than that upon the army and navy, should be in common or 
 Imperial. It was never intended that the ratio of contribution or the 
 extent of the exemptions and abatements (as the case might be) should 
 be affected by the consideration of the relative cost of administration 
 in each of the three countries. We think that while the legislative and 
 fiscal Union between the kingdom remains this way of treating the 
 matter must hold good." 
 
 The O'Conor Don and Messrs. Redmond, Huntor, Martin, 
 and Wolf say in substance : — 
 
 "The division of the Imperial expenditure into three parts — one for 
 local purposes m Great Britain, one for local purposes in Ireland, and 
 one for Imperial purposes, is a distinction of quite modern creation 
 It was not thou<;ht of at the time of the Act of Union. It is ([uit.; 
 clear, accordmg to the provisions q\ th.it Act, that the Imperial 
 expenditure to which Ireland was to contribute under that Act included 
 all civij^^overninent expeuditure* no mailer in what part of the United 
 
ON OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. 21 
 
 Kingdom it took place. Nothing can be clearer than Mr. Pitt's and 
 Lord Castlereagh's declarations on this point, and it is not denied by 
 Sir Edward Hamilton that if the provisions of the Act of Union were 
 still in force Imperial expenditure should be treated as a whole, and 
 could not be split up in the way he suggests. This distinction was not 
 thought of either at the time of the amalgamation of the Exchequers, 
 or when Irish taxation was increased, or in the Irish Taxation Com- 
 mittee of S64. In truth, at those times, it would not have served as a 
 defence, .^r the account was all the other way, and the adoption of this 
 principle would have proved Ireland a creditor." 
 
 Mr. Sexton and Messrs. Slattery and Blake say in sub- 
 stance : — 
 
 " Ireland, under the Treaty of Union, is, and must be regarded as, 
 a separate country for the purpose of taxation. This is evident by the 
 system of proportional taxation. Yet Lord Castlereagh, in moving the 
 article, dwelt on the sacrifice to be made by Great Britain and the 
 advantage to be gained by Ireland, and in proof of this advantage 
 declared that — ' If the proportion of expenditure be rightly fixed and 
 ascertained upon just principles for every part of the empire it is im- 
 material to CJreat Britain where the expenditure takes place.' The 
 principle thus enunciated, contribution according to relative means, 
 expenditure as required, and without regard to limit of contribution, is 
 the principle of the Treaty. Thus Ireland is to contribute her whole 
 revenue to the whole revenue of the United Kingdom — not part of it 
 to meet one set of charges and the rest to defray another ; nor has the 
 amount of Imperial expenditure any effect or bearing on the question 
 of the amount which her circumstances, compared to those of Britain, 
 enable her to contribute to the common exchequer. The Imperial 
 Parliament secured the power and accepted the duty of administering 
 Irish affairs on the covenant that the taxation of Ireland should not be 
 in excess of her relative resources. The violation of this covenant 
 cannot be justified or excused by a reference to the kind of expendi- 
 ture in Ireland which the Imperial Parliament, in the discharge of its 
 assumed duty, has thought: it necessary or proper to incur."' 
 
 It appears from the evidence that the late Sir Robert 
 Hamilton was of the same opinion. There are then ten 
 Commissioners, including three British Commissioners — 
 Messrs. Childcrs, Hamilton, and Hunter — who have taken 
 this position. And Lords Farrer and VVelby and Mr. 
 Curric, while — pressed, as I understand, by certain special 
 cases — they arc 
 
 " unable to admit the general principle that local expenditure which 
 is sanctioned by the Imperial Parliament must be regarded as Im- 
 perial expenditure," 
 
 think that ____^___^i^-,^ —^^^ ___4— __^^ 
 
 "there is both truth and value in the contrary allegations [which 
 
-22 -^ HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P. 
 
 they set out] if these be confined to the support of the argument that 
 we cannot, in taking an account between the two countries, justly set 
 off the whole or the greater part of this expenditure against the over- 
 taxation of Ireland.'* 
 
 And thus there is, to a very large extent, unanimity on 
 this head. I will deal later with the special cases referred 
 to. At present I ask the House to agree that in the 
 Treaty there is no ground for the general contention that 
 expenditure in Ireland by the United Kingdom Parlia- 
 ment is to be separately borne by Ireland. 
 
 Well, Sir, the Union was consummated. The long war 
 followed at enormous cost. Irish taxation was 
 iScoto\si7. raised from under three millions in 1800 to six 
 The quota millions in 1817. The Select Committee of 
 181 1 reported serious falls in the Irish revenue 
 in several periods, caused by a lessened yield, concurrently 
 with doubled and trebled duties. The Select Committee 
 of 1S17 found that Ireland had advanced in permanent 
 taxation faster than Britain ; for while Britain's permanent 
 taxation had been raised in the proportion of 16^ to 10, 
 and her whole revenue, including war taxes, as 2ii to 10, 
 Irish taxation had been raised as 2t, to 10. The bulk of 
 the Irish increase was on the consumption of the masses 
 which was taxed to and beyond the highest productive 
 point. Yet It eland could not meet the quota. Her debt 
 was increased by 84 millions as against a British increase 
 of 291 millions, or as i to 3^. 
 
 - Thus the predictions ot the Union-makers were falsified 
 ,. . , by the event. The Irish Lords' protest against 
 
 Fredictioiis nf -^ *• ^ 
 
 Union makers thc Union Act sounds iike a prophecy. They 
 falsified. j^^^ protested— 
 
 " Because, when wc compare the relative abilities of Great Britain 
 and Ireland, we lind the contributions to be paid by the two king- 
 doms to thc expenses of the new Empire most unequally adjusted ; 
 that the share of 2-1 7ths fixed upon us as the proportion to be paid 
 by Ireland is far beyond what her resources will enable her to dis- 
 charge. Should Ireland undertake to pay more than she shall be 
 able to answer, the act will be irrevocable, and the necessary conse- 
 quences will be a gradual diminution of her capital, the decline of her 
 
ON OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. 23 
 
 • trade, a failure in the px'oduce of her taxes, and, finally her total 
 bankruptcy- ' 
 
 The quota was excessive ! Some of the Commissioners 
 think it was because the rate was too high ; others because 
 tiis war was too costly ; others for both these reasons. 
 But there is practical unanimity in the finding that — 
 
 "The Act of Union imposed on Ireland a burden which, as events 
 showed, she was unable to bear." 
 
 This finding I ask the House to assent to ; and to re- 
 member th it this was the beginning of the evil. 
 
 This first experience demonstrates the truth of the view 
 
 that there should be some limitation to the call 
 
 Need of which, Under such a union, the richer may make 
 
 hmitation u\ . .... i- ^ 
 
 contribution. on the poorer nation. A joint expenditure, the 
 proportion of which, though heavy, may be 
 tolerable on a lower scale of joint expense, becomes intol- 
 erable to the poorer nation when the scale is raised, while 
 it m.a)' be no more than heavy, and quite tolerable still, 
 to the richer nation. Another illustration has been given 
 by the results of the very latest statements as between 
 Ireland and Britain, which show that while Ireland's 
 contribution is larger than ever, the disproportionate 
 excess contributed by Britain has apparently lessened for 
 the year the Irish grievance ! 
 
 By this road Ireland approached a bankruptcy due 
 to the unjust quota fixed by the Union 
 
 ^'dopSd? ''^^^' ^"^ ^"^ would have thought it the 
 Common faircst course to anticipate by three years 
 the stipulated term, and to revise the c^uota at 
 once. But by this road, though through a reversed process, 
 the debts had come into quota proportion, and this oppor- 
 tunity was used to bring the other plan into force. For lack 
 of time I pass over, however serious, the irregular dealings 
 with the joint and separate debts, though I think they were 
 contrary to the Act, and a violation of the agreement, and 
 did not form a legal basis of action. __ 
 
^\^: :JV HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.F. 
 
 The plan was proposed as the simplest means of dealing 
 with the debt, and it is perfectly clear that 
 
 No intention c.f . ,. , . - ,, 
 
 actually levying,' there was no mtention at that time of actually 
 
 common taxes. Ievyin£[ indiscriminate taxation. On the con- 
 Abatements JO 
 and excmp- trary, Lord Liverpool, then Prime Minister, 
 
 ^'°"^' in contemplation of the measure, said in 
 
 1815 :— 
 
 " He trusted that when the two Treasuries of Great Britain and 
 Ireland should be consolidated, such a measure, arran^^^ed with due 
 caution, would I)e found exceedintjly advantageous to all parties, and 
 that the Irish public would benefit by its operation. Care would, no 
 doubt, be taken in regulating the taxation to pay due regard to lo ;al 
 circumstancca, and that the principle of the measure in contemplation 
 should be equally fair to Great Britain and Ireland." 
 
 And Mr. Vcsey Fitzgerald, the Irish Chancellor, said in 
 reference to the results of the consolidation : — 
 
 *' I do not fear that Parliament will ever declare the competency of 
 Ireland to bear the entire weight of that taxation which the wealth 
 and resources of England enable her to support, withou reference to 
 those considerations upon which alone Ireland should be exempted 
 from those buithens which are laid upon all other subjects of the 
 United Kingdom. The power of that exemption is specially reserved 
 to Parliament by the Act of Union." 
 
 After the requisite preliminaries, on the 1st July, 18 16, 
 
 the Bill consolidating the debts and revenues 
 
 1S16. became law. But in these proceedings twice 
 
 Consolidation , t t • a • . "^ 
 
 Act. reappears the Union Act provision as to 
 
 abatements and exemptions. The extraordi- 
 nary declaration that — 
 
 " The circumctances will admit of indiscrimate taxation," 
 
 is itself made, 
 
 "subject to such particular abatements and exemptions in Ireland 
 and S(^otland as circumstances may from time to time appear to de- 
 mand." 
 
 The declaration of expediency provides for the imposition 
 of common taxation subject to abatements and exemptions 
 in the same terms. Thus the Union Act provision has 
 never lost its force. It was long acted on substantially ; it 
 is acted on to some extent to-da)'. ^ '"1 -,^^^-.- 
 
av OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. 25 
 
 Sir, may I now briefly state the course of taxation from 
 1 8 17 to i860. There was, up to 1853, no sub- 
 Course of stantial assimilation. Twenty millions of the 
 
 taxation, TS17 n^ •. • ^- j t 1 1 
 
 to 1S60. taxation of Britam was not imposed on Ireland. 
 But though peace had been restored, and the 
 expenditure of the United Kingdom enormously lessened, 
 the Irish taxation, already shown to be excessive, was 
 retained, while great remissions were made of the British 
 war taxes. 
 
