THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 
 hi''' . ; . ■*.♦ 
 
 Ip BOUND BY 
 
 1|galwey*._C 
 
 1 r,., t-, niiRil
 
 ^^tUf' 
 
 
 '^liii' ■■-<'■. '■' • XI ^ 
 
 • 4 ■•-'■»' 
 
 
 
 A, Kf- ; .-'•• 1, 'v.; -*■ , 
 
 -»■■■,(.-'.*■ • -f ••/ ■ "- ■ ■ 
 
 
 '■: ' . -'^H^U^-i A-' -A -V'" -.►j--
 
 JLA 
 
 ;3.^'
 
 A HISTORY 
 
 OF THF. 
 
 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION.
 
 [ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.]
 
 A HISTORY 
 
 OI' THE 
 
 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION, 
 
 FROM 1853 TO 1897. 
 
 BY 
 
 THOMAS .KENNEDY^ 
 
 B.A., ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND: 
 BARRISTER-AT-LAW ; 
 
 FITZGIBBON GOLD MEDALLIST AND O'HAGAN GOLD MEDALLIST OF THE LAW STUDENTS' 
 
 DEBATING SOCIETY OF IRELAND; 
 
 /■or some time Honorary Secretary to the All-Ireland Cominittee of the 
 Financial Relations League. 
 
 DUBLIN: 
 HODGES, FIGGIS, & CO., Ltd., GRAFTON STREET, 
 
 BOOKSELLERS TO THE UNIVERSITY. 
 LONDON : SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO. 
 
 1897.

 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 V PAGE 
 
 ^ Pkekace ... ... ... ... ... ix 
 
 ^ Works o.v Irish Taxation . xv 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 Major-General Dunne i 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 Mr. Gladstone's Equalized Taxation 5 
 
 a|i CHAPTER III. 
 
 at The Jibes and Sneeks of "The Times" 8 
 
 •"• CHAPTER IV. 
 
 uj Serjeant Heron on Irish Decay u 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 General Dunne refused an iNgi'iRV 14 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 J« John Blake Dillon 20 
 
 UJ 
 
 to 
 
 >. CHAPTER VII. 
 
 oc 
 
 < The Corporation of Dublin 23 
 
 S5 
 
 ^' CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Joseph Fisher 26 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 Agitation and Organization 22 
 
 iii)L7iri
 
 VI CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 I'AGE 
 
 Pkotkst I!V Lord Morris 36 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 Mr. GLAOsroNE grants an Inquiry 41 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 GicNEKAL Dunne's vSelect CoMiMiTXEE 45 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 Report ov General Dunne's Committee 53 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 "Dublin University Magazine" 58 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 The O'Conor Don on the Evidence received 1!V the Irish 
 
 Taxation Committee 59 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 Sir Joseph N. M'Kenna 64 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Goschen on Royal Commissions... 68 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 O'Neill Daunt and the Irish Home Rule League ... 71 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 Sir Joseph N. M'Kenna 77 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 Mr. Mitchell Henry and Mr. Isaac Butt 80 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 Sir Joseph N. M'Kenna moves for a Select Committee ... 89 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 Mr. Goschen suggests a Committee ok Inquiry 93
 
 CONTENTS. Vll 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 PAGli 
 
 "TiiK Times," Lord Monteagle, and Sir Roi.ert Giifen 99 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 Mr. C. S. Parnell and Sir Joseph N. M'Kenna 102 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 Appointment ok the Royal Commission 109 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 The Royal Commission "8 
 
 CHAPTER XXVII. 
 Report of the Royal Commission 125 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 The Attitude of the Government 132 
 
 CHAPTER XXIX. 
 The Proposed New Commission IjS 
 
 CHAPTER XXX. 
 Ruined Ireland iS^ 
 
 CHAPTER XXXI. 
 Organization i54 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Two Petitions to Parliament 
 
 Lord Lieutenants of Ireland, 1853 to 1897 
 
 Chancellors of the Exchequer, 1852 to 1897 
 Extracts from Irish Speeches on the Budget of 1853 
 
 Irish Taxation mentioned in Parliament 
 
 Index 
 
 159 
 
 162 
 
 163 
 164 
 169 
 173
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 The Royal Commission on the Financial Relations of 
 Great Britain and Ireland, appointed by Her Majesty's 
 warrant on the 26th May, 1894, reported in the autumn 
 of 1896 that the increase of taxation laid on Ireland 
 between 1853 and i860 was not justified by the then 
 existing circumstances. The increase amounted to 
 between two and three millions sterling per annum, and 
 has been since levied. It was secured by the imposi- 
 tion of income tax and succession duties in 1853, and 
 by the increase of stamp and spirit duties between 
 1853 and i860. This augmented taxation was in excess 
 of Ireland's just relative contribution to the Imperial 
 Exchequer, and a violation of her constitutional rights 
 under the Treaty of Union. No more inopportune 
 time could have been chosen for imposing it. A famine, 
 the most dire which has stricken a European country 
 in the nineteenth century, had but recently devastated 
 the land. Commerce and manufactures had commenced 
 that decline which has continued to this day. The 
 injurious effects of the Free Trade policy and repeal of 
 the Corn Laws were already apparent, and population 
 had commenced to fly from the country. 
 
 No weightier task devolves on a statesman than that 
 of safeguarding the finances of his country. What must 
 its plight be when a nation has no control over its 
 taxation ? The Treasury representatives, whom the 
 Act for the Amalgamation of the Exchequers seemed 
 to secure to Ireland, have long disappeared. The fiscal
 
 X PREFACE. 
 
 policy of the empire has been shaped quite indepen- 
 dently of the generally ineffectual votes of the Irish 
 representatives. Though powerless to prevent it, did 
 they not protest against the imposition of the unjusti- 
 fiable burden of 1853-60? Did they not unceasingly 
 attempt to have it removed ? 
 
 Mr. Arthur J. Balfour said at Manchester, on the 9th 
 January, 1897, that it was only in October or November, 
 1896, that the Irish discovered that England was rob- 
 bing them of about i^2, 700,000 a year for fifty years. 
 Some notable Irishmen spent their lives trying to con- 
 vince England of this. Not an echo of the taxation 
 jniserere which the Irish chanted for the past forty 
 years reached Mr. Balfour. General Dunne, Lord 
 Claud Hamilton, Robert Longfield, Q.C., Joseph Fisher, 
 John Blake Dillon, the O'Conor Don, Sir Joseph N. 
 M'Kenna, O'Neill Daunt, Mitchell Henry, and Isaac 
 Butt have written their names in the history of Ireland 
 by the attitude they took up on its taxation. The F"irst 
 Lord of the Treasury, who was a Chief Secretary for 
 Ireland, never heard of them. A knowledge of Irish 
 history seems not to be essential to a ruler of Ireland. 
 Though English members fled the House of Commons 
 whenever the question of Irish taxation was raised, the 
 subject nevertheless pursued them in The Times. It 
 is sad to see justice delayed and defeated ; sadder after 
 repeated refusals to hear it denied that it was ever 
 claimed. Irishmen, in and out of the House of Com- 
 mons, have protested against over-taxation during the 
 past forty years. If Sisyphus, in addition to doing his 
 own work, were loaded with the burden of Atlas, his 
 task would then be comparable to theirs. They had to 
 penetrate the Cimmerian darkness which enveloped the 
 Treasury accounts, and then essay the hopeless task of 
 convincing the inconvincibility of England. The increase 
 of taxation was accompanied by a concealment of its
 
 PREFACE. XI 
 
 incidence and amount. The Irish golden fleece was 
 both stolen and hidden. The Treasury exacted all it 
 could, then supj3ressed the amount, and mystified the 
 account. When the Irish members became excessively 
 clamorous, some occasional scraps of information were 
 doled out to them. Whenever they put their case for 
 redress before Parliament, they were met either with 
 denial, evasion, or spurious political economy. The 
 Treasury, like the wolf in Aesop's fable, changed its 
 attitude as often as it was disconcerted by the force of 
 truth. The loss of an argument only stimulated it to 
 find a new one. According to Mr. W. E. Gladstone, 
 taxation had nothing to do with the poverty of Ireland. 
 Sir Stafford Northcote admitted that Ireland was the 
 most heavily taxed country in Europe. He did not see 
 his w^ay to remedy it, as the burdens of the poorer dis- 
 tricts of Great Britain would be thereby increased. Mr. 
 Lowe's doctrine of individual taxation was afterwards 
 preached from the front benches of the House of Com- 
 mons and the leading columns of The Times. It held 
 the field for years, and died hard. In the sixties and 
 the seventies English financial authorities, from Mr. 
 Gladstone down, denied that expenditure had anything 
 to do wath taxation. Now' their trump card is that 
 expenditure is a set-off against over-taxation. They 
 refuse to apply this new-found test to the past, as the 
 balance would then go against them. They are consis- 
 tent in nothing but in exacting the last penny out of 
 Ireland. 
 
 For twenty years — from 1853 to 1873 — the Irish Con- 
 servative members led the way in whatever protests 
 were made. When the wrong grew hoary, its custody 
 passed from them and became the heritage of the 
 Nationalists, who made all they could of it when- 
 ever a lull in their other occupations gave them 
 leisure. Trinity College, Dublin, is often supposed b)-
 
 Xll PREFACE. 
 
 the Irish masses to be generally inimical to their best 
 interests. Nevertheless the principal pioneers of the 
 protest against over-taxation were educated within its 
 walls. In the fifties and the sixties it gave to the 
 financial side of Irish public life General Dunne, Robert 
 Longfield, John Blake Dillon, and Sir Joseph M'Kenna, 
 who early diagnosed the running sore which was to 
 drain so much life and vitality out of Ireland. In the 
 seventies Professor Galbraith and Isaac Butt held aloft 
 the lamp of taxation knowledge, as do now, amongst 
 others, Mr. A. W. Samuels, n.c, and Mr. E. P. Culver- 
 well, F.T.C.D. The former, meeting the Treasury on its 
 own chosen ground, has, in his examination of the 
 Expenditure Account^ ably impeached the legality and 
 accuracy of the classification of Exchequer expenditure 
 on which it relied to establish its case of a " set-off." 
 The latter, in a masterly letter to The Times of the 
 5th January, 1897, fearlessly proclaimed that Irish 
 Unionists had advisedly championed the Irish side of 
 the over-taxation controversy, and that a Government 
 must be deemed good or bad according to the justice 
 or injustice of the taxation which it imposed. 
 
 The gulf between Ireland's capacity to bear taxation 
 and her actual contribution to the Imperial Exchequer 
 was pointed out long before the report of the Royal 
 Commission. In 1863 Joseph P'isher estimated that 
 the tax revenue of Ireland was one-tenth of that of 
 Great Britain, and the relative taxable capacity of Ire- 
 land only one-fourteenth. The respective fractions for 
 1867 were given by Mr. Synan in the House of Com- 
 mons as one-ninth and one-nineteenth ; whilst O'Neill 
 Daunt calculated them in 1873 at one-ninth and one- 
 seventeenth. The discrepancy between the imperial 
 taxation of England and Ireland was exhibited with 
 most startling effect in 1882 by Sir Joseph M'Kenna 
 when he showed that the whole imperial taxation of
 
 PREFACE. xiii 
 
 Great Britain could be raised by an income tax of 
 2s. 6d. in the pound ; wliilst an income tax of 5s. yl. 
 would be necessary to raise in Ireland its imperial 
 taxation. In 1887 he proved that the imperial taxes 
 of England other than the income tax were Ji7>e times 
 the income tax, of Scotland seven times, and of Ireland 
 tivelve times. 
 
 The Irish case against over-taxation was proved again 
 and again in the House of Commons during the past 
 thirty years. The Royal Commission has merely 
 affirmed it on appeal, and vindicated the motives and 
 action of the men who made it. England cannot plead 
 prescription. The Irish claim for justice was made too 
 frequently and too comprehensively to be barred by 
 any .statute of limitation. The Royal Commi.ssion has 
 not yet brought redress. " Who would be free themselves 
 must strike the blow." 
 
 Appeals for a union of Irishmen on this question were 
 often made. They came first from the Conservative 
 ranks. General Dunne, one of the upper class Irish 
 Protestant gentry ; Joseph Fisher, a typical middle 
 class Irish Protestant Dissenter; and Robert Longfield, 
 a distinguished Protestant Conservative Irish lawyer, 
 asked for a union of Irishmen to settle the proper taxa- 
 tion of the country. Similar appeals came from the 
 Nationalist rank.s. O'Neill Daunt, the veteran Repealer; 
 John Blake Dillon, the amnestied Young Irelander; and 
 Isaac Butt, the moderate and constitutional Home Rule 
 leader, declared that it was the duty of all Irishmen to 
 co-operate in reducing taxation. At the present day 
 there has been a wonderful union of all classes of the 
 Irish people at public meetings and at public boards; 
 but though men differing as much as Mr. Healy, 
 Mr. Lecky, Mr. Horace Plunkett, Mr. Redmond, and 
 Col. Saunderson strove to promote united action in the 
 House of Commons, they were not successful.
 
 XIV PREFACE. 
 
 I have endeavoured to show, I hope not without some 
 success, that excessive taxation was imposed and per- 
 petuated on Ireland in defiance of the oft-repeated 
 protests of her representatives; that public opinion in 
 Ireland at an early stage adequately recognised what a 
 grievous oppression this taxation was ; and that the 
 harsh and unyielding attitude of successive ministries 
 during the past forty years leaves no room for doubt that 
 no more serious and difficult problem confronts the 
 Irish people than that of securing the restitution and 
 readjustment of this excessive taxation. 
 
 I have in many instances quoted the ipsissinia verba 
 of speeches, resolutions, motions, &c. I trust that this 
 book will be found more useful on that account. 
 
 I have to express my thanks to the Right Honourable 
 the O'Conor Don, Sir J. N. M'Kenna, Mr. Mitchell 
 Henry, and Mr. Charles Dawson for lending me pub- 
 lications which have materially assisted me. I am also 
 much indebted to Mr. James Maclvor, of the King's 
 Inns Library, and Mr. T. W. Lyster, of the National 
 Library of Ireland. 
 
 THOMAS KENNEDY. 
 
 9 Brook FIELD Terrace, 
 DoNN\'P.ROOK, Dublin, 
 
 18//; November, 1897.
 
 WORKS ON IRISH TAXATION. 
 
 HOW IRELAND MAY BE SAVED. By Joseph Fisher. London : 
 Ridgway, 1862. 
 
 THE CASE OF IRELAND; TOGETHER WITH SOME LET- 
 TERS ON THE EXCESSIVE TAXATION OF IRELAND. 
 
 By Joseph Fishek. London : Ridgvvay, 1S63. 
 
 REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE MUNI- 
 CIPAL COUNCIL OF DUBLIN ON THE STATE OF THE 
 PUBLIC ACCOUNTS BETWEEN IRELAND AND GREAT 
 BRITAIN. Dublin : Dollard, 1863. 
 
 DEBT AND TAXATION OF IRELAND. By Joseph J. Murphy. 
 Reports of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. 
 Dublin : Ponsonby, 1864. 
 
 THE IRISH TAXATION COMMITTEE. By The O'Conor 
 Don, m.p. Dublin : Fowler, 1865. 
 
 FINANCIAL RELATIONS BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND 
 IRELAND, AND THE PRESSURE OF TAXATION UPON 
 IRISH RESOURCES. By W. J. O'N. Daunt. Dublin: Robert 
 Chapman, 1873. 
 
 THE FINANCIAL AND ECONOMICAL CONDITION OF IRE- 
 LAND. By Mitchell Henry, m.p. Dublin: Irish Home Rule 
 League, 1875. 
 
 THE INCIDENCE OF IMPERIAL TAXATION ON IRELAND. 
 By Sir Joseph Neale M'Kenna, m.p. Dublin: Irish Home 
 Rule League, 1876. 
 
 IMPERIAL TAXATION: THE CASE OF IRELAND PLAINLY 
 STATED. By Sir Joseph M'Kenna, m.p. London: Rivingtons, 
 1883. 
 
 FISCAL RELATIONS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND 
 IRELAND. By William F. Bailey. Dublin : Hodges, Figgis, 
 & Co., 1886. 
 
 THE IRISH LAND QUESTION ; OR, IRELAND, THE PROCESS 
 OF EXHAUSTION, 1801 TO 1880 (BOTH INCLUSIVE), 
 EXAMINED AND EXPLAINED. By Sir Joseph M'Krnna,m.p, 
 London: Ridgway, 1887.
 
 xvi WORKS ON IRISH TAXATION. 
 
 THE FINANCIAL RELATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND 
 IRELAND. By An Irishman'. IJubliii: Freeman's Journal, \%(j2. 
 
 ENGLAND'S WEALTH IRELAND'S POVERTY. By Thomas 
 Lough, m.p. London: Downey, 1896. 
 
 ENGLAND'S DEBT TO IRELAND. By J. P. Maunsell, m.a. 
 Dublin: Daily Express, 1897. 
 
 THE OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND: A RECORD OF 
 MEETINGS, 1896-97. Dublin: Freeman's Jotirnal, \?>gT. 
 
 THE FINANCIAL RELATIONS QUESTION: EXPENDITURE 
 ACCOUNT. By A. W. Samuels, q.c. Dublin: Sealy, Bryers, 
 & Walker, 1897. 
 
 SOME FEATURES OF THE OVER-TAXATION OF IRELAND. 
 By Nicholas J. Svnnott. Dublin : Sealy, Bryeis, & Walker, 1897. 
 
 FINANCIAL RELATIONS BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND 
 IRELAND. By Thomas P. Whittaker, m.p. Hull: Easte7-n 
 Mornini^ News Co., 1897. 
 
 THE FINANCIAL RELATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND 
 IRELAND. By Sir Edward Clarke, q.c. London: Stevens 
 and Haynes, 1897. 
 
 THE OVER-TAXATION OF IREL.\ND. By Hon. Edward 
 Blake, m.p. Dublin: Sealy. Bryers, & Walker, 1S97. 
 
 Works bv Mr. W. J. O'Neill Daunt, in which 
 Irish Taxation is mentioned, 
 
 eighty-five years OF IRISH HISTORY. London: W^ard 
 & Downey, 1886. 
 
 A LIFE SPENT FOR IRELAND. London: Fisher Unwin, 1S97.
 
 HISTORY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 IRISH PROTHST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 A.D. 1853. 
 MAJOR-GENERAL FRANCIS PLUNKETT DUNNE. 
 
 On the i8th April, 1853, Mr. W. E. Gladstone, who 
 was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Coalition 
 Government of which Lord Aberdeen was Prime 
 Minister, John Sadleir a Lord of the Treasury, and 
 William Keogh Solicitor-General for Ireland, announced, 
 when introducing the Budget, that he would extend 
 the income tax to Ireland. The poverty of the country, 
 the full measure in which it already contributed to 
 imperial revenue, and the necessity, on grounds of 
 public policy, of offering some inducements to absentee 
 landlords to reside at home, had hitherto prevented its 
 extension. 
 
 Knowledge after the event, which is everyone's, has 
 made it clear that Ireland was face to face with a crisis 
 fraught with disastrous consequences to her material 
 well-being. It may be asked, how did her people 
 demean themselves ? and who amongst them made 
 timely and opportune protest? Into the breach created 
 by Mr. Gladstone stepped Major-General Francis 
 Plunkett Dunne. The gage of battle cast down by the 
 wizard of finance he instantly took up. Resistance to 
 C- B
 
 2 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 and protest against the financial injustice done to his 
 country he made the great purpose of his life. Upheld 
 by his well-founded belief in the justice of his cause, 
 gallant soldier that he was, he led for years a forlorn 
 hope against the injustice and inconvincibility of 
 England. Unsuccessful in his objects and unappre- 
 ciated in his actions, time has more than amply 
 vindicated both. If ever there be a Pantheon of 
 distinguished Irishmen, his shall be no obscure corner 
 therein. His name shall ever be indissolubly associated 
 with the Irish protest against the over-taxation imposed 
 by Mr. Gladstone. On his father's side he traced his 
 descent in unbroken line from the ancient Irish chief- 
 tains of Brittas ; whilst his mother was sister to the first 
 Earl of Bantry. Born in 1802, he graduated in Trinity 
 College, Dublin, and entered the army as cornet in the 
 Dragoon Guards Retiring from the army in 1840, 
 he entered Parliament, and represented Portarlington 
 from 1847 to 1857, and the Queen's County from 1859 
 to 1868. A Conservative, he held office as Private 
 Secretary to Lord Eglinton when Lord Lieutenant of 
 Ireland in 1858-59. He died on 6th July, 1874, and 
 an obituary newspaper notice states that no man in 
 the Queen's County was more generally or deservedly 
 popular. In private life he was all that was estimable 
 — courteous, honourable, and upright, a perfect gentle- 
 man, beloved by the poor as well as by the rich, and 
 a thorough Irishman and lover of his country. All 
 those who held intercourse with him during his long 
 and honourable career were well aware of his sterling 
 honesty and worth. 
 
 The Budget proposals of Mr. Gladstone which called 
 forth the opposition of General Dunne may be thus 
 briefly stated : — The revenue for 1852-53 showed a sur- 
 plus of ;^2,46o,ooo. A committee of the House of Lords 
 had recommended that the charges on the famine-
 
 MAJOR-GEN. FRANCIS I'LUNKETT DUNNE. 3 
 
 stricken districts of Ireland, amounting to ^260,000 a 
 year, and called " Consolidated Annuities," should be 
 partially extinguished. It was a clear case for remis- 
 sion, and the surplus made it quite easy. Mr. Gladstone 
 remitted the " Annuities," but imposed the income tax. 
 For the shilling he gave away with his left hand he 
 exacted a pound with his right. General Dunne 
 attacked the new departure in fiscal policy on the 
 23rd May, 1853, by the following motion : — 
 
 That it is expedient, before additional taxation be extended to 
 Ireland, that a select committee be appointed to inquire into and 
 consider the fiscal and political relations and relative taxation of 
 Great Britain and Ireland, and to report whether the latter 
 kingdom does not bear her fair share of imperial taxation. 
 
 The speech in which he introduced his motion was 
 one of great moderation ; and the justice and obvious 
 necessity of his proposal should have commended it to 
 Parliament. He foretold that this Budget would inflict 
 greater injury upon Ireland than any former Budget 
 that he remembered. He did not stand there to deny 
 that Ireland ought to bear her fair share of taxation — 
 he did not even at the moment say that the income tax 
 ought not to be extended to that country — but what he 
 contended was, that before Ireland was to be saddled 
 with a heavier load of taxation than she had hitherto 
 borne, a preliminary inquiry should take place into the 
 resources of the country ; and he further maintained 
 that, if they extended this tax to Ireland without first 
 instituting such an inquiry, they would be guilty of a 
 direct breach of the articles of the Act of Union. It 
 was now proposed to impose a burden of an addi- 
 tional half a million and upwards of taxation upon 
 Ireland by the introduction of the income tax, and 
 Ireland would not receive any benefit from the extra 
 charge. It was most unjust to call upon Ireland to
 
 4 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 submit to this additional contribution without first 
 instituting this preh'minary inquiry into her resources 
 relatively to England under the terms of the Act of 
 Union. The motion was seconded by Mr, Macartney, 
 who thought it the height of injustice in any Govern- 
 ment to come forward with such a proposition as this, 
 which must be regarded as an aggravation of the 
 financial oppressions under which Ireland suffered. 
 
 Lord Claud Hamilton also supported General Dunne, 
 and the following notable protest was made by Mr. 
 John Francis Maguire, the Member for Dungarvan : — 
 
 The attempt to gull the people of Ireland into an approval of 
 this tax by saying that the jjresent proposition was a good Ijargain, 
 because they would have to pay £400,000 instead of £260,000, to 
 which they were at present liable, was worse than a financial 
 juggle. It was, if he might say so in parliamentary language, an 
 Exchequer swindle. The trick was so stale, the juggle so plain, 
 and the real object so unconcealed, he could only express his 
 wonder at any man representing an Irish constituency being gulled 
 by it. 
 
 Mr. Maguire was in Parliament from 1852 to 1872, 
 and during those twenty years he was the popular 
 leader. His great sincerity, ability, and earnestness 
 were unselfishly devoted to the service of his country. 
 With the exception of the notable protest recorded 
 above, some minor references, and his evidence before 
 General Dunne's Committee, he does not seem to have 
 grasped the terrible reality of over-taxation, and to 
 what extent the material depression of the country 
 was due to it, but devoted himself to the solution of the 
 religious and agrarian problems of the Irish difficulty. 
 
 General Dunne's motion was met in the most hostile 
 manner by Mr. Gladstone, and though the Irish Con- 
 servative and Popular members united in urging on the 
 Government the expediency of this preliminary inquiry, 
 they were defeated, the voting being 61 for the motion 
 and 194 against.
 
 MR. GLADSTONE'S " EQUALIZED TAXATION." 5 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 A.D. 1853. 
 
 MR. W. E. GLADSTONE'S " EQUALIZED TAXATION." 
 
 When Mr. Gladstone increased the taxation of Ireland 
 in 1853, he was well aware of the state of the country, 
 admitted the circumstances of the awful calamity which 
 had lately visited it, and acknowledged that traces of it 
 remained in many social and economic forms and in a 
 burdensome debt. But all Ireland was not alike, and 
 there were " certain districts'^ which did not need to 
 shrink from their full taxation, and which had no 
 reasonable claim or plea to offer for exemption. These 
 words were no sooner uttered than forgotten. The 
 extension of the income tax and the increase of the 
 spirit duties were not confined to " certain districts',' but 
 applied to the whole island. The phrase " certain 
 districts " covers all that has ever been since contended 
 for in the phrases ''separate entity" and ''geographical 
 taxation'' He argued that the new taxation would 
 advance a great step towards establishing an equaliza- 
 tion of taxation between the three countries. Having 
 declared that he would remit the " consolidated annui- 
 ties," impose the income tax, and increase the spirit 
 duties, he plumed himself that he would thereby make 
 a great stride towards advantages which he hardly 
 knew how to appreciate — namely, bringing the two 
 countries towards the establishment of the principle of 
 "equalized taxation!' He brushed lightly aside all 
 arguments founded on the poverty of the country, and 
 utterly ignored her treaty rights. 
 
 The pretext he availed of to justify on principle the 
 increase of Irish taxation was elevated by him into
 
 6 IRISH PROTEST ACIAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 an economic doctrine, and dignified with the name of 
 " equalized taxation!' It was reserved for a later period 
 to show how utterly unjust was his policy ; how dis- 
 astrous to the material condition of Ireland ; how 
 his intentions failed, if they were such, to secure con- 
 tributions proportioned to ability from Great Britain 
 and Ireland; and that his plausible and high-sounding 
 doctrine of " equalized taxation " was one of the most 
 fatal of economic heresies, and one made the pretext for 
 the most oppressive financial injustice to Ireland. The 
 taxes on commodities chiefly consumed by English- 
 men were levelled down year by year. Those on articles 
 principally used in Ireland were made heavier. This 
 duplex action was maintained for years for the impo- 
 verishment of Ireland and the enrichment of England. 
 No greater sophistry was ever preached than that of 
 " equalized taxation." It was the greatest engine of 
 oppression in Ireland during the second half of the 
 nineteenth century. 
 
 Neither can he be absolved of culpability for the evil 
 effects which followed. The consequences to Ireland 
 have been — without exaggeration — almost incalculable. 
 The taxation since raised was in excess of the country's 
 requirements and capacity. The amount contributed 
 for imperial services over and above local expenditure 
 in Ireland was, in 1859-60, iJ"5, 396,000 ; in 1869-70, 
 ;^4,488,2io ; in 1879-80, ^3,226,307 ; and in 1889-go, 
 ^^2,676,970. An average of these sums is ;^3,946,872, or 
 in round numbers ^4,000,000. The Irish contribution to 
 the Imperial Exchequer, over and above local expendi- 
 ture, for the forty years from 1853 to 1893 amounted 
 to ;^ 1 60,000,000. All this money was spent out of the 
 country. It is only a little short of the war tribute 
 which France paid Germany. The policy of raising 
 more taxes than are required for necessary and essential 
 expenditure has at all times been condemned by sound
 
 MR. GLADSTONE'S " EQUALIZED TAXATION." 7 
 
 political economists. Mr. Gladstone when Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer made the following statement on over- 
 taxation in the House of Commons on 12th June, 
 1863:- 
 
 I iuu very much inclined to question a proposition which I 
 understood him to hiy down— that taxation is no diminution of the 
 Avealth of a country, jjrovided the money raised by its means is 
 spent in the country in which it happens t(j be levied. I do not 
 know that this is tlie time or place to discuss a point of political 
 economy ; but I may observe that I regard that proposition as a 
 fallacy. In my opinion, taxation which is unnecessary for the 
 real purposes of government is an entire waste of public money, 
 and leads to bad consequences, Avhether it is spent in the country 
 in which it is levied or not. 
 
 If the consequences of an excessive revenue, even 
 when spent within the country in which it is raised, 
 are bad, how much more intensified the evils must be 
 when the expenditure is made out of the country. 
 
 General Dunne's request for an inquiry was reason- 
 able and just. Mr. Gladstone advanced no valid 
 argument why it should not be entertained. There was 
 no necessity for haste. No deficit had to be met. A 
 desire to do what was just, rather than what was 
 brilliant, would have prompted an examination of the 
 condition of the country. Recent events bore heavily 
 on Ireland. The establishment of the poor law system 
 had added considerably to local burdens. The repeal 
 of the Corn Laws rapidly destroyed the Irish export 
 grain trade. The failure of the potato had caused the 
 famine. Irish manufactures, with few exceptions, were 
 declining. Land was going rapidly out of cultivation. 
 The people were fleeing from the country. These were 
 danger signals sufficient to cause the boldest of Chan- 
 cellors of the Exchequer to pause. Yet heedless of all 
 protests Mr. Gladstone persevered with his scheme. 
 
 The only bright spot in this dark chapter was that 
 he intended that his new imposts should be temporary.
 
 8 IRISH PROTEST .UiAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 " The taxation we propose for Ireland would in the 
 first two years be considerably higher than the tax- 
 ation we propose to remove ; but if we look to the 
 time when, as I have said, Parliament will be in a 
 position to part with the income tax, Ireland will 
 enjoy, and enjoy for a long term of years, a much 
 larger remission of consolidated annuities than it will 
 have to bear of additional burdens in the shape of 
 spirit duty." 
 
 Forty-four years have elapsed, during twenty-five of 
 which Mr. Gladstone was a member of the Cabinet, 
 and his promise remains unfulfilled. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 EVENTS IN A.D. 1860. 
 
 THE JIBES AND SNEERS OF " THE TIMES." GENERAL 
 DUNNE APPEALS TO ALL IRISHMEN TO UNITE ON 
 THE QUESTION. 
 
 Tlie Irish Quarterly Reviezv for January, i860, con- 
 tains an article on "The Debt and Taxation of Ireland." 
 It appeared from a Parliamentary return. No. 159, 
 issued in 1859, that the Irish contribution to the 
 Imperial Exchequer for the last financial year was 
 i^8,8oo,ooo. Irish local expenditure for the same year 
 amounted to ^^4, 178,000. The surplus of revenue over 
 expenditure remitted from Ireland to England was 
 ^4,462,000. The writer does not examine these figures 
 in the light of over-taxation or economic drain, but 
 deems them a complete answer to the sneers of 
 The Times at Irish insolvency. The campaign of 
 calumny against Ireland was so effectual that the writer
 
 EVENTS IN A.I). 1860. 9 
 
 merely plucked up courage enough to say that Ireland 
 was paying her way, and was meeting every charge, just 
 and unjust, necessary for her government. No bolder 
 answer was yet attempted ; whilst the fact, which later 
 investigation has made evident, that she was contribu- 
 ting far beyond her ability and her treaty rights to the 
 Imperial Treasury was known to few in Ireland, so 
 successful was the work of financial juggle and Treasury 
 suppression. 
 
 The collection of extracts from The Times and other 
 English papers printed in the article had considerable 
 influence in directing Irish opinion to the question, and 
 influencing by repulsion the movement soon commenced 
 in Ireland and in Parliament. They are as follows : — 
 
 Rackrent landlords and exacting persons collect their dues by a 
 soldiery paid by English taxes. — Qnartedy Review. 
 
 The Treaty of Union with Ireland has already been, in more 
 than one respect, materially modified. According to it, Ireland, 
 besides providing for her own establishments, was to bear two- 
 seventeenths of the entire public expenditure of the empire. But 
 no part whatever of this condition has been fulfilled. Down to 
 this hour Ireland has not (mainly because of her being afflicted 
 with an overgrown alien Church) contributed one single shilling to 
 the general expense. — Courier. 
 
 Look at the amount of taxes paid by Ireland generally, and see 
 how she fulfils the terms of the Union contract. By that treaty 
 she ought to contribute towards the revenue of the empire 3 (sic) 
 parts out of 17. Taking the whole revenue of the United Kingdom 
 at £48,009,800 in round numbers, 3-17ths (sic) would be some- 
 thing near £5,000,000, whereas the revenue raised in Ireland has 
 not for some years past, as we hear, exceeded £5,000,000 or there- 
 abouts. Yet Ireland has retained the whole of her representatives, 
 though she has fallen short of her revenue by a third. — Times. 
 
 Ireland is a loss to this countiy. Her revenue does not cover 
 her proportion of the debt and the expenses of her civil and mili- 
 tary establishment. — Times. 
 
 Ireland is a trouble, a vexation, and an expense to this country. 
 We must pay to feed it and keep it in order. We are paying itis 
 paupers, its labourers, its policemen, its sailors. — Times.
 
 lO IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 The Celt counts with the lame, the blind, the sick, the aged, and 
 the insane as an impotent class. — Times. 
 
 We have hospitals, poor-houses, prisons, asylums, and Con- 
 naught. — Times. 
 
 For a whole generation the prolific wretchedness of the unre- 
 claimed Celt has made Ireland a continual drain on the resources 
 of this country, and for three years the burden of public benevo- 
 lence has pressed with fearful force upon every industrious class 
 of this island. — Times. 
 
 There is no sadder chapter in the literary history of 
 the financial controversy between Great Britain and 
 Ireland than the sustained and implacable hostility of 
 The Times to the just claims of Ireland. 
 
 In the House of Commons, on 30th March, i860, 
 General Dunne renewed his protest, and appealed for 
 a union of all classes in Ireland to settle the fair 
 taxation of the country. He said he took the oppor- 
 tunity of protesting against the unfair taxation to which 
 Ireland was subjected as compared with England, and 
 which was quite opposed to the spirit and terms of the 
 Act of Union. He estimated the imperial taxation at 
 i^9,ooo,ooo, and the absentee rent at ^^4,000,000. The 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of the increase 
 of wealth as justifying the income tax. He denied 
 that the wealth of Ireland was increasing : the returns 
 showed it was diminishing ; 500,000 acres of land had 
 gone out of cultivation since 1847 ; foreign imports 
 and exports were less than in 1790. Where was the 
 prosperity in Ireland to entitle the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer to add to its taxation ? Money spent on the 
 defence of England was no advantage to Ireland. He 
 hoped that ere long every Irish Member would come to 
 Parliament pledged to settle the fair proportion of 
 taxation to be borne by Ireland; but until that arrange- 
 ment was made every Irishman ought to object to any 
 additional taxation whatever. He submitted that it 
 was high time that taxation, as between Ireland and
 
 SERJEANT HERON, O.C, ON IRISH DECAY. II 
 
 England, should be settled on a proper basis, because 
 at present he was perfectly satisfied that they paid 
 what was not fair. 
 
 He received no support, and his motion to reduce the 
 income tax for Ireland from tenpence to nincpcnce was 
 defeated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer alone 
 replied to him, and relied on his old argument of equal 
 taxation. 
 
 Again, as in 1853, General Dunne was before his 
 time. Though on all sides the evidence of Irish decline 
 was accumulating, its true cause, owing to the fierce 
 passions called into play by several political and reli- 
 gious questions, was not yet generally recognised. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 A.D. 1862. 
 SERJEANT HERON, Q.C., ON IRISH DECAY. 
 
 " An unjust system of taxation does not, any more 
 than poisoning of the blood by impure air, forthwith 
 evince its specific action ; the operation is nevertheless 
 deadly, because it is continuous and the evil cumulative." 
 
 For nine years Ireland had borne the increased bur- 
 dens imposed in 1853. The spirit duties had swept 
 most of the distilleries from the land, and the income 
 tax was the last straw which forced many a nobleman 
 and gentleman into the Incumbered Estates Court. 
 The steady drain of capital had indirectly crippled 
 almost every industry. National decay and decline were 
 apparent to all, but are nowhere better shown than in 
 the writings of a distinguished Irish lawyer. 
 
 Denis Caulfield Heron, Q.C., LL.D., was a brilliant 
 student of Trinity College, Dublin, Professor of Juris-
 
 12 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 prudence in the Queen's College, Galway, and Bencher 
 of the King's Inn. He was third Serjeant-at-Law, and 
 an accomplished writer on constitutional history and 
 jurisprudence. In a paper read before the Statistical 
 and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland on 20th January, 
 1862, he made the following remarks on the then con- 
 dition of Ireland : — 
 
 " The decrease of the Irish population, as regards the 
 original number, as regards the number of square miles 
 in the country, and as regards the historical features of 
 the case, there being neither civil war nor religious per- 
 secution, is perfectly unparalleled in ancient or modern 
 history. 
 
 " The rental of Ireland is less in 1861 than it was in 
 1805. The wealth of the country is decreasing. A pro- 
 gressive decrease in population and in the production of 
 wealth is a sign that something is not right in the legal 
 and social conditions of a country. Population is every- 
 where proportioned to the means of subsistence. And 
 the decrease in the cultivation of the land, and the 
 decrease in the number of domestic animals in Ireland, 
 have now rapidly commenced upon the decrease of 
 population being accomplished. Men decay, but wealth 
 does not accumulate. 
 
 "The population that has remained in Ireland has 
 deteriorated from the year 1841. The best educated, 
 the most energetic of the peasants have emigrated 
 during the last fifteen years. Population is not the sole 
 test of prosperity — it is one of the tests. Produc- 
 tion of wealth is not the sole test of prosperity — it is 
 one of the tests. 
 
 "The diminution of population, the diminution of cul- 
 tivation, the diminution of domestic animals in Ireland, 
 all show that in the present struggle for existence, which 
 nations as well as individuals undergo, Ireland is beaten. 
 
 " One of the causes of the decrease of production is
 
 SERJEANT IIKRON, Q.C.. (^N lUTSII DECAY. 1 3 
 
 that the best of the peasantry under the present system 
 emigrate. 
 
 " For various reasons the Poor Law system has not 
 worked well in Ireland. It has been one of the pro- 
 minent causes in late years of the degradation of the 
 peasantry. 
 
 " But whilst the peasantry have declined in numbers, 
 have the upper classes in consequence been prosperous ? 
 From October, 1849, to August, 1859, the gross amount 
 produced b)' sales in the Incumbered Estates Court 
 was i^25, 1 90,839. The exultation manifested at the 
 disappearance of the Irish peasantry is easily to be ex- 
 plained by what Savigny terms the foreign historical 
 causes. But I have never been able to understand the 
 exultation manifested at the enormous amount of ruin 
 amongst the aristocracy and gentry of Ireland which 
 these figures demonstrate. I regret that so many Irish 
 gentlemen are annihilated off the soil of Ireland. 
 
 "It is asserted that the prosperity of Ireland is rapidly 
 and progressively increasing for the last sixty years, 
 certainly for the last fifteen years. One of the alleged 
 scientific tests of progressive prosperity is the enormous 
 number of ruined peers and gentry sold out by the 
 Incumbered Estates Court. 
 
 "The number of the professional and educated classes 
 in Ireland is diminishing. The number of students 
 annually entering Trinity College from 1845 to 1849 
 averaged 351. During the last few years it has averaged 
 
 290. 
 
 "The number of practising barristers is rapidly dimin- 
 ishing. In 1788 the names of 622 barristers appeared 
 in the Dublin Directory. The number of barristers 
 paying their subscriptions to the Law Library of the 
 Four Courts amounted to 690 in the year 1850. In 
 1 861 it amounted to 427. 
 
 " County society is vanishing out of Ireland. There
 
 14 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 are more ruins of castles and abbeys in Clare and 
 Galvvay than there are gentlemen's houses inhabited by 
 a resident proprietary. 
 
 " As compared with the progress of Europe, Ireland 
 is now a much less desirable place to live in than it 
 was at the commencement of the nineteenth centur}'. 
 Under the present system it will continue every year 
 to be a less desirable place to live in." 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 A.D. 1863. 
 
 GENERAL DUNNE REFUSED AN INQUIRY. 
 
 The alarming decay so evident in Ireland, and the 
 growing belief that over-taxation was the chief cause, 
 found expression in the House of Commons on 
 I2th June, 1863, when General Dunne moved — 
 
 That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the causes 
 of the present depressed condition of Ireland and the effects of 
 the taxation she now bears. 
 
 He stated that he had desired to bring the motion 
 on earlier in the session, but was prevented by the 
 death of Sir George C. Lewis. He scornfully alluded 
 to the small attendance of members as certain proof 
 that the House of Commons took little interest in the 
 condition of Ireland. Notwithstanding the statements 
 daily made of the fabulous growth of prosperity in 
 Ireland, he asserted that the improvement of the 
 country was not as great as might have been expected. 
 He emphatically deprecated the idea that he entertained 
 any wild views of violently interfering with the Union ; 
 but he held that the only basis on which it could be
 
 C.ENKRAL DUNNE REFUSED AN IN(^)UIRV. 1 5 
 
 maintained was that of mutual interest and perfect 
 equality. He enumerated amongst the indications of 
 the impoverishment of Ireland — first, the diminution 
 of the population, which could not be attributed to any 
 want of industry of the people, for they prospered 
 elsewhere ; second, the decay of agriculture exhibited 
 by the falling-off in the area under cultivation, repre- 
 senting an annual loss of ;i^ 1 0,000,000. As almost 
 everything in Ireland depended on agriculture, its decay 
 meant universal depression. The decrease in live stock 
 between 1856 and i860 represented a loss of i^i 2,000,000. 
 Green crops and potatoes were going out of cultivation. 
 The foreign import and export trade was greater at the 
 time of the Union than it was then. There was a 
 continual decrease in the number of mills and of the 
 persons employed therein. The Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, in his financial statement, had admitted 
 that capital in Ireland was diminishing and that distress 
 prevailed, to which General Dunne replied that there 
 was only one thing increasing in Ireland, and that was 
 taxation. It was estimated that the customs, excise, 
 stamps, inland revenue, and income tax yielded about 
 ;^7,ooo,ooo ; but he believed the actual taxation was 
 higher. He quoted from Lord Castlereagh, Sir Robert 
 Peel, Mr. Corry, Mr. James Fitzgerald, Mr. Parnell, 
 Mr. Wellesley Poole, who had all protested that Ireland 
 was not called upon to submit to an excessive amount 
 of taxation beyond what she was able to bear. The 
 consolidation of the Exchequers in 18 17 was not an 
 equalization of taxation. Seeing that the taxation of 
 Ireland had been at various periods one-twelfth, one- 
 seventh, and one-tenth of the imperial taxation, and 
 that up to the present moment there had been no 
 re-adjustment, he charged the English Government 
 with a glaring infraction of the Treaty of Union. The 
 Irish had a right to a re-adjustment of their taxation.
 
 l6 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 He hoped the House would take the matter into con- 
 sideration, in order to determine whether Ireland was 
 justly or unjustly taxed. They were bound by the 
 Act of Union to treat Ireland fairly, and that had never 
 yet been done. Some of the returns issued were plainly 
 and palpably false. What he wished was to have some 
 means by which to arrive at a proximate rate of fair 
 taxation and apportionment of the debt due by each 
 country. Was it not fair that a re-adjustment of debt 
 and proportion of taxation should even now, at the third 
 recurrence of the stipulated period, be made? Ireland 
 suffered from the immense pressure of taxation, and 
 that was one principal reason why the country was 
 exhausted of its capital. A great portion of the 
 taxation of Ireland was drawn out of the country and 
 spent in England. Little of the imperial revenue was 
 spent out of England, and expenditure there on dock- 
 yards, arsenals, and public works benefited the working 
 classes. The drain of taxation from Ireland was con- 
 tinual, and there was also the annual drain of the 
 incomes of absentees. He was certain that, as long as 
 the present system of taxation was pursued with regard 
 to Ireland, her condition would not materially improve. 
 He regretted to see the population of Ireland falling off, 
 and that many of her industrious sons were flying to 
 other countries. He concluded by apologizing to the 
 House that a soldier was not, perhaps, the best fitted 
 to deal with the question. 
 
 The Irish members who supported General Dunne in 
 this debate were Mr. Robert Longfield, Q.C., Conserva- 
 tive member for Mallow ; Mr. W. H. Gregory, Conserva- 
 tive Member for County Galway ; Mr. W. H. F. Cogan, 
 Liberal Member for Kildare ; the Right Hon. James 
 Whiteside, Conservative Member for Trinity College, 
 and afterwards Chief Justice of Ireland ; and Mr. John 
 Francis Maguire, the popular or Independent Opposition
 
 GENERAL DUNNE REFUSED AN INQUIRY. 1 7 
 
 Member for Dungarvan. The demand for inquiry into 
 the taxation of the country was made and most strongly 
 supported by Conservative members. 
 
 Mr. Longfield said that a debt of gratitude was due 
 by everyone connected with Ireland to General Dunne, 
 who must have impressed the House with the fairness of 
 his views, and the sincerity with which he put them 
 forward. Test his figures in every possible way, they 
 established that there had been a decrease in the funded 
 property of Ireland, a decrease in her agricultural 
 produce, a decrease in live stock, and ultimately a 
 decrease in the population. From 1852 to the present 
 time the growth of taxation had been rapid and 
 uniform, and the country had drooped under the addi- 
 tional burden. Blame could not be laid upon the law 
 of landlord and tenant, the grand juries, or the Estab- 
 lished Church, for these had been in existence prior to 
 1852, and in spite of them the prosperity of Ireland was 
 progressive. The change must be sought in events sub- 
 sequent to 1852. Taxation alone had increased since 
 then. With the single exception of the assessed taxes, 
 the uttermost strain of fiscal imposition had been put 
 upon the weakness of Ireland. Taxation had been actu- 
 ally doubled in ten years. A few years ago there were 
 ninety-five distilleries in Ireland. Mr. Gladstone's sys- 
 tem of taxation had already reduced them to twenty- 
 five. The relative proportion of the taxation ought to 
 be adjusted according to the articles of the Union. 
 General Dunne had said that taxation had a great deal 
 to do with the decline of prosperity in Ireland, and the 
 remission of taxation might have a great deal to do 
 with a revival of prosperity. 
 
 Mr. Whiteside supported General Dunne. He did 
 not ask for inequality of taxation, but, considering the 
 admitted distress in Ireland, was it not reasonable to 
 inquire whether Ireland was able to bear, in her present 
 
 C
 
 l8 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 position, the amount of taxation imposed on her, and 
 then to inquire whether the taxation might not generally 
 be reduced as regards the whole empire. It would be 
 an important result of this motion if the representatives 
 of Ireland were obliged to look into the general taxa- 
 tion of the country, and seek for a common remedy by 
 the diminution of the common burden. He then ironi- 
 cally remarked that nothing was so fertilizing, nothing 
 so improving, as the increase of the burden of taxation. 
 It was no answer to the present request for an inquiry 
 to mention taxation not pressed upon Ireland. Taxa- 
 tion must be regulated according to the ability of the 
 country to bear it. It was unwise to oppress the energies 
 and exhaust the resources of a nation. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
 replied for the Government. He was glad that the 
 question had been brought seriously before the House. 
 He demurred to General Dunne's arguments. Whilst 
 there was distress in Ireland, it could not be ascribed to 
 taxation. There was no proof or presumption that 
 fiscal injustice was done to Ireland. He presumed that 
 General Dunne would not press for the appointment of 
 a select committee, which would excite hopes, but make 
 little progress with an inquiry involving so many details. 
 He did not deny there was distress in Ireland, but he 
 believed the interruption to her recent great and real 
 progress would soon disappear. 
 
 The statement of the intentions of the Government 
 was decisive, and the motion was negatived without a 
 division. 
 
 The Morning Post (London), in an article on the 
 debate, admitted that it was a melancholy fact that the 
 prosperity of Ireland, so far from increasing, had been 
 on the wane during the past three or four years. What- 
 ever might be the remedy for the present condition of 
 affairs in Ireland, it did not lie, as seemed to have been
 
 GENERAL DUNNE REFUSED AN INQUIRY. 19 
 
 suggested by General Dunne, in a revised system of 
 taxation in Ireland, or the expenditure therein of a 
 large amount of the public revenues. 
 
 The Times, having taken forty-eight hours to consider, 
 praised the Irish Members for the tone, temper, and 
 moderation with which they had debated the motion. 
 Having made some remarks on the fertility of the 
 country, emigration, the Established Church, and lack 
 of prosperity, it proceeded : — 
 
 A more important issue was raised by Colonel Dunne when he 
 undertook to show that Ireland was taxed more heavily than 
 England and Scotland. It required some boldness to raise this 
 question, for it always has been accepted as a settled fact that 
 Ireland had, in the adjustment of this imperial taxation, been 
 placed in a position of advantage to which no part of an empire 
 has a right Avhile it is permitted to enjoy absolute political equality. 
 But the facts now stand confessed that, even of the 
 taxes she does pay, Ireland pays very much less than England 
 per man ; that she has many exemptions to which she has no 
 right, for they are exemptions from taxation on luxuries and 
 property, which are alike capable of paying taxes in poor as in 
 rich countries ; and, further, that a larger proportion of public 
 money is spent in Ireland than is spent in England or Scotland, 
 having regard to the money raised in each country, and to the 
 respective populations. This demonstration is complete ; it has 
 been made in the face of the world, and has been found un- 
 answerable. We hope that this part of the question is set at 
 rest for ever. 
 
 TJie Times in the I'ole of a prophet on Ireland was 
 more ludicrous than ever Mother Shipton had been. 
 So far from the question being set at rest for ever, a 
 movement had already commenced in Ireland which 
 forced the taxation question so rapidly to the front that, 
 despite the great civil war in the United States, the 
 French war in Mexico, and the cotton famine in 
 Lancashire, it largely engrossed the attention of Par- 
 liament during the two succeeding years.
 
 20 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 CHAPTERVI. 
 
 A.D, 1863. 
 JOHN BLAKE DILLON. 
 
 The protest which the Irish Conservative Members 
 were making against over-taxation was to become 
 general in Ireland, and receive all the impetus which an 
 aroused public opinion can give it, owing to the action 
 of a great popular leader. After the amnesty of the 
 Young Ireland chiefs, John Blake Dillon returned from 
 exile in America to Dublin. For some time he con- 
 fined himself to his practice at the Bar, but later on 
 entered the Municipal Corporation of Dublin as Coun- 
 cillor for the Wood Quay Ward. Duffy, in Young 
 Ireland^ says of him, that all his studies and projects 
 had direct relation to the people. Codes, tenures, and 
 social theories were his familiar reading. He saw with 
 burning impatience the wrongs inflicted on the indus- 
 trious poor. He desired a national existence primarily 
 to get rid of social degradation and suffering. The 
 Times said of him that, though he held extreme views 
 on Irish politics, he was respected by all parties as 
 an honourable, upright, truthful, and earnest man, and 
 that everyone who knew him felt that he acted from 
 conviction and a sincere love of his country. The 
 practical bent of his genius, and his intense yearnings 
 for the economic prosperity of Ireland, naturally 
 attracted him to the over-taxation question, which he 
 determined to raise in the Municipal Council, Accord- 
 ingly, he had a special meeting of that body summoned 
 on the 2 1st April, 1863. To a full chamber, in an 
 earnest, passionate speech, replete with arguments and 
 facts, he laid bare the financial wrongs perpetrated on 
 Ireland since the Union. He read the extracts from
 
 JOHN BLAKE DILLON. 21 
 
 The Times quoted in Chapter III, and inveighed 
 against their coarseness and calumny. The financial 
 problem of the moment could be solved by the answers 
 to two questions. First, Was Ireland now charged with 
 a just and fair proportion of the expenditure of the 
 empire, and no more ? Second, To what extent were 
 Irish taxes expended in Ireland, and how far might they 
 be regarded as a tribute raised in this country to be 
 expended elsewhere ? It seemed to him that one of 
 the worst features of the case was that, whilst expen- 
 diture in Ireland remained stationary, her burdens 
 increased with marvellous rapidity. The taxation of 
 Ireland had been enormously increased, whilst the 
 increase of home expenditure was comparatively insig- 
 nificant. He alluded to the overwhelming evidences of 
 Irish decay visible on all sides ; and, in conclusion, urged 
 that the time was favourable for redress, as the Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer, having a large surplus, could 
 afford to be just. He submitted that the abolition of 
 the income tax in Ireland would not be more than a due 
 compensation for the injustice it had sustained. In the 
 debate which followed ten members of the Council joined. 
 Party feeling ran high when allusion was made to other 
 questions of the hour, but ultimately Mr. Dillon's motion 
 for an inquiry into the public accounts of Great Britain 
 and Ireland was carried unanimously. The notable 
 protest which the Corporation were about to make was 
 almost entirely Mr. Dillon's work. The lucid and con- 
 vincing case which he presented united on this occasion 
 members of a Council divided on many burning party 
 social and religious questions. With foresight and wis- 
 dom, he selected the Council Hall of Dublin as the best 
 vantage-point available from which to give the widest 
 publication to his conclusions and belief on over-taxa- 
 tion. He clearly realized the economic evils of which it 
 was the root, and desired the union of all Irishmen to
 
 22 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 end them. On the ist June, 1863, he moved in the 
 Municipal Council that it be a recommendation of that 
 Council that all Irishmen should combine in some well- 
 devised effort to put an end to a system of spoliation 
 which was rapidly converting this fair and fruitful and 
 once populous country into a desert. The Report on 
 Public Expenditure ultimately drawn up is a model of 
 accurate research, argument, and deduction. It was 
 entirely his inspiration and work, and entitles him not 
 alone to the gratitude of his countrymen, but also to a 
 foremost place amongst political economists. There is 
 a remarkable coincidence between some of its conclu- 
 sions and the findings of the Royal Commission of 1894. 
 Finally, it supplied Irishmen with ample materials on 
 which to base an unanswerable case for redress. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 A.D. 1863. 
 
 THE CORPORATION OF DUBLIN ON THE PUBLIC 
 ACCOUNTS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 
 
 At a meeting of the Municipal Council of Dublin, held 
 on Tuesday, 21st April, 1863, Alderman Aik'mson, /ocu/n 
 tenens, in the chair, it was moved by Councillor Dillon, 
 and seconded by Alderman John Reynolds, and carried 
 unanimously : — 
 
 That a special committee be appointed to inquire and report 
 to the Council as to the state of the public accounts between 
 Ireland and Great Britain. 
 
 On the motion of Councillor Dillon, seconded by Coun- 
 cillor Draper, the following members were appointed to 
 form the Committee : — The Lord Mayor, Alderman J.
 
 DUBLIN CORPOKATION ON I'UliLIC ACCOUNTS. 23 
 
 Reynolds, Alderman Martin, Councillors Knox, Gray, 
 Martin, Draper, M'Svviney, Byrne, Sullivan, and Dillon. 
 The Committee elected Councillor John Blake Dillon 
 chairman. The Report contains the following : — 
 
 "Your Committee deemed they would most effectually 
 carry out the views of the Council by inviting the 
 co-operation of gentlemen whose names had been pro- 
 minently before the public in connection with the 
 subject of international finance. With that view they 
 communicated with Mr. Staunton, the Collector-General 
 of Dublin, and with Mr. Fisher of Waterford, each of 
 whom had laboured with laudable energy to diffuse 
 information on the subject. Both these gentlemen 
 promptly responded to the invitation of your Com- 
 mittee, and have given evidence. Your Committee, 
 understanding that Mr. Delahunty of Waterford held 
 views adverse to those of Mr. Fisher and Mr. Staunton, 
 and being desirous that the Council should, as far as 
 possible, be made acquainted with all that could be said 
 on either side of this important question, invited Mr. 
 Delahunty also to communicate his views. He kindly 
 consented to afford the Committee the benefit of his 
 information." These gentlemen were examined by the 
 Committee, and their evidence is printed as an Appendix 
 to the Report. 
 
 The Committee proposed for inquiry the following 
 six questions, the comprehensiveness and exhaustive 
 character of which cannot be too highly commended : — 
 
 (i) Was the financial arrangement embodied in the 
 7th Article of the Act of Union just towards Ireland ? 
 
 (2) Assuming that arrangement to be just, were its 
 terms fulfilled or violated by the Act 56 George III, 
 which consolidated the two Exchequers ? 
 
 (3) Is the actual taxation of Ireland excessive or 
 otherwise, as compared with the taxation of Great 
 Britain and other countries, and with its own resources,
 
 24 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 and having regard to the past financial transactions 
 between Great Britain and Ireland? 
 
 (4) To what extent are the taxes raised in Ireland 
 expended in Ireland? 
 
 (5) How has Ireland (as compared with Great Britain) 
 been treated by the Imperial Legislature in the remission 
 and imposition of taxes ? 
 
 The Committee made a minute and careful examina- 
 tion of all the points raised in the questions, which is 
 fully set out in the Report, and answered them as 
 follows : — 
 
 The first : — in the negative. 
 
 The second : — That the financial arrangement of the 
 Union, unjust though it was towards Ireland, was 
 violated to Ireland's detriment by the Act which con- 
 solidated the two Exchequers in 1817. 
 
 The third : — That the present taxation of Ireland is 
 excessive, as compared with that of Great Britain and 
 other countries, and greater than the past transactions 
 of Great Britain and Ireland, or a due regard to the 
 extent of its present resources, would warrant. 
 
 The fourth : — That, of the entire revenue raised in 
 Ireland, the portion annually expended in England or 
 elsewhere out of Ireland amounts to about ^4,000,000. 
 
 The fifth: — That at the close of the war of 18 16 the 
 first important reduction of taxation took place, and we 
 find in that year a repeal of taxes to the amount of 
 ^17,196,324, the benefit of which Ireland shared to the 
 extent of ^163,155, being less than one per cent. 
 (Return, 1843, No. 573.) From the period last mentioned 
 to the year 1842, inclusive, the Return just referred 
 to shows a total reduction of taxes amounting to 
 ;^47,966,664, which was apportioned between the two 
 countries as follows : — ■ 
 
 Taxes repealed in Great Britain, iJ^45, 549,683 
 Do. in Ireland, ... 2,416,981
 
 DUBLIN CORPORATION ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS. 2$ 
 
 In more recent years the imposition, in quick suc- 
 cession, of the income tax, of increased stamp duties, of 
 increased spirit duties, has helped to swell the annual 
 remittances to England, and consequently to aggravate 
 the depression of our industry and the distress of our 
 people. 
 