 The policy of freeing the burdens on manufactures by 
 
 abolishinGf the taxes on materials and on food 
 
 Free trade. supplies was evolved and prosecuted. To this 
 
 Effect on ^ , • r> 
 
 Britain. new end Peel, in 1842 and m 1S45, renewed 
 the British income tax, originally a war tax. 
 But it was not extended to Ireland, on the grounds that it 
 had never existed there ; that there was no machinery for 
 its collection ; and that, as Britain would derive by far the 
 greater advantage from the policy, it was but fair that she 
 ihould bear the tax. In fact, five and a-half millions of 
 taxation thus imposed on Britain enabled the remission 
 of twelve millions to Britain. This was a good and fair 
 argument. But I ask the House to note the recognition 
 of the separateness, and of the diverse conditions, and of 
 the different effects on different countries of a common 
 system which it involves. I wish these sound views had 
 continued to prevail. The general result was to lighten 
 British burdens, directly and indirectly, and to promote 
 enormously her commerce and manufactures, her wealth 
 and population — in short, her tax-paying power. 
 
 The policy as to free food supplies was, of course, precipi- 
 tated by the Irish famine, when her people 
 ^'^^Kff"^^*^' ^^^^ °^ hunger, while large quantities of food 
 on Ireland. wcre being exported from the country to pay 
 rents. Ireland, whose manufactures had nearly 
 perished, and were decaying still, derived no such gains as 
 Britain, while she lost the advantage of preference in the 
 British markets for her agricultural produce. It is worth 
 
2 6 HON, EDWARD BLAKE, M.P. ^ " ^ 
 
 remarking that the conditions of foreign production and of 
 transport and other circumstances for many years retarded 
 the disadvantages to the agricultural interest ; and it is only 
 within recent years, as to grain, and a still shorter period, 
 as to meat, that it has experienced the full effects of the 
 change. The economic condition of Ireland was very bad. 
 The great famine inflicted on her a frightful blow, and thus 
 her relative inferiority was increased. 
 
 I must not enter into details; but few of the changes in her 
 taxation were directly very adverse to Ireland, 
 
 Income Tax g^ve the tobacco taxes, until 1853; when Mr. 
 
 on Ireland. Gladstone, in furtherance of Peel's fiscal policy, 
 proposed the extension for a limited term of the 
 Income Tax to Ireland. He acknowledged the greater 
 poverty of the masses, but contended that this did not 
 exempt the wealthy from their obligation — an argument 
 valid as to the adjustment between the classes of the Irish 
 people of the payment of her total share, but fallacious as a 
 justification of an increase of that total. As a set-off, he 
 wiped out the famine advance debt of four millions, two 
 millions of which had been reported by the Lords' Com- 
 mittee as properly a grant. But the temporary Income Tax 
 was made permanent, and the burden has enormously 
 outweighed the boon. 
 
 A little later Mr. Gladstone began the raising of the 
 spirit duties, on the plea that it was no part of 
 
 Spirit Duties an Irishman's ricrhts to get drunk cheaper than 
 
 raised c> t> r 
 
 in Ireland. an Englishman. I will have to show later on 
 how this works in practice. The soirit dutes 
 were raised at intervals, and were equalised by Mr. 
 Disraeli in 1859. 
 
 The result of these operations was to increase the Irish 
 
 * taxation by more than two millions, or over 
 
 ?etuU?! 40 per cent. Thus, while the average revenue 
 
 Unjustifiable of Britain was no more than during the war at 
 increase. *.i 1 • • r .1 , , . 
 
 the begmnmg of the century, her population 
 
 -and wealth had greatly increased, and so her taxation was 
 
ON OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. 27 
 
 much lightened. But the average revenue of Ireland had 
 been raised over a third, and it was borne by a diminishing 
 population out of contracting means. This dreadful change 
 took place while Ireland was staggering under the blow of 
 the famine, the after effects of which were accentuated by 
 the added burdens. The British rate of taxation through 
 duties on commodities was — in 1820, ;^2 Ss. ^(^.^ in i860, 
 
 ' £\ IIS. 7d. : the Irish rate was lis. and £\ os. 7d. The 
 taxation of the wealthier country had been greatly dimin- 
 ished, that of the poorer enormously increased. The Joint 
 Report finds that — 
 
 "The increase of taxation laid upon Ireland between 1853 and 1S60 
 was not justified by the then existing- circumstances." 
 
 The separate reports practically agree. It is this general 
 verdict which I ask the House to endorse and to effectuate 
 .to-day. '■-' ■ '• " 'V. •-.-■. -_^ .;.-.;,,, -■'. 
 
 I must touch briefly upon what has happened since. 
 Complete assimilation has not yet been 
 Course of attempted. There are some exemptions still. 
 since '1S60. Much cry has been made about four millions 
 of British taxation not imposed on Ireland. 
 Its imposition would not aficct the masses of that com- 
 munity ; it is mainly on wealth ; and its estimated yield, 
 if imposed on Ireland, would be only ;{^ 150,000, or in the 
 proportion of one twenty-seventh. 
 
 Since i860 the chief change in Irish burdens has been 
 in the increase of local rates. These stood 
 
 Irish local • o . r i i • 
 
 rates. '" i^^o at i, 1,500,000, or 3s. a head; m 
 
 i86i„ at ;^i, 875,000, or 6s. 5d. a head ; in 
 1893, at ;6^3,700,ooo, or 15s. 8d. a head; thus increasing 
 steadily, notwithstanding certain grants from Imperial 
 taxation in aid of local rates, to a present total of nearly 
 four millions. The spending authorities are mainly grand 
 juries and guardians — the one entirely and the other 
 largely composed of appointed members ; and naturally 
 extravagance, mismanagement, and partiality are com- 
 plained of. 
 
^^^^HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P, — 
 
 The general effect of the British fiscal policy has been 
 
 to abolish nearly all duties on raw materials 
 
 General effect and food, and substituting: direct taxation on 
 
 of . =* 
 
 fiscal policy, incomc and property, and heavy duties on 
 three or four articles of wide and general 
 consumption. These are the articles most largely con- 
 sumed in Ireland ; while the articles freed were so freed 
 mainly for the benefit of Britain. Now, I am not for 
 a moment objecting to the adoption of Free Trade, or 
 of any other policy advantageous to the interests of 
 the great bulk of the United Kingdom ; but I do 
 emphatically aver that the relative advantages and dis- 
 advantages ensuing to each country, affecting as they 
 do the relative taxable power of each, must be con- 
 sidered. 
 
 Now, the tax revenue of Ireland in 1820 was 14s. 5d. 
 per head ; in 1894, 28s. lod. ; or twice as 
 
 between great. That of Britain was, in the earlier 
 British and ^.^ar, £^ los. 3d. I in the later, £2 as. lod., 
 
 Irish Taxation "^ , ,.ii rr-, i 
 
 or nearly one-third less. 1 he total taxation 
 in Ireland, including rates, had largely increased in 1850, 
 and was then £1 per head ; in 18S0, £2 ; in 1S94, £2 8s. 
 lod.; now, ;^2 lis. iid. Her tax revenue last year was 
 ^^7,074,000, and the rate per head was ^i 15s. id. — the 
 higiiest yet. 
 
 But, Sir, the taxation on commodities presses with 
 
 greater relative as well as absolute severity 
 
 Contrast in on Ireland. In Britain, the tax revenue on 
 
 Commodities, commodities, which alone affects the masses, 
 
 in 1820 was, per head, about £2 8s.; in 1894 
 it was about £1 4s., or half the old rate ; and this kind is 
 now about 53 per cent, of her total taxation. The Irish 
 taxation on commodities in 1820 was, per head, about i is. ; 
 in 1894 about £1 2s., or double the old rate ; and this com- 
 prises y6 per cent, of her total taxation ; and her rate, per 
 head, is now almjst equal to that of Great Britain, though 
 the Irish consumption is considerably less. 
 
— ON OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND, 29 
 
 The total tax revenue of Ireland is now, including rates, 
 over eleven millions, while her yearly resources 
 
 Total Irish t • 11 ^ Mi- 
 
 Taxation : ^''^3 ^s I conceive, much under seventy millions ; 
 
 Burden Qut of which are to be paid, havin^^ rei^ard to 
 
 beyond means. ^ . / \ - 
 
 the case of the masses — (i) taxation ; (2) agri- 
 cultural rents, including the large economic drain in favour 
 of absentee landlords and mortgagees; besides the first 
 charge of all — namely, the subsistence of the masses — say 
 nearly four and a-half millions of people. This makes 
 clearly a condition of extraordinary pressure on the means 
 of subsistence. Taxation must, in bad years, have more than 
 exhausted the surplus, and so the capital has diminished. 
 It is, as I have said, near double the maximum relative 
 capacity. It has now been shown to be beyond the reason- 
 able actual capacity. And the contrast between Ireland and 
 Britain, with her 1,400 millions of income, is too obvious 
 to need restatement. That is true which Senior proved 
 in 1864, that, considering capacity, England is the most 
 lightly, while Ireland is the most heavily taxed of countries. 
 One word on a criticism objecting that this taxation is 
 
 not, as my motion asserts, a grievance to all 
 
 ^"fJrf^ni'^" classes of the Irish community. Sir, setting 
 
 grievance. aside the feelings which should make it such, 
 
 no one who considers the material interests of 
 the wealthy and their relations to the poor of Ireland can 
 doubt that they are in the most substantial way damnified 
 by this excessive burden on the poor, and that redress will 
 help not one class only but all classes. 
 
 Now, the second great purpose to which the new 
 
 Commission is directed, though the lan- 
 
 purpose of g^^ge is condcnsed and oblique, is to dispute 
 
 New Commis- ^^^ possibility of undue burdens throuj^h this 
 
 sion to allege r j o 
 
 indirectTaxa- indirect taxation. The First Lord of the 
 
 grievance. Treasury, dealing with this subject on the 
 
 eve of the meeting of Parliament, insisted 
 
 that if the view of the Commission as to undue burdens 
 
 being imposed under indirect taxation of this sort was 
 
ja^ .. ^ ^tON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P. 
 
 sound as between countries, it must be sound as between 
 
 individuals, and because it has not been adopted ac 
 
 between individuals, it is, therefore, not good as between 
 
 countries. 
 