 The Report proceeds : — 
 
 " In entering upon some of the discussions contained 
 in this Report, your Committee have felt they might 
 be open to the observation that these questions no 
 longer possessed any present interest — that they belong 
 to a past generation, and, having been closed by lapse 
 of time, cannot now be re-opened. Your Committee, 
 however, venture to hope that a more accurate know- 
 ledge of the financial transactions of the past generation 
 may have the effect of preventing future financial 
 injustice, and of silencing an assertion by which every 
 application for aid in effecting public improvements, 
 emanating from Ireland, is met in the House of 
 Commons and by the English press — the assertion 
 that Ireland has always been, and still is, an expense 
 and a burden to Great Britain. If it were more gene- 
 rally understood that Ireland has, in times past, 
 contributed more than her due share of the public 
 burdens, and that she is still paying more than a fair 
 proportion, and, finally, that of the large revenue which 
 is raised in Ireland not one-half is expended at home, 
 we should be less frequently accused of endeavouring to 
 relieve Irish distress and subsidizing Irish enterprise 
 with * English money.' Ireland owes no debt to 
 Britain, and she has a right, which every country has, to 
 have her own money mainly spent within her own 
 borders. This, at least, is a question the present 
 practical importance of which will hardly be questioned. 
 And your Committee are of opinion that the Council 
 would establish a claim to the lasting gratitude of the
 
 26 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 country if, inviting the co-operation of other representa- 
 tive bodies throughout Ireland, they would initiate a 
 combined effort to obtain some compensation for past 
 and present financial injustice by a diminution of 
 existing taxation, and by the expenditure on works of 
 public im.provement in Ireland of a fair proportion 
 of those taxes which are now annually remitted to 
 England." 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 A.D. 1862-63-64. 
 JOSEPH FISHER. 
 
 Joseph Fisher, born in Youghal in 18 16, was a 
 member of the Society of Friends. The Fishers were 
 well known and esteemed in Youghal, and always took 
 a foremost part in any work which had for its object the 
 amelioration of the social and material condition of 
 the people. He was educated at the Friends' School, 
 Newtown, Waterford ; was elected a guardian of the 
 poor for Youghal Union in 1848 ; and removed to 
 Waterford in 1854, when he became editor and pro- 
 prietor of TJie Waterford Mail. Discussion was general 
 in Ireland about 1862 as to the cause of the very 
 apparent decline and decay of the country, and 
 the Chamber of Commerce of Waterford requested 
 Mr. Fisher to prepare a case for counsel as to the legal 
 rights of the Irish people under the Treaty of Union. 
 The work thus commenced grew into his book, The Case 
 of Ireland^ which, at the time it was published, was the 
 ablest impeachment of the fiscal policy pursued by 
 England towards Ireland since the Union. In a series 
 ojf letters addressed to Lord Carlisle, the Whig Viceroy 
 of Ireland, he stated his conviction that the system of 
 taxation imposed by the Whigs was the principal cause
 
 JOSEPH FISHER. 27 
 
 of the ruin of the country. His writings reveal him to 
 have been a man of great sympathy, zeal, ability, 
 and earnestness. He played no inconsiderable part in 
 directing the attention of the Irish people in 1863-64 
 to the question of taxation. 
 
 On the 1 6th March, 1864, Mr. J. B. Dillon, in address- 
 ing the Corporation of Dublin, said of him : — 
 
 Mr. Fisher has given us, in his Case of Ireland, a book which, 
 without vouching the accuracy of all its conclusions, I am not 
 afraid to characterize as a work exhibiting great ability and great 
 reseai'ch, and which, emanating from a Conservative and a 
 Protestant, by its tone of manly patriotism recalls the days of 
 Molyneux and Swift. 
 
 From the office of T/ie Waterford Mail, on 13th 
 January, 1863, he issued a letter to the people of 
 Ireland on the excessive taxation of the country. 
 
 Mr. Fisher expressed the following views : — 
 
 The capital of Ireland decreased from 1859 to 1862 
 by over eight millions — that is, by one-tenth of the 
 entire capital. The excessive and most unfair taxation 
 vi^hich had been placed upon the country must be 
 reckoned the most striking cause of this decrease. 
 
 The drain of Irish capital was in defiance of the 
 principles which guided the statesmen who framed 
 the Act of Union. Those principles were based on a 
 proposition so simple and so rational, that the meanest 
 mind could appreciate its import — namely, that the two 
 islands, Great Britain and Ireland, should contribute to 
 the imperial revenue in proportion to their respective 
 means. In 1862 the annual income of Ireland assessed 
 for income tax was ^22,746,344, and the income of the 
 United Kingdom ^^"30 1,345, 867. The Irish income was 
 one-fourteenth of the whole. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone came into office in 1853, and during 
 his career loaded Ireland with taxes. He imposed 
 the property and income tax upon lands and income ;
 
 2^ IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 he burdened trade and commerce with stamp duties ; 
 he loaded property with legacy duties ; he increased 
 the excise by nearly doubling the spirit duties. During 
 the five years ending 1862, the amount which the pub- 
 lished returns admitted was raised by taxes in Ireland 
 was £33,3^3,332, that is, ^14,294,017 over what Sir 
 Robert Peel received in the five years from 1841 to 
 1846. And instead of this being in the proportion of 
 one to fourteen, as it ought to have been, it was as one 
 to ten. This was a very great injustice. 
 
 The relative amounts which had been raised by 
 taxation in Great Britain and Ireland, and the great 
 increase which had taken place in the amount which 
 Ireland had paid, deserved attention. Not only had 
 Ireland been very heavily taxed within the past seven 
 years, but also the proportion which her contribu- 
 tion bore to that of the empire had been seriously 
 increased. 
 
 The Irish revenue returns stated our payments in the 
 five years ending 1862 had been ;^33, 500,000, but they 
 did not include the receipts of the Irish Post Office, 
 which had been over ^1,000,000 ; they did not include 
 the receipts from Crown Lands in Ireland, which had 
 been nearly i^2 50,000 ; nor did they include customs 
 paid in England on goods consumed in Ireland. If 
 these items had been added, it would have made the 
 Irish payments to the revenue in the five years ending 
 1862 at least ^^36,000,000, and those of Great Britain 
 ;^303,ooo,ooo ; or, in other words, the annual average 
 payments from Great Britain had been ^60,600,000, 
 and from Ireland ^7,200,000. 
 
 The equitable mode of adjustment would be that 
 each country should contribute in proportion to its 
 income ; nay, that very principle was affirmed in the 
 income tax itself, for the income of ;^200 a year paid 
 the same poundage as that of ^20,000. But when this
 
 JOSEPH FISHER. 29 
 
 principle was applied to Irish taxation, the grievous 
 wrong inflicted on Ireland was evident, and was made 
 plain in the following simple manner : — The annual 
 income of Great Britain was ;^278, 599,525, and her 
 annual average taxation ^60,600,000, or at i/ie rate 
 of four shillings and sixpence in the pound. The annual 
 income of Ireland was ;^22,746,344, and her average 
 annual taxation ^7,200,000, or at the rate of six shillings 
 and sixpence in tJie pound ; so that Ireland was paying 
 to the imperial revenue at the rate of two shillings in 
 the pound on her income more than Great Britain. 
 This was not, and could not be, just to Ireland. 
 
 Ireland had, during the five years ending 1862, con- 
 tributed to the Imperial Exchequer iJ"2,ooo,ooo a year 
 more than her fair proportion ; and that was one of the 
 causes, if not the principal cause, of her depression. 
 
 Money raised as poor rate was spent in the country; 
 the amount raised as income tax was spent out of the 
 country. Everyone who paid income tax had so much 
 less to spend at home ; and therefore the tradesman 
 and artisan suffered, trade and commerce languished, 
 and the country showed retrogression. 
 
 It was for the people of Ireland to say if they thought 
 the great increase of taxation was right, just, and proper. 
 
 He appealed to the Irish people on January, 1863: — 
 
 Now for the remedy. If you think with me that Ireland is too 
 heavilj' taxed, that she is drained of that capital which ought to 
 be used to improve her system of tillage, to extend her trade and 
 commerce, and to employ her people, you have legal and constitu- 
 tional means of explaining your grievances and of asking for 
 redress ; and the present juncture is particularly favourable. The 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer has a large balance to his credit, as 
 the revenue of last year exceeded the previous one. The property 
 and income tax was, last session, continued only for a year, and the 
 whole financial system of the empire must undergo revision. If 
 you are satisfied with your condition — if you believe that Ireland 
 is prosperous — if you consider she is fairly taxed, you have merely 
 to sit still and do nothing. Should you decide on this course,
 
 30 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 and if any of your representatives try and obtain "justice for 
 Ireland," the finance minister will quietly put him down by 
 saying, "The people of Ireland are satisfied with their condition." 
 But if you feel Avith me that you have been unfairly taxed, and 
 that our common country has been injured thereby, you are bound 
 by the claims of that country, you are urged by dictates of justice 
 and right, to adopt every legal and constitutional way of expressing 
 your opinions. I believe, in so doing, you will have the sympathy 
 and support of a large section of the English people, who have, 
 I am confident, no wish to save their own pockets at your expense ; 
 and who, if you represent your case to them, will not only admit 
 the injury which has been done to you, but will aid you in 
 obtaining redress. You will have the support of the large landed 
 proprietors and great commercial interests of your own country, 
 who, lest the imputation of selfishness should have been imputed 
 to them, have heretofore refrained from stating the grievances 
 they suftered. It rests with you, the Irish people, to make a 
 vigorous and combined effort to raise your country from the slough 
 into which she has fallen. If you are calm, resolute, temperate, 
 and combined — if you will resort to those means which are legal 
 and constitutional of expressing your grievances — you may (and I 
 fervently hope you will) succeed in bringing back to Ireland the 
 sunshine of prosperity, and see her flourish under a more equitable 
 system of taxation. If my feeble efibrts but evoke in your bosoms 
 the desire to improve the condition of Ireland, and to remove the 
 incubus which presses upon her, I shall feel — what must to any of 
 her sons be the highest reward— that I have tried at least to 
 promote the prosperity of my native country. 
 
 On the 23rd January, 1863, he again addressed the 
 people of Ireland : — 
 
 Were Ireland in a really prosperous condition — were her crops 
 increasing, her land more productive, her flocks and herds becom- 
 ing more numerous — were her people employed and contented — 
 were pauperism and crime declining — were her exports in excess 
 of her imports, and her investments gradually becoming greater — I 
 should most gladly rejoice in her prosperity ; and in this happy 
 state of affairs, I would not be disposed to press too far the ques- 
 tion of unfair taxation, which has so greatly injured us ; but when 
 I see that Ireland is depressed, partly from the ungenial seasons 
 with which it has pleased God to visit us, and partly from the 
 effects of what seems to me to be vicious legislation ; and when I
 
 JOSEPH I'ISIIER. 31 
 
 find that our taxation exceeds l)y more than fifty per cent, the 
 proportion which either in equity, by a comparison of our means, 
 or by contract under that treaty which called the Parliament of 
 the United Kingdom into existence, 1 cannot refrain fnnu lifting 
 my voice and using my pen (feeble though their utterance may be) 
 to obtain for Ireland that relief from taxation to which she is, by 
 equity and by contract alike, entitled. 
 
 In Letter XV of TJie Case of Irelatid, published in 
 London, September, 1863, he wrote : — 
 
 The question of taxation is neither a party nor a sectarian ques- 
 tion ; it is, in the broadest significance of the word, an Irish 
 question. I have endeavoured to treat it in the same spirit, and 
 having laid the case of Ireland before you, the Irish people, it 
 remains for you to act thereupon in a way which will secure to you 
 and your children the rights to which by justice, as well as by 
 agreement and contract, you are entitled. You should press your 
 case upon the attention of Parliament — you should call upon your 
 representatives to demand the adjustment of the public burdens 
 in such a way as to relieve Ireland from undue taxation. You 
 should make the question essentially a national one, and pursue it 
 with vigour and determination until you accomplish your object, 
 and you will find your reward in the advancement of yoxir native 
 land. If I can aid the Irish people in any well-directed effort to 
 bring ])ack to our country that prosperity which she has once 
 enjoyed, and to which she is so fully entitled, I shall feel that I 
 am only discharging the duty which every Irishman owes to his 
 native land. 
 
 The concluding letter (XVI), September, 1863, con- 
 tained : — 
 
 The Debt with which Ireland has been charged is illegal. 
 
 The Taxation with which Ireland has been loaded is illegal. 
 
 The Burdens which have been laid on her shoulders are illegal. 
 
 I therefore urge my fellow-countrymen of all classes, creeds, 
 and professions, to unite in endeavouring to get rid of the exces- 
 sive taxation which has been placed upon Ireland. I call them to 
 union on behalf of their country. They have right and justice, 
 truth and equity, on their side ; and if they will calmly, peace- 
 fully, and vniitedly stand for the cause of Ireland, whose case I lay 
 before the whole world, they will find that those eternal principles
 
 32 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 of justice, which are immutable, must prevail — that an end must 
 come to the wrong and injustice that has been inflicted upon this 
 country. 
 
 No more strenuous protest was made against the 
 over-taxation of Ireland than that of the patriot Quaker 
 of Youghal, no more zealous worker aroused public 
 opinion on the question, no more tactful leader sought 
 the union of the people for the attainment of practical 
 results, no more critical witness grappled as successfully 
 with the Treasury officials and their bewildering arrays 
 of statistics before the Select Committee of 1864. 
 Thirty-three years have passed, and the eternal, im- 
 mutable principles of justice, which he believed would 
 soon prevail, still fail to regulate the financial affairs of 
 Ireland. Be it not said that he has written in vain. 
 His appeal of 1863 was re-echoed from a hundred Irish 
 platforms in 1896-97. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 A.D. 1863-64. 
 AGITATION AND ORGANIZATION. 
 
 At a banquet in New Ross on 7th October, 1863, the 
 toast of 
 
 The re-adjustment of the taxation of Ireland 
 
 was given and spoken to. 
 
 At a special meeting of the Dublin Corporation on 
 Tuesday, the 27th October, 1863, the report of the 
 Select Committee on the Public Accounts of Great 
 Britain and Ireland was unanimously adopted, and it 
 was ordered that 500 copies be printed and circulated 
 amongst Members of Parliament and Irish public bodies.
 
 AGITATION AND OKCANIZATIOX. ^^ 
 
 The Nation thus commented on the unanimous adoption 
 of the report : — 
 
 But the work they liave done is of immense value. They have 
 placed on record an authentic statement of an undeniable gi-iev- 
 ance, which presses on all Irishmen, without distinction of class or 
 creed, and from which the whole country should demand to be 
 relieved. We hope the other corporations of Ireland will take up 
 the question, and not only these, but also the boards of guardians, 
 the town commissioners, the chambers of commerce, and, in short, 
 societies of all sorts. Ample ground for a strong national move- 
 ment of all creeds and parties against the flagrant injustice of our 
 taxation is furnished by the admirable report which now has the 
 Siinction and authorization, by unanimous vote, of the Dublin 
 Corporation. 
 
 The review of Mr. Fisher's book which appeared in 
 The Cork Examiner was written by O'Neill Daunt, and 
 called forth a letter from Mr. Robert Longfield, Q.C., 
 M.P., in October, 1863, in which he stated that the taxa- 
 tion of Ireland was recently duplicated, and that the 
 country was groaning with the grievous oppression of 
 excessive taxation, and he thus replied to the appeal for 
 united action on this question : — 
 
 I quite agree with you in thinking how very desirable it would 
 be if we could eflect anything like a concurrence of action, or even 
 of opinion, on this subject in our 105 members ; but I do not forget 
 that on Colonel Dunne's motion this year connected Avith the taxa- 
 tion of Ireland there were scarcely forty members in the House. 
 
 O'Neill Daunt, in reply, said : — 
 
 The subject of Colonel Dunne's motion is far too important, and 
 the wrong inflicted on Ireland is too susceptible of proof, to be 
 sufl"ered to pass into oblivion. 
 
 On Monday, the 14th December, 1863, a public meet- 
 ing, convened by requisition 
 
 For the purpose of considering what steps should be taken to 
 procure a reduction in the taxation of Ireland, 
 
 D
 
 34 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 was held in Waterford. The chair was taken by the 
 Mayor, and there were also present the High Sheriff, 
 the President of the Chamber of Comnaerce, and many 
 leading citizens. The following resolutions were unani- 
 mously adopted : — 
 
 (1) That the increase which has taken place in the taxation of 
 Ireland is highly injurious to her interests ; that she is now taxed 
 mox'e heavily in proportion to her income than Great Britain ; and 
 that this dispi'oportional increase in her taxation is contrary to the 
 Act under which Ireland became an integral portion of the United 
 Kingdom. 
 
 (2) That the excess of taxation absorbs a large portion of the 
 property of Ireland, and thereby prevents the increase of the funds 
 which would afford employment to the people, and it has thereby 
 increased emigration from Ireland, and thus lessened the material 
 strength of the empire. 
 
 (3) That the amount unfairly taxed from this country, to a 
 return of which we are indisputably entitled, has been demon- 
 strated to exceed two millions per annum, which would more than 
 suffice for the payment of the grand jury rates, amounting to 
 £1,088,828 ; the poor rates, amounting to £578,789 ; the medical 
 charities, £106,858 ; and the total abolition of the income tax, 
 amounting to £740,500 i^er annum, to the relief of which it should 
 be applied. 
 
 Finally, the meeting appointed a committee to carry 
 out its object, form an organization, and prepare a 
 petition for presentation to Parliament. 
 
 The committee thus formed in Waterford went 
 steadily to work, and in quick succession held public 
 meetings and formed branch organizations — at Water- 
 ford, with the Mayor as chairman ; at Limerick, with 
 the Mayor as chairman ; at Kilkenny, with the Mayor 
 as chairman ; at Clonmel, with the Mayor as chairman ; 
 at Carrick-on-Suir, with a Deputy-Lieutenant as chair- 
 man ; at New Ross, with the Chairman of Town Com- 
 missioners as chairman ; at Dundalk, with the President 
 of the Chamber of Commerce as chairman. The follow- 
 ing address was circulated throughout Ireland : —
 
 AGITATION ANl^ ORGANIZATION. 35 
 
 THE REDUCTION OF TAXATION. 
 
 Inasmucli as the taxation of Ireland for imperial objects exceeds 
 the amount which this country sliould pay, cither upon a com- 
 l)arison (jf lior income with that of tlic United Kingdom, or 
 according to the conditions of the Act of Union between Great 
 Britain and Ireland, and inasmuch as tliis excessive taxation 
 absorbs tliose funds which would otlierwise afford employment to 
 the Irish people, and help to prevent emigration ; 
 
 It is desirable that an association should be formed, which should 
 use every lawful means to benefit Ireland by obtaining a just reduc- 
 tion in her taxation, or the application of the surplus over her 
 rightful proportion to tlie diminution of local burdens ; and that 
 all those who contribute to the funds shall constitute the members 
 of this association, which shall be called 
 
 The Association for the Reduction, of Taxation in Ireland ; 
 
 And the executive pro tern, consist of the presidents and secre- 
 taries of the branch associations which have been or may be formed ; 
 and that the National Bank be treasurers thereto. 
 
 On the 8th February, 1864, the text of a petition to 
 Parh"ament, which set forth the over-taxation of Ireland 
 and claimed redress, was read at a meeting of the 
 Dublin Corporation. Resolutions were adopted at 
 many public boards, of which that of the Limerick 
 Corporation and of the Thurles Board of Guardians, 
 respectively, are here set out : — 
 
 Adopted at a meeting of the Corporation of Limerick 
 on 30th January, 1864 — 
 
 That the best thanks of this Council and of every Irishman are 
 due to the Dublin Corporation for the Report on the State of the 
 Public Accounts between Great Britain and Ireland received this 
 day, and we hereby pledge ourselves to co-operate with them in 
 obtaining from the Imperial Parliament such remedial measures in 
 financial matters as will relieve Ireland from the embarrassments 
 under which she labours. 
 
 Adopted at a meeting of the Guardians in Februar}-, 
 1864— 
 
 That our marked thanks, as Guardians of the Poor in the Union of 
 Thurles, County Tipperary, are eminently due and are hereby given
 
 S6 IRISH PROTEST A(iAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 to the Municipal Council of Dublin, and in a special manner to the 
 honest, jmtriotic, and intelligent chairnian of its Special Committee 
 on the State of the Public Accounts between Great Britain and 
 Ireland, John Blake Dillon, Esq., for the clear exposure contained 
 in their report of the wrong inflicted on Ireland by unjust taxation, 
 and that our clerk transmit to them a copy of this resolution, with 
 the assurance of our very earnest desire to co-operate with them in 
 demanding redress. 
 
 Such was the state of feeling evoked in Ireland in the 
 winter of 1863-64. Public opinion was beginning to 
 recognise that the decay of the country was in great 
 part really attributable to excessive taxation. When 
 General Dunne again, on the 26th February, 1864, 
 asked for an inquiry, he was accorded by the House 
 of Commons quite a different hearing to that which 
 had been previously given to him. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 A.D. 1864. 
 
 THE STATISTICAL AND SOCIAL INQUIRY SOCIETY OF 
 
 IRELAND. 
 
 PROTEST BY LORD MORRIS. 
 
 On Wednesday, the i6th March, 1864, Mr. Joseph J. 
 Murphy read a paper before the Statistical and Social 
 Inquiry Society of Ireland on the " Debt and Taxation 
 of Ireland." It was practically a reply to the " Report 
 of the Special Committee of the Municipal Council ot 
 Dublin on the State of the Public Accounts between 
 Ireland and Great Britain." The figures in the Report 
 were taken as correct, but the inferences drawn by the 
 Committee were challenged. The accuracy of the state- 
 ment that Ireland paid as much as it was able to pay 
 previous to 1853 was denied. Lowering of taxes on
 
 PROTEST BY LORD MORRIS. 37 
 
 commodities in England, their increase in Ireland, the 
 expenditure of a large proportion of imperial revenue 
 in England, the greater benefits conferred on England 
 by reductions and remissions of taxation, were all jauntily 
 made little of as of no consequence. The finding that 
 the taxation of Ireland is excessive as compared with 
 that of England was described as " a most extraordinary 
 statement." It was admitted that it would be possible to 
 impose nominally equal taxes in such a way as to be 
 really very unequal ; but no effort was made to prac- 
 tically apply this salutary rule to the circumstances of 
 Ireland. In conclusion, he avowed his belief that 
 Ireland needed something very different from untaxed 
 incomes for the rich, and cheap whisky for the poor, 
 but wisely abstained from mentioning his panacea. 
 The following" quotation will briefly show his fallacious 
 arguments and begging of the question : — 
 
 The pruuf advanced by the Committee for the astounding asser- 
 tion that we are more heavily taxed by our lighter rates of taxation, 
 is merely that our total taxation is larger than that of Great Britain 
 in proportion to the wealth of the two countries as indicated by 
 the income tax returns. In other words, it is a grievance that the 
 indirect taxes are more productive, in proportion to the income tax, 
 in Ireland than in Great Britain. In no case would this Ije a 
 grievance unless the taxation were imposed so as to be really 
 unequal. But the high relative productiveness of the indirect 
 taxation of Ireland is in part due to the propensity of ovn' jjeuple 
 to prefer spirits, which are heavily taxed, to beer, which is mode- 
 rately taxed ; and the low relative productiveness of the income 
 tax is partly due to the lower average of income in Ireland, which 
 causes fewer of them to come within reach of the tax ; partly to 
 the small size of farms in Ireland, which exempts nearly all farmers 
 from the tax ; and partly to a favourable difference in the law, 
 which charges the tax on real property and on agricultural tenants 
 by a very moderate official valuation, instead of the actual letting 
 value. 
 
 In the discussion which followed the reading of the 
 paper, Mr. Shannon referred to the declining state of 
 
 ;i9l7l5
 
 38 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 the country as a reason why Ireland should be exempt 
 from undue pressure of taxation, and expressed the 
 hope that the present movement, which had been so 
 well conducted by Mr. Dillon, would produce beneficial 
 results for the country. 
 
 Alderman Dillon begged to make a few observations. 
 He had not come prepared to make an elaborate reply. 
 Anything that he said should not be taken as the best 
 that could be advanced in answer to that gentleman. As 
 regards the payment of the two-seventeenths, Ireland's 
 quota fixed by the Treaty of Union, Mr. Murphy urged 
 that Ireland was unable to pay it, and did not pay it. 
 Mr. Dillon said that either answer was a good one. If 
 they did not pay it, it was reasonable to suppose that 
 they were unable to pay it ; and if they were unable 
 to pay it, it was clear that they should not be called 
 upon to do so. If it were stipulated that Ireland should 
 pay two-seventeenths, and she did not pay it, what 
 other conclusion would he come to than that her 
 revenue broke down under the weight ? He concluded 
 by expressing his emphatic dissent from the proposi- 
 tion that Ireland should be considered as if she were 
 an English county. 
 
 A most important speech was delivered by Mr. 
 Michael Morris, o.C. (now a Law Lord, Lord Morris of 
 Spiddal). He said that his friend Alderman Dillon, 
 with his practical patriotism and great ability, had 
 applied himself to the question of taxation, and had 
 disposed of a good many of the arguments of the 
 lecturer as applicable to the taxation of the country at 
 the time of the Union, and up to the year 18 16. He 
 did not intend to refer to either of those periods, because 
 he thought than an inquiry referring to those times was 
 rather of an antiquarian character. The questions which 
 affected them most were, how the taxes stood at present) 
 what they were in the year 1864, and where they were
 
 PROTEST IJV LORD MORRIS. 39 
 
 spent. Sydney Smith said tliat n(j man was certain of 
 anything in his Hfe but of his death and the tax»s he 
 had to pay. Applying this saying to this country, he 
 might say that death and taxes were ahnost synony- 
 mous terms. He should object most strongly to the 
 lecturer's argument that taxes should be j^ut upon 
 what he called pernicious luxuries. The lecturer seemed 
 to have some extraordinary dislike to whisky, and, 
 according to him, it was no matter if five millions of 
 taxes were raised on the commodity, because he con- 
 sidered it pernicious. He was one of those who 
 considered that taxes were raised for the purpose of 
 revenue, and not for the purpose of putting down by an 
 indirect mode any species of industry. He believed 
 that up to the year 1852 Ireland paid her full share of 
 the taxes of the empire ; yet they had this startling 
 fact that, from 1852 to the present time, new taxes 
 were put upon this country to an amount which the 
 learned lecturer admitted was ^1,750,000. The taxes 
 of this country since 1852 had increased ^^ per cent., 
 without an increase of i per cent, in England. He was 
 old enough to recollect that even in 1852 there were 
 wise persons who then complained that Ireland was 
 excessively taxed ; but even assuming that in 1852 the 
 taxation was reasonable — the taxation since that time 
 having increased 33 per cent. — was there any particular 
 cause for such an increase ? Sir Robert Peel, in conse- 
 quence of the repeal of the Corn Laws, reduced the 
 taxation of this country. Now, what took place since 
 1847, assuming that up to 1852 Ireland was paying her 
 fair share, that she should be burdened with two millions 
 more of taxation ? To use the words of Sydney Smith, 
 he thought a man should be trepanned before he could 
 be convinced of the justice of it. It was said that 
 Scotland and Yorkshire existed, although no taxes were 
 spent there ; but was it any argument to say that,
 
 40 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 because one man was strong enough to bear an injury, 
 every other man should bear it ? It was new to him 
 to hear that taxes were not spent in Yorkshire and 
 Scotland ; and it certainly was an extraordinary notion 
 that taxes could be taken out of a country and spent 
 elsewhere without injury to that country. If he met 
 anyone foolish enough to make such an assertion, he 
 would not think it worth his while to answer him. The 
 report of the Committee of the Corporation showed 
 that a large amount of the taxes of the country was 
 spent out of it. Lord Byron said that the Union 
 between this country and England was like the union 
 between the whale and the thing it swallowed. Ireland 
 participated in the payment of taxes, but not in their 
 expenditure. The question which he would suggest to 
 the practical patriots was, Should not the taxation of 
 this country be spent at home ? The Irish people 
 should not be treated as milch cows. There was every 
 disposition shown to take those taxes off and spend 
 them elsewhere, so much so that they were now nearly 
 dry cows. He hoped every prudent man, as he con- 
 sidered he was himself, would join his friend Alderman 
 Dillon in his truly patriotic proposal with reference to 
 taxation, and that that proposal would be ventilated far 
 and near. He believed it would take a man better able 
 to deal with figures than the learned lecturer vvas to 
 prove to this country the contrary of what had been 
 shown by Alderman Dillon.
 
 AN INC^UIRV GRANTED TO GEN. DUNNE. 4I 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 A.D. 1864. 
 
 MR. GLADSTONE GRANTS AN INQUIRY TO 
 GENERAL DUNNE. 
 
 The discussions at public boards and at public meet- 
 ings in Ireland in 1863-64, the overwhelming Irish case 
 made out in the publications of Mr. Dillon and Mr. 
 Fisher, and the aroused state of Conservative and 
 popular public opinion in Ireland, had effect on the 
 House of Commons; for when, on the 26th February, 
 1864, General Dunne again brought forward the motion 
 rejected in 1863, he was listened to by a full and atten- 
 tive House, He said that a great change had come over 
 public opinion in Ireland. He never knew the attention 
 of her people to be so thoroughly and earnestly directed 
 to the consideration of her material interests — hitherto 
 much neglected — and especially to the amount of taxa- 
 tion imposed on her as compared with the rest of the 
 kingdom. In Dublin a committee appointed to investi- 
 gate the matter had taken evidence from witnesses on 
 both sides, and had made an extremely clever report 
 very much in accordance with his views. Similar in- 
 quiries had also been conducted in Waterford, Clonmel, 
 Limerick, and other towns. He hoped that was the 
 commencement of an agitation in which every Irishman 
 would take part, and which would bring the question 
 fully and fairly before the legislature. 
 
 The great difficulty was the paucity of information. 
 The returns were often contradictory, and no clear 
 accounts seemed to have been kept of the different 
 taxes in Ireland. The object of taxation in Ireland was 
 to get from the country as much as could be squeezed
 
 42 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 out of her. He rested his case on two grounds— first, 
 the Treaty of Union ; and second, the relative abihty of 
 each country to bear taxation. On both grounds Ire- 
 land was entitled to more favourable treatment than she 
 received. It was not his opinion that the emigration of 
 the people ought not to form a subject for regret. He 
 could not help thinking that it must be a loss to any 
 country to have its population flying from its shores. 
 Having quoted ample statistics to show the diminished 
 capacity of the country to sustain heavy burdens, he 
 turned to the question of taxation, and he found that 
 in the last decennial period it had increased from 
 ^^"48, 560,000 to ^52,893,000. A nobleman who had 
 spent a great deal of money in Ireland, and who had 
 lately returned from the West, assured him that until 
 the present year he had never despaired of the prospects 
 of the country. He defied any Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer to add a farthing to the taxation of Ireland. 
 The people were flying from the country, and no more 
 taxes could be paid. Two returns had been moved for 
 — one showing the proportion of taxation to population, 
 and the other the proportion of taxation to property. 
 The test of population he considered to be by no means 
 a fair one, if the plan were adopted of dividing the in- 
 come by the number of inhabitants. This system was 
 manifestly greatly to the advantage of the rich country 
 over the poor one ; because in the rich country wealth was 
 much more largely diffused, and in the poor country the 
 rate of valuation was much lower. Ireland had become 
 impoverished by a load of taxation. He asked the 
 House, was there anything unreasonable in a recon- 
 sideration of the Treaty of Union for the purpose of 
 ascertaining whether the promises held out by that 
 Treaty had been fulfilled, and whether, considering the 
 relative wealth of the two countries, the method of taxa- 
 tion was just and equal. If he had proved that every
 
 AN Ii\(JiUIRV (iRANTED TO GEN. DUNNE. 43 
 
 species of wealth and industry had been lessened in 
 Ireland, he thought the House could not refuse an in- 
 quiry to ascertain whether the present taxation of 
 Ireland was not greater than she could bear. The Irish 
 people had turned their attention to this subject with 
 the same ardour that they frequently displayed on far 
 inferior questions. He moved 
 
 For ii select committee to consider the taxation of Irelaud, and 
 how far it is in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of 
 Union, or just in reference to the resources of the country. 
 
 Mr. Hennessy seconded the motion. 
 
 Sir Edward Grogan stated that the conviction was 
 strong and general in Ireland that the country was 
 grossly over-taxed, and that it was entitled to relief. 
 Lord Dunkellin concurred that Ireland suffered from 
 over-taxation. Mr. Longfield considered that there 
 was injury caused by unjust imposition and unwise re- 
 mission of taxes since 1852. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
 said, that although the Government would not of them- 
 selves have proposed the appointment of such a com- 
 mittee, yet, under the circumstances, finding in the 
 House of Commons a decided desire on the part of Irish 
 members for the appointment of a committee to inquire 
 into Irish taxation, they thought it would not be wise to 
 oppose such an inquiry. He admitted that Ireland bore 
 her full proportion of all taxes incident on the labouring 
 population. He admitted and deplored the distress in 
 Ireland, whether it was due to taxation, emigration, or 
 deficient harvests. He hoped that it would soon draw 
 to a close, and that the future career of Ireland would 
 be one of happiness and prosperity. 
 
 Opinion in Ireland considered that, in whatever sense 
 the Committee on Parliamentary Taxation might ulti- 
 mately report, General Dunne was well entitled to the
 
 44 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 gratitude of his countrymen for the persistent, and so 
 far successful, efforts which he had made to effect a set- 
 tlement of the much vexed and most intricate question, 
 the fiscal relations between Great Britain and Ireland. 
 When first he entered upon the controversy, there was 
 everything to discourage, and little to sustain, his appli- 
 cation for redress ; but his personal popularity did much. 
 He spoke for an hour and three-quarters, and was lis- 
 tened to with patience and attention. Some Irish 
 opinion considered that the true financial case should 
 be one of indemnity, reparation, and restitution to 
 Ireland. 
 
 Nothing could possibly exceed the misrepresentation 
 and acerbity with which The Times commented on the 
 debate : — 
 
 In dealing with the Irish debate of Friday, not only is it neces- 
 sary to apply a gram of salt, but when that is done the grain of 
 salt is all that remains. We are disposed to be most charitable 
 (.sic) to the Irish members, but then our charity must be that which 
 covers a multitude of sins, and therefore every word they said. 
 
 When it comes to review the recent movement in 
 Ireland, it is flagrantly untruthful : — 
 
 Honourable mention was made of the committees which have 
 been sitting in the less busy and prosperous Irish ports and towns 
 for three years, with nothing to do but make out a case of financial 
 depression ; but it was confessed that their reports were contra- 
 dictory, on a wrong basis, and good for nothing. 
 
 No such confession was made. It was simply invented 
 by The Times. After the lapse of more than forty years, 
 these reports are worthy of careful study and examina- 
 tion for their accurate survey of history, their correct 
 application of the principles of political economy, and 
 for their correct deductions. 
 
 The fierce attack it made on General Dunne, the dis- 
 graceful travesty of truth and fact which appeared in its
 
 GENERAL DUNNES COMMITTEE. 45 
 
 pages, the sharp contrast between its tone and that of 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, boded ill for the final 
 result of the inquiry so auspiciously commenced with 
 the unanimous approval of the House of Commons. 
 
 C H A P T E R XI I. 
 
 A.D. 1864-65. 
 
 GENERAL DUNNE'S COMMITTEE, 
 
 "The Imsiest bit of Irish politics just now is Colonel Dunne's 
 Committee to inquire into Irish taxation." — CNeill DannVs 
 Diary. 
 
 On the 8th March, 1864, the Select Committee granted 
 to General Dunne was appointed. It originally con- 
 sisted of fourteen members, but on the 9th March one 
 was added, making fifteen. Eight represented Irish 
 constituencies, six English, and one Scotch. In nation- 
 ality, seven were Irish, seven English, and one Scotch. 
 In politics, eight belonged to the Conservative party, and 
 seven to the Liberal. It held twenty-six sittings. 
 Most exhaustive evidence, both oral and written, was 
 tendered. An account of its members, who they were, 
 and the witnesses they examined, will help towards 
 understanding the character of the report finally 
 adopted. 
 
 Sir Edward Grogan, Bart., was Conservative Member 
 for the City of Dublin. He was educated at Trinity 
 College, Dublin, where he took honours. He was 
 called to the Bar in 1840, and entered Parliament 
 in 1 841. He was a firm supporter of the Established 
 Church. Ne was absent fnvn the division in which 
 General Diinne's Draft Report ivas rejected.
 
 46 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 Sir Frederick William Heygate, Bart., was Conserva- 
 tive Member for the County of Londonderry. He 
 was an Englishman, born in Kent in 1822. He was 
 educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge. 
 " Though opposed to violent and unnecessary change, 
 he would lend his aid to reform all proved abuses." 
 He voted for General Dunne's Draft Report. 
 
 Robert Longfield, Q.C., was the Liberal-Conservative 
 Member for Mallow. He graduated with honours at 
 Trinity College, Dublin, was called to the Irish Bar in 
 1834, admitted a Queen's Counsel in 1852, and first 
 elected to Parliament in 1859. He voted for General 
 Dunne's Draft Report. 
 
 Mr. John Pope Hennessy, afterwards Knight of 
 Malta and K.C.M.G., was Conservative Member for 
 the King's County. Born in Cork in 1834, he studied 
 at the Queen's College, Cork, entered Parliament in 
 1859, and was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple 
 in 1 86 1. He was appointed Governor of Labuan in 
 1867, of the West African Settlements in 1872, of the 
 Bahamas in 1873, of the Windward Islands in 1875, of 
 Hong Kong in 1877, and of the Mauritius in 1882. 
 Here he quarrelled with Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and retired 
 on full pension. He zcas absent from the division in 
 ivhich General Dunnes Draft Report was rejected. 
 
 Sir George Conway Colthurst, Bart., was added when 
 Mr. Monsell was discharged. He was Liberal Member 
 for Kinsale, having entered Parliament in 1863. He 
 voted against General Dunne's Draft Report. 
 
 Lord John Thomas Browne was Liberal Member for 
 Mayo. He was the third son of the second Marquis 
 of Sligo. Born in Westport in 1824, he served in the 
 Royal Navy as midshipman and lieutenant from 1837 
 to 1850. He voted for General Dunnes Draft Report. 
 
 The O'Conor Don (Charles Owen) was Liberal Mem- 
 ber for Roscommon. Born in Dublin in 1838, and
 
 GENERAL DUNNE'S COMMITTEE. ^7 
 
 educated at liath, he represented Roscommon in 
 Parliament from i860 to 1880. Was High Sheriff of 
 Sligo in 1863, and is now (1897) Her Majesty's Lieu- 
 tenant and Gustos Rotulorum fcM" Roscommon. He is 
 a Senator of the Royal University of Ireland, a Com- 
 missioner of Intermediate Education, and a Privy 
 Councillor. He was a member of the Royal Com- 
 mission on the Financial Relations of Great Britain 
 and Ireland in 1894-5-6, and was elected chairman of 
 that Commission on the death of Mr. Childers. He 
 voted for General Dunne's Draft Report. 
 
 Mr. Banks Stanhope was added when Lord Stanley 
 was discharged. He was Conservative Member for 
 North Lincolnshire. He voted against Getieral Dunnes 
 Draft Report. 
 
 Sir Stafford Northcote, afterwards Lord Iddesleigh, 
 was Conservative Member for Stamford. He was born 
 in London in 1818, educated at P^ton and Balliol Col- 
 lege, Oxford. Called to the Bar in 1847, he succeeded 
 his father as eighth baronet in 185 1. He was in the 
 House of Commons from 1855 to 1885, and was raised 
 to the peerage in the latter year. He was President of 
 the Board of Trade, Secretary of State for India, Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer, and First Lord of the Treasury. 
 He died in 1887. He published in 1862 Tiventy Years 
 of Financial Policy, at page 214 of which he records that 
 Mr. Gladstone " ultimately raised the spirit duties to 
 ten shillings a gallon, or very nearly four times the 
 duty paid on Irish spirits before 1853." He makes no 
 remark on the justice or equity of thus quadrupling Irish 
 taxation. He voted against General Dunnes Draft 
 Report, and his report ivas then adopted i)istead. 
 
 Mr. P^dward Howes was Conservative Member for 
 East Norfolk. Born in 18 13, he was educated at 
 St. Paul's School and Trinity College, Cambridge, 
 of which he became a Fallow. F'irst elected in 1859. 
 He voted against General Dunne's Draft Report.
 
 48 IRISH I'KOTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 Mr. Alexander Struthers Finlay was Liberal Member 
 for Argyll. Born in 1806, he was educated at Harrow. 
 First returned to Parliament in 1857. Published in 
 1864 Our Monetary Systejii. He ivas abse7it from the 
 division in which General Dunne's Draft Report was 
 rejected. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel was Liberal Member for Tamworth. 
 Born in 1822, he was the eldest son of the second 
 baronet of that name, and was educated at Harrow. 
 He filled important diplomatic positions from 1844 to 
 1856. Was Chief Secretary for Ireland from July, 1861, 
 to November, 1865. He voted against General Dunnes 
 Draft Report. 
 
 Mr. Robert Lowe was Liberal Member for Colne. 
 Born in 18 11, he was educated at Winchester College 
 and University College, Oxford. He went to Australia 
 in 1842, and soon rose to distinction as a lawyer and 
 politician. Having amassed a considerable fortune, he 
 returned to England in 1850, and entered Parliament in 
 1852 as Member for Kidderminster. He was leader- 
 writer on TJic Times, President of the Board of 
 Trade from 1855 to 1858, Vice-President of the Com- 
 mittee of the Council on Education from 1859 to 1864, 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1868 to 1873, when 
 he resigned. He was raised to the peerage as Viscount 
 Sherbrooke in 1880. He was frequently in conflict with 
 his own party, and proposed a tax of one halfpenny on 
 each box of lucifer matches in 1871. He voted against 
 General Dunne's Draft Report. 
 
 Mr. Thomson Hankey was Liberal Member for Peter- 
 borough. Born in London in 1805, he was a West 
 India merchant and a Director of the Bank of England. 
 He voted against General Dunnes Draft Report. 
 
 The witnesses examined in 1864 were — Sir Colman 
 Michael O'Loghlen, Bart, Q.C., of the Irish Bar. He 
 was born in 18 19, and was educated at Trinity College.
 
 GENERAL DUNNES COMMITTEE. 49 
 
 He was in Parliament from 1863 to 1877. His evidence 
 was on the Act of Union and the Act for amalgama- 
 tion of the two ICxchequcrs. He stated as his opinion 
 that in the financial treatment of Ireland both Acts 
 were broken. 
 
 Mr. William George Anderson was principal Clerk in 
 the Finance Branch of the Treasury. 
 
 Mr. Henry William Chisholm was Chief Clerk of the 
 Exchequer. 
 
 Mr. John Blake Dillon gave evidence on 6th and loth 
 May, 1864. He ably, thoroughly, and broadly presented 
 the Irish case. 
 
 Mr, Joseph Fisher gave evidence on r3th May, 3rd, 
 7th, and loth June. He most ably presented the Irish 
 case, examined the Treasury accounts since the Union, 
 and frequently came into sharp conflict with Mr. 
 Chisholm. 
 
 Mr. William Donnelly, C.B., head of the department 
 for making out agricultural statistics in Ireland, was 
 examined on loth June. 
 
 The Right Hon. Joseph Napier, Lord Chancellor of 
 Ireland, 1858-59, gave evidence on 14th June, principally 
 on the seventh article of the Act of Union, His 
 evidence was " miserable." — O'Neill Daunt. 
 
 Mr. Nicholas Philpot Leader, M.P., Conservative 
 Member for Cork, gave evidence on 14th June, princi- 
 pally on the state of County Cork. 
 
 Mr. Alexander Lambert, County Treasurer for Mayo, 
 gave evidence on 17th June, principally on the distress 
 in the West of Ireland. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. O'Regan, r.P., Kanturk, Co. Cork, gave 
 evidence on 17th June, principally on the marked 
 declension in the condition of the peasantry, and that 
 the depressed condition of the country was attributable 
 to increased taxation. 
 
 Mr. John Francis Maguire, M.P,, gave evidence on 
 
 E
 
 So IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 2 1 St June, principally on the decay of foreign trade and 
 shipping at Cork, and on the attenuated expenditure 
 of revenue in Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Edward Senior, Poor Law Commissioner for 
 Ireland, gave evidence on 24th June that Ireland had 
 unquestionably gone back since 1842. 
 
 Mr. John Stephen Dwyer, of Limerick, gave evidence 
 on the 28th June on the rental and valuation of Ireland, 
 the great decline in its prosperity, and that every 
 industry and every class were oppressed by excessive 
 taxation. 
 
 Colonel Knox Gore, Lieutenant of County Sligo, 
 gave evidence on ist July that the people of Ireland, of 
 all classes, were not in as sound a state as at the time 
 of the Union ; and that the drain of income from the 
 country left it in such a state that it was not able to 
 bear taxation which in England would be considered 
 fair; and that the taxation of Ireland with reference to 
 the resources of the country was most inequitable. 
 
 The Earl of Leitrim, examined on the ist July, gave 
 evidence that Ireland had deteriorated in a manner 
 most awful to contemplate ; that the principle on which 
 England treated Ireland was beggar her neighbour ; 
 that the distress in Ireland was directly traceable to 
 taxation ; and that the raising of taxes in Ireland to 
 spend them out of Ireland must be the ruin of every- 
 body carrying on business in Ireland ; and it was an 
 act of positive dishonesty to carry on public works in 
 England with Irish money. 
 
 Sir Percy Nugent, a resident Irish landlord, gave 
 evidence on ist July that parts of Ireland were now 
 infinitely worse off than they were before the famine ; 
 that he himself sensibly felt the increased taxes. 
 
 The papers handed to the Committee in 1864 were 
 principally by Mr. Fisher and Mr. Chisholm, and were 
 exhaustive tables of statistics to support the Irish and 
 English cases respectively.
 
 GENERAL DUNNE'S COMMITTEE. 5I 
 
 The witnesses examined in 1865 were — 
 
 The Marquis of Clanricarde, who gave evidence on 
 arterial drainage on 17th March. 
 
 Mr. Henry Hinckman Barnes, Soh'citor to the Pubh'c 
 Works Loan Commission, London, gave evidence on 
 the loans made to Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Alexander Stewart, Solicitor to the Board of 
 Works in Ireland, gave similar evidence. 
 
 Colonel M'Kerlie, Chairman of the Board of Works, 
 gave evidence on the 3rd April on loans and arterial 
 drainage, 
 
 Mr. William Andrews gave evidence on 27th April on 
 Irish fisheries. 
 
 Mr. James Redmond Barr}-, Assistant Commissioner 
 of Fisheries in Ireland, gave evidence on 27th April 
 that, generally speaking, the fisheries of Ireland were 
 declining. 
 
 In a debate on the state of Ireland, on 24th February, 
 1865, in the House of Commons, on a motion by Mr, 
 John Pope Hennessy, the subjects of Irish taxation and 
 General Dunne's Committee were introduced by Mr. W, 
 E. Gladstone, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. 
 The Irish claim to have the taxation levied in Ireland 
 spent in Ireland he denounced as a principle fraught 
 with every kind of mischief to Ireland. He laid down 
 the general doctrine 
 
 That to attempt to regulate the public expenditure on any other 
 principle than that whicli proceeds upini the plan of taking from 
 the subject the smallest amount sufficient for our purposes, and 
 spending the money so obtained in the manner which will cause it 
 to go farthest in the attainment of the public objects in view, would 
 be to proceed on an erroneous system. 
 
 He then pointed out a number of Irish exemptions, 
 alluded to the draft reports of the Committee on Irish 
 Taxation, and, though the labours of the committee had 
 not concluded, expressed his preference for that of Sir 
 Stafford Northcote.
 
 52 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 General Dunne replied. He said that he had asserted, 
 first, that for sixty years no fair account had been kept 
 between the two countries, and as a consequence that 
 Ireland had been charged with what she was not charge- 
 able with. By the evidence of the Government officials 
 he had proved that proposition. Second, he had asserted 
 that the accounts of the taxation were not in accordance 
 with the Act of Union. He had proved it. Third, he 
 had asserted that Ireland was not taxed according to her 
 ability to pay taxation. He had proved it. The Irish 
 members did not shrink from having this question dis- 
 cussed. He denied that Ireland was a province of 
 England. Ireland was a kingdom bound by close ties 
 to England, and no man was more anxious than he 
 that those ties should be drawn as close as possible. 
 He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that 
 the object of taxation ought to be to draw as little as 
 possible from the pockets of the people, and that it was 
 the duty of the Government to administer it with the 
 utmost economy. If that test were applied to Ireland, it 
 failed. 
 
 The Government drained Ireland, not of water, but of 
 people and money. He understood the very natural 
 preference of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Sir 
 Stafford Norhcote's report rather than for those of the 
 Irish members. 
 
 The Marquis of Salisbury (then Lord Robert Cecil) 
 intervened in the debate, and urged the Government to 
 contribute toward the restoration of prosperity and 
 happiness in Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Lowe admitted that the Irish argument; that the 
 taxation of Ireland was similar to the taxation of 
 England, that Ireland was poor and England was rich, 
 and, therefore, that Ireland should not bear the same 
 taxation as England ; would be a very good argument 
 if taxation were adjusted on a cast-iron principle.
 
 REPORT OF (;EN. DUNNE'S COMMITTEE. 53 
 
 Taxation was regulated according to ability. Ireland 
 would be richer if she paid no taxes ; but it appeared 
 impossible to say that it was the incidence of taxation 
 which ground down the Irish people. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's public statement of his preference for 
 Sir Stafford Northcote's draft report, at a time when the 
 decision of the committee was, so to speak, sub judice, 
 was most unwarrantable and unjustifiable. It un- 
 doubtedly helped to secure its adoption, and thereby 
 perpetuated the burden of over-taxation on Ireland. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 A.D. 1865. 
 
 REPORT OF GENERAL DUNNE'S COMMITTEE. 
 
 An amulc case was laid before the Committee, even 
 more than sufficient on which to base clear and definite 
 conclusions. General Dunne was chairman, and pre- 
 sided over the meetings with tact and ability. Rarely 
 has the spectacle been witnessed of an Irish soldier 
 directing the deliberations of a committee of expert 
 English financiers, two of whom were afterwards to 
 attain to front rank as Chancellors of the Exchequer. 
 General Dunne was unwearied in his exertions, was in 
 the chair at every meeting, and took a leading part in 
 the examination of witnesses. The Irish case was well 
 presented. Mr. Dillon and Mr. Fisher ably challenged 
 the manner in which the financial provisions of the 
 Treaty of Union had been carried out, and overwhelm- 
 ing evidence of the decay of the country and its 
 diminished ability to bear taxation was given by them 
 and other witnesses. Towards the close of the session 
 of 1864 three draft reports were submitted, one by
 
 54 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 General Dunne, the second by the O'Conor Don, and 
 the third by Sir Stafford Northcote. No final decision 
 was arrived at in 1864, on account of the late period of 
 the session when they were presented. On the re- 
 appointment of the Committee in 1865 an additional 
 reference was added, which necessitated the taking of 
 more evidence, and the recasting of the draft reports — 
 
 To inquire into the system u})on which advances are made and 
 repayments required by the Imperial Government for drainage and 
 other works of public utility in Ireland. 
 
 The particular nature of this reference would seem to 
 show that the Treasury officials were not satisfied that 
 the inquiry was tending in England's favour. On the 
 18th May, when the Committee met to consider their 
 final report, they first, by a majority of ten to one, 
 rejected the following resolutions proposed by Mr. 
 Longfield : — 
 
 1st. — That fi'om the length of time which has elapsed since the 
 Union of Great Britain and Ireland, and the complexity of the 
 accounts relative to the taxation of the two countries, it is impos- 
 sible for the Committee now to say, with any degree of certainty, 
 whether the present taxation of Ireland is, or is not, in accordance 
 with the Articles of Union. 
 
 2nd. — That the taxation of Ireland has been greatly increased 
 since 1852, while the taxation of Great Britain has been propor- 
 tionally diminished, and the present taxation of Ireland is oppres- 
 sive and unjust with reference to the resources of the country. 
 
 3rd. — That there should be afforded by the legislature, from 
 imperial resources, greater facilities than now exist for useful and 
 remunerative expenditure in Ireland to develop her resources. 
 
 They then proceeded to consider General Dunne's 
 
 draft report. The gallant soldier and incorruptible 
 
 politician had come to clear, precise conclusions on 
 
 the issues submitted, as the following paragraphs will 
 
 show : — 
 
 (20) Your Committee, therefore, cannot entertain a doubt that 
 during this period [1817-1853] the taxation of Ireland was not in
 
 REPORT OF GEN. DUNNE'S COMMITTEE. 55 
 
 accordance with the prDvisiuns uf the Treaty of Union, ma- just iu 
 reference to the resources of the country, and so far replies to the 
 in(|uiries refeired to it. 
 
 (34) Without further pursuing these details, your Committee 
 refers to your consideration the evidence given of the decline in 
 Ireland of almost .ill kinds of commercial and manufacturing pro- 
 perty, and su})mits that it clearly shows tliat Ireland has become 
 less able to bear excessive taxation. 
 
 (00) The amount which is chargeable for income tax in England 
 £276,119,814, and in Ireland it is £23,014,o94. Thus it shows a 
 poundage rate of 4s. 0|d. in England, and of (is. 3|d. in Ireland, 
 for imperial taxation on the valuations given by the Government 
 returns ; and in our local taxation of 2s. 33d. in the pound for 
 England, and 5s. 7jd. iu the pound for Ireland. With such evi- 
 dence before it, your Committee can come to no other conclusion 
 than that the present taxation of Ireland is oppressive and unj ust 
 with reference to the resources of the country. 
 
 The evidence received by the Committee more than 
 amply justified these conclusions, and the Report of the 
 Royal Commission of 1894 shows that they were mode- 
 rate and just. When the draft report was submitted to 
 the Committee, there voted four for, and seven against. 
 The following table shows how the voting went : — 
 
 Ayes : 
 
 Sir Fkederick Heygate {cm Eioglishman representing 
 
 an Irish constitvjency.) 
 
 Me. Longfield 
 
 (Irish). 
 
 Lord John Browxe 
 
 (Irish). 
 
 The O'Conor Don 
 
 (Irish). 
 
 lEs : 
 
 Sir Stafford Northcote ... 
 
 ... (English). 
 
 Mr. Howes 
 
 ... (English). 
 
 Sir Robert Peel ... 
 
 ... (English). 
 
 Mr. Lowe 
 
 ... (English). 
 
 Mr. Hankey 
 
 ... (English). 
 
 Mr. Banks Stanhope 
 
 ... (English). 
 
 Sir Georgf, Coltuur.st 
 
 (Irish). 
 
 ;SENT FROM THE DIVISION : 
 
 
 Mr. Hennessy 
 
 (Iris/i). 
 
 Sir Edward Grogan 
 
 (Irish). 
 
 Mr. Finlay 
 
 ... (Scotch).
 
 56 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 The Irish Parh"amentary representatives were a 
 majority of the Committee, and if they had done their 
 duty to their country, it is not too much to say that, 
 Ireland might have been spared much of the financial 
 oppression of the past thirty years. All the English 
 members were present, and voted against General 
 Dunne's report. Immediately after the division was 
 taken, he left the chair, and took no further part in the 
 Committee's subsequent proceedings. All his energy 
 and devotion, all his years of labour and unwearied 
 application, were in vain. The cup of success was 
 dashed from his lips at the final moment owing to the 
 defection of one Irish member and the abstention of 
 two. True to the last, he refused to sign the majority 
 report. 
 
 Sir Stafford Northcote's report was then adopted, 
 with some amendments. Its general nature may be 
 gathered from the following paragraphs : — 
 
 It is not surprising that the large increase which your Committee 
 have noticed in the general taxation between 1852 and 1862, and 
 again in the local taxation since 1845, should have given rise to 
 complaint. Nor is it surprising that louder complaints should 
 have been made in Ireland than by other parts of the United 
 Kingdom. The pressure of taxation will be felt most by the 
 weakest parts of the conniuinity ; and as the average wealth of the 
 Irish taxpayers is less than the average wealtli of the English 
 taxpayers, the ability of Ireland to bear heavy taxation is evidently 
 less than the ability of England. Mr. Senior, whose evidence 
 upon the position of Ireland will be found very suggestive, remai'ks 
 that the taxation of England is both the heaviest and lightest of 
 Europe, the heaviest as regards the amount raised, the lightest 
 as regards the ability to bear that amount ; but that in the case of 
 Ireland it is heavy both as regards the amount and as regards the 
 ability of the contributor ; and he adds that England is the most 
 lightly taxed, and Ireland the most heavily taxed, country in 
 Europe, though both are nominally liable to equal taxation. 
 
 If Ireland were to be relieved of two or three millions of 
 taxation cm the ground of her poverty, and those two or three 
 millions had to be made u]) by an addition to the taxation of
 
 RIOPORT OF GEN. DUNNE'S COMMITTEE. 57 
 
 England, the burdens of the poorer districts of Great Britain uould 
 actually be increased for the purpose of diniinishint; the burdens, 
 not only of the poorest, but also of the richest, districts of 
 Ireland. 
 
 It admitted that there had been departures from 
 the terms of the Treaty of Union, strictly interpreted 
 — that the recent leveUing up of taxation in Ireland 
 had caused complaint. It indicated tests of the com- 
 parative ability of the two countries, but did not push 
 the investigation to its logical conclusion. It admitted 
 that Ireland had recently suffered, but denied that it 
 was owing to the pressure of taxation. Expenditure 
 on such works as naval arsenals must be regarded from 
 a national point of view. Mr. Lowe strongly insisted 
 on the principle of " individual taxation^ Nevertheless, 
 the reason advanced by the Committee for declining 
 to recommend a reduction of Irish burdens was that 
 the burdens of " the poorer districts of Great Britain " 
 would be thereby increased. 
 
 O'Neill Daunt, in a letter of the 3rd June, 1865, 
 addressed to the Secretary of the National League, 
 epitomized the majority Report : — 
 
 Its omission of cardinal facts ; its fallacious reasoning on facts 
 isolated from others which are essential to their due consideration ; 
 the candour with which our leading statements are confessed to be 
 true ; the absence of all notion that we are entitled to any I'edress 
 . . . . Colonel Dunne and his allies are entitled to our hearty 
 thanks for what they have efi'ected. 
 