 But, in establishing your plan for taxing one common 
 
 political or geographical area, possessing those 
 Indirect , . r ^•■^ - • i-,- 
 
 TiTxation in a elements ot likcness m economic condition 
 
 single which render possible or tolerable a common 
 
 country. ^ 
 
 plan, without exceptions, you are yet obliged 
 to acknowledge inevitable inequalities in its operation on 
 individuals, which you minimise so far a§ "y^^ ^^^ ^Y your 
 system, and bear the rest as you must. ^ ^, 
 
 Here the case wholly differs. You are dealing with two 
 countries, which your political Union did not 
 
 Case here of i • n • • n. • -i , 
 
 two wholly physically unite or economicalfy assimilate ; 
 difierent ^^^rQ countries SO different that when the Treaty 
 was made provisions were included for con- 
 tinued separate consideration ; tv^:o countries so different 
 that even in other vital matters their laws remain divergent. 
 Again, such a consideration of taxation is, of course, much 
 easier between two countries, the inhabitants being dealt 
 with as one community, than it would be between each 
 unit of millions of individuals. 
 
 The system may and does press also on the very poor in 
 
 Britain. Remedy it for the individual every- 
 
 System hard vvhere if vou please. Remedy it if you can. 
 
 on poor every- j ir j j ^ ^ 
 
 where. and as far as you can, by changes in the 
 
 remedies. general system of taxation. Any general 
 remedy you may apply will so far help to 
 meet the Irish grievance. 
 
 But, in so far as you do not apply an efficient general 
 remedy you cannot expect Ireland, on which 
 
 But Ireland ^ . r ^ ^'rr . 
 
 has separate ^s a couutry in conscquence of her different 
 conditions ecouomic conditions, and of the much larc^er 
 
 and rights, * 
 
 numbers and narrower means of her very poor, 
 the grievance presses with much greater weight, to accept 
 your answer that there is some inequality in Britain too. 
 
__ O.V OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. 31 
 
 The right of separate treatment is recognised by the Treaty. 
 This argument therefore is one against the Treaty. But we 
 are holding by the '^ -aty, and surely Unionists ought not 
 to depart from it. u nhappily the two countries have more 
 and more diverged in matters relevant to taxation ; and 
 they exist with differing and increasingly different taxable 
 capacities and economic conditions. As the English Com- 
 missioners have found : — 
 
 •' The system of taxation which now exists in the United Kinf^dom, 
 nhile it may not be unsuited to the requirements of a rich nation 
 like Great Britain, presses hardly and inequitably on a relatively poorer 
 country like Ireland. Where there is comparatively but little wealth, 
 as in Ireland, the main burden of taxation must of necessity be borne 
 by the consumers of dutiable commodities. The amount thus levied 
 appears to be in excess of what is required by the legitimate needs 
 of Ireland and heavier than the masses of the Irish people ought to be- 
 called upon to bear." 
 
 These things being so, Ireland has her Treaty right to 
 have the circumstances recognised and weighed in settling 
 her burdens. After all, but an approximation can be 
 reached ; an approximation between the two countries, 
 leaving some inevitable discrepancies as between the indi- 
 vidual inhabitants of those countries. But these defects 
 will not justify a refusal to do what is possible, or an* 
 attempt to keep an undue burden on Ireland's shoulders. 
 The First Lord thinks, and the proposed Commission is- 
 in part designed to establish, that the indirect 
 Mr. Balfour's character of the taxation deprives Ireland of 
 
 arq;uments on ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 
 
 free will. any right to complain or to separate consider- 
 ation. But the main or only Irish taxes ex- 
 isting at the Union w^ere indirect, and still quota and 
 exemptions were provided. He complains that the Com- 
 missioners in determining the over- taxation of two and 
 three-quarter millions proceeded " by the simple method of 
 argument," and he says the very simplicity of the argument 
 should have created suspicion, for great financial questions- 
 are not usually or easily settled by such plain methods. 
 And he objects to " logic and arithmetic " as factors in 
 the case. But he himself resorts to still more simple 
 
^9 HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P, - - 
 
 arguments. He says our views do not apply at all to 
 indirect taxation, because, forsooth, 
 
 "There is an element of free will in the matter. A man may con- 
 sume or not consume as he pleases. If he does not consume he does 
 not pay. It is surely folly to treat a case of that kind as you would 
 treat a case in which the tax-collector came and took so much money 
 out of his pocket whether he liked it or not." 
 
 Now, this in effect is saying that mere consumption, being . 
 practically voluntary, is the best test of capacity, for no 
 wrong is done because there is no compulsion to consume. 
 But, Sir, the compulsion comes in when, wanting to con- 
 sume, craving to consume, needing to consume, you are 
 obliged to pay the State for the power to consume. If 
 this argument were correct, why any provision for exemp- 
 tions, abatements, or quota? It would be enough to 
 provide that taxation should not be differential^ and then 
 indirect taxation would take care of itself ; and, since all 
 Irish taxation was tlien indirect, there would be nothing to 
 take care of. But who would justify now a levelling up in 
 1800; and who justifies now the levelling up in the years 
 1853-1860? Yet this argument is ample justification for 
 both. If it were correct, why were the duties kept relatively 
 lower for nearly forty years after the consolidation of the 
 Exchequers ? This is, indeed, too " simple" an argument ; 
 but I admit it does not sin bv the addition of " locric." 
 
 The views of the English Commissioners are thus 
 stated : — 
 
 " It has, however, been argued that the articles are, if not luxu- 
 ries, at any rate superfluities, and therefore fair tests of the balance 
 remainin,t,f afier tlie bare necessities of liie have been supplied. Wo 
 arc unable to assent to this argument. We think that the consumption 
 of the masses must be taken as a whole, and that we must accept what 
 they actually consume as what they find it necessary to consume, and 
 what without a tot.d and almost inconceivable chanL;e in their habits, 
 they arc unable to forcyo. " 
 
 The same view is thus expanded in the report of Mr, 
 Sexton : — 
 
 ''While cc|ual taxes on property abstract the same proportion only 
 O* the income taxed in either country, ecjual taxes on arlirles of 
 common consuniptiou opeiale without any rejiuid to disparity of in- 
 
ON OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. t^^ 
 
 •come. In proportion to the actual consumption of articles of ordinary 
 use, the poorest country, under such a common system, has to pay as 
 much as the richest, at least to the extent to which the taxed articles 
 are consumed in proportion to population. Thus, the poorer country 
 surrenders a larger proportion of gross income, and a still higher pro- 
 portion of surplus income, even if the rates of consumption of the taxed 
 articles are alike in each. Certain commodities, though taxed, may be 
 consumed in a poorer country almost as much as in a rich one, because 
 the rich has a choice of various articles, while the poor is practically 
 limited to two or three staples on which the tax is laid. The con- 
 sumption of staples naturally tends to equality, the test being the 
 satisfaction of appetite, so far as the power to acquire exists, and 
 appetites not varying with incomes." 
 
 Thus, a tax on articles of very general consumption 
 
 approximates to a poll-tax. In truth, Sir, 
 
 2)011^ ^ it is difficult to treat this argument seriously. 
 
 Indirect Qn what Calculation do you lay such heavy 
 taxes on tobacco, spirits, beer, and tea ? Why 
 have you ventured to make these the only contribu- 
 tion of the masses to the public expenditure t How 
 do you dare to count, year after year, on the popula- 
 tion paying such sums as — for tea, nineteen and a-half 
 millions ; tobacco, twenty-five millions ; spirits, fifty-four 
 and three-quarter millions ; beer, ninety-five millions — 
 total, one hundred and ninety-four and a-quarter millions 
 — sixty millions more than the value of all your imported 
 foods! — one hundred and ninety-four and a-quartcr millions, 
 out of which you derive a " voluntary revenue " of forty-one 
 and a-half millions, on which you depend to pay the greater 
 part of the yearly charge of this empire ? The rich you 
 force to pay ; the poor and the masses you do not ! They 
 pay only voluntarily, as a matter of free-will ! Will this 
 argument satisfy the Englishman when you propose to 
 increase the beer-tax ? No ; he will say, " I must have my 
 beer," and he will put out the politician who would " rob a 
 poor man of his beer ! " No, Sir ; no ! The Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer does not feel on this head much doubt or 
 anxiety. W'ell, he knows that practically the settled and 
 rooted habits of the people ; their tastes, wants, cravings ; 
 their determination to have and use their tobacco, tea, or 
 liquor ; their need of these articles, arc so strong that they 
 
 D 
 
34 ' HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.Pr ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 
 
 almost amount to must ; and that it is, in any practical 
 sense, a mockery to call the tax voluntary. Calmly ha 
 builds his whole financial fabric on the certainty that the 
 people must have, and, therefore, must pay. He goes gaily 
 on his way, nor dreads any sudden outbreak of " free-will '* 
 which shall seriously cut down his revenue. 
 
 It is said. Sir, that it is the whiskey-tax of which we 
 
 complain. There is a serious grievance of 
 Comprint inequality to which I shall have to refer. But, 
 
 apart from that, our complaint is of the exces- 
 sive taxes which are on more than whiskey — which are oa 
 tea, tobacco, and beer as well. You will sec by the evidence 
 as to the poorest districts — for example, Donegal — by the 
 poor little family budgets which have been presented, so 
 affecting in the narrowness and bareness of the lives they 
 depict, that but little whiskey is drunk there ; tea and 
 tobacco are the only relief. 
 
 Then it is said that the whiskey-tax is a tax on excess — 
 
 on the drunkard. The right lion, member 
 
 ^Mn fo^ Bodmin used the same argument, saying 
 
 Coiutney's \\^^>i^ jf ^oo much money comes from Ireland 
 
 it is because too much whiskey is drunk there, 
 and that we must fix our attention on the individual who 
 pays the penalty of the indulgence of his taste ; and he 
 added that if he suffered a wrong, the wrong would be 
 doubled if the money were returned to his neighbour. The 
 First Lord takes a similar line of consideration of the 
 individual case. 
 
 To this whole line of reasoning I demur. The revcnuc^ 
 
 mainly comes — the efficiency, the productive- 
 Tax gcTicr.ll ppc^g pf ^i^g ^^y^ depends upon its comincf — from 
 
 on sui!cr * * ^ 
 
 masses. the masses, who generally take tea, tobacco,, 
 and liquor. The vast proportion of the con- 
 sumption of liquor is that of the great majority who 
 are not drunkards. That is the virtue of the tax as a 
 productive tax. The widcness of the area of pressure 
 is its btrcngth as a fiscal device. The tax is mainly on 
 
Oy OVERTAXATION OF IRELAND. 35 
 
 normal, not on excessive consumption. This it is which 
 makes it a general tax — a tax on the masses ; and so an 
 object of substantial justice would be achieved, if abatement 
 nr exemption were impossible, by remission or restitution 
 to the masses of the community. It were truly a refine- 
 ment of justice for Britain to refuse any remedy, any relief, 
 for fear that the restoration to the Irishcommunity of exces- 
 sive taxation on individuals composing the Irish masses 
 shall not exactly apportion the return to the individual 
 taxpayer. Is this the reason why there is to be no redress? 
 It would be a shabby excuse, which I hardly expected to 
 hear urged in this place ; but which I suspect is intended 
 from one of the proposed references to the new Com- 
 mission. 
 
 But, Sir, the accusation of comparative excess which 
 
 underlies this argument I dispute, and chal- 
 Charge of lenge the accusers. I wish there were less drink- 
 untrue, ing in Ireland and in Britain. But Ireland, 
 
 compared with Britain, is a sober country. You 
 who accuse us spend far more on drink than we; and 
 you arrange to get it cheap, at Irish and Scottish expense. 
 You are provident in your cups. There is here a gross 
 inequality under a nominally equal system. It is not 
 necessary to go to hypothetical cases, as of tea-drinking 
 and coffee-drinking countries united for taxation. Let us 
 take the case of the beer and the whiskey-drinking coun- 
 tries. Not merely is the whole sum of Irish taxation 
 relvitively excessive, but the spirit and the beer taxes arc 
 also, as between themselves, grossly unequal and partial in 
 their operation. 
 
 Let us look at the facts. I take Britain as a whole 
 
 Scotland has a case here acrainst Ku'^land even 
 
 ( omparative 
 
 Drink Bills— more aggravated than ours; and to strike 
 Itiitainand ^|^j, account with Britain as a whole thus 
 
 iiclaml. 
 
 lessens unduly the Irish claim as against 
 l.ngland. But the reference is as between Great Britain 
 and Ireland. 
 
W - HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.R ^^ . _.: 
 
 In 1893 the expenditure for beer in Britain was 
 ;[^88,627,ooo, or £2 13s. a head ; in Ireland^ 
 ;^6,29i,ocx), or £1 ys. 2d. a head. Thus the 
 Briton spends all but twice as much on beer as the Irish- 
 man. " Oh," you may say, *' we all know that ! The 
 Briton drinks beer, the Irishman whiskey ; what about 
 whiskey?" 
 
 Well, Sir, what about whiskey? The expenditure for 
 
 ,„, . , spirits in Britain was ;:C48,57i,0(X), or £1 9s. 
 
 WhisKCV- 
 
 per head ; in Ireland, ;^6, 144,000, or ;^i 6s, 6d. 
 
 per head. Thus, much more was spent per head on spirits 
 in Britain than in Ireland. So Britain preserved her 
 superiority in both branches of this competition ; having 
 spent twice as much on beer, she took a good deal more 
 spirits, too ; and then she says something about Irish 
 drunkards ! The Briton spends on both £^ 2s. ; the Irish- 
 man, £2 13s. 8d. And then some British statesman tells 
 his enthusiastic constituents that the Irish complaint is due 
 to too much drink ; and if they would only purge and live 
 cleanly they would have no ground for grievance. I 
 venture to suggest that it is not for Britain to "cast a 
 stone," to preach free-will, temperance, and soberness as 
 our cure, or to defend injustice on her part by alleging 
 excess on ours. 
 
 But this is not all, or nearly all. As I have said, you are 
 provident in your cups. See how you have 
 
 Unjust Taxa- ^ ,, rl'ii. ^i-/ 
 
 tion as between arranged the cost ot that part which you can 
 ^S^Vhs'* control — the tax. You prefer beer, and the 
 tax on beer is alike for all. So is the tax on 
 spirits alike for all. But the tax on sixty gallons of your 
 favourite drink — beer — is equal to the tax on one gallon 
 of whiskey. Having regard to the relative quantity of 
 alcohol, the tax on beer is about one-sixth of the ta.x on 
 spirits. The tax on beer is about one-sixth of the selling 
 price in bulk ; the tax on spirits about three-fourths of the 
 selling price. What is the practical result cf these equal 
 taxes? The tax revenue, Imperial and local, was for 1893 — "^ 
 
— - ON OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. 37 
 
 Britain — Spirits, ;^i 3,8 10,000 ; beer, ;^9,2 14,000 — a total 
 of ;^23,024,ooo. In Ireland — Spirits, ;^2, 240,000 ; beer, 
 ;^624,ooo— a total of ;^2,764,ooo. The Briton's drink bill 
 was ;^4 28., out of which i6s. id. was tax ; the Irishman's, 
 £2 13s. 6d., out of which 13s. loW. was tax. If the Irish- 
 man paid only at the Briton's rate his tax would be los. 6d. ; 
 his excess is 3s. 4id., which for Ireland is no less than seven 
 hundred and eighty thousand pounds a year ! I have not 
 run out the figures for Ireland as against England alone, 
 but I fancy the excess would cover eight hundred and fifty 
 thousand pounds a year. 
 
 But this, according to the free-will doctrine of the First 
 Lord, is, I must admit, no grievance. The 
 Mr. Balfour's Irishman may differ in taste and in opinion, 
 again. and difference of climate may affect his judg- 
 
 ment as to the kind of drink most suitable for 
 him. But these are mere details. The Briton likes his 
 beer and likes it cheap ; and so the Irishman must have the 
 free will to like it too ; and thus he can save the tax ! In- 
 deed the unequal pressure of the tax has been operating to 
 some extent in this direction. 
 
 I am not now arguing as to the expediency, in the general 
 
 interest, of changes in these duties, or of diffcr- 
 
 DifTirultyof cntial rates. You may contend that on moral, 
 
 change no . -^ 
 
 excuse. or cconomic, or fiscal grounds it would be a 
 misfortune so to lower the duty on spirits, and 
 a political impossibility so to raise the duty on beer as to 
 produce equality, and a bad thing to have differential duties. 
 But those contentions do not settle the question. If they 
 be true, none the less is there a grievance to Ireland ; none 
 the less should that grievance be met in some other way as 
 a part of the fiscal arrangement ; none the less should the 
 spirit of the compact be observed. You should not pro- 
 mote your morality, or interest, or convenience at our ex- 
 pense. I ask the House, concurring in the finding of the 
 joint Report that "identity of rates of taxation docs not 
 necessarily involve equality of burden," 10 agree also to the 
 
38 •' HON, EDWARD BLAKE, M.P, _ .. _ 
 
 view, that I have proved, in the case of these two countries, 
 gross inequahties demanding redress. 
 
 Well, Mr. Speaker, complaints of excessive taxation 
 have been made for generations from the Irish 
 plilatraTd benches. In 1864 the House referred it to a 
 Parliamentary Select Committee, "to consider the taxation 
 1S64. ' of Ireland ; how far it is in accordance with 
 the Treaty of Union, or just in reference to the 
 resources of the country," and a long inquiry took place. 
 The Irish contention was then met by adopting the falla- 
 cious idea of the taxation of individuals instead of the 
 taxation of the country, and by ignoring the relevant con- 
 siderations as to the practical effect of taxes on articles of 
 primary use and general consumption. 
 
 But, be it remembered, that there was then no suggestion 
 of divided estimates ; those who resisted the 
 
 '^3rvwf I^^s^ ^^^^"^ ^^^'^ "°t fo""^ themselves no that 
 expenditure construction. Thcy took advantage of the 
 
 opposite view — the one by which we hold ; 
 and for a very good reason. In the sixties, when Ireland 
 in one ye?.r paid ;^7,700,ooo, of which, even according to 
 the preposterous divisions now suggested, :!^5,400,ooo went 
 to what is now called Imperial expenditure, the modern 
 argument would have made bad worse ; and according to it 
 there would, during many years have been, as there is, an 
 enormous balance overpaid by Ireland, aggregating many 
 millions. At that time it suited Britain to adopt the other 
 and truer view, namely, that local circumstances and condi- 
 tions might involve a greater expenditure by the United 
 Kingdom in one than in the otlier country ; that it was 
 none the less common; due to, growing out of, and material 
 to the Union ; expenditure of the United Kingdom. 
 
 There were in later years ineffectual motions and 
 
 remonstrances. But the question became 
 
 ^°'"886'^^'^ ' demonstrably urgent on the occasion of the 
 
 Home Rule Bill of 1886, when the financial 
 
 proposals involved the re-consideration of the whole 
 
ON OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND, 39 
 
 problem, coupled with an attempt, in view of Irish self- 
 government, to divide what had been the United Kingdom 
 expenditure into Imperial and local, based, of course, on 
 the respective legislative spheres of the Imperial and the 
 proposed local Legislatures. This event is the clue to 
 much that has since occurred in this connection. 
 , In 1890, when, after the question of Home Rule had been 
 
 placed before the country, a Unionist Govern- 
 Mr. Goschen's mcnt was in power, the present First Lord 
 -separate entity, of the Admiralty, then Chancellor of the 
 
 Exchequer, in reply to a request from 
 these benches, said: — 
 
 " I think we shall be prepared to grant an inquiry into the financial 
 relations of the two countries. I do not want to exckide Scotland, and 
 1 think hon. members from both countries will see that we are anxious 
 to meet them. We shall be glad to throw as much light as possible 
 on the financial relations of the two countries. Hon. members will see 
 at once that it must be a full and proper inquiry. Of course, if the 
 inquiry should show that injustice has been done to any part of the 
 United Kingdom steps will be taken to aftbrd redress." 
 
 The right hon. gentleman, after consulting his colleagues 
 later, in making the motion objected to any historical retro- 
 spect. The purpose, he said, was — 
 
 "To see whether Scotland or Ireland should be relieved of any 
 portion of the taxation they now pay ; to see if there should be any 
 alteration of existing burdens. . . . The power of a country to pay 
 taxation must to a large extent depend on numbers. I trust all these 
 matters will be thrashed out in the Committee." 
 
 The Committee sat but once, when it called for Treasury 
 returns. Efforts to re-appoint it failed because of objec- 
 tions taken by the Welsh members, who claimed a similar 
 separate consideration for Wales, which the Government 
 declined to grant on the ground that Wales had never been 
 treated as a separate fiscal entity. 
 