 Sir Edward Hamilton described the report as 
 "somewhat impotent." Irish opinion characterized it 
 as a palpable evasion of the issues submitted, and 
 as clearly showing that in money matters England was 
 unwilling to treat Ireland fairly and honourably. No 
 action was taken on it, and it remains to this day a 
 dead letter. 
 
 C-' 
 
 /(u/ 
 
 22
 
 58 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 A.D. 1865. 
 " THE DUBLIN UNIVERSITY MAGAZINE." 
 
 The Di(bliH University Magazine for April, 1865, had 
 the following remarks on Irish taxation : — 
 
 " Close thinkers will not forget that important remis- 
 sions of indirect taxation have been made from time to 
 time since modern financial principles were established 
 by the introduction of Free Trade, which have been 
 arranged with especial regard to the development of 
 particular manufactures and branches of commerce that 
 were purely English interests. By those remissions 
 Ireland received injury, being visited as a consequence 
 with an augmented income tax and an increase of 
 indirect taxes, as in the case of the excessive duty on 
 spirits, resulting in the shutting up of distilleries and 
 the annihilation of the employment of large numbers of 
 workmen." 
 
 It then quoted with approval the following views of 
 Lord Dunkellin : — 
 
 He maintained that the imposition of the income tax on Ireland 
 was unfair towards that country. When the late Sir Robert Peel 
 imposed the tax on England in 1842, he did not extend it to 
 Ireland, but he subjected her to two other additional burdens 
 which he regarded as an equivalent for that exemption. He laid 
 on a duty of Is. per gallon on spirits manufactured in Ireland, and 
 he also raised her stamp duties to the same level as the English 
 stamp duties. Well, how did matters stand with Ireland in 1865 ? 
 Why, when Sir R. Peel placed the extra shilling on Irish spirits, 
 the tax was augmented to only 3s. 8d. per gallon, and since then 
 the Irish spirit duty has been doubled. The increased stamp duty 
 also remained ; and, in addition to that, they had been burdened 
 with the income tax itself, which they were forced to pay before 
 they got their income. That was the state of things under which 
 they had the grim satisfaction of being congratulated by the
 
 THE O'CONOK DON ON THE EVIDENCE. 59 
 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer on their immunity from taxation. 
 Tlie tendency of their financial policy had been to destroy rather 
 than to stimulate the industry of Ireland. 
 
 The article then continued : — " What is complained 
 of is, that in the arrangement of taxation English 
 interests alone are regarded, and that the effect is to 
 throw an undue proportion of the public burdens upon 
 Ireland. Suppose it be asked that the Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer, in framing his next budget, should con- 
 sider what remissions or re-adjustment of taxation he 
 can devise which would have the effect of extending 
 any important department of Irish enterprise, will 
 Mr. Lowe give him support ? If he desire to act with 
 perfect fairness, he ought ; but, instead of being guided 
 by equity, he is found declaring that ' it is not the 
 incidence of taxation that has ground down the Irish 
 people.' Has it been for their benefit that special taxes 
 have crushed important industries ? " 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 A.D. 1865. 
 
 THE O'CONOR DON ON THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED BY 
 THE IRISH TAXATION COM.AHTTEE. 
 
 The discussions in the English and IrisJi press on the 
 report of General Dunne's Committee, the controversies 
 on matters of fact and principle which it evoked, and 
 the contradictory opinions to which it gave rise, caused 
 the O'Conor Don to publish an examination of the 
 evidence. He treated it calmly and dispassionately, 
 made no effort to strain after effect, weighed the argu- 
 ments advanced on both sides with judicial impartiality, 
 and adduced temperate and logical conclusions. Never- 
 theless, the studied moderation of his examination
 
 6o IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 made his conclusions not only persuasively convincing, 
 but also a most formidable indictment of English fiscal 
 policy towards Ireland. He pointed out that similar 
 taxation imposed on peoples differing in habits, wants, 
 commerce, and manufactures could not produce similar 
 results ; that Irish opinion was convinced that the 
 Act of Union placed an unjust burden on Ireland, and 
 that its provisions had been fraudulently carried out. 
 He enunciated the doctrine that — 
 
 Equality of taxation iu no way depends on similarity in the 
 actual taxes ; 
 
 and that since 1853, whilst the balance of remission 
 was in favour of England, the balance on the side of 
 taxes imposed was on the side of Ireland. An exami- 
 nation of taxation statistics for the period from 1852 to 
 1862 disclosed results to which must be attributed the 
 general outcry in Ireland of late years respecting taxa- 
 tion. A discussion was idle which urged a difference 
 between the taxes on a country and those on the 
 individuals who lived in it. Indirect taxes, levied on 
 wants and not on means, unquestionably pressed more 
 heavily on some classes of individuals than on others. 
 He replied to the individual taxation argument by 
 stating that, theorize as we might, there was more than 
 a geographical distinction between Great Britain and 
 Ireland — the difference between them was as great as 
 between nations at different extremities of the globe. 
 He concluded with the statement that, if contribution in 
 proportion to resources was in force, Ireland would 
 have a strong claim for a remission of taxation. His 
 summarized conclusions are here set out in extenso : — 
 
 1st. — That in the Act of Union the principle of payments 
 towards the general expenditure proportionate to the resources of 
 the two countries was clearly recognised. 
 
 2nd. — That it was so recoi^nised and laid down at the basis of
 
 THE O'COXOR DON ON THE EVIDENCE. 6l 
 
 tho Union, because at that time the lialnlities of the two countries 
 in the way of national clel)t were not considered to be respectively 
 proportionate to their resources, the debt of Ireland being com- 
 paratively lower than the debt of Gx'eat Britain. 
 
 3rd. — That the contriVnitions of each towards the general expen- 
 diture were settled in the proportion of two for Ireland and fifteen 
 for Groat Britain, this l)eing the estimate then made of the relative 
 resources of the two countries. 
 
 4th. — That at the time of the Union a reduction in taxation and a 
 diminution in debt, through the instrumentality of the sinking fund, 
 were ai)parently confidently ex])ected, and the heavy charges con- 
 se(]uent on the great Eurcjpean war seem not to have been 
 anticipated. 
 
 5th. — That these heavy charges were to a great extent instru- 
 mental in falsifying the expectations of the framers of the Union, 
 and that under these Ireland comi)letely broke down, not l)eing 
 able to meet by revenue the amount of her proportion of contri- 
 bution, partly from the fact of her not reaping the same collateral 
 advantages from the war as Great Britain, and partly also because 
 the proportion was, perhaps, originally too great. 
 
 6th. — That during the continuance of the war the taxation of 
 Great Britain increased more than 100 per cent. , and her debt 
 nearly 70 per cent. ; whilst, with an almost similar increase in her 
 taxation, the debt of Ireland has been quadrupled, this undue 
 increase in her debt arising from the fact that she failed to raise by 
 revenue as great a proportion of her contribution as was raised by 
 Great Britain. 
 
 7th. — That in consequence of this failure she lost the advantage 
 which in 1800 she possessed, and at the end of the war was subject 
 to a larger proportionate debt than (jrreat Britain. 
 
 8th. — Tliat this result having taken place, the exchequers were 
 amalgamated, and all distinctions arising out of the proportionate 
 contribution of revenue were done away with, one general financial 
 system for the United Kingdom being established, although under 
 it exact similarity in taxes was not ado^jted. 
 
 9th. — That since the amalgamation of the exchequers taxes have 
 been repealed to the amount of £77,968,829, and taxes imposed to 
 the amount of £40,710,862, leaving a balance of remissions of 
 £37,257,967 ; but of this balance Ireland enjoyed only i'36 per 
 cent., and Great Britain 98 '64 per cent. 
 
 10th. — That through these remissions the trade, connnerce, and 
 prosperity of the United Kingdom have largely advanced ; but that
 
 62 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 in those benefits Ireland has not pai"ticipated to the same extent as 
 Great Britain, probably in consequence of hor comparative want of 
 trade and manufactures. 
 
 11th. — That during the last ten years a large increase in tlie 
 taxation of tlie kingdom had taken place ; but the increase had 
 been proportionately greater in Ireland than in Great Britain, 
 the increase in Ireland having been since 1855, 52 per cent., and in 
 Great Britain only 17 per cent. 
 
 12th. — That during the same period the increase in the wealth 
 of the two countries, as estimated by the returns to the income tax, 
 was 10 per cent, for Ireland, and 21 per cent, for Great Britain. 
 
 13th. — That thus, whilst there has been an absolute increase in 
 the taxation of Great Britain, there has been a comparative de- 
 crease, the advance in her resources being at a more rapid rate 
 than the advance in her taxation ; but that in Ireland there has 
 been both a comparative and absolute increase in taxation, the ad- 
 vance in wealth being there in a lower ratio than the advance in 
 taxation. 
 
 14th, — That these contrary results from a similar system of 
 taxation seem chiefly to be due to the extraordinary elasticity of 
 British resources, and to the great development which her trade 
 receives ou the reduction of taxes aflecting it — an elasticity and 
 development not enjoyed in Ireland. 
 
 15th. — That at the present day Ireland is subject to no tax from 
 which Great Britain is free ; but Great Britain is subject to certain 
 imposts, making a revenue of about £4,000,000, from which Ire- 
 land is exempt ; but that it does not appear that, were these im- 
 posts extended to Ireland, they would yield a considerable amount 
 of revenue. 
 
 l(Jth. — That under this system of almost identical taxation 
 Ireland contributes about 10 per cent, of the general revenue, 
 whilst her wealth, as tested by the income tax returns and other 
 data, does not appear to be more than 7 per cent. 
 
 17th. — That of the entire revenue of Great Britain, 59 '9 per 
 cent, is contributed by taxes on articles of general consumption, 
 which in the main are taxes on po])ulation, and 21 '8 per cent, by 
 direct taxes, or taxes on wealth ; but of the revenue of Ireland, 
 75 per cent, is contributed by taxes on articles of consumption, and 
 only 14 per cent, by taxes on wealth. 
 
 18th. — That, with the exception of the tax on spirits, there does 
 not appear to be any tax pressing peculiarly on any branch of Irish 
 industry, and the comparative greater heaviness of taxation in that
 
 THE (/CnAOR Dux 0.\ THE E\IHENCE. 63 
 
 country appears to bu due to the comparative poverty of its 
 inhabitants. 
 
 19th. — That the hjcal taxation of Ireland, as far as sucli can ])c 
 ascertained, bears a still greater proportion to tliat of Great 
 Britain than the imperial taxation of the one country does to that 
 of the other, the proportions of local taxation being 11 "7 per cent, 
 to 88 "3 per cent., whilst imperial taxation, as above stated, is 
 contril)uted in the j)ro2)ortion of 10 per cent, to 90 per cent. 
 
 20th. — That as regards grants in aid of local taxation, including 
 in them the grant for tlie Irish Constabulary, the ^jroportion 
 received ])y Ireland is considerable, ])ut is now lower than before 
 the repeal of the Corn Laws, many grants having l)een since made 
 to Great Britain in consideration of the supposed injury done to 
 the landed interest through the abolition of protection. 
 
 21st. ^That on this ground, also, the payment of the entire 
 expense of the Irish ConstaV)ulai'y was placed on the Consolidated 
 Fund, notwithstanding which the proportion now received by 
 Ireland is smaller than before, although it cannot be said that she 
 derived more benefit than Great Britain from the establishment of 
 Free Trade. 
 
 22nd. — That at various times sums have been set aside for 
 grants or advances for works of public utility, and, as a rule, it 
 does not appear that any loss to the State has arisen from this 
 practice, although at some exceptional periods, such as that of the 
 Irish famine, sums were advanced the repayment of which had to 
 be I'emitted. 
 
 23i"d. — That under the Land Improvement Acts £1,804,407 has 
 been advanced in Ireland, none of which has been remitted ; that 
 of this £1,460,178, principal and interest, has been repaid, and the 
 rest is in regular course of repayment. 
 
 24th. — Finally, that in all these grants and advances Ireland 
 seems to have fairly participated ; and that, according to the 
 reports of the Commissioners of Public Works, she seems to have 
 been greatly served by them.
 
 64 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 A.D. 1866-67-68. 
 
 SIR JOSEPH' N. M'KENNA. 
 
 In an address to his constituents at Youghal, on the 
 2ist September, 1866, Sir Joseph N. M'Kenna made the 
 following statement concerning the over-taxation of 
 Ireland : — 
 
 The policy of the Whig Government in respect to Ireland has 
 been one of constant and continuous exhaustion, of exorbitant and 
 inci'easing taxation, of taxation augmented, not in proportion to 
 the increased requirements of the State, but augmented in the 
 ratio of the obvious and proven deterioration of the sources of com- 
 mercial and agricultural profit in Ireland I tell you 
 
 that to this increased taxation — unaccompanied by any fair distribu- 
 tion of the imperial outlay in this country— is wholly due the 
 fact that the battle for life is keener in Ireland, as a chronic condi- 
 tion, than in any other civilized country on the face of the earth. 
 It is in a great degree because of the heartless taxation that the 
 people are fleeing away. 
 
 This clear and emphatic declaration preceded the 
 perennial Parliamentary protests against the over- 
 taxation of Ireland which Sir Joseph M'Kenna was 
 soon to commence. He was most methodical in the 
 manner in which he attacked the existing financial 
 arrangements. He first moved for and obtained Parlia- 
 mentary returns of revenue, population, resources, and 
 expenditure. He then subjected these to the keenest 
 and most subtle analysis yet made of the Financial 
 Relations of Great Britain and Ireland. F'or twenty 
 years he raised the question with such apparent fruit- 
 lessness as would have deterred a less convinced and 
 determined enthusiast, and during that long period 
 his voice seemed that of one crying in the Parliamentary
 
 SIR lOSKIMf \. M'KKWA. 6 
 
 3 
 
 wilderness. Unchecked by defeat and undismayed by 
 indifference, he returned again and again to the subject. 
 In rcah"ty he was making headway. In those debates 
 in which he tried, session after session, to impress In's 
 views on the Government of the day, he evolved canons 
 of international finance, the application of which to 
 the circumstances of Ireland made a case which neither 
 the public financiers nor the political economists of 
 England could answer, and which ultimately necessitated 
 exhaustive examination by the ablest experts whom it 
 was possible for the State to appoint. The cogency of his 
 reasoning, his lucid presentation of facts, and the dogged 
 perseverance with which he pursued his subject, places 
 hiin in the front rank of those who protested against the 
 over-taxation of Ireland. He was born in Dublin in 
 1 8 19, educated at Trinity College, and called to the Bar 
 in 1848. He unsuccessfully contested New Ross in 1859 
 and 1863, and Tralee in 1865. He represented Youghal 
 from 1865 to 1868, but was defeated at the General 
 Election of the latter year. Re-elected for Youghal in 
 1874, he sat in Parliament until 1892. He gave evidence 
 before the Royal Commission on the 6th December, 
 1894. He was a director of the National Bank of 
 Ireland, and his connection with that great institution in 
 1853, when the additional taxation was imposed, gave 
 him exceptional opportunities of ascertaining what the 
 real condition of Ireland was, and his impressions are 
 thus graphically recorded in The Case of Ireland Plainly 
 Stated : — 
 
 The financial legislation against Ireland whicli has led to the 
 frightful disparity which now exists was initiated hy Mr. 
 Gladstone in 1853. I reiiionil)er the first step in that fatal 
 new departure as if it were yesterday. I am, therefore, aljout to 
 treat of a course of financial jxjicy of which 1 have been a 
 witness since its inception. . . . Society in Ireland, wliicli 
 shortly after the famine had been disturbed by the revcjlutionary 
 fever of 1848, had weathered both storms, and was passing hy 
 
 F
 
 66 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 degrees into that condition of ai^proximate solvency which in 
 frugal and thrifty j^opulations is sometimes mistaken for prosperity. 
 
 The Irish people were not, however, prosperous in 1851, 18.o2, 
 or 1853. I passed those years amongst them in the various dis- 
 tricts and centres of their struggling agriculture and restricted 
 commerce. I was just as conversant with their actual state in 
 three of the four provinces as the doctor who issues his daily or 
 hourly bulletins is of his patient's condition. My bulletins in 
 those days were not unhopeful. That, however, is all I can say in 
 that direction. In 1853 I had to deal literally with thousands of 
 cases where the least extra strain on accruing resources would 
 have produced insolvency and ruin, and where nothing but the 
 honesty and industry of the farmers and traders could have pulled 
 them through. These cases were not exceptional ; they were the 
 majority, 
 
 I have devoted this chapter to impressing on the reader's mind 
 that in 1853 Ireland, still suftering from the terrible eflects of the 
 famine of 1840-47 and the revolutionary' fever of 1848, was barely 
 approaching convalescence, and still by no means a proper subject 
 for increased taxation. 
 
 On the 9th July, 1867, he formally raised the question 
 in Parliament by the following motion : — 
 
 That the financial policy pursued towards Ireland within the last 
 fourteen years has been seriously oppressive. 
 
 He said that he would treat the subject without party 
 spirit and without exaggeration. The remission of the 
 "Consolidated Annuities" in 1853 had been made the 
 excuse and plea for the greatest injury ever inflicted 
 by the Parliament of the United Kingdom on Ireland — 
 an injustice which was at the root of all the subsequent 
 discontent and disaffection — an injustice to which not 
 all the genius of Liberal statesmen, nor all the platitudes 
 of spurious political economy, could reconcile thought- 
 ful Irishmen. Taxation had been increased by ;^2,ooo,ooo 
 per annum, and what had followed had been natural 
 enough — namely, discontent, political disaffection, poli- 
 tical complications, smouldering rebellion. The new 
 taxes which had been imposed, and for which no
 
 SIR JOSEPH N. M'KENNA. ^y 
 
 compensating duties had been performed for the 
 country, had seriously impaired the condition (jf all 
 classes in Ireland. He reviewed \\\e pei' capita taxation 
 in Ireland from 1841, and showed that it had been 
 enormously and disproportionately increased. He was 
 supported by General Dunne, who reiterated his con- 
 viction that the taxation of Ireland was wholly out of 
 proportion to her resources ; by Lord Dunkellin, who 
 hoped that the Government, when adjusting the financial 
 burdens of the next year, would consider whether there 
 were not grounds for the complaints made of the 
 injustice and inequality of taxation in Ireland ; by 
 Sir Frederick Heygate, who declared that no policy 
 could be worse than that of equal taxation for Ireland, 
 and that the subject of Irish taxation ought to be dealt 
 with independently of party politics ; by Mr. Synan, 
 who stated that the wealth of Ireland was one to nine- 
 teen compared with that of England, whilst taxation 
 was as one to nine ; by Mr. Bruen, who considered that 
 some small justice might be done to Ireland if taxes 
 were modified or reduced. Mr. Hunt, who, as Secre- 
 tary for the Treasury, represented the Government in 
 the debate, maintained that the increase of taxation of 
 which complaint had been made was really evidence 
 of increase of material prosperity. As regards the 
 increasing proportion of taxation to population, he 
 pointed out that it was the natural consequence of a 
 decrease of population caused by the emigration of the 
 poorer people, who contributed little to the revenue. 
 
 In withdrawing his motion. Sir Joseph M'Kenna said 
 that the taxation of Ireland anterior to the Union had 
 been one-fortieth of the entire taxation of the United 
 Kingdom, that it had been one-t%vclftJi in 1853, and was 
 then one-ninth. 
 
 On the loth, 12th, 13th, and i6th March, 1868, there 
 was a full-dress debate on the state of Ireland, in which
 
 68 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 all the i^reat Parliamentary spokesmen, from Mr. Glad- 
 stone and Mr. Disraeli down, took part. Religion, 
 education, landlord and tenant, were all considered ; but 
 it was reserved to Sir Joseph M'Kenna to point out 
 that much of what was wrong in Ireland was due to 
 taxation. It had a great deal to do with discontent. 
 Taxation was the rent paid for the use of the British 
 Constitution. That Constitution was a most valuable 
 article, but the rent the Irish people paid for the use of 
 it had been raised from ^4,400,000 in 1853 to ;^6,700,ooo 
 in 1865, owing to the legislation of a Liberal Govern- 
 ment bent on applying to Ireland what they called 
 equal and similar laws, the crotchet in their heads at the 
 time. The additional burden of ^2,300,000 then im- 
 posed upon Ireland amounted to far more than the 
 revenue of the Protestant Church twice over. The 
 increased pressure of taxation had much more to do 
 with Irish discontent than right honourable gentlemen 
 opposite imagined. Mr. Lowe said in the same 
 debate : — 
 
 [ believe it is supposed in America in Fenian circles that we tax 
 Ireland most unmercifully ; but the fact is rather that Ireland 
 taxes us. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 A.D. 1868 TO 1873. 
 
 MR. GLADSTONE AND MR. (iOSCHEN ON ROYAL 
 COMMISSIONS. 
 
 Mr. Lvster O'Beirne, in the address issued b}- him to 
 the electors of Cashel in 1865, thus referred to taxation : 
 
 I equally reprobate the financial legislation of late years, which, 
 in defiance of solemn compacts, has taxed the jaoorest districts of 
 this country as heavily as the wealthiest districts of England.
 
 ROYAL COMMISSIONS. 69 
 
 On the i6th July, 1868, he asked the Chief Secretary 
 for Ireland 
 
 Whother his iittoiitiuu liad bueii directed to the ine(iu;ilily of 
 taxation between Great Britain and Ireland shown by Return 
 No. 345, printed by order of the House on 22nd June last, by 
 which it appears that the amount of revenue for each £100 of 
 assessed pro])erty and income tax paid by Great Britain in 1854 
 was £2'.i 18s. ll|d., while that i)aid by Ireland was £27 15s. lid. 
 
 By Great Britain in 18GI, £21 9s. 5|d. 
 
 By Ireland in 1861, £29 2s. lid. 
 
 By Great Britain in 180(5, £17 148. 
 
 By Ireland in 18(;0, £29 10s. 7kl. 
 And whether he proposes, during the recess, to consider this 
 inequality of taxation with a view to its being remedied :' 
 
 Mr. Sclater-Booth, in reply, said : — 
 
 The attention of Her Majesty's Government had been drawn U) 
 the return lately moved for by the hon. member, and an inciuiry 
 had been made, and was being continued, into the causes, which 
 appeared to show, on the face of a return the hon. member 
 referred to in his question, what was certainly not in accordance 
 with the common impression, that the taxation of Ireland was in a 
 higher ratio than that of England. One cause, probably, that 
 tended to that was that the basis of Schedule A in Ireland was 
 notoriously lower than the basis of Schedule A in England. 
 
 General Dunne and Sir Joseph M'Kenna lost their 
 seats at the General Election of 1868. Irish Church, 
 Irish Land, and Irish Education mainly engrossed the 
 attention of Parliament from 1868 to 1874, and the 
 question of Irish taxation retreated into the background, 
 until in 1873 the Home Government Association again 
 brought it to the front. 
 
 In a debate on the local taxation of England on 23rd 
 February, 1869, some very impcjrtant views were ex- 
 pressed by Mr. Goschen and Mr. Gladstone on the 
 duties of Royal Commissions, of the bounds within 
 which their investigations ought to be confined, and on 
 the nature of things which did not properly come within
 
 •JO IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 their sphere. Mr. Goschen, who was President of the 
 Poor Law Board, said : — 
 
 He had not yet said that the grievance complained of was not a 
 real and serious grievance ; but he maintained that, if such a 
 grievance existed, there was but one tribunal which could apply a 
 remedy, and that was the House of Commons itself. He did not 
 believe that the majority of the House would be prepared to refer a 
 question of policy of this kind to a Royal Commission. Royal 
 Commissioners were usually ajipointed to inquire into intricate 
 and complicated questions of fact. 
 
 If, therefore, the Government did not feel it to be compatible 
 with their duty to refer a question of such great moment to a 
 Royal Commission, he trusted that no one in the House, or in the 
 country, would see in that determination the slightest intention to 
 disregard the views which had been put forward, or to ignore the 
 importance of the subject itself. On the contrary, if the Govern- 
 ment desired to get rid of a troublesome question, and to put it 
 aside for two or three years, no proposal could be more welcome to 
 them than that of hanging up the subject, as so many others had 
 been hung up, by agreeing to the motion for its reference to a 
 Royal Commission. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone said that Mr. Goschen's speech had 
 placed the House in possession of the views enter- 
 tained by the Government, and he continued : — 
 
 The right honourable gentleman pointed out that, as in the 
 view of all men, and as in the view of the honourable mover of the 
 motion himself, the two questions of imperial and local taxation 
 were too inextricably mixed up together, and that to devolve upon 
 a Commission, under such circumstances, the examination of the 
 advisability of a general re-adjustment of local taxation was, 
 in point of fact, to place in the hands of that Commission the 
 question of imperial taxation, and to give the Commission that 
 initiative which the House would not permit its own private 
 members to exercise. 
 
 It can be clearly gathered from these views, first, that 
 the policy of determining the incidence of taxation is the 
 exclusive right of the House of Commons ; second, that 
 the proper and peculiar duty of a Royal Commission is
 
 O'NEILL DAUNT AND HOME RULE LEAGUE. 7 1 
 
 to inquire int(^ intricate and complicated questions of 
 fact ; third, that Royal Commissions are sometimes 
 appointed to hang up troublesome questions for two or 
 three years ; and fourth, that the re-adjustment of taxa- 
 tion is a question which properly belongs, not to a Royal 
 Commission, not to the private members of the House 
 of Commons, but to the Government of the day. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 A.D. 1873. 
 
 WILLIAiM JOSEPH O'NEILL DAUNT AND THE HUSH 
 HOME RULE LEAGUE. 
 
 In 1873 the Irish Home Rule League was busy making 
 preparations for the next General Election, and 
 diffusing such literature as would affect the coming 
 battle at the polls. Amongst the pamphlets issued was 
 A Report of the Committee appointed by the Council 
 of the Home Government Association to examine the 
 Financial Relations betzveen Great Britain and Ireland 
 and the Pressure of Taxation upon Irish Resources. The 
 chairman of the committee which drew it up was 
 Mr. William Joseph O'Neill Daunt. He was born 
 on 28th April, 1807, at Tullamore, but resided for the 
 o-reater portion of his life at Kilcascan, in West Cork. 
 His ancestors, an Anglo-Norman family long .settled 
 in Ireland, held estates in Cork. He early joined the 
 Repeal movement, and was elected for Mallow in 1832, 
 but unseated on petition. When the agitation for 
 Repeal became vigorous, he was entrusted with the 
 charLie of the movement in Leinster and Scotland. 
 After its failure he took a greater interest in the
 
 72 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST CJVER-TAXATION. 
 
 taxation of the country than in any other pubHc ques- 
 tion. He severely criticised the extension of the in- 
 come tax to Ireland by Mr. Gladstone in 1853, and 
 assisted the agitation of 1863-64 which secured the 
 appointment of General Dunne's Committee. The taxa- 
 tion of Ireland was ever present in his mind, and in 
 his writings, speeches, and magazine articles, he 
 made frequent mention of it. It was in some measure 
 due to him that the Home Rule League brought it 
 again prominently forward. Mr. W. E. H. Lecky says of 
 him, in the Introduction to his Diary, that he wrote on 
 the financial aspects of the Union with special authority, 
 and that he largely contributed towards bringing the 
 question to the forefront. He died on 29th June, 1894. 
 Mr. M'Laren, a Scotch member, had obtained a 
 Parliamentary return of taxation, from which it was 
 sought to be shown that Ireland was undertaxed. Mr. 
 O'Neill Daunt, on the 15th March, 1873, wrote that he 
 examined the returns to find out the Irish contribution 
 to the Imperial Exchequer : — 
 
 I found no separate statement of the Irish revenues. The con- 
 tributions of the three kingdoms are indiscriminately tlu'own 
 together, whereas, up to 1870 inclusive, the Irish payments were 
 separately specified. This mode of lumping British and Irish pay- 
 ments en inasse facilitates mystification at our expense. 
 
 Castlereagh, when adjusting the relative taxable capacities of 
 Great Britain and Ireland, said that an income tax existing in both 
 countries would aflord the best test. Pitt expressed the same 
 opinion. There was then no income tax in Ireland. Now we have 
 got one ; and tried by this test, it appears that Ireland's share of 
 the general wealth is not much more than a seventeenth part, whilst 
 the Imperial Government extorts from her nearly one-ninth of the 
 general revenue. Yet our British friends cry out for more ! 
 
 more 
 
 From the office of the Home Government Association 
 he issued, on 17th March, the following supplementary 
 letter to the Home Rule address to the Irish people : —
 
 O'NEILL DAUNT AM) HOME RULE LEAGUE. 73 
 
 The amount of taxation imposed on Ireland by the Imperial 
 Government is, as we all know, exorbitant, dishonest, and griev- 
 ously oppressive. Taking as a criterion of the relative taxable 
 al)ility of the two islands the amount of property assessed in each 
 to income tax, it appears that, while our national wealth is scarcely 
 more than one-seventeenth oi the general wealth of the empire, 
 our masters wring out of us about one-ninth of tlie im2)erial taxes. 
 Yet their greed is insatiable ; and a new valuation of Ireland is 
 contemplated, in order to extend the basis of Irish taxation. Mr. 
 Gladstone's leading idea in governing Ireland appears to be to 
 extract the last possible shilling from the country. He added 52 
 per cent, to our taxes in 1853, at a moment when we wei'c 
 scarcely beginning to recover from the efiects of one of the most 
 prolonged and terrible famines recorded in histijry. 
 