 The financial returns which have been presented for 
 several years had here their origin. Now, 
 The Financial this proceeding and language involved the 
 Tapers. recognition of the right of Ireland and Scot- 
 land as countries to separate consideration ; 
 and more, the acknowledgment that the indirect system of 
 
40 HON, EDWARD BLAKE, M.P. 
 
 taxation did not automatically produce taxation according 
 to resources ; and that the resources of the countries were 
 to be considered, the alleged equal operation of the taxa- 
 tion on the individual inhabitants not answering the 
 demand. The maintenance of such views would have 
 cut away the ground for the committee. It seems to me 
 obvious that the form of the reference and returns was in 
 part moulded by the recent attempts to make a division in 
 connection with the Home Rule scheme. 
 
 Again there have been recognitions in recent years of 
 the separate condition of Ireland and Scot- 
 Imperial land in connection with the Imperial grants 
 
 Grants in aid , . , . , , , _. . T , 
 
 of rates. m aid of local rates. I refer to, without 
 implying approval of, the system. But how 
 has it been worked ? These grants were based not on the 
 plan of applying the total aid all over the United Kingdom, 
 as one taxable entity, but on the theory (though not with- 
 out exception later as against Ireland) that each of the 
 three divisions was a taxable unit to which was being 
 returned, for expenditure by the minor local authorities, a 
 portion of the general taxation ; and, therefore, that the 
 return should be on the basis of the proportions in which 
 each of the units had contributed to the fund. 
 
 Last Session when agricultural distress throughout the 
 
 United Kingdom was to be aided this device 
 
 Agricultural ^yas, as many of us think, most unwarrantably 
 
 Distress 
 
 Relief, 1896. expanded, so as to limit the relief of Ireland — 
 the country in which there existed the greatest 
 agricultural distress — by making the grant, in form, a 
 relief to local rates in England, and thus applying, as we 
 think erroneously, the proportional system. And so, those 
 who oppose our view that we are entitled to separate 
 treatment as to taxation, themselves insist, in some degree,, 
 on separate treatment in expenditure. - - 
 
 Now, Sir, it is acknowledged by Sir Edward Hamilton 
 that the Union Act does not contemplate this division. 
 But he says, and others say, that circumstances have 
 
„ _:.C?iV OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. 41 
 
 altered since, that some expenditures are now made which 
 were not then made, as, for example, on 
 aker'treaty. Pohce and Education. True, enlarged con- 
 ceptions have been formed of the duty of the 
 Government of the United Kingdom ; and it has been 
 deemed to be a national object to provide for the educa- 
 tion and for the order of the people ; and, for its govern- 
 ment under the Union, a constabulary has been organised 
 in Ireland. Accordingly Acts have been passed and 
 revenue is raised and expended by the United Kingdom 
 for this purpose. But this docs not in the least alter the 
 rights of Ireland, or render obsolete the provisions of the 
 treaty. This is your own interpretation of the duty of the 
 United Kingdom. 
 
 But it is said that a part of the expenditure on education 
 
 and on police is, under Imperial legislation, 
 
 Argument provided for in Britain by local rates, raised 
 
 from British , , , , ,. 11 , 
 
 rates. by local bodies, who have been given a 
 
 measure of control over the subjects, and that 
 it is unfair to ignore this local expenditure in stating the 
 account between the countries. I repeat that it is im- 
 possible for this reason to divest the expenditure of the 
 Imperial character which it clearly retains, so far as Ireland 
 is concerned. You make it and you keep it Imperial ; and 
 its scale, its purpose, its regulation, are all such as you 
 choose to fix, not such as you are willing to confide to 
 local representative authorities. We must therefore hold 
 by the view that the money which this Parliament votes, 
 expends, and controls, for the purpose of carrying on 
 government in Ireland is in reason, and in the sense of the 
 Union Act, Imperial expenditure. 
 
 This view is our only protection against the injustice 
 which would ensue from your being at liberty 
 
 Mode of to fix the scale and direct the mode, while we 
 
 mceling 
 
 objection. arc obligcd to pay. And the objection of in- 
 equality would be fully met, if for the purpose 
 of ascertaining the grand total to which Ireland should 
 contribute, the analogous amount raised locally in Britain 
 
^3 ^ HON. EDWARD BLAKE, ALP. 
 
 towards these two objects were added to the sum of the 
 Imperial estimate. Thus Ireland would bear her propor- 
 tionate share of the whole expenditure ; and this would 
 .meet in a less objectionable way the position of Mr. 
 Childer's as to Police and Education, and in very large 
 measure the criticisms of Lord Farrer and his colleagues. 
 This, I need hardly say, is a very narrow question. The 
 data arc accessible ; the figures can be easily run out. 
 There are some minor cross-entries to be made. The 
 general result would be perhaps so to enlarge the total 
 Imperial estimate as to reduce the over-taxation by about 
 ^^300,000, or to about two and a half millions on the 
 minimum estimate. I need hardly say that the adoption 
 of this plan, with its limited and defined application, affords 
 not the least justification for the proposed breaking up of 
 the Imperial expenditure, which it rather keeps intact ; 
 still less docs it need a new Royal Commission. 
 
 But it is said our contention would make Britain 
 ^ ., . tributary to Ireland. Not so ; every detail 
 
 Britain -^ ' ^ 
 
 not tributary of the wliole affair is within your pov/er, and 
 to re^an' . j^ moulded according to your will. 
 Then, if for argument's sake, the principle of breaking 
 up the Imperial expenditure be admitted, we 
 cfeiaiis'o"'^ quarrel grievously with the details. On these 
 division. ^Iso all the data for judgment are before us, 
 Expenditure. and tne questions are peculiarly for settle- 
 ment by Parliament on the initiative of the 
 ■Government. As Lord P'arrer said in another place, they 
 need no new Commission. The speech of the First Lord 
 adopted the classification of the Treasury, and based on 
 it the assertion that Ireland contributed but i-32nd to 
 what he called Imperial expenditure. Now, let me glance 
 at the details of this division. 
 
 Ireland is charged with the Constabulary — an armed, 
 
 semi-military force, maintained at enormous 
 
 cost, far beyond any conceivable need for the 
 
 policing, under normal conditions, of such a country ; a 
 
 force and a scale of expenditure directly flowing from and 
 
ON OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. 43 
 
 due to the Union, and doing almost entirely Imperial 
 work. I do not find that any one of the Commissioners, or 
 even Sir Edward Hamilton himself, approves this charge in 
 its totality, and he states that in the earliest of the Financial 
 Relations Papers it was distributed as Imperial. So it 
 ought to be. 
 
 Ireland is charged with the Imperial expenditure on the 
 great national subject of education, which is 
 
 . uca ion. moulded and directed through Imperial legis- 
 lation, by Imperial and centralised administration. 
 
 Ireland is charged with the collection of the Imperial 
 revenue, the adminstration of justice, the 
 
 ■Other char (jes. ^-> . /^m .^ /-' -y c^ • n ,1 
 
 Tost Office, the Civil Service generally, the 
 
 Viceregal esfablishment. All these are obviously Imperial. 
 
 Then we quarrel with the scale of expenditure, created 
 
 here and proposed to be charged exclusively 
 
 Expenditure ^^ "^' ^^ ^^ expensive, extravagant, centra- 
 lized, on the Imperial scale. Look at the 
 salaries and numbers of the judges, and contrast the condi- 
 tions as between the emoluments of Bar and Bench, even 
 with these which prevail here, still more v.ith those which 
 prevail in poorer countries. Contrast the cost of depart- 
 ments compared with the cost even here. The whole system 
 is unsuited to the circumstances and beyond the means of 
 Ireland. It is not checked by the ordinary safeguards of 
 local responsibility and the ordinary inducements to 
 economy. All these are defects in the system. From it 
 they flow. With what justice then do you propose to 
 charge them Qxclusively on the weaker partner ? 
 
 But you say, '' Irishmen and Irish members will not cut 
 down the votes." After all, it is you who frame 
 «xirava"nce. ^^^ estimates and pass the votes. But give to 
 Ireland the usual stimulus to economy — some 
 profit from the saving, before you complain that she does 
 not insist on pruning your extravagance. While she finds 
 that she is taxed beyond her capacity ; that she will not 
 appreciably gain by economy in Ireland ; and that the only 
 
44 HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P, 
 
 question is where the money shall be spent, is it much 
 wonder that she should prefer Ireland as the scene? 
 At: any rate the responsibility is yours ; Ireland cannot save 
 or spend a shilling ; you have the power and must take 
 the blame. 
 
 But, Sir, it is not only to the Irish part of this divided 
 estimate that we object. We object to the 
 proposed Imperial part as well. If you cut up the es- 
 imperiai timates as you propose, and find some elements 
 to which, as Imperial, you hold us specially 
 bound to make proportionate contribution, you drive us to 
 analyse their nature, and to inquire whether there is any 
 reasonable ground for our providing, first, everything you 
 choose to call local expenditure, and then also our propor- 
 tion, according to our relative taxable capacity, of these 
 great heads of Imperial expenditure. 
 
 I do not, in the present form of Union, want to open any 
 
 of these questions. I believe they cannot be 
 
 iS'dhSi^'. opened without violating the spirit of the Act. 
 
 I believe the Act contemplates and provides 
 
 that Ireland should contribute towards the expenditure of 
 
 the Imperial Parliament, no matter where that money be 
 
 spent or how it be applied, whether here, or in Ireland, or 
 
 abroad, according to her relative taxable capacity. 
 
 But if you wall destroy this system, cut up the accounts, 
 
 and enter into the question of the separate or 
 
 But, if relative interests of Britain and of Ireland in 
 
 change, then 
 
 inquiry. the different expenditures, depend upon it you 
 
 will have to grapple with your Imperial as 
 
 well as with your local estimates. We rest on the contract ; 
 
 you propose a change. Then must we look at the new 
 
 Imperial estimates. 
 
 Look at your navy. Britain has created an economic 
 system under which she requires, in order that 
 
 T '1 
 
 Savv ^^^^ ^^^ obtain her supplies of food and of 
 
 materials, and maintain her position as a 
 
 manufacturing, mercantile, and carrying power, to keep 
 
ON OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. 45 
 
 command of the sea. Her naval budget is her insurance 
 premium. She is continually pressed to add to her insurance, 
 ■ and told that it is cheap. It may be cheap for her ; she has 
 the gains. But can you honestly say that Ireland has the 
 same proportionate interest in the profits insured by this 
 premium ? And, if not, can you say she ought to con- 
 tribute in that proportion to the insurance ? 
 
 Look at your army, mainly required for the purposes of 
 
 the Indian and Colonial Empire, and for the 
 
 Army. security of your commercial interests, and to 
 
 which therefore the same considerations apply. 
 
 Deb"^ Look at your debt charge, contracted for wars 
 
 waged in the same interests. 
 T)o not charge me with taking a limited or a shopkeeper's 
 view of this matter. Remember the language 
 
 Lord Salis- _, ^, ^t- ■ ix^ • <- 
 
 bury's views, of the rnme Mmister and Toreign Secretary, 
 uttered as late as the nth March, when he 
 said — 
 
 "All machinery — at all events of the external part of our Govern- 
 ment — is in its intention and its object directed for the purpose of 
 maintaininfj and facilitatinir British trade. We have heard and we 
 rejoice at the great achievements of our army and our navy — how they 
 have never failed us under any stress to v.hich they have been put. 
 But the object of all this action is that the various parts of the world 
 may be kept open to the exploration, to the enterprise, to the industry of 
 Britain, maybe saved from that encircling band of hostile taritls which 
 causes us to know, when we hear that a territory has fallen into foreign 
 occupation, that it is really robbed from British trade." 
 
 Sir, I think these considerations show that the proposed 
 inquiry would, if it ever ended, never satisfy, 
 resuu! ^'^^ ^.\i2X the Only safe ground is to stand on 
 
 the Union Act provisions. Let me repeat, I 
 do not wish to open these matters. It is you, who set up 
 this suggested division of expenditure, who raise the issue. 
 But while I thus contend, I fully agree that, if this whole 
 question were taken up by Britain in the proper spirit, it 
 would become our duty and our interest to promote all 
 reasonable reductions in the extravagance of Irish ex- 
 penditure. 
 
46 BOX. ED WARD BLAKE, M.P. 
 
 There remains only one set oft" on which I wish to say a 
 sinf^le word. I refer to the remitted or unsettled 
 
 Loans and ," ^ . t i i \\^,.\ i. t 
 
 advances, advances or grants to Ireland. W itn part i 
 have already dealt — namely, the famine ad- 
 vances. Of the remainder, some are being settled by the 
 Restitution P'und. Of the bulk it is to be remarked that 
 they were not at all advances to local authorities, or analo- 
 f^ous to the British grants, but expenditures made by the 
 Imperial Government, largely v/astcful and futile, and 
 charged compulsorily on the people. The sum total seems 
 in fairness reducible to about one million in excess of 
 remissions of English advances; but if it all stood, it 
 would form only a fraction of the restitution fairly due to 
 Ireland in respect of past over- taxation, an element of 
 the grievance which demands redress. On this, too, all the 
 materials are before us, and the question is ripe for your 
 dccir.ion. 
 
 Now, Sir, an amendment has been put down insisting 
 
 on the absolute fiscal indivisibility of the 
 
 ^Ir. United Kingdom, and on the consideration 
 
 aSmeS ^"b' of the pressure of taxation on the 
 
 individual, wherever he may reside. This 
 
 was partly the view of the Committee of 1S64. But it is 
 
 not, as I think I have shown, the true view. 
 
 Another amendment appears, designed at once sciously 
 to limit the range and to indicate one direc- 
 ^l!";J!HnI'.'!t'' tion of remedial legislation. But I venture 
 to submit to my right hon. friend that it is 
 both a wiser course and a truer interpretation of Irish 
 opinion to adhere to the comprehensive words of my pro- 
 posal. 
 
 The line of the Government is different. It does not in 
 
 terms adopt, though it may aim at the result 
 
 The of, the first amendment. It docs not acknow- 
 
 ^'^^^nc'"'^"* ledge the existence of a grievance, or adnn't 
 
 the propriety of the remedy suggested by the 
 
 second amendment. The Government proposes to meet 
 
ON OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. 47- 
 
 the case by the appointment of a new Commission, mainly 
 to Inquire into the results of the proposed division into four 
 parts of the United Kingdom expenditure, into the effect 
 of the existing: United Kinq;dom taxation, and into the 
 propriety of changes in taxation and expenditure. In a 
 word, it is proposed to deal with our demand upon the 
 lines of the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury at 
 Manchester. I have already given you the reasons why I 
 think it impossible to assent to any such inquiry. 
 
 It is said that the Commissioners failed to discharcre 
 
 their duty by not reporting upon this question 
 
 The of division. But the bulk of the Commis- 
 
 Conmiis- , ,1,1 , ■ r 1 r 
 
 sioncrs' view, sioncrs held that that portion of the reference 
 
 had regard to the political conditions then 
 
 existing as to Home Rule, and had no foundation under 
 
 the Act of Union. That is the argument we advance. 
 
 This, however, is to be added, that all the materials for 
 
 a conclusion upon these questions have been 
 
 New collected, and are to be found in the pro- 
 
 ^T-i"'''" ceedings of the Commission ; and that there 
 
 us wit 3.^. t> » 
 
 is v.o necessity or utility in remitting 
 such questions at this day to the decision of any such body. 
 They are now, after all, peculiarly a matter for Parliament. 
 Upon the ground then, first, that the proposed inquiry ir. 
 based upon wrong principles ; secondly, that it is useless ; 
 and thirdly, that it is dilatory, we object to and protest 
 against the Commission. 
 
 This being the answer to our demand, I am relieved 
 
 from considerincf in detail the sugqestion 
 
 Dcm ul for which has been thrown nut in IMinistcrial 
 
 remedy. quarters, that the Commission should have 
 
 indicated, and that we, forsooth, should now 
 
 indicate the precise form ot the remedy. That question 
 
 was not referred to the Commission. It is obviously one 
 
 for Parliament, on the initiative of the Executive, to deal 
 
 with. It is not for us, a small minority, powerless to 
 
 achieve, to propound the specific remedy to-day. 
 
^ HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P. — -™^^,^.. 
 
 You well know what the majority of the Irish people 
 think would embrace a complete and effective 
 
 Home Rule. , ^t-i , i .• c , ^ t. 
 
 remedy. That solution you refuse to adupt. 
 But your refusal entails on you even added responsi- 
 bilities towards Ireland ; and, both as the 
 Responsibility depositories of power and as the special de- 
 ° Farty?'^^ fenders of the existing form of Union, which 
 is the basis of this Government, you are 
 doubly bound to find a remedy for this grievous injustice, 
 existent under the system you maintain and control. 
 
 Several plans have been suggested, of which some are 
 
 to be found in the various reports. All may 
 
 Several plans have their inconveniences. It is for you to 
 
 in icporls. , , ... i • i i , ^ r 
 
 propound that which you think best, and for 
 us to make counter-proposals. But, the principle of our 
 claim once admitted, we shall make no difficulty in discuss- 
 ing with you the best remedy. 
 
 If you say '* The inconveniences are too serious ; we find 
 
 no practicable way within the Union ; there- 
 Consequences f^j.^ ^\^^ jTrievance must remain unredressed," 
 
 of rclusal. -^^ ^ . . 
 
 then assuredly, the friends of the Union will 
 inflict a heavy blow on the system by which they stand. You 
 have declared for that Union as a compact under which 
 Ireland was secure in all her rights, and protected in all her 
 interests ; under which she was assured of just and generous 
 treatment. If you now aver that the Union demands that 
 she shall still labour under this injustice, you cannot but 
 discourage its friends, and place in the hands of its op- 
 ponents a keen and powerful weapon of attack. 
 
 Sir, we call for r?<//(V/, and to that end I move — "That 
 in the opinion of this house the report and proceedings of 
 the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations of Great 
 Britain and Ireland establish the existence of an undue 
 burden of taxation on Ireland, which constitutes a great 
 grievance to all classes of the Irish community, and makes it 
 the duty of the Government to propose at an early day 
 rcmcdiil legislation.' 
 
tables 
 
 BrranoeD. vvftb assistance, bv? tbc E5ftor. 
 
 The References are principally to the />./../and Two VoIu.es of E.Ue.ce 
 of the Financia! Relations Ccmmission. 
 
 Par). Topers, C. 8262. 1S96, and C. 7720, I. 11. iS 
 
 95- 
 
 -♦- 
 
 FRACTIONS UNDER 1000 HAVE tN MOST CASES BEE.V OMITTED. 
 
tables. 
 
 I. 
 
 Population of Great Britain and Ireland from 1780 to 1896. 
 
 ^"^'SId" GnSLl^arei: ^^JS^'H'^I!^'^ Census Repons ; those for Ireland 
 Generals' Estimates.] ^^'^ence, II. 437-^. 1 j,o$e for 1896 are from Registrar. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Ireland. 
 
 17S0 
 
 9,510,000 
 
 3,526,000 
 
 1791 
 
 io,o55,oco 
 
 4,206,000 
 
 iSoi 
 
 10,942,000 
 
 4,937,000 
 
 iSii 
 
 12,596,000 
 
 5,795.000 
 
 1S21 
 
 14,329,000 
 
 6,802,000 
 
 1S31 
 
 16,260,000 
 
 7,767,000 
 
 1841 
 
 i8,534,cx)o 
 
 8,199,000 
 
 1S51 
 
 20,8x5,000 
 
 6,514,000 
 
 1S61 
 
 23,128,000 
 
 5,788,000 
 
 1871 
 
 26,072,000 
 
 5,398,000 
 
 1S81 
 
 29,709,000 
 
 5,145,000 
 
 1S91 
 
 33,027,000 
 
 4,681,000 
 
 1S96 
 
 34,917,000 
 
 4,560,000 
 
 II. 
 
 Expenditure PER Head of Population on Spirits and Beer in 
 OREAT Britain and in Ireland in 1S93. 
 
 t^'^rl. Paper 334 of 1^93, Evidence, I. 360.] 
 
 Spirits 
 Beer 
 
 Totals 
 
 1 Great Britain. 
 
 Ireland. 
 
 • • ■ 
 ••• 
 
 /I 9 
 2 13 
 
 ;Ci 6 6 
 1 7 2 
 
 • •• 
 
 A 2 
 
 /2 13 8 
 
52 
 
 TABLES. 
 
 III. 
 
 Tax Revenue of Great Britain and of Ireland froat 1782-3 
 TO 1893-4, According to the Treasury Tables of Net Revenue, 
 
 FROM 1782-3 TO 180O-I, inclusive ; OF TOTAL REVENUE FROM l8oi-2 
 TO 1816-7, INCLUSIVE; AND OF ESTIMATED TrUE REVENUE FROM 
 1819-20 TO 1893-4. 
 
 [See Tables put in Evidence by Sir E. VV. HamHton, Assistant-Secretary to the Treasury, 
 I. 363-9, 371-2, and II. 191.] 
 