 At a public meeting held in Great Brunswick Street, 
 Dublin, on 30th April, 1873, he moved — 
 
 That the Home Government Association ajjpoint a committee to 
 investigate and report on the Financial Relations of Great Britain 
 and Ireland, and that Mr. Butt and Mr. Cornelius Dennehy be 
 requested to act on the committee. 
 
 The motion was adopted unanimously. 
 
 At a public meeting on 3rd June, 1873, he announced 
 that the report on the Financial Relations was in the 
 printer's hands, and would speedily be disseminated 
 through the kingdom. In the course of his speech he 
 said : — 
 
 The Union, in its financial aspect, is a swindle. The English 
 members of General Dunne's Committee seemed totally unconscious 
 that Ireland had any separate financial claims. They ignored the 
 fact that Great Britain at the Union owed a debt more than sixteen 
 times larger than the Irish debt, and that Ireland had never been 
 given one farthing of compensation for being suljjected to an 
 equality of taxation witli Great Britain. Their minds were fully 
 prepossessed with the theory of union, a union of burdens, but 
 not a union of expenditure ; for although they were staunch 
 friends of incorporation where nuniey was by its means to be taken 
 out of Ireland, yet they did not for one moment admit that incor- 
 poration gave Ireland the least right to have her own money spent 
 within her own borders — in fact, they stoutly argued against expen- 
 diture in Ireland.
 
 74 IKISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 The report of the committee was finally adopted at 
 a public meeting of the Home Government Association 
 on 25th June, 1873, on the motion of Mr. Cornelius 
 Dennehy, seconded by Mr. Alfred Webb. 
 
 It examined the seventh article of the Act of Union, 
 the speeches made on it when it was under discus- 
 sion, how it worked out till 18 17, and then pronounced 
 the following verdict : — 
 
 Your committee doubt if history records a more remarkable 
 instance of audacious and gigantic fraud than this whole trans- 
 action. The kingdom of Ireland is deliberately overcharged ; and 
 when the overcharge results in national insolvency, it is availed of 
 as a pretext for exorbitant taxation. 
 
 It then pointed out the admission made in the report 
 of 181 5, that Ireland had been subjected to a burden 
 which experience had proved too great, and asked what 
 was the obvious remedy in such a case pointed out by 
 common sense and honesty . Clearly, to have fixed a 
 contribution commensurate with Irish comparative 
 resources. This was not done. The Act of Union pre- 
 tended to protect Ireland from equality of taxation with 
 England " until the respective circumstances of the two 
 countries should admit of uniform taxation." If these 
 words meant anything, they must have meant that 
 equality of burden should not be imposed until Ireland 
 became wealthy enough to endure it. In 1853 she was 
 miserably poor, and her poverty was aggravated by a 
 prolonged famine. As the condition of Irish wealth 
 implied by the Act of Union had not occurred, 
 Mr. Gladstone thought he could extract an argument 
 for increased taxation from Irish poverty ; and, accord- 
 ingly, he argued that as Ireland was poor, a man with 
 ^^150 a year in Ireland was proportionately richer than 
 a man with ;^I50 a year in England, and consequently 
 that his income was at least as fit a subject for taxation.
 
 O'NEILL DAUNT AND HOME RULE LEA(;UE. 75 
 
 The special merit of this logic is, that the poorer the 
 country the stronger the argument for taxing her. 
 
 It then examined the proceedings of General Dunne's 
 Committee, alluded to the defection of the Irish 
 members, the admissions made in Sir Stafford North- 
 cote's report, and thus comments on his inept con- 
 clusions: — 
 
 Then, as to Sir Stafford's notion that there would be hardship in 
 transferring to Great Britain taxes to be I'emoved from Irish 
 shoulders, there is not the least hardship in compelling either men 
 or nations to pay their own just debts. We have seen that the 
 whole scope and spirit of the Act of Union, and of subseipient im- 
 j)erial legislation, was to subject Ireland to British burdens which 
 she had no part in contracting, and this notwithstanding cerbiin 
 illusory pretexts of protection made by Lord Castlereagh and em- 
 bodied in the Union statute. 
 
 It then pointed out that, in the twenty years ending 
 1872, Mr. Gladstone had wrung from Ireland ^45,184,090 
 more taxes than had been contributed for the twenty 
 years ending 1852 ; that the English members of 
 General Dunne's Committee always treated Ireland as 
 an integral part of the empire when burdens were con- 
 cerned ; but that the empire only meant England when 
 outlay was in question. It then outlined an equitable 
 re-arrangement : — 
 
 Each country should be separately taxed for its own pre- 
 Union debt charge. Ireland should also bear the burden of so 
 much of her post-Union debt as bears a true propox'tion to her real 
 relative ability ; and her contribution to imperial expenses should 
 be also proportioned to her relative ability. 
 
 Finally, its conclusions were thus summarized — 
 
 Ireland complains that she is unjustly treated by the Imperial 
 Parliament in respect to taxation for the following reasons : — 
 
 1. — She is entitled to a lower rate of taxation tlian Great 
 Britain on account of the great disparity between the British and 
 Irish national debts at the time of the Union, not a shilling of
 
 ^6 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 which pre-Union debts has ever been paid. The British debt was 
 then more than sixteen times larger than the Irish debt ; and 
 solemn promises were given to Ireland that she never would be 
 brought under the pre-Union l)urdens of Great Britain. But in 
 violation of these promises, Ireland has been brought under those 
 burdens by the equalization of her taxes with those of Great 
 Britain ; and she never has l)een given an e([uivalent for the load 
 thus imposed on her. 
 
 2. — Such taxes as l)y the Act of Union were to have been borne 
 in common by both countries ought (in the words of Lord Castle- 
 reagh) to have been apportioned with a strict regard to the measure 
 of Ireland's relative ability. But the Act of Union over-estimated 
 the relative ability of Ireland, the result of which excessive 
 estimate was necessarily to involve Ireland in enormcjus and 
 disproportioned debt. 
 
 3. — Ireland affirms that this debt was fictitious, in so far as it 
 originated in an overcharge on her comparative resources ; yet that 
 this fictitious debt has been treated by English statesmen and Ijy 
 the imperial legislature as if it were morally and equitably binding 
 upon Ireland. It has been made the pretext for extorting from 
 Ireland amounts of revenue enormously in excess of her real 
 relative ability ; and at this moment insatiable statesmen are 
 engaged in new projects of augmented extortion. 
 
 4. — Ireland complains that by the financial legislation of the 
 Imperial Parliament she is deprived of the enjoyment of her own 
 surplus revenues, the exclusive use of which surplus the fifth clause 
 of the seventh article of the Union professes to secure to her ; and 
 she suffers heavy loss from the expenditure in Great Britain or 
 elsewhere abroad of an inordinate amount of Irish revenue. 
 
 In The Nation of 2nd August, 1873, appears an able 
 and exhaustive review of the Report of the Coinmittee of 
 the Home Government Association on the Financial 
 Relations of Great Britain and Ireland : — 
 
 The total financial loss which Ireland, directly and indirectly, 
 has sustained since the Union is now over £400,000,000 sterling. 
 In 1855 it was estimated at £355,000,000, but this estimate did not 
 include several important items which should have been taken into 
 the calculation. Indeed, the direct and indirect plunder of Ireland 
 since the Union — without estimating the loss resulting from the 
 destruction of Irish manufactures and connnerce — may be fairly set
 
 SIR jnSKl'II N. M'KENNA. yj 
 
 clown MS £r)0(l,O(K),()(H). This, certainly, is inonstrous in the extreme; 
 l)ut tlie S3\steni lias l)een so recently adjusted as to facilitate the 
 extraction of further taxation from Ireland according to tlie most 
 ajipi-oved economic Englisli tlieorics. Acts of " amelioration " in 
 Ireland always end in tlic pliui(U'r of the peoi)le. 
 
 Having" referred to the imposition of taxation in 1853, 
 the article proceeds : — 
 
 Indeed, if anything could shatter or shake the heresy of faith 
 in Mr. (Jladstone, the knowledge of liis unscrupulous jjlunder of 
 Ireland shown in this report should do so. It was, we believe, 
 after imposing the income tax on Ireland that he remitted the duty 
 on pep])er, tliat the Irish people might liave the condiment cheaj) 
 to season their vegetables. It was while disendowing the Church 
 that he managed to draw into the Imperial Exchequer large sums 
 of money previously spent in Ireland, without the Irish people 
 benefiting one farthing by the transaction. 
 
 The Report excited the attention of the veteran pro- 
 tester against over-taxation, and in a letter of 3rd 
 September, 1873, written from Brittas, General Dunne 
 remarked : — 
 
 I think iNIr. Daunt's pamphlet on Irish taxation a capital rennme 
 of the injustice done to Ireland in this important point, and I 
 hope it will draw the attention of the Irish people with more effect 
 than I had been able to do with my committee and the report I 
 attempted to get adopted. 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 A.D. 1875. 
 .SIR TOSEPII N. M'KENNA. 
 
 On 1 2th March, 1875, Sir Joseph M'Kenna again raised 
 in the House of Commons the question of Irish taxation 
 by the following motion : — 
 
 That the complaints which have been made tliat the Imj)erial 
 taxation of the United Kingdom presses more severely on Ireland
 
 78 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 than on Great Britain, and extracts a greater revenue from Ireland 
 in in'oportion to her actual means, are worthy of the earnest con- 
 sideration of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to the 
 adoption of measures for the equitable distribution of the pressure 
 of taxation, so that each of the countries constituting the United 
 Kingdom shall contribute to the imperial revenue in proportion to 
 its actual means. 
 
 He said there was a certain propagation, a certain 
 dissemination, perhaps, he might better term it, of 
 plausible but illusory evidences of Irish prosperity and 
 progress. He called them " Dublin Castle statistics " 
 from their incompleteness. 
 
 They were insufficient data, and were consequently 
 calculated to mislead, and did mislead the public, and 
 to some extent the official mind, when they were 
 adduced to justify or mystify the enormous increase in 
 the amount of imperial taxation levied off Ireland. 
 
 Income tax returns for 1872 showed the valuation of 
 England as i^4 5 5,000,000, and of Ireland .^26,000,000. 
 Incomes of England exceeded those of Ireland seven- 
 teenfold, whilst the Irish contribution to taxation was 
 one-eighth. 
 
 He had, on ist May, 1874, moved for returns, which 
 disclosed on their face and as a whole a system of con- 
 stant and progressive financial injustice to Ireland, such 
 as no people who understood the subject could submit to 
 with patience, and such as no poor country could suffer 
 without injury. They showed that, side by side with 
 an actual reduction of ten per cent per head in Great 
 Britain, the taxation per head in Ireland had been 
 trebled. But how had all that come to pass ? What 
 were the imposts that had squeezed all that money out 
 of so poor a population ? To which of them did he 
 take exception ? He objected to the excessive total 
 which was raised off Ireland, augmented by taxes 
 which were chiefly imposed at the instance of so-called
 
 SIR JOSEl'II N. M'KHNNA. 79 
 
 Liberal Governments ; but it certainly was not their 
 financial policy towards Ireland which had entitled them 
 to that honourable designation. It was scarcely a figure 
 of speech to say that since 1841 — or he would take a 
 later date to mark the epoch, and say since the famine 
 of 1846 — the British finance minister had caught the 
 unhappy Irish people by the throat, and wrung from 
 them sums which, were they not vouched by the returns 
 to that House, would seem to all men as incredible as 
 to him they appeared exorbitant and unjust. 
 
 At present the resources of Ireland — perhaps he would 
 more accurately express it, her annual yield of profit — 
 was disproportionately, inordinately, and, he submitted, 
 unjustly carried off by imperial taxation. The over- 
 taxation of Ireland represented an additional burden on 
 Ireland heavier relatively than the annual charge on 
 France consequent on the Prussian war indemnity, and 
 France was seven times as populous as Ireland and 
 thirty times as rich. 
 
 Mr. Butt formally seconded the motion. 
 Mr. A M. Sullivan said that the House had probably 
 for twenty years not listened to a more important speech 
 on the condition of Ireland than that which had been 
 made that evening by Sir Joseph M'Kenna. He likened 
 the figures adduced to show a slight increase in Irish 
 progress to those relied on by baby-farmers. A child 
 might increase a pound and a half in weight in two 
 years, and that small increase might be the result of ill- 
 treatment. This state of things was the fulfilment of 
 the prophecies of Grattan and the Plunkets, who had 
 told the Irish Parliament that incorporation with Eng- 
 land would attract the wealth of Ireland to the greater 
 wealth of England, and that, whereas Ireland under her 
 own Parliament had a comparatively light taxation, she 
 would, when joined to England, " stagger under a weight 
 which was a feather on the shoulders of the wealthier 
 people."
 
 So IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVl'R-TAXATION. 
 
 Mr. Sullivan played a considerable part in the taxa- 
 tion question. He was a member of the special com- 
 mittee of the Dublin Corporation which investigated the 
 question in 1863, and his paper, The Nation, gave at all 
 times special prominence to the many protests which 
 were constantly being made in Ireland. 
 
 The O'Conor Don said there was nominally equality 
 of taxation between the two countries, yet in reality 
 there was no such equality. He quoted from Sir Staf- 
 ford Northcote's Report of 1865 to show that the present 
 system of taxation fell more heavily on Ireland than on 
 any other part of the United Kingdom. 
 
 Sir Stafford Northcote, who was then Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, and Mr. Lowe, the late Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, replied. The latter relied again on the 
 Individual Taxation argument, and said that to estab- 
 lish a case it must be shown that the individual Irish- 
 man must be shown to be more heavily taxed than the 
 individual Englishman in similar circumstances. This 
 proof could not be adduced. 
 
 The motion was negatived without a division. 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 A.D. 1874 TO 1877 
 
 MR. MITCHELL HENRY AND MR. ISAAC BUTT. 
 
 One of the first members returned for an Irish con- 
 stituency on the Home Rule programme was Mr. 
 Mitchell Henry. Born in Lancashire in 1826, he fol- 
 lowed the profession of medicine, and attained to 
 considerable eminence as surgeon to the Middlesex 
 Hospital. His father, who was an Ulster Irishman.
 
 MR. ^riTCHKLL IIENRV AND MR. ISAAC BUTT. 8l 
 
 died in 1862, and left a very considerable fortune to his 
 son. Mr. Mitchell Henry bought a district in Conne- 
 mara, and built there the handsome residence of Kyle- 
 more Castle. His kindness to and sympathy with the 
 people, his great intellectual ability and strength of 
 character, united to his adoption of Home Rule prin- 
 ciples, caused him to be unanimously elected for Galway 
 in 1 87 1. His first parliamentary reference to the over- 
 taxation of Ireland was on the 2nd July, 1874, on the 
 occasion of the Home Rule debate. 
 
 He referred to the fact that the Irish contribution to 
 the imperial revenue was increasing ; but that was 
 not evidence of increased prosperity, but a direct cause 
 of the nation's poverty and rapid decline. Ireland 
 was taxed far beyond her powers, and far, indeed, 
 beyond what she ought fairly to contribute. With all 
 the political and social benefits Mr. Gladstone had con- 
 ferred on Ireland, he had shown himself most inequitable 
 in his taxation of so poor a country, and had inflicted 
 great injury upon her. By imposing the income tax in 
 1853, and by equalizing the spirit duties shortly after, 
 the revenue had been raised from about ^4,500,000 to 
 ^7,000,000, a sum out of all proportion to the wealth of 
 the country. The total wealth of Ireland was only 
 one-seventeenth that of England, yet she contributed 
 one-eleventh to the imperial revenue. 
 
 The defeat of Sir Joseph M'Kenna's motion of 1875 
 gave rise to a very vigorous agitation in Ireland in the 
 winter of 1875-76. At a public meeting, held in the 
 Rotunda, Dublin, on 26th October, 1875, Mr. Mitchell 
 Henry moved — 
 
 That the financial results of the Union and the present economic 
 condition of the country demand the serious attention of the Irish 
 people, and afford convincing proof of the evil effects of the l^nion, 
 and of the urgent necessity of restoring parliamentary institutions 
 in Ireland.
 
 82 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 The speech in which he supported the motion was 
 not alone a most masterly and comprehensive state- 
 ment of the Irish case, but also most eloquent. It 
 was particularly telling in the force and cogency with 
 which it dealt with Mr. Lowe's argument of individual 
 taxation, and was a most effective reply. The history 
 of the period since the Union, the principles of the 
 taxation which then, as now, bore heavily on Ireland, 
 were all grappled with. He declared — 
 
 No wonder that English statesmen wish to substitute the 
 principle of the taxation of vndividiials for geographical taxation ; 
 but the basis of the Union was geographical taxation and relative 
 national ability ; and if Irishmen lose sight of this, their case is 
 gone. 
 
 In a passage of singular power he referred to the ruin 
 which had come upon Ireland: — 
 
 It was the dreadful burden of taxation imposed on Ireland by 
 the Union, combined with absenteeism and cruel laws, that 
 reduced the Irish people to the condition of the most ill-fed and 
 miserable people in Eui'ope, so that when their only sheet-anchor 
 — the potato — failed, they liad absolutely nothing to fall back 
 upon, but died in crowds, or, homeless and starving, were forced 
 to fly from the land of their birth. 
 
 At a public meeting in Dublin, held on the 2nd 
 November, it was unanimously resolved — 
 
 That the admirable speech delivered at the last meeting of the 
 League by Mr. Mitchell Henry, m.p., be printed and circulated by 
 the League, and that the Council be requested to take steps to 
 carry this into efi'ect. 
 
 Sir Joseph M'Kenna, at the same meeting, moved : — 
 
 That the attention of the representatives of Ireland in the 
 Imperial Parliament is earnestly requested to the subject of the 
 unfair incidence of imperial taxation on the Irish people. 
 
 Dr. Ward, M.P., who seconded the motion, referred 
 to a recent return, which showed that the average
 
 MR. MITCHELL IILNRV AND MR. LSAAC liU'lT. 83 
 
 yearly income of an Enfrlishman was ^18; of a Scotch- 
 man, iJ"i3; and of an Irishman, £4. The Irishman had 
 to pay in taxes out of his £4 income ^i 6s. id. ; 
 whilst the Englishman paid in taxes only £2 9s. id. 
 out of his income of ;i^i8. 
 
 T/ie Nation of 6th November, 1875, in an article 
 headed " Fifty Millions Stolen," remarked : — 
 
 Mr. Mitchell Henry and Sir J. M'Kenna have proved conclu- 
 sively a certain iueiiuality in imperial taxation whereby Ireland has 
 been rub))ed of £2,5UU,U()0 a year for the past twenty years — in all 
 £50,000,001) of money — over and above an equal poundage with 
 Great Britain. No one has been able to answer this astoundincr 
 charge. No one has been able to deny it. 
 
 On 9th November, 1875, at a public meeting held 
 under the auspices of the Home Government Associa- 
 tion, in the Rotunda, Dublin, it was unanimously re- 
 solved : — 
 
 That the speech of Sir Joseph N. M'Kenna on the unequal 
 pressure of imperial taxation on Ireland be printed and circulated 
 at the expense of the League. 
 
 The speech was subsequently printed and circulated. 
 Mr. Isaac Butt, Q.C., M.P., proposed the following 
 resolution at the same meeting : — 
 
 'Jd 
 
 That it appears expedient that steps should be taken to prepare 
 a petition to Parliament against the unfair amount levied on Ire- 
 land under the present arrangement of taxation, and claiming for 
 this country relief from this unjust burden, either by a review of 
 the relative taxation of the two countries, so as to jilace it upon a 
 more equitable basis, or by ajjplying the amount now collected from 
 Ireland beyond her fair contribution to the relief of the local 
 taxation of this country. 
 
 He stated that he had drafted a petition, but, on 
 account of its great importance, he preferred to have it 
 approved of. It was perfectly established that Ireland 
 contributed to the revenue of the United Kingdom an
 
 84 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 amount far exceeding the proportion she ought to pay 
 according to relative ability. In that year (1875) the 
 imperial system of taxation was exacting from Ireland 
 three and a-half millions more than she ought to pay. 
 He then appealed to all Irishmen to unite on the over- 
 taxation question : — 
 
 This (juestion of over-taxfition was no Home Rule (|ue.stion. 
 It was a ([iiestion on wliicli men who were not Home Rulers might 
 jierfectly join. It was a question for all Irishmen. It was a 
 grievance that might be redressed by the English Parliament, and 
 it was one that ought to be redressed by the English Parliament 
 next year if they were prepared to do it. He a^jpealed to the Con- 
 servatives of Ireland — to the Conservative gentry, whose properties 
 were oppressed by this unjust taxation. He appealed to the Con- 
 servative Press to aid in exposing this monstrous injustice, and 
 in demanding redress for it. Shame would attach tt) the Irishman 
 who would keep l)ack from exposing such an injustice, and de- 
 manding redress for it, because he might think that in so doing 
 he was helping the cause of Home Rule. 
 
 The earnest and determined propaganda of the Home 
 Rule League against over-taxation attracted the atten- 
 tion of Tlic Times, and on the 8th November it had an 
 article on this " well-worn theme." It attacked Mr. 
 Mitchell Henry and Sir Joseph M'Kenna, and described 
 the latter as the Parliamentary proprietor of this special 
 grievance. The downright untruth of its comments 
 may be gathered from its statements that the proportion 
 of Ireland's contribution to imperial revenue 
 
 Was not fixed as an international compact at the Union, 
 
 and that Ireland was growing in wealth. It is a shallow 
 article, written in a narrow spirit, sneering at cheap 
 whisky, but nevertheless is unmistakable evidence that 
 the question of Irish taxation again caused anxiety in 
 England. 
 
 Profe.s.sor Galbraith, Trinity College, Dublin, at a 
 public meeting on 30th November, moved : —
 
 MR. MITCHELL IIKNRV ANT) MR. LSA.VC liUTT. 85 
 
 That this meeting views witli SHtisfactiun the printed copy, iidw 
 laid on the table, of the Report of the Speech of Mitchell Henry, 
 Member of Pailiamiint for the ('ounty Galway, and desires to 
 return its .sincere thanks to the honoural)le gentleman for the zeal 
 and great ability he has displayed in ex[)osing the many instances 
 of fiscal grievances which Ireland suft'ers from her connection with 
 Great Britain under the terms of the legislative union. 
 
 At a Conference of the Home Rule Members of 
 Parliament, held on 4th January, 1876, at which thirty- 
 one were present, it was unanimously resolved that the 
 excessive taxation of Ireland should be vigorously 
 pressed on the attention of Parliament. 
 
 Accordingly, on 23rd May, 1876, Mr. Mitchell Henry, 
 on the third reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue 
 Bill, moved an amendment for the purpose of discussing 
 Irish taxation : — 
 
 That, in the opinion of this House, no financial arrangements 
 can be .sfitisfactory which are so framed as to make no pro\'ision 
 for relieving Ireland from a burden of taxation beyond her ability 
 to pay as compared with Great Britain. 
 
 He said that there was no more unpopular subject in 
 the House than Irish financial grievances, because the 
 House believed that they were of an unsubstantial 
 character. After long and earnest study, he had come 
 to the conclusion that they were of a substantial and 
 practical nature. He affirmed that within the last 
 twenty-three years the taxation of Ireland had been 
 doubled, whilst the population had declined by 2,500,000 
 persons. During the past five years ;^42,ooo,ooo had 
 been raised in taxes ; and of the annual levy of 
 i^8, 500,000, nearl)' i^6, 500,000 were raised in customs 
 and excise duties, and were paid by the poorer classes 
 of people. Having alluded to Mr. Lowe's individual 
 taxation argument, he continued : — 
 
 The case of Ireland is that l)y this heavy taxation you liavc 
 removed, and do remove, such an innuensu proportion of the
 
 86 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 income of the country, that not only have the people been obliged 
 to fly to happier climes to gain a livelihood, but there is nothing 
 left to develop the resources of the country. The country is borne 
 down by the excessive character of the taxation, and the abject 
 and miserable poverty, the result in part of it, is one of the chief 
 causes of discontent in Ireland. 
 
 He pointed out that the burden of taxation was 
 infinitely and shamefully heavier in Ireland than in 
 England. He compared the total annual incomes of 
 England and Ireland, and showed that taxation in 
 England amounted only to is. 8d. in the pound, whilst 
 in Ireland it amounted to 3s, 4d. in the pound. He 
 challenged contradiction on this, and was prepared 
 to refer it to arbitration. He showed the severity of 
 local taxation in Ireland, and that exemptions of 
 assessed taxes were a mere bagatelle compared with 
 the excessive exactions. He pointed out the decay 
 which had taken place in almost every industry in 
 Ireland, and that emigration was due to excessive 
 taxation. He concluded by appealing to the Irish 
 members on both sides of the House to support his 
 amendment. 
 
 The O'Conor Don seconded the amendment, and said 
 that the belief sedulously fostered in the press that 
 Ireland was lightly taxed was the greatest fallacy that 
 ever existed. Indirect taxation bore severely on the 
 Irish community, which, as a whole, was poorer and less 
 able to bear the burden than the English people. 
 
 The Irish members who joined in the debate were 
 Sir Joseph M'Kenna, Dr. Ward, and Mr. Isaac Butt, 
 who said : — 
 
 When they had a community, they could not take away money 
 from the community without injuring it. From the time of the 
 Union down to the present day, the finance of Ireland had always 
 been dealt with as something belonging to a separate community, 
 and when remissions were made in favour of any class in Ireland, 
 they always heard of the boons granted to that country.
 
 MR. MITCHELL IIENR^■ AND MR. ISAAC BUTT. 87 
 
 Sir Stafford Northcotc, who was Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, replied for the Government, and took up a 
 hostile attitude. 
 
 The amendment was withdrawn by leave. 
 
 In the course of a lont^' article on the debate, The 
 Nation of 3rd June wrote : — 
 
 We need scarcely ask our readers to give an attentive perusal to 
 the important speech of Mr. Mitchell Henry on Irish taxation. 
 The proofs and arguments there adduced to .show that Ireland is 
 overweighed in this respect are simply unanswerable. No amount 
 of (juibbling and glozing on the part of English Chancellors of the 
 Excheiiuer, past or present, can disprove the hard facts brought 
 forward l)y the Member for Galway. 
 
 The Times of 30th May referred to Sir Stafford 
 Northcote's colourless summary of a report adopted 
 by General Dunne's Committee in 1865, and thus 
 proceeds : — 
 
 This was eleven years ago, and since that time the subject has 
 been raised, we kn(jw not how many times, by Irish members 
 emulous of distinction. They turn to it again and again, now one 
 and now another leading the atttick, and always in face of them is 
 this stronghold of Mr. Lowe's position, that they can no more turn 
 than we can turn the conclusions of the fourth proposition of the 
 first book of Euclid. Yet it does not, as far as we can discover, 
 disconcert them in the least. 
 
 The usual abuse about \\hisk\- was reiterated, and 
 Sir Stafford Northcote was complimented on having 
 advanced from his statement of 1865, that — 
 
 With equal taxation the tax will press more heavily upon the 
 poorer than upon the richer country 
 
 to the adoption of the severer doctrine of Mr. Lowe of 
 individual taxation. 
 
 The subject was again raised in the House of 
 Commons by Mr. Mitchell Ilcnr)-, in a set motion, on 
 5th June, 1877 :—
 
 88 I aSH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 (1) That the burden of imperial taxation imposed on Ireland is 
 excessive and out of proportion to her financial ability to bear it as 
 compared to England. 
 
 (2) That this inequality is a violation of the promises made at 
 the Union, and occasions a loss of capital which, accompanied by 
 the annual absentee drain, is the main cause of the small material 
 progress of the covmtry. 
 
 (3) That to tax a poor country on the same scale as a rich one 
 is in itself unjust and opposed to sound economic principles ; 
 whilst the fact that the excessive taxation raised in Ireland is in 
 great measure expended out of Ireland forms an aggravation of the 
 injustice, and makes permanent improvement hopeless until the 
 present mode of dealing with Irish revenues is altered. 
 
 In the speech in which he introduced it, he said that 
 the more he studied it the more he saw the iniquity 
 of the present arrangement. He beHcved that the 
 misery that occurred in Ireland — and the miseries that 
 occurred in England owing to her connection with Ire- 
 land — had arisen in a large measure from the financial 
 relations of the two countries. He then made an able, 
 exhaustive review of Irish fiscal history, and asked, 
 How had Ireland been treated of late? The answer 
 was : In the last twenty-five years the taxation of Ire- 
 land had been doubled. She then paid ;^8, 500,000 to 
 the finances of England, against ^4,000,000 paid twenty- 
 five years previously. During twenty-five years her 
 population diminished one-half, which meant that Ire- 
 land was paying four times as much as she paid twenty- 
 eight years previously. If the Irish people were foolish 
 enough to give up the question of geographical taxation, 
 their case was gone. Ireland should be taxed in pro- 
 portion to her financial ability as compared with England. 
 It was not a question of individual taxation. It was the 
 question of the taxation of a nation. Ireland was 
 treated as a man treated a field when he took a crop of 
 grass off it every year and never bought any manure to 
 put on the ground. The man expected the field to go 
 on yielding him crops, but in time it became barren.
 
 SIR J. M'KENNA MOVES FOR A COMMITTEE. 89 
 
 Mr. liutt said, if they selected any tax which fell 
 heavier on the people of Ireland than on the people of 
 England, they undoubtedly placed a greater burden on 
 the one country than on the other. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell Henry, in closing the debate, said that 
 the question was one full of complications, and a vast 
 amount of labour was required to get behind it ; but it 
 would recur and become better understood every year 
 by the Irish people, and he believed they would soon 
 learn the various forms the question assumed and make 
 it worth while for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to 
 meet their complaints. 
 
 The motion on this occasion was pressed to a division, 
 and there voted for 34, and against 152, The minority 
 included J. G. Biggar, I. Butt, E. W. Grey, Mitchell 
 Henry, Sir Joseph M'Kenna, Charles S. Parnell, O'Connor 
 Power, W. A. Redmond, and A. M. Sullivan. The tellers 
 for the minority were Captain Nolan and Richard 
 Power. 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 A.D. 1882. 
 
 SIR J. M'KENNA MOVES FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE 
 
 ON IRISH TAXATION. THE HOUSE 
 
 COUNTED OUT. 
 
 On 1 8th April, 1882, Sir Joseph M'Kenna asked for the 
 appointment of a select committee 
 
 To inquire and report Avhether, since the year 1851, the new and 
 additional duties which have been levied oti" Ireland have not in- 
 creased the pressure of ini[)erial taxation on the populatii)n of that 
 portion of the United Kingdom to such an extent that, having 
 rec'ard to the total property and incoiue of the inhabitants of each 
 island respectively, the iuiperial taxation of Ireland is now doubly
 
 90 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 heavier than that of Great Britain ; whether the entire imperial 
 taxation of Great Britain does not barely exceed the produce of an 
 income tax of 2s. 6d. in the pound, and whether that of Ireland 
 does not exceed what would be produced by an income tax of 
 5s. 3d. 
 
 He said there was no finding of the committee of 
 1865 which anticipated, answered, or decided in any 
 way upon the issue raised by the present motion, which 
 was one for the appointment of a committee to inquire 
 into a state of facts without parallel in modern history, 
 and into a course of legislation for the last twenty-nine 
 years which had led to results without precedent in this 
 or in any other country of the world. Calling things 
 by hard names and bad names was not his habit, for 
 that was neither proof nor argument. It was impos- 
 sible to find words in which to describe the financial 
 policy pursued towards Ireland since 1853 unless one 
 had recourse to very strong terms. His chief difficulty 
 was, not to be moderate in referring to the injustice 
 which had been done, but to find words to describe 
 the ignorance of honourable members in former Parlia- 
 ments and in this on the subject. Even this lack of 
 information was scarcely so remarkable as the self-com- 
 placency with which those honourable members seemed 
 to contemplate the conduct of Great Britain and this 
 Parliament towards Ireland in modern times ; for it was 
 not infrequent to hear the fiscal legislation of the United 
 Kingdom referred to as if Ireland were in that respect 
 a favoured and cherished sister. There never was a 
 greater delusion. There was no country in Europe in 
 which so large a proportion of the total income of a man 
 was levied by the State taxman as in Ireland. To 
 assume that identity of imposts in all cases meant 
 equality of taxation was a monstrous delusion. The 
 articles .selected for taxation should be equally in 
 demand, equally used, and equally consumed in both
 
 SIR J. M'KENNA MOVES FOR A COMMITTEE. 91 
 
 countries, otherwise identity of imposts meant the very 
 opposite to equah'ty of taxation. A moderate tax on 
 cheese would fall heavily on the bulk of the English 
 people, and would scarcely affect the Irish in the least. 
 Raising the taxation of Ireland in 1853 was the modern 
 method of sowing dragons' teeth, with a parallel result 
 to the ancient precedent. From 1853 Dublin Castle 
 represented Ireland as making great strides towards 
 material prosperity, whilst the country was really 
 struggling in vain against the wasting process. The 
 logical corollary to Mr. Lowe's argument of individual 
 taxation was that France and Tunis were two geo- 
 graphical expressions, and that a heavy tax on dates 
 and a light tax on grapes would be fair between the 
 French and Tunisians. Aesop's fable of The Fox and 
 the Stork had long since put boyhood and manhood on 
 their guard against such shallow sophistry. He went 
 into elaborate figures to justify his views. 
 
 Two efforts were made to count the House out, the 
 second of which was successful before he had concluded. 
 Discussion was stopped for the time being ; but some 
 more powerful exorcism than a comtt out was necessary 
 to lay the spirit of the gigantic crime perpetrated on 
 Ireland. 
 
 When Sir Joseph M'Kenna was refused a hearing by 
 the House of Commons, he addressed the English 
 people in a pamphlet, published in 1883 in London : 
 Imperial Taxation : The Case of Ireland Plainly Stated. 
 Its forty-six pages bristle with facts. The transparent 
 clearness of its homely style merits its title. It is rich 
 in economic aphorisms. Its brevity is commendable, 
 its reasoning irresistible, its deductions convincing, and 
 its conclusions unanswerable. It proceeds from cause 
 to effect with logical sequence, and enunciates canons 
 of international taxation with striking clearness and 
 originality. Viewed in the light of the Report of the
 
 92 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 Royal Commission, it is a marvel of prophecy. The 
 following extracts, all of which will be found useful in 
 the present controversy, are made from it : — 
 
 Political oppression in modern times is mostly financial. 
 
 The true principle of taxation is to raise the minimum 
 amount necessary for the needs of the State with the 
 most equitable distribution of its incidence. 
 
 The justice or injustice of imposing a particular tax does not 
 altogether depend on the nature of the impost itself, for a particular 
 tax may be fair enough in the abstract, yet unjust in its applica- 
 tion. For instance, there may be eight subjects for taxation, 
 each equally proper in the abstract to sustain an impost ; l)ut if 
 from five of these the State has already gathered the full amount 
 which the community ought to pay on all, the three subjects which 
 had hitherto escajjed taxation should remain untaxed until the 
 burden could be equitably distributed over the entire. 
 
 The evils inflicted on Ireland, and the benefits which 
 accrued to England owing to the financial system of 
 
 1853. 
 
 Thus the policy of 1853, which impoverished Ireland, has 
 marched together with the reduction of English taxes and repay- 
 ment of the national debt, 2>a'"i pasau, in grand procession for thirty 
 years. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer of an empire ought 
 to be able to establish a system of identical imposts, 
 with safeguards for the readjustment of any unequal 
 incidence. 
 
 The science of jjolitical federation, and of the distribution of 
 taxation and revenue in empires, has advanced sufficiently to 
 enable any accomplished Chancellor or statesman to propound a 
 perfectly equitable scheme for the maintenance of identical im- 
 posts throughout an emijire made up of many states, with popu- 
 lations of various habits of living, containing provisions to redress 
 any unequal incidence <jf the levies as tliey first aftect the respec- 
 tive peoples or di\'isions of which the empire is composed.
 
 SIK J. M'KKNNA .M()\ KS Vi)\i RETURNS. 93 
 
 The comparative wealth aiul poverty of states consti- 
 tuting an empire must be taken into account when 
 adjusting taxation between them. 
 
 Before pronouncing the taxation of any country fair or unfair, if 
 the country ])o one of several constituting an oini)ire or confedera- 
 tion, tlie taxation must be viewed in relation to the comparative 
 wealth or poverty of the inha))itants of the respective countries 
 which constitute the empire or confederation. Tiie sictual sum 
 contributed, without other data, is no guide whatever. 
 
 The Irish case for redress of over-taxation is un- 
 answerable. 
 
 The injustice towards Ireland in the matter of imperial taxation 
 is so great, that nothing but the shallowest and silliest substitutes 
 for argument are ever adduced, or are adducible, in defence of the 
 present system. 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 A.D. 1886. 
 
 SIR JOSEril M'KENNA .MOVES FOR RETURNS. 
 
 MR. C;OSCIIEN SUGGESTS A COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY. 
 
 The disastrous termination of his motion for a select 
 committee in 1882 neither silenced nor deterred Sir 
 Joseph M'Kenna, and again, on 23rd February, 1886, he 
 returned to the subject with the same irrepressible 
 ardour and determination. At different intervals during 
 the previous twenty years he had vainly tried to 
 arrest the attention of the House of Commons ; but at 
 length he was to receive a patient and sympathetic hear- 
 ing. He moved for a 
 
 Return of the gross imperial revenue of Ireland derived from 
 taxation and of the population of Ireland for the years 1851, 18G1, 
 1871, and 1881, and a like return for Great Britain for the siime 
 years, >)eing in both cases a continuation, in like form, of Parlia- 
 mentary Paper No, 407 of Session 1874.
 
 94 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 In moving for the return, he alluded to the " count 
 out," by means of which the Government officials 
 thought fit to put an end to the discussion in 1882. 
 There was no danger of that to-night ; but if English 
 and Scotch members attended to him, they would 
 understand many things connected with Ireland which, 
 at first sight, did not appear to be connected with 
 imperial taxation. He did not accuse any party ot 
 intentional injustice to Ireland in the matter of imperial 
 taxation. He was content with showing how the taxa- 
 tion of Ireland increased in the face of a waning 
 population, whilst the taxation of Great Britain had 
 been so regulated and the revenue husbanded that the 
 pressure of taxation was continuously lightened, so that, 
 whilst it increased in amount, its incidence on each head 
 of the population was constantly growing lighter. He 
 quoted Adam Smith's canons of taxation, and asserted 
 that they had been grievously violated in the case of 
 Ireland. He mentioned that the taxation per head in 
 Ireland in 1841 was 9s. 6^d. (which was very severe), 
 and in 1871 it was ^i 6s. id. 
 
 Adam Smith's rule that taxation should be levied on 
 the subjects of a state in proportion to the incomes they 
 enjoyed under its protection applied in strongest force 
 to empires made up of several nationalities, where the 
 possessions of an entire people could be* measured with 
 approximate accuracy. He was told that the taxation 
 per head of the people of Great Britain greatly ex- 
 ceeded the taxation per head of the people of Ireland. 
 Yes, but the taxation per head of the people of Ireland 
 was five times that per head of the people of India; but 
 that did not prove that the people of India were not 
 more heavily taxed than the people of Ireland. Taxa- 
 tion ought to be estimated and levied according to 
 wealth. He adduced the comparison per head of 
 population simply to show that there was progressive
 
 SIR 1. M'KKXXA M()\ i;S FOR RETURNS. 95 
 
 alleviation in the case of Great Britain, and an cxtra- 
 ordinar)' progressive increase of burden in Ireland. His 
 legitimate arguments on the relative powers of Great 
 Britain and Ireland to sustain taxation had been met 
 with cver\- form of evasion. One right honourable 
 gentleman, a Chancellor of the E.xchequer, who then 
 adorned the Upper House, had the temerity to say that 
 Ireland was not taxed at all. but that the individuals 
 who happened to reside in Ireland were taxed ; that the 
 taxation was just, as the same tariff was applied in 
 Ireland and Great Britain; and he thus disposed of all 
 grievance, ignoring that unless the habits of the people 
 of Great Britain and Ireland were identical, and their 
 wealth relatively equal, identity of impost was no 
 guarantee of equality of taxation. Another right 
 honourable gentleman, who had been translated to the 
 same convenient haven, admitted the general facts, and 
 that a case of disparity was made out, but raised the 
 phantom of an argument that greater disparity might 
 be shown between districts in England. Not the 
 slightest attempt was made to show why the taxation 
 of Ireland should have been increased by ^3,000,000 a 
 year contemporaneously with a decrease of 3,000,000 of 
 the inhabitants of the unfortunate country. In no part 
 of the world did so monstrous a system of fiscal injustice 
 prevail as that of the United Kingdom towards Ireland. 
 He attributed no malign designs to anyone, and it was 
 for the curious to determine whether this was the work 
 of the permanent officials or of the gentlemen who held 
 Her Majesty's seals. The whole imperial taxation of 
 England could be commuted by an income tax of 2s. 6d. 
 in the pound. The whole imperial taxation of Ireland 
 could not be commuted at less than an income tax of 
 5s. 3d. in the pour.d. He had heard ad naiiseaui that 
 there was nothing abnormal in the taxation of Ireland, 
 that she was a favoured nation, treated with sisterly self-
 
 96 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 sacrificing affection by Great Britain ; yet the highest 
 statistical authority in the service of the Government 
 recently confessed that Ireland ought not to fairly con- 
 tribute more than half her present contribution. He 
 then dealt with the case suggested in mitigation, namely, 
 that of expenditure : — 
 
 As a matter of account between the imperial exchequer and 
 Ireland, the locality in which the charge for imperial objects was 
 expended had nothing to do with the distribution of the burden of 
 the charge. He freely admitted that the local trade of the district 
 in which imperial funds were expended benefited somewhat by 
 the expenditure ; but tliat was not the point, and had no earthly 
 connection with the distribution of the chai'ge amongst the tax- 
 payers of Great Britain and Ireland. 
 
 Sir Thomas Esmonde seconded the motion. Ireland 
 was overtaxed, having regard to the amount of the Irish 
 national debt at the time of the Union, and having 
 regard to the poverty of the people compared with the 
 people of England. He made a complete and careful 
 analysis of the Irish and English debts before and after 
 the Union to show the unfair treatment in that respect. 
 The second objection to the present taxation was the 
 absence of manufactures and commercial enterprise 
 from Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Goschen expressed his sense of the extreme im- 
 portance of the question raised by Sir Joseph M'Kenna. 
 He regretted that the matter had not been dealt with 
 at an earlier stage. If there was an Irish case, everyone 
 must be most anxious to examine it to the very bottom, 
 and those who were anxious to maintain the legislative 
 Union felt all the more bound to see that no financial 
 injustice was done to a country which was in a minority 
 in the House. Every motion which came from the Iri.sh 
 quarter substantiating even a prima facie case of finan- 
 cial injustice ought to be probed to the bottom. The 
 fact that a distinguished statistician had stated that
 
 MR. GOSCHEN SUGGESTS AN INOUIRV. 97 
 
 Ireland was paying too much towards imperial ta\'ation 
 added additional importance to the motion. lie then 
 stated that a return would not be sufificient to show 
 whether Ireland was pa\'ing to(j much or too little, and 
 then remarked : — 
 
 What will some time or other be necessary, if it is not done on 
 tlie present occasion, is tliat the principles (of taxable capacity) 
 should be grappled with by a committee or otherwise, and that 
 then, applying those principles, we should see whether or not we 
 could come to some agreement. I am sure the bulk of the popula- 
 tion of both countries would wish to come to a fair agreement upon 
 this matter. I have thought myself of moving to substitute a com- 
 mittee on this occasion for a return ; but I have reason to believe 
 that that, in the present position of Irish aflairs, would not be a 
 very convenient arrangement, and I further think it will be wise, 
 and may advance the matter, if the return should be procured with- 
 out any delay. But if nothing should come of the presentation of 
 the return, I trust at some future period that this question may be 
 renewed, and that we may endeavour by some such means as may 
 be in our power to probe this very imiJortant question to the very 
 bottom to see if a grievance exists, and, if a gi'ievance re^illy exists, 
 to set to work to remedy it in a spirit of justice and e([uity to all 
 parts of the United Kingdom. 
 
 Mr. John Dillon, Mr. J. F. X. O'Brien, and Colonel 
 Nolan spoke from the Irish benches. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone (First Lord of the Treasury) spoke of 
 the excellent spirit which pervaded the debate. Com- 
 mittees were appointed to examine this question and of 
 "bolting it to the bran." The committee of 1863-64 
 {sic) was appointed to determine whether Ireland paid 
 excessively or not in proportion to her means. Yet 
 that committee came to no conclusion and made no 
 report upon that portion of the subject. The com- 
 mittee gave great attention and labour to the general 
 investigation, yet gave the go-by to that question, for 
 the simple reason that it could not arrive at an}- amount 
 of unanimity, even by a majority. lie considered that 
 
 H
 
 98 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATIOX. 
 
 income tax was not a sufficient test of relative ability, 
 but that the average of legacy and succession duties for 
 a number of years was the fairest test which could be 
 obtained. He admitted that the proportion of two to 
 fifteen fixed at the time of the Union was too high. 
 He concluded : — 
 
 I beg members to remember that this is a subject that does not 
 bear being handled by demonstrative evidence. Debate it as long 
 as you will, appoint as many committees as you will, it will still be 
 in the main a matter of argument. The best security and guarantee 
 we can have for arriving with tolerable facility at some tolerably 
 fair conclusion is that all gentlemen should endeavour to approach 
 the question in a thoroughly considerate spirit, and with an al)ate- 
 ment of all extreme opinions. If they do that, I believe the matter 
 is perfectly capable of a practic.il solution ; and it is because I think 
 the temjjer that has been shown to-night atibrds considerable pro- 
 mise of progress in that direction, should the necessity arise, that 
 I congratulate the honourable gentleman and the House upon the 
 spirit with which the debate has been conducted. 
 
 An explanation of the very remarkable change in the 
 demeanour of both English parties on the question of 
 Irish taxation must be sought in the political circum- 
 stances of the time. Irish complaints, so often made in 
 the past, had almost invariably been met with callous 
 indifference. Nevertheless, the great change of attitude, 
 irrespective of the motives which prompted it, was a 
 hopeful augury for the future of the Irish case.
 
 "THE TI.MKS," I.oKD MONTEAGLK, SIK K. (ilFl'EN. 99 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 A.D. 1886. 
 
 "THE TIMES," LORD MONTEACLE, AND SIR ROliERT 
 
 GIFFEN. 
 
 The remarkable change in English public opinion was 
 manifested more clearly in the columns of TJie Times 
 than even in the discussion in the House of Commons. 
 The infallibility of past years of that journal was laid 
 aside, and instead it adopted a mild agnosticism 
 towards such difficult problems as incidence of taxation 
 and the tests by which the capacity of contribution was 
 to be measured, on which it was wont to dogmatize so 
 incontrovertibly. On the 24th February, 1886, it 
 expressed the following views : — 
 
 We cordially agree with Mr. Goschen that those who are most 
 strongly in favour of maintaining the legislative Union ouglit to be 
 the readiest to support a demand for inquiry by the Imperial 
 Parliament into every case of alleged grievance that can be sup- 
 ported by any show (jf reason and l)y anytliing approaching to 
 trustworthy evidence. ... A conunittee to inquire into the 
 subject — though the Prime Minister reminded the House that 
 previous inquiries, of which there liave been many, resulted in no 
 decisive conclusions — would appear to be desirable. The actual 
 incidence of taxati<ni has to be determined, as well as the tests by 
 which the capacity of contribution is to be measured, and at 
 present there is the widest diversity of opinion on both points. 
 
 * * • * 
 
 We are inclined to think, therefore, that Sir John Lubbock is 
 right in questioning whether an inquiry would show any kind 
 of unfairness to Ireland in respect of her fiscal l)urdens as 
 compared with tlio rust of the United Kingdom. But that is no 
 reason why Mr. Goschen's suggestion of a select committee, 
 which even Mr. Dillon recognised as conceived '\\\ a kindly spirit, 
 should not be adopted.
 
 lOO IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 In The Times of 27th February, Lord Monteagle 
 expressed satisfaction at the spirit of conciliation dis- 
 played in the recent debate, and hoped it would continue 
 to prevail. He then discussed the " relative ability " of 
 the two countries — a question on which the widest 
 diversity of opinion prevailed : — 
 
 ('() The exports and imports of Ireland for the year 1882 
 amounted to eleven millions, and those of the United Kingdom to 
 720 millions, giving a jiroportion of 1 : (35. 
 
 (/*) The customs and excise of Ireland f(jr the same year 
 amounted (as far as I can ascertain) to six millions, and those of 
 the United Kingdom to forty-six millions, giving a proportion of 
 2 : 15. 
 
 (c) Taking the proportion of population, which is 1 : 7, the three 
 together give a proportion of I : 21, which is singularly close to the 
 income tax test, viz., 1 : 20. 
 
 But public attention was still more earnestly focussed 
 on the taxation of Ireland by the remarkable contri- 
 bution to the March number of TJie Nineteenth Centicry, 
 1886, by Sir Robert Giffen. He was chief of the 
 Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, and his 
 reputation was second to none in England as a sound 
 thinker and writer on economics and finance. Not the 
 least noticeable feature of his opinions was his marked 
 tendency to adopt optimistic views on the seriously 
 debated questions of his time which related to the 
 material well-being of England. His pictures of 
 economic England and economic Ireland contrast as 
 sharply as Dante's visions of the Paradiso and Inferno. 
 Painting darkness and decay was a task as unusual to 
 him as it was uncongenial, and was done in the case of 
 Ireland because no other picture was possible. His 
 official position, and the admitted authority of his 
 opinions, ensured a wide discussion for the article. It 
 estimated the economic value of Ireland to Great Bri- 
 tain mainly from the English standpoint. It noticed
 
 SIR KOHERT GIFFEN. lOI 
 
 the relative and absolute increase (^f population in 
 Encfland, and the relative and absolute decrease in 
 Ireland. It showed that the residuum of people remain- 
 ing in Ireland was not equal in industrial character and 
 resources to an equal number of the people of Great 
 Britain. The taxable income of Ireland was so low, 
 and its resources so slender, that, as a partner of a rich 
 state like Great Britain, Ireland was insignificant, and 
 hardly counted one way or the other. He summed up 
 his conclusions on Irish decline in the following graphic 
 paragraph : — 
 
 To put the matter shortly and in tlie roundest figures — there 
 can, of course, be no exact figures of income and capital — Ireland, 
 in population, has sunk from one-third to less than one-seventh 
 in tjross income, from two-seventeentlis to less than one-seven- 
 teenth ; in capital, from a proportion that was material to about 
 one-twenty-fourth only ; in taxable resources, from a proportion 
 that was also material, being, perha^is, about one-tenth, to a pro- 
 portion tliat is almost inappreciable — the proportion of only one to 
 fifty. In resources Ireland has, no doubt, increased absolutely. 
 The Irish peoj^le are much better ofl' individually, partly because 
 there are fewer people than there were fifty years ago, but with 
 much the same resources ; but as a community in relation to Great 
 Bi'itain there is an immense decline. 
 
 When he came to write on Irish taxation, he merely 
 re-echoed the Irish complaints of thirty years, though, 
 admittedly, the discovery by him was new, and the result 
 of his own investigations — 
 
 I desire likewise to call attention to the fact, which has come 
 out incidentally, that Ireland is overtaxed in comparison with 
 Great Britain. It contributes twice its proper share, if not more, 
 to the Imperial Exchequer. The taxation in one view is not repre- 
 hensible ; it is levied in the shape of indirect taxes, mainly on 
 spirits and tobacco. The Irisli masses could untax themselves by 
 the simple expedient of consuming less spirits and tobacco. This 
 is the easy view wliich lias often l)een acted upon when the subject 
 has come up in the Imperial Parliament. Long ago, in 18(>4, when 
 there was a committee on Irish taxation, Mr. Lowe embarrassed an
 
 102 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 able witness, Mr. E. Senior, a poor law inspector in Ireland, and 
 well acquainted with Irish poverty, by putting this very point. 
 But it is not the right view. How much of the exjjenditure of the 
 Irish people on spirits and tobacco is really wasteful is not cer- 
 tainly known. People who have so little taxable income have, at 
 any rate, a claim to have the money taken from them by the Govern- 
 ment applied for their special benefit. At present nearly the 
 whole taxable income of the Irish people is, in fact, absorbed by the 
 State. The taxable income being about £15,000,000 only, the 
 Imperial Government, as we have seen, takes nearly £7,000,000, 
 and local taxes are over £3,000,000 more, or al)out £10,000,000 in 
 all. So large a proportion of taxation to taxable income would be a 
 serious fact for any country, and there can be little accumulation 
 in Ireland under such conditions. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 A.D. 1886-87. 
 MR. C. S. PARNELL AND SIR J. N. M'KENNA. 
 
 Mr. Boyle O'Reilly, of The Boston Pilot, made 
 inquiries of Sir Joseph M'Kenna early in 1886 about the 
 financial provisions of the Home Rule Bill. The 
 interrogatories were thus summarized by Sir Joseph 
 M'Kenna:— 
 
 " Do these (financial) clauses provide for any sufficient 
 alteration in the incidence of taxation to remedy the 
 evils which you demonstrated in your pamphlet on 
 Imperial Taxation (Rivingtons, 1883) which you were 
 good enough to send me ? I ask because they do not 
 appear to me to do so." 
 
 These questions were submitted to Mr. Parnell, and 
 he re-read Sir Joseph M'Kenna's pamphlet of 1883. 
 The interview which took place between Mr. Parnell 
 and Sir Joseph M'Kenna is thus recorded by Sir
 
 MR. C. S. TARNELL AND SIR \. N. M'KENXA. IO3 
 
 Joseph in '/'/w Irislt Daily Independent of 6th August, 
 1892 :— 
 
 " He next asked ine if, on the hypothesis that he 
 considered that my views were ri<^ht, I thought he 
 would be justified in maintaining silence about them to 
 Mr. Gladstone. I answered that, in my opinion, it 
 would be right fcjr him to say to Mr. Gladstone that he 
 (Mr. Parnell) was aware that certain members of the 
 party, who had promised to support the Bill on the 
 second reading, had told him that they would go for 
 amendments in committee, without which they would 
 regard the financial clauses as oppressive. Mr. Gladstone, 
 I presumed, would say to him, and I believe subse- 
 quently did, that all reasonable amendments would have 
 fair consideration. I advised that in such case the 
 subject should not be followed up until the second 
 reading had passed. 
 
 " Mr. Parnell then asked me if I could give him the 
 texts of the amendments to consider. I offered an 
 objection to doing so, which Mr. Parnell accepted. I 
 told him that it would only embarrass him to have them 
 so as to have to admit to Mr. Gladstone that they had 
 been already formulated. Mr. Parnell then said to me, 
 ' I trust implicitly to your knowledge of the subject, and 
 that you will be able to give me in good time the text 
 of all amendments you think vital, and we shall confer 
 as to who had best move each.' I answered Mr. Parnell 
 071 this head to the exact effect of what I now indite." 
 
 "'The amendments which I will formulate shall be 
 very few, and such as will commend themselves, by the 
 equities on the face of them, to every dispassionate 
 mind. Some of the most objectionable clauses will 
 be adequately met by allowing the words of the Bill to 
 stand, and interpolating the words save as hereiyiafter. 
 My amendments need not be verbose ; they would be 
 mostl)', if not wholly, in the nature o{ provisoes. I would
 
 104 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 aim at getting the Irish Secretary and Irish Attorney- 
 General (with Mr. Gladstone's approval) to assent to 
 most of them without controversy in committee, or to 
 propose them. I would allow Mr. Gladstone a very free 
 hand apparently to pile up, as he has done in prospect, 
 burdens on Ireland's future revenue; but I would unload 
 them all again by the proviso that the total contribution 
 of Ireland to imperial revenue sJwuld not exceed the propor- 
 tio7i oftJie revenue i^elatively to the income tax exacted from 
 England arid Wales hy the Imperial Parliament.'" 
 
 " Mr. Parnell then asked, ' Can this be done practi- 
 cally ? ' I answered, ' Yes ; it only involves another 
 ledger in the Treasury and a corresponding one in 
 Dublin. Mr. Robert Giffen will be easily able to 
 show Mr. Gladstone, zf there be the zvill, what the way 
 is. We shall only ask what is fair, and I promise 
 you there shall be no equitable flaw in any one of 
 our provisoes.' " 
 
 " When we had got so far in our conversation, Mr. 
 Parnell had nearly read over — as I believe for the 
 second time — my pamphlet of 1883. He then asked 
 in a very kind fashion, ' Would it be too much, 
 M'Kenna, to ask you to write another pamphlet on 
 nearly the same lines, but, if possible, not driving so 
 hard as this one does at Gladstone, but showing 
 what we could do for ourselves on the Land Question if 
 our means had not been mopped up by the imperial 
 tax-gatherer since the Union ? ' " 
 
 " I answered, ' If you wish it, I shall do so certainly ; 
 but I shall require some fresh returns to justify me in 
 issuing a fresh pamphlet. I will move at once for the 
 requisite papers, and perhaps Mr. Gladstone will let me 
 have them. The pamphlet Mr. Boyle O'Reilly writes 
 upon is, I believe, quite out of print, and, except a few 
 copies which I early retained for myself or for our own 
 party, they are not to be had for love or money.' "
 
 MR. C. S. PARNELL AND SIR J. N. M'KENNA. I05 
 
 " Shortly after this conversation, whilst Mr. Gladstone 
 was still in power in 1886, I moved for the requisite 
 returns, which Mr. H. Fowler, then Secretary of the 
 Treasury, with Mr. Gladstone's concurrence, at once 
 assented to j^rant. I subsequently prepared, agreeably 
 with my promise to Mr. Parnell, a fresh resume of the 
 Irish financial case as against Great Britain, starting 
 from the passing of the Union at the end of A.D. 1800, 
 and brought down to 1880. This is the pamphlet 
 published by and at Ridgway's, Piccadilly (1887), 
 where it is still to be had. Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet had 
 retired from office in 1886, not on the rejection of the 
 Home Rule Bill, but as the result of the General 
 Election which followed its rejection in that year. 
 
 " Mr. Parnell, to whom I sent proofs of the pamphlet 
 of 1887 before I would authorize its issue, commenced 
 to read them in my presence. He observed soon that 
 he thought I had shown too little tenderness for Mr. 
 Gladstone in paragraphs 60, 61,62, and 63, considering 
 his position towards us since 1886. I offered to strike 
 the paragraphs out ; but I excused their appearance in 
 the proof, because the English Liberals, I said, parti- 
 cularly the Radical section of them, were steeped in 
 ignorance and prejudice, and continually prated when 
 some morsel of relief was proposed for Ireland, as if to 
 propose such a thing were a fraud on the English tax- 
 payer ; and I thought it needful that some one should, 
 in forcible language, say something /^r contra, although 
 it may not be agreeable for some of them to read that 
 this Irish cause of ours is not one of ancient history, but 
 mainly one of the present era. When I had said this, 
 Mr. Parnell, who had previously put his pencil through 
 the four paragraphs, bracketed them anew, and wrote 
 ' stet ' in the margin. 
 