 [Also, note : — Up to i8or for Great Britain, and to 1821 for Ireland, the population is 
 estimated. From 1801 (inclusive) for Great Britain, and 1821 (inclusive) for Ireland, 
 the Census figures are taken. ] 
 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Tax 
 
 Revenue. 
 
 Per 
 head. 
 
 Ireland. 
 
 Per 
 head. 
 
 Tax 
 Revenue. 
 
 
 178^-83 .. 
 
 1792-93 .. 
 
 1801-02 .. 
 
 1S09-10 .. 
 
 1S19-20 .. 
 
 1829-30 .. 
 
 1839-40 .. 
 
 1S49-50 .. 
 
 The amounts per 
 head, as well as the 
 totals of Revenue, 
 for 1H19-2P, and „_ ^ 
 thenceforward, to"^ Ii)59~00 
 1893-04, are ex- 
 tracted from Sir 
 E. W. Haiuilton's 
 ■J able, II. p. 191. 
 
 1869-70 
 1879-S0 
 1SS9-90 
 1893-94 
 
 1 1, 880,000 ± 
 
 16,519,000 ^, 
 
 33,596,000' 
 
 61,275,000 
 
 49,511,000 
 
 47,416,000 
 
 43,918,000 
 
 49,651,000 
 
 57,866,000 
 
 59,678,000 
 
 60,060,000 
 
 71,588,000 
 
 75,796,000 
 
 I s. d. 
 
 150 
 
 1 12 O 
 
 520 
 
 3 10 J 
 
 2 18 o 
 
 2 7 5 
 278 
 2 10 o 
 
 259 
 205 
 
 234 
 
 2 4 10 
 
 814,000 
 1,016,000 
 2,521,000 
 4,687,000 
 4, gi 1,000 
 5,067,000 
 5,076,000 
 4,563,000 
 7,340,000 
 6,868,000 
 6,437,000 
 6,820,000 
 6,643,000 
 
 -a 
 
 u 
 
 £ s. d. 
 fo 4 o 
 
 a 
 
 040 
 
 o 10 o 
 
 lo 16 o 
 
 o 14 5 
 o 13 I 
 o 12 5 
 
 13 II 
 
 1 5 4 
 
 I 5 5 
 
 I 4 II 
 
 I 9 o 
 
 *i 8 10 
 
 • Increased in 1895-6 to £1 15s. id. 
 
 Statistics such as are here given form the basis of Ireland's contention 
 regarding over-taxation. Since 1S09-10, the taxation of Great Britain has 
 been reduced from £«, 2s. to £2 4s. icd. per head ; that of Ireland has been 
 increased from 16s. to £i 15s. id. per head. The proportions of taxation 
 liave not been adhered to, against which even the Irish Lords recorded their 
 protest, and by which a bare majority of the Irish Commons were induced to 
 agree to the Union, "' :'^'''^;'^~''^'--'^~'---'^~-^'^^ ^_^ — ._ 
 
TABLES. 
 
 53 
 
 IV. 
 
 Principal Payments from Ireland to England constituting a 
 DRAIN on the Economic Resources of Ireland, i.e.^ Pay- 
 ments AND Expenditure out of the Annual Gross Income of 
 Ireland for which there is little or no Corresponding 
 Return. 
 
 [Mr, ilurrough OBrien's Table, Evidence II. iq6.] 
 
 I. 
 
 2. 
 
 3- 
 4- 
 
 13- 
 
 1* 
 
 Value of property owned by absentees, con- 
 fined to rural property as per Return 167 
 of April 23, 1S72.* 
 
 Similar proportion of Urban properties 
 
 Residue of London Co.'s estates ... 
 
 Mortgages of English Insurance Co.'s as 
 esiimated by Dr. Giffen in 18S6, 
 ;^i4,ooo,ooo at 4^^ per cent.t 
 
 7- 
 
 8. 
 
 9- 
 
 10. 
 
 II. 
 
 5. Average amount paid by Church Fund as 
 
 interest for 23 years to 31st March, 1S94 
 
 6. Average annual amount of capital repaid by 
 Church Fund for 19 years. 
 
 Interest on Board oi Works and Public 
 Works Loan Commissioners Loans average 
 taken as payment in 1893. (Smith-Barry's 
 Return 376, 17th August, 1893.) % 
 
 Repayment of capital by same return 
 
 Quit-rents and Crown Reversions 
 
 Land Loan Annuities 4 per cent, on 
 ;{, 1 2,000,000. 
 
 Remittances of capital for deposit in Post 
 Office and Trustee Savings Banks. 
 Average annual increase of deposits for 
 past 21 half years. 
 12. Interest at 1 per cent, on Post Ofnce and 
 Trustee B.mk deposits on which 2.\ per 
 cent, is paid to depositors, while they are 
 lent back to Ireland at not less than 3^ 
 per cent. 
 
 Extra cost of Iiish Private Bill legislation, 
 estimated {sec debate in 1871) to co^t for 
 witnesses five times as much as if con 
 ducted in Ireland. 
 
 Expenses of loo M.P.'s at j^jOO each per 
 session. 
 
 Amount 
 known 
 
 approxi- 
 mately. 
 
 Probable 
 Amount. 
 
 2,470,816 
 
 960,900 
 
 30,000 
 
 630,000 
 
 219,631 
 
 379.769 
 265,137 
 
 430,686 
 40,000 
 
 480,000 
 
 254,760 
 
 65,000 
 
 Not ascer- 
 tained. 
 
 30,000 
 
 £ 
 
 5,000,000 
 
 1,500,000 
 
 (all absentee 
 
 mortgages 
 and annuities) 
 219,631 
 
 379,769 
 265,137 
 
 430,686 
 40,000 
 
 480,000 
 
 254,760 
 
 65,000 
 
 30,000 
 
 /{:6,256,699 LCS.664,983 
 
 •This return was well known to be an iindor o<!timate ; superior rents, rentchargos, 
 and annuities w<*re not included in it. Absontonism has increased since 187?. 
 
 ■f The mortgaije debt on Irish real estate has beea estimated at trotn 8? to 120 
 millions by authorities. Irish mortpaiEres were for many years a favourite investment tor 
 Jinplivh lenders owinp to the higher rate of interest obt-ainable. 
 
 X Ilic bv-sefit of muct ot thtt expenditure is represented in the assessment returns and 
 rental. 
 
54 
 
 TABLES. 
 
 V. 
 
 Taxable Capacity of Ireland, as compared to that of 
 
 Great Britain. 
 
 [Calculated : Nos. i to 8, 15 and 16, from Sir Robert Giffen's Tables, Evidence, II. 173. 
 No q from Mr. Murrough O'Brien's Table, Evidence, I. 387. Nos. 10 to 13 from 
 Sir E. W. Hamilton's Table, Evidence, I. 356-7. No. 14. See Table VI.] 
 
 1. Consumption of Coal 
 
 2. Nett Income Tax Assessments of Quarries, 
 Mines and Gasworks 
 
 3. Tonnage of Shipping in Foreign Trade 
 
 4. Persons engaged in Textile Factories 
 
 5. Capital of Joint Stock Companies 
 
 6. Passengers (exclusive of Season Ticktt 
 Holders) carried on Railways 
 
 7. Goods conveyed on Railways 
 
 8. Value of Mineral Produce 
 
 9. Capital of Industrial and Provident Societies 
 
 10. Income from Government Stocks (average of 
 years 1S91, 1892, 1893) ••• 
 
 11. Profits derived from Trades and Professions 
 (same period) 
 
 12. Total Profits assessed to Income-Tax (same 
 period) 
 
 13. Property assessed to Probate and Succession 
 Duty (same period) 
 
 14. Surplus Income after deducting cost of Sub- 
 sistence and Taxation .« 
 
 15. Males above 20 in Agricultural Class in 1891 
 
 16. Nett Agricultural Production 
 
 Average per person ... ... ... 
 
 In Ireland compared with 
 that in Great Britain is as 
 
 to 
 
 41 
 
 
 
 58 
 
 
 
 58 
 
 
 
 62 
 
 
 
 43 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 71 
 
 
 
 416 
 
 
 
 832 
 
 53 
 
 •> 32 
 
 21 
 
 I .» 20 
 
 I M 27 
 
 Ireland. 
 
 701,000 
 ;^40,ooo,ooo 
 
 £V1 
 
 Great Britain. 
 
 1,146,000 
 
 ;^ 1 80,000,000 
 
 ;{;i57 
 
 It is upon figures such as these that Ireland's low taxable capacity, as com- 
 pared to Grc:.t Britain, is established. The two last lines prove that even in 
 her one great industry, agriculture, her people are at a disadvantage. 
 
TABLES. 
 
 55 
 
 VI. 
 
 Approximate Capital of Great Britain and of Ireland in 1895, 
 WITH Approximate Estimate of Surplus Income of Inhabi. 
 tants in both Countries. 
 
 [Evidence /aj5j;//, and Mr. Murrough O'Brien's Table, ij?7i/t'«£-^, I. 388.] 
 
 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Ireland. 
 
 Capital in 1 8 12 «#►, 
 
 ^j^ loy** f ■•« ••■ ••• 
 
 I 
 
 1,500.000.000 
 
 10,000,000.000 
 
 £ 
 563,000.000 
 
 400,000,000 
 
 Gross Annual Income, 1S95 
 Maintenance Allowance, ;^I2 per head of 
 population 
 
 1,500,000,000 
 420,000,000 
 
 70,000,000 
 55,000,000 
 
 Great Britain. Ireland. 
 Revenue, 1892-93 ... 88,000,000 7,000,000 
 Local Taxes ... 39,000,000 3,000,000 
 
 1,080,000,000 
 127,000,000 
 
 15,000,000 
 
 10,000,000 
 
 Surplus above bare Maintenance 
 
 953,000,000* 
 about 
 ;^27 per head 
 
 5,000.000 
 
 about 
 
 £,\ per head 
 
 • More according to some Evidence. 
 
 VII. 
 
 The extent to which in Ireland, as compared to in Great 
 Britain, Taxes are raised off Commodities in General 
 Use by the People. 
 
 [From Sir Edward W. Hamilton's Tables, Evidence II. 192.] 
 
 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Ireland. 
 
 
 Indirect 
 
 
 Indirect 
 
 
 Years. 
 
 Taxes on 
 
 Direct and 
 
 Taxes on 
 
 Direct and 
 
 
 Commodities, 
 
 other Taxes. 
 
 Commodities, 
 
 other Taxes. 
 
 
 etc. 
 
 
 etc. 
 
 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 1819-1820 
 
 69-1 
 
 309 
 
 76-4 
 
 236 
 
 1829-1830 
 
 72-6 
 
 27-4 
 
 879 
 
 121 
 
 1839-1840 
 
 72-4 
 
 276 
 
 89-2 
 
 108 
 
 1849- I S50 
 
 634 
 
 36-6 
 
 873 
 
 127 
 
 1859- i860 
 
 632 
 
 368 
 
 81-3 
 
 187 
 
 1869- 1870 
 
 56 
 
 440 
 
 807 
 
 19-3 
 
 1879-1880 
 
 58-2 
 
 418 
 
 8o-6 
 
 194 
 
 1889-1890 
 
 535 
 
 465 
 
 800 
 
 200 
 
 1S93-1894 
 
 537 
 
 463 
 
 76-4 
 
 236 
 
S6 
 
 TABLES. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Propgrtioxs of Marriages, Births, and Deaths in the Three 
 
 Kingdoms. 
 
 Per i,ooo of Population, average-1871-92. 
 
 [Registrar-General, Evidence I. 390.] 
 
 England. 
 
 Scotland. 
 
 Ireland. 
 
 Persons who Married 
 
 Births 
 
 Deaths 
 
 15-6 
 
 34-0 
 
 23-3 
 
 13-9 
 33-6 
 
 20-4 
 
 9-0 
 
 24 '9 
 180 
 
 Excess of Births over Deaths 
 [Sir Kobert Giffcn's Table, Evidence II. 162.] 
 
 Per 1,000 of Population 
 
 II-5 
 
 II-4 
 
 50 
 
 Estimated Average Marrying Age. 
 [Mulhall's Statistics, 1S92.] 
 
 iN'itXiCS ••• ••• ••■ ••« 
 
 Females 
 
 277 
 25-5 
 
 2S-6 
 257 
 
 29-9 
 
 Upon the figures, such as these, Sir Robert Giffen remarks {Evidence, 
 II. 162-3) • — " What is found by experience to be a most significant sign of 
 general economic conditions is the . . . excels of births over deaths. A high 
 excess, when combined, as it usually is, with a low death rate, and with 
 a moderate if not a low birth rate, is a good sign of prosperity. . . . Ireland 
 has more people in proportion above 50 than Great Britain has, and fewer 
 people in prime of life, i.e., between 20 and 40. The difference is sensible. 
 In Ireland no less than 1 86 per cent, of the male population are upwards 
 of 50, but in Scotland and England the per-centages are I3'5 and 137 
 respectively. The per-centage in Ireland between 20 and 40 is 26"C per 
 cent., and in Scotland and England 28"9 and 29*9 respectively. The per- 
 centages of the female population are much the same. Ireland has thus 
 fewer people in proportion in the prime of life and more above 50 than 
 Great Britain has. . . . These figures also agree with the facts as to the 
 composition of emigration from Ireland and Great Britain respectively. In 
 Ireland there is a steadier stream of people in the prime of life." 
 
 IX. 
 
 Emigration from England, Scotland and Ireland, 18S0 to 1S54. 
 
 [Calculated from Sir Robert Giffen's Tab]«^ Evidence II. 175.] 
 
 
 England. 
 
 Scotland. 
 
 Ireland. 
 
 Male Emigrants •» 
 Female „ ... 
 Children „ 
 
 1,155,000 
 634,000 
 376,000 
 
 189,000 
 
 112,000 
 
 78,000 
 
 460,000 
 430,000 
 123,000 
 
 Proportion of Males to Females ... 
 
 100 to 55 
 
 100 to 59 
 
 100 to 93 
 
 Proportion of Children in Total ... 
 
 17 percent. 
 
 20 per cent. 
 
 12 percent. 
 
 This striking Table suggests the extent to which Irish emigration is drawn 
 from the presumably young, unmarried portion of the population in the prime 
 of life, and the degree in which thereby the country is depleted of the life- 
 giving portion of its population. 
 
TABLES, 
 
 57 
 
 X. 
 
 Revenue from Tea, Cocoa, Chicory and Coffee, and Tobacco 
 Contributed by Great Britain and by Ireland, 1893-4. 
 
 [As computed by Treasury (Paper C 313, of 1894) Evidence^ I. 40S.] 
 
 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Ireland. 
 
 Irish as to British 
 Contribution. 
 
 Tea 
 
 Cocoa 
 
 Coffee and Chicory 
 
 Tobacco 
 
 £ 
 
 3,004,000 
 90,000 
 
 2J0,000 
 8,945,000 
 
 £ 
 
 489,000 
 
 12,000 
 
 12,000 
 
 1,174,000 
 
 I to 6| 
 I » 7t 
 I ., 17I 
 
 ¥ *"^ 
 
 
 12,249,000 
 
 1,687,000 
 
 I „ 7t 
 
 Compare these figures with the taxable capacity, " not estimated by any 
 of" the eleven Commissioners "as exceeding one-twentieth." 
 
 XI. 
 
 Average Annual Value of Crops and Stock in Ireland, four 
 Periods between 1S51-55 and 18S9-93. 
 
 [Dr. Grimshaw's Tables, ^'w/dTcKt^, I. 451-3.] 
 
 185T-55 
 1866-70 
 
 i8S4-i:S 
 
 ISS9-93 
 
 Crops. 
 
 Stock. 
 
 £ 
 
 58,537,000 
 
 45o65»ooo 
 35,752,000 
 34,643,000 
 
 £ 
 
 39,348,000 
 
 59,630,000 
 55,827,000 
 54,312,000 
 
 Total. 
 
 (17,885,000 
 
 I04,995,oco 
 
 91,579,000 
 
 88,955,000 
 
 AvKRAGE Annual Value Disposed of, Exclusive of the PoRTiON 
 
 OF Crops used by Stock. 
 
 Crops. 
 
 1851-55 
 1866-70 
 
 1884-88 
 
 18S9-93 
 
 £ 
 43,663.000 
 
 27'935>oco 
 16,466,000 
 
 Not given. 
 
 Stock. 
 
 £ 
 28,325,000 
 44,279,000 
 37,548,000 
 
 Total. 
 
 £ 
 71,988,000 
 72,214,000 
 54,014,000 
 
.58 
 
 TABLES. 
 
 XII. 
 
 Table showing the Increase of Pauperism in Ireland Within 
 ■ PAST Thirtv Years. 
 
 [Mr. H. A. Eobinson's Table, Evidence, IT, igS.] 
 
 
 Average daily number in receipt of relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Percentage of 
 
 
 
 
 
 Year. 
 
 In Workhouses 
 and 
 
 In receipt of 
 Outdoor 
 
 Total daily 
 
 Total daily 
 average on 
 
 
 Institutions for 
 the Blind, etc. 
 
 Relief (ap- 
 proximately). 
 
 average 
 number. 
 
 population. 
 
 1S62-3 
 
 58,301 
 
 6,263 
 
 64,564 
 
 I'I2 
 
 1867-8 
 
 54,195 
 
 14,940 
 
 69,135 
 
 I -26 
 
 1872-3 
 
 47,325 
 
 27,509 
 
 7-^,834 
 
 I 40 
 
 1S77-8 
 
 47,749 
 
 33,547 
 
 81,296 
 
 1-53 
 
 1SS2-3 
 
 51,097 
 
 58,835 
 
 109,932 
 
 2*19 
 
 1SS7-8 
 
 4*5,105 
 
 65,506 
 
 111,611 
 
 231 
 
 1892-3 
 
 41,549 
 
 59,137 
 
 100,686 
 
 2-X7 
 
 XIII. 
 
 PROrORTION OF BLIND, DEAF AND DUMIi, AND INSANE PERSONS IN 
 
 Great Britain and in Ireland, in 1891. 
 
 [frmglish Census, i8;,'i, Evidence^ IT. 209-210.] 
 
 ^. ,,- ..^ , -.-, 
 
 Number per Million. 
 
 , .....V' 
 
 England 
 and Wales. 
 
 Scotland. 
 
 Ireland. 
 
 Blind 4M>» ... ... 
 
 Deaf and Dumb 
 Insane 
 
 S09 
 
 489 
 
 3.358 
 
 695 
 528 
 
 3,841 
 
 7^5 
 
 4,504 
 
 Here is shown the inevitable outcome of drain upon resources and the 
 emigration of the young and vigorous. 
 
PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO THE OVER- 
 TAXATION OF IRELAND. 
 
 In addition to numerous articles in Magazines and separate publications 
 such as the reports of speeches by Sir Edward Clarke and others, the 
 following, to be procured through any bookseller, are some of them' the 
 principal, and others of them amongst the principal, sources of information 
 concerning the Over-taxation of Ireland : — 
 
 Final Report by Her Majesty's Commissioners appointed to enquire 
 INTO THE Financial Relations between Great Britain and 
 Ireland. 228 pp., folio. Price One Shilling and Ten Pence. Eyre & 
 Spottiswoode, London. This contains Mr. Sexton's Report and the 
 oth',r Reports enumerated in Introduction. 
 
 England's Wealth, Ireland's Poverty, by Thomas Lough, M.P., with 
 Ten Coloured Diagrams, 223, xv. pp. Price One Shilling. Downey & Co. 
 York Street, Covent Garden, London, ' 
 
 England's Debt to Ireland, by the late James P. Maunsell, reprinted 
 from the Daily Express, with Diagrams, 26 pp. Price One Penny. Office 
 oiihQ Daily Express, Dublin. 
 
 The Over-taxation of Ireland, a Record of City and County Meetings, 
 
 the Declarations of Public Bodies, Chambers of Commerce, Political 
 
 Conventions and British Statesmen, on the Financial Relations between 
 
 Great Britain and Ireland, 292, xxii. pp. Price One Shilling. Freeman's 
 
 Journal Company, Dublin. 
 
 The Financial Relations Question, Expenditure Account, A Paper 
 read before the Statistical Society of Ireland, by Arthur W. Samuels, 
 Q.C. 32 pp. Price Sixpence. Sealy, Bryers & Walker, Dublin. 
 
 Some Features of the Over-taxation of Ireland, A Paper read 
 before the Statistical Society of Ireland, by Nicholas J. Synnott, 
 20 pp. Price Threepence. Sealy, Bryers & Walker, Dublin. 
 
" But remember when you have completed your system vf 
 impoverishment, that nature still proceeds in her ordinary 
 course^ that discontent will increase with misery'' 
 
 — Edmund Burke. 
 
 " There is no debt with so much prejudice put ojf as 
 that of justice'' — PLUTARCH. 
 
 4491 Z a