 " When Mr. Parnell came to paragraph 90 (of the 100 
 paragraphs of which the pamphlet of 1887 is made up),
 
 I06 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 he said, ' I was about saying to you you had forgotten 
 to point out how the Land Question was only part of 
 the financial one, but I see that you forget nothing.' 
 He then read the remaining ten paragraphs slowly to 
 himself without saying a word, and then remarked, 
 ' Now I know why you desired to retain the three or 
 four paragraphs I at first objected to. You were right ; 
 it is a great satisfaction to me that you re-wrote the 
 case in plain English, and that it is on record. I am 
 sincerely obliged to you.' 
 
 " This is all I have now to say ; but every line which I 
 have written in this letter is part of the case which 
 Ireland has to consider if Mr. Gladstone assumes power, 
 Mr. Gladstone is, doubtless, a wiser man than when, an 
 admirer of the Union, in 1853, he made such wonderful 
 concessions to the British taxpayer, and so far as Ireland 
 was concerned simply made a grab in the dark. The 
 only defence of Mr. Gladstone's conduct in 1853 is that 
 he was, in fact, then in the dark; he did not know what a 
 horrid business the Union was, and so he made it worse 
 than ever by levying fresh and oppressive taxation off 
 Ireland under its powers. 
 
 " Home Rule or no Home Rule, what has to be done 
 is to appropriate to Irish purposes solely the three millions 
 sterling a year, or whatever it may be, more or less, which 
 the English Government now raises from Ireland in 
 excess of the proportion which she ought to bear as 
 measured by the yield of the income tax in England, 
 Scotland, and Ireland." 
 
 In the debate on the Home Rule Bill on 8th April, 
 1886, Mr. Parnell made the following statement on the 
 relative ability of Ireland: — 
 
 I have every conviction — I do not want to go into the question 
 to-night, but after carefully reading the article by Mr. Giffen, 
 which has attracted so much attention, and a long connnunication 
 which appears in The Times of this morning from a gentleman who
 
 MR. C. S. PARNELL AND SIR J. N. M'KENNA. 10/ 
 
 evidently knows what he is writing about — T am C(jiiviiicu(I that it 
 is clear that one-twentieth is a far better standard of the relative 
 share of the two countries than that most unfortunate standard of 
 one-tifteenth which the right hon. gentleman has adopted. We could 
 show several standards much more favourable to us, based upon 
 the various commodities consumed in Ireland, and which will show 
 that Ireland is a very much poorer country in comparison with 
 England than is expressed by the proportion which the right hon. 
 gentleman has selected. I have every contidence that when the 
 time comes when this Bill is in committee, and when we put for- 
 ward our case, the conscience not only of the House of Commons, 
 but of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
 will be touched in regard to this matter, and that the Prime Minister 
 will see that his zeal for nxaking a good bargain for his own country 
 in imperial questions has misled him into doing an unintentional 
 inju.stice to Ireland in regard to this (luestion of the contribution 
 towards the imperial expenditure. 
 
 Sir Joseph M'Kenna wrote the pamphlet as requested 
 by Mr. Parnell, and it was published in the following 
 year. The Parliamentary returns which he had moved 
 for in February had been issued, and enabled him to 
 bring his case up to date. The pamphlet of 1883 differs 
 very much from that of 1887. The former was confined to 
 an examination of the over-taxation from 1853 ; the latter 
 reviews the whole period since the Union. The taxation 
 raised in Ireland from 1800 to 1850 was compared with 
 the taxation raised from 1856 to 188 1. In other words, 
 the taxation of the first fifty years of the Union was 
 compared with the last twenty-five: — 
 
 The fiscal results of the first half-century, so far as Ireland was 
 concerned, and is, are before us : the sum of £210,100,507 com- 
 prises not only all the legitimate and reasonable taxation of the 
 half-century, but also — so far as they involve money payments 
 within the fifty years — all the corruptions and exactions made to 
 fall on Ireland in connection with the business of the Union. Let 
 me not minimize the total. 1 have ample reason to charge it as 
 excessive, and if I refrain now from doing so, it is because I have 
 to compare the total exactions of the first fifty years of the Union 
 with a much worse period which ensued, in respect of which the
 
 I08 IRISH PPOTKST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 framers of the Union are in no sense responsible, save that, vvlicn 
 they were all in their graves, Mr. Gladstone proposed and carried 
 through the Imperial Parliament such measures of unjust financial 
 exaction as would have been impossible in a native Parliament. 
 
 I proceed now to compare the first fifty years of Union taxation 
 with the twenty-five latest years included in the returns of 17th 
 September, 1886. If nothing abnormal had occurred — if the taxa- 
 tion of a famine-stricken and continuously dwindling population 
 had only kept pace with the average taxation from the Union up to 
 1851— the taxation for the twenty-five years up to March, 1881, 
 would have amounted to £108,095,283, and no more ; but instead 
 of that sum the imperial taxation of Ireland for the twenty-five 
 years amounted to £168,741,237. 
 
 I wonder whether people generally, without something in the 
 nature of a rebellion to stimulate their cogitative faculties, can 
 realize what it is to the inhabitants of a poor country to be shorn 
 in this fashion of £60,045,945 sterling in twenty-five years, in excess 
 of a taxation which tvas itself excessice, for it was on a scale that 
 sufficed to appease the utmost avidity or rapacity which, with any 
 show of reason, can be charged against the British Parliament and 
 Government for the first fifty years of the Union. 
 
 The following analysis of the imperial taxation of 
 the United Kingdom was the clearest and subtlest yet 
 made, and most graphically represented the excessive 
 taxation of Ireland : — 
 
 I commend to the careful consideration of English statesmen the 
 following analysis, constructed from the latest dissected returns we 
 have of the actual and relative gross amounts of revenue derived 
 from taxation of the United Kingdom and of the three realms 
 respectively. 
 
 The figures analysed are founded on those given in Parliamentary 
 Return 108, of April 13th, 1886, and apply to the financial year 
 1884-85. The respective totals are as follows : — ■ 
 
 England and Wales, total taxation, ... £57,327,686 
 
 Scotland, do. do. ... 8,825,941 
 
 Ireland, do. do. ... 7,755,001 
 
 Total, ... . ... £73,908,628 
 
 An income tax for all practical purposes identical, and fairly 
 enough designed to be of identical relative incidence, applies to all 
 three countries.
 
 AIMOINTMEM" OF A RON AL COMMISSION. IO9 
 
 The yields from income tfix contained in the above and from (dl 
 uthcr im2)erial taxes for each of these roahns are as follows : — 
 
 T rn All Other ™ . , 
 
 Income lax. i,„,,erial Taxes. totals. 
 
 England and Wales, ... £10,214,091 £'47,113,i595 £57,327,080 
 ScoUand, ... ... 1,137,001 7,088,940 8,825,941 
 
 Ireland, ... ... 571,078 7,183,323 7,755,001 
 
 Totals, ... £11,922,770 £01,985,858 £73,908,628 
 
 It requires no laborious argument to establish from the foregoing 
 figures first, that the i-elative means of each of these realms to pay 
 other imperial tuxes can be more closely apj)roximated by measuring 
 the relative yield of each to the income tax than by any other 
 process open to our adoption. 
 
 Now let me jjoint out what the above figures establish. They 
 prove that for Ewjlaiid (so terming England and Wales) her other 
 imperial taxes are not equal to^ire times her income tax ; that for 
 Scutland her other imperial taxes do not equal seven times lier 
 income tax ; but for Ireland her other imperial taxes consider- 
 ably exceed twelve times her income tax. 
 
 The pamphlet made a great impression on leading 
 Liberal statesmen, more particularly on Mr. Childers, 
 and contributed to deepen the growing belief in England 
 that the oft-reiterated Irish complaints against excessive 
 taxation were not without foundation. 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 A.D. 1890-94. 
 
 MR. THOMAS SEXTON. 
 
 MR. JOHN E. REDMOND ASKS FOR AND OBTAINS THE 
 APPOINTMENT OF A ROYAL COMMISSION. 
 
 Ox 20th Ma}', 1890, Mr. Thomas Sexton, in the debate 
 on the Custoins and Inland Revenue Bill, inquired if the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he levied this
 
 no IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVEK-TAXATlUX. 
 
 increased duty, which would affect Ireland in a particu- 
 larly burdensome manner, had asked himself whether 
 the Irish contribution to the revenue was not already 
 enough. For the last forty years Ireland, a country of 
 decreasing population and of decreasing capacity to 
 bear fiscal burdens, had been the victim of a long and 
 steady course of the most wanton fiscal aggression. In 
 England the consumption of wine, beer, and spirits was 
 6^ gallons per head ; in Scotland it was 4^ gallons 
 per head ; and in Ireland it was only 3 gallons per head. 
 If the taxation were fair, it would bear some relation to 
 the consumption. In England it was 14s. id. ; in 
 Scotland it was i8s. rod.; and in Ireland it was 13s, 
 per head, whereas it really should have been — in 
 England, 14s. id.; in Scotland, 9s, 4d.; and in Ireland, 
 6s. 3d. He protested against the mean, aggressive, and 
 disgraceful fiscal policy which weighed down the two 
 poorer members of the imperial partnership for the 
 benefit of the richer party. He asked had the Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer formulated any principle with 
 regard to the relative capacity of the countries which 
 were partners in the United Kingdom to contribute to 
 the common purse. The contribution of England to 
 the imperial revenue, judged by the four direct ta.xes of 
 probate, licences, stamps, and income tax, was light. 
 She contributed 81 per cent, of the whole revenue. On 
 probate she contributed 87 per cent. ; on licences, 86 per 
 cent. ; on stamps, 89 per cent. ; and on income tax, 87 per 
 cent. Ireland's contribution to the imperial revenue 
 was 8 per cent. On probate duty it was 4^ per cent. ; 
 on licences, 47 per cent. ; on stamps, 37 per cent. ; and 
 on income tax, 4*4 per cent. Judged by these four tests, 
 Ireland's contribution to the imperial revenue was 
 double what it ought to have been. He claimed a 
 select committee, as a matter of right, to consider the 
 incidence of imperial taxation, and he asked the House
 
 APPOINTMKNT OF A ROYAL COMMISSION. Ill 
 
 to suspend the proposal for the increased taxation of 
 Ireland until the committee had reported whether the 
 present taxation of Great Britain and Ireland was toler- 
 able and fair, and what steps should be taken, if the 
 Irish burden were found to be undue, to reduce the 
 contribution to such an amount as would appear to be 
 a more just contribution from the relative capacity of 
 each country to the common purse of the United 
 Kingdom. 
 
 Mr. Goschen, in reply to Mr. Sexton, said he thouijht 
 he was prepared to grant an inquiry into the financial 
 relations of the two countries. He would not pledge 
 himself further without consulting his leader (Mr. W. 
 H. Smith, First Lord of the Treasury), but he would be 
 prepared to throw as much light as possible on the 
 financial relations of the two countries. If inquiry 
 showed that injustice had been done to any part of the 
 United Kingdom, steps would be taken to afford redress. 
 In the debate which followed on that and the succeeding 
 day, Mr. John Dillon and Mr. T. M. Healy took part. 
 Mr. Dillon said he was glad that there was to be an 
 inquiry, and that it would have the best possible results ; 
 and Mr. Healy asked would the committee be nominated 
 on party lines or of financial experts. No inquiry had 
 taken place since that by General Dunne's committee 
 thirty years ago. 
 
 On the 14th July and on the ist August, Mr. Sexton 
 asked Mr. Goschen what steps he intended to take for 
 the appointment of the Select Committee on the Finan- 
 cial Relations of the Three Kingdoms. On r2th August 
 Mr. Goschen, in reply to Mr. Sexton and Mr. T. VV. 
 Russell, said that it was desirable to have a meeting of 
 the Committee on Financial Relations that session, in 
 order that they might consider what line the inquirv 
 would take, and what information would be required 
 from the departments. The terms of reference to the
 
 112 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 committee were announced on the 13th August as 
 follows : — 
 
 That a select committee he appointed to consider the present 
 financial relations between England, Scotland, and Ireland, and to 
 report — 
 
 (1) The amount and proportion of revenue contributed to the 
 Exchequer by the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland re- 
 spectively : 
 
 (2) The amount and proportion of revenue which, under recent 
 legislation, is paid to local authorities in England, Scotland, and 
 Ireland respectively : 
 
 (3) The amount and proportion of moneys expended out of the 
 Exchequer (a) upon civil and local government services for the 
 special use of and (h) upon collection of revenue in England, 
 Scotland, and Ireland respectively : 
 
 (4) The amount and proportion of State loans outstanding, and 
 of State liabilities incurred for local purposes in England, Scot- 
 land, and Ireland respectively : 
 
 (5) How far the financial relations established by the sums so 
 contributed, paid, advanced, or promised, or by any other existing 
 conditions, are equitable, having regard to the resources and popu- 
 lation of England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively. 
 
 A discussion took place on these terms of reference, 
 in which Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Thomas Sexton, and 
 Mr. Arthur O'Connor took part. Mr. Sexton said of 
 the reference that it was " in part irrelevant, in part 
 too restricted, and in part misleading." 
 
 The committee nominated consisted of twenty-one 
 members, of whom four were Irish — Mr. T. W. Russell, 
 Mr. Thomas Sexton, Mr. John Dillon, and Mr. Arthur 
 O'Connor. They met once, and ordered some returns 
 to be printed. 
 
 Early in the next session, on 27th February, 1891, 
 Sir Thomas Esmonde asked the First Lord of the 
 Treasury to state when the Committee of Inquiry into 
 the Financial Relations between Ireland and Great 
 Britain would commence its investigations. 
 
 Mr. Goschen replied that he was anxious to push the
 
 APrOINTMKNT OF A I<(^VAL COMMISSION. II3 
 
 matter forward, and would immediately take measures 
 to have the committee re-appointed. 
 
 Mr. Sexton thanked him, and Sir Joseph N. M'Kenna 
 asked that additional Irish members should be added, 
 to which Mr. Goschen did not assent. 
 
 Again, on 27th April, 1891, Sir Thomas Esmonde 
 asked when the committee would sit. Mr. Goschen 
 replied that the Government and Opposition members 
 were ready, and that the committee would be appointed 
 as soon as the Irish members gave notice of the names. 
 Mr. T. Sexton called attention to the inconvenience of 
 the delay arising from the non-appointment of the com- 
 mittee, and Mr. Goschen replied that he would put the 
 committee on the paper. 
 
 On nth June, Mr. Sexton asked how the Exchequer 
 contribution of ;^40,ooo per year in aid of local taxation 
 was calculated, and Mr. Goschen replied that it was on 
 the Probate Duty basis. 
 
 On 1 8th June Mr. H. H. Fowler asked the Chancellor, 
 of the Exchequer when he intended to move for the 
 Committee on Financial Relations. Mr. Goschen, in 
 reply, said it had been put down twice, but could not 
 be taken after 12 o'clock, owing to objections by Welsh 
 members. He hoped he would move it that evening. 
 
 On 22nd June Mr. Goschen moved for the appoint- 
 ment of the committee, but the Welsh members aeain 
 objected. In the course of the discussion, Mr. Goschen 
 made use of the expression — " separate fiscal entity T 
 
 Again, on 23rd June, Mr. Goschen moved, and the 
 Welsh members repeated their objections. 
 
 On 9th July Mr. Thomas Sexton moved the reduction 
 of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's salary by i^i,ooo, 
 to call attention to the non-appointment of the Com- 
 mittee on Financial Relations. The Irish contribution 
 to the Imperial revenue was a scandalous and intolerable 
 grievance. Ireland was paying her double share to the 
 
 I
 
 114 IKISH PROTEST AGAINST OVKK-TAXATION. 
 
 Imperial revenue. He was prepared to advance proofs 
 that Ireland was paying ^3,000,000 a year to the 
 Imperial revenue more than she should pay. The other 
 Irish members who took part in the debate were Colonel 
 Nolan and Mr. T. P. O'Connor. The motion was 
 defeated by 154 votes to 94. 
 
 In the session of 1892 the Government was frequently 
 asked when the special committee would be appointed. 
 The reply was invariably given that the Government 
 was willing to move the appointment, but the Welsh 
 members or the 12 o'clock rule stood in the way. 
 Finally, on the 12th May, Mr. Goschen moved the 
 appointment of the committee. The Welsh members 
 sought to have Wales specifically included, but Mr. 
 Goschen objected, and said — 
 
 We cannot agree to accept Wales in this inquiry as a separate 
 financial entity in our fiscal system. 
 
 It being midnight, the debate stood adjourned, and 
 the committee was never appointed. 
 
 On 8th August, 1892, Mr. J. E. Redmond, in the 
 debate on the address after the change of Govern- 
 ment, said : — 
 
 There is one portion of the Home Rule scheme which, wlien we 
 come to discuss it in this House, will ^jrobably prove the crux of 
 the whole business. I mean the financial portion of it. But it 
 would be manifestly al)8urd for me, on an occasion such as this, to 
 enter into that. All I will say is, that the financial portion of the 
 scheme of 188C was never accepted by the late Mr. Parnell, who 
 always made a reservation to the efifect that he would endeavour in 
 committee to deal with and amend it. Further than that, I believe 
 the experience of the last six years has convinced many men that 
 the financial arrangements proposed in the Bill of 1886 were unjust 
 to Ireland, and would proba])ly, if passed into law, liave resulted 
 in the bankruptcy of the country before many years had elapsed. 
 
 On loth February, 1893, on the motion of Mr. J. J. 
 Clancy, a "return showing for the years ending 31st
 
 ai'I'()ixtmi:nt ok a l<()^■AL commission. 115 
 
 March, 1890, 1 891, and 1892 respectively (i) the amount 
 contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland respec- 
 tively to the revenue collected by the imperial officers ; 
 (2) the expenditure on English, Scottish, and Irish ser- 
 vices met out of such revenue," was ordered. 
 
 Frequent questions on financial relations were asked 
 in the early part of the session of 1893, and on the 
 22nd June Mr. Gladstone explained the revised financial 
 clauses of the Government of Ireland Bill. On the 3rd 
 July Mr. Provand, member for the Blackfriars Division 
 of Glasgow, asked for the rc-appointment of Mr. 
 Goschen's Select Committee to inquire into the Finan- 
 cial Relations of Great Britain and Ireland; and in the 
 discussion which arose, Mr. J. E. Redmond put the 
 following question : — 
 
 May I ask whether, in view of the fact that the new financial 
 scheme is of a provisional character, the right honourable gentle- 
 man will consider the advisability of issuing some tribunal such as 
 a Royal Commission to investigate the financial relations between 
 the two countries, so tliat, at the end of the provisional time con- 
 temi)lated, the House will be in a position to know with some 
 degree of accuracy what the proper contribution of Ireland to the 
 imperial expenses should be ? 
 
 On 13th July Mr. J. E. Redmond again asked : — 
 
 I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. E. Glad- 
 stone) whether he will apjioint a Royal Commission to inquire into 
 the financial relations between England and Ireland since 1800, 
 with a view of fixing the permanent contribution of Ireland to the 
 Imperial Exchequer on a just and equitable basis after the establish- 
 ment of an Irish Parliament. 
 
 In reply Mr. Gladstone said : — 
 
 I have given much attention to this question. I am aware that, 
 for the purpose of fixing definitely the financial relations of tlie twn 
 countries, the present infoniiatiou available is insufKcient, and it 
 follows, of course, that the subject ought to be prol)ed to the 
 bottom, and all possible information acquired for the pur})ose. 
 Undoubtedly the Government think the best means of acquiring
 
 Il6 IRISH PROTEST ACIAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 that infinination would be by a Royal Commission ; and it is, there- 
 fore, the intention of the Government that Her Majesty shall be 
 advised to issue a Commission to imjuire and report into the 
 question. 
 
 Mr. Goschen intervened to know if Mr. Gladstone 
 would go back to 1800, or confine himself to the general 
 proposition of inquiry into the present financial relations 
 of England and Ireland and those of the immediate 
 past. Mr. Gladstone thought it best that the inquiry 
 should commence with the Union. 
 
 A most important discussion took place on the 27th 
 July, 1893, on an amendment moved by Mr. Sexton to 
 one of the financial clauses of the Home Rule Bill, which 
 contained a proposal for the appointment of a committee 
 to regulate Irish finance during an intermediate period. 
 Mr. Sexton wished to entrust this committee with the 
 work of inquiring and reporting on Irish relative capacity 
 to contribute to imperial charges. Mr. Gladstone said 
 he did not think the committee was one well qualified 
 to conduct a large and searching inquiry such as should 
 take place. He considered that a Royal Commission 
 would be better suited, and urged Mr. Sexton to with- 
 draw his amendment. In reply to Mr. Goschen, who 
 said that the committee would be better for ascertaining 
 principles, and a Royal Commission for ascertaining 
 facts, Mr. Gladstone said : — 
 
 In my opinion, the sole and undivided responsibility for deter- 
 mining principles in connection with charges to be allocated in the 
 ultimate arrangements between England and Ireland must rest with 
 Parliament. In the first place, we must give unbounded powers of 
 inquiry into the facts ; and if we give the Connnission that power, 
 it will be impossil)le to prohil)it the Commission from suggesting to 
 the Queen, to the Government, and Parliament the inferences 
 which may appear to arise out of the facts. I do not see how that 
 can be shut out. It never has been shut out. But no power of 
 the responsiV)le executive Gt)vernment can be made over to a Com- 
 mission. I should certainly, in order that the iiujuii'y may be
 
 APPOINTMENT OF A KOVAL COMMISSION. II7 
 
 conducted with ade(jUHte wei-^ht, de.sire to sec varicjus interests and 
 classes represented. I should desire, for instance, to see what are 
 called the jjropcrtied and privileged classes — to see the classes con- 
 nected with the land — lepresentcd. I think a Counuission would 
 be an official instrument. But the greatest care must he taken to 
 avoid the possibility of a suspicion that the Commission is to 
 takeout of the hands of Parliament any portion of its duties (jr 
 responsibilities. 
 
 Mr J. E. Redmond said that a case was made out for 
 a Commission, and that both sides desired one. A Com- 
 mission would go on, even though the Home Rule Bill 
 did not become law. 
 
 Mr. T. VV. Russell said that, whether Home Rule was 
 granted or not, a Commission to inquire into the 
 financial relations of the two countries would be useful. 
 Mr. Redmond had asked for and obtained a Commission, 
 and now Mr. Sexton asked for a committee to inquire 
 into a question which Mr. Redmond had already been 
 promised would be inquired into by a Commission. 
 Finally Mr. Sexton withdrew his amendment by leave. 
 
 On the 1st September Mr. Redmond asked Mr. Glad- 
 stone when the Government proposed to issue the Royal 
 Commission on Financial Relations, and Mr, Gladstone, 
 in reply, said it would be properly issued early in the 
 next year. 
 
 On the 1st December Mr. Gladstone said, in reply to 
 Mr. Sexton, that the Royal Commission would issue 
 early next year, and that the terms of reference would 
 be sufficiently comprehensive. 
 
 Mr. Redmond, Mr. Hayden, and Mr. J. J. Clancy, 
 asked on nine or ten subsequent occasions when the 
 appointment of the Commission would take place, and 
 ultimately the Royal Warrant was issued on 24th March, 
 1894.
 
 ri8 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 A.D. 1894-95-96. 
 
 THE ROYAL COMMISSION. 
 
 It would be difficult to gather together for the inquiry 
 men more distinguished in the realm of finance than 
 those selected. Mr. Childers, Lord Farrer, Lord Welby, 
 Sir Robert G. C. Hamilton, and Sir David M. Barbour 
 had all long and honourable careers in the public 
 service, and owed their rank to the faithful and capable 
 discharge of onerous duties in regulating, during the 
 greatest period of expansion, the finances of important 
 Government departments. No less successful in the 
 management of the finances of great banks were the 
 O'Conor Don, Sir Thomas Sutherland, Mr. B, W. Currie, 
 Mr. Charles E. Martin, and Mr. Henry F. Slattery. 
 They had all the knowledge and experience which fall 
 to the lot of directors of these great institutions. 
 Mr. Thomas Sexton had shown himself a capable 
 financier in the conversion of the municipal debt of 
 Dublin ; and Mr. Blake had been Treasurer to the Law 
 Society of Canada. Mr. Childers, Lord Farrer, Sir 
 David Barbour, and Mr. Hunter were all writers of 
 admitted eminence on economic and historical subjects ; 
 whilst Mr. Childers, Lord VVelby, Sir Robert Hamilton, 
 the O'Conor Don, the Hon. Edward Blake, Mr. B. W. 
 Currie, Mr. J. E. Redmond, and Mr. Thomas Sexton had 
 all experience in investigation, having served with 
 distinction on Parliamentary Committees or Royal 
 Commissions. A sketch of each member of the Com- 
 mission will reveal its high character even more 
 conspicuously. 
 
 The Right Honourable Hugh Culling Eardlcy 
 Childers, who was first chairman of the Commission,
 
 THK ROVAL COMMISSION. IIQ 
 
 was born in L(jndon in 1S27. Graduating at Trinity 
 College, Cambridge, in 1850, he went to Australia in 
 that year. He soon became a member of the recently 
 established Government of Victoria, and held office till 
 1857, when he returned to England as Agent-General 
 for that colony. He at once proceeded to his M.A. 
 degree at Cambridge, and became a student at Lincoln's 
 Inn. He entered Parliament as Member for Pontefract 
 in i860. He served with great credit on two select 
 committees — the first on Transportation, in 1861 ; the 
 second on Penal Servitude, in 1863. He was one of the 
 Royal Commissioners who investigated the Constitu- 
 tion of the Law Courts in 1869. He held office as Lord 
 of the Admiralty, 1864-65; Financial Secretary of the 
 Treasury, 1865-66 ; Lord of the Admiralty, 1868-71 ; 
 Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, 1872-73; Secre- 
 tary of State for War, 1880-82 ; Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, 1882-85 ; Home Secretary, 1886. He was 
 the author of pamphlets on Free Trade, Raikvay Policy, 
 and National Education. When not holding office, he 
 was a director of some of the great banking, insurance, 
 railway, and steamship companies. He was at all times 
 more a man of business than an orator or debater, and 
 possessed the highest qualifications of ability, erudition, 
 sense of duty, and experience. He was in every way 
 qualified to guide the deliberations of the Royal Com- 
 mission on the Financial Relations of Great Britain and 
 Ireland. He died on 29th January, 1896. 
 
 Reginald Earle, Lord Welby, born in 1832, was 
 educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge. He 
 entered the Treasury in 1856 ; was Private Secretary to 
 the P'inancial Secretary of the Treasury, 1859-61 ; Head 
 of the Finance Department, 1871-81 ; Auditor of the 
 Civil List, 1881-85 ; Permanent Secretary to the Trea- 
 sury, 1885-94, on retiring from which he was raised to 
 the peerage. He was chairman of the Royal Commis- 
 sion on Indian Military and Civil Expenditure.
 
 I20 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 Thomas Henry, Baron Farrer, born in 1819, was 
 educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford ; was 
 called to the bar in 1844 ; Assistant Secretary of the 
 Marine Department of the Board of Trade in 1850 ; and 
 Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade, 1862 to 
 1886. His published works are A Meniorandnin shoiv- 
 ing the Alterations ivJiicJi wojdd be made in the Present 
 Laiv by tJie Enactment of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1870; 
 Free Trade versus Fair Trade ; The State in its Relation to 
 Trade ; Gold Credit versus Prices. The Times of 3rd 
 June, 1893, says of him : — " The claims of Sir Thomas 
 Farrer to new honours will be gladly admitted, even by 
 his most pronounced political opponents. He has 
 always shown himself a stout party man, so far as the 
 limits of his official position would allow, and perhaps 
 at times a little further ; but he is a thinker and writer 
 of acknowledged ability, who has served the nation long 
 and well. It is, by the way, a little curious that he 
 should be selected for new dignities at a time when he 
 is manifestly growing a trifle restive at the economic 
 vagaries of some of the ' advanced ' school of London 
 Progressives. He has always been a good Radical, but 
 a good Radical of the school which cannot get over the 
 fundamental fact that two and two make four, and 
 that no amount of sentimental ' gush ' will turn them 
 into five." 
 
 For a life of the O'Conor Don see page 48. He was 
 a director of the National Bank of Ireland. 
 
 Sir David Miller Barbour, K.C.S.I., born in 1841, was 
 educated at the Queen's College, Belfast ; entered the 
 Bengal Civil Service in 1863; was Secretary to the 
 Government of India in the Finance and Commerce 
 Department, 1873 to 1887 ; member of the Council 
 of the Governor-General of India, 1887 to 1893. He 
 published in 188C The TJicory of Bimetallism and the 
 Effects of the Partial Demoneti:^ation of Silver on Eng-
 
 THE ROYAL COMMISSIOX. 121 
 
 land (Did India. He is a recognised authority on Indian 
 finance. 
 
 Sir Robert George Crookshank Hamilton, born in 
 1836, was educated at Aberdeen University. His 
 father was a first cousin to Lord Macaulay. He 
 entered the Civil Service in 1855 as temporary clerk 
 to the War Office. He was soon sent as a commis- 
 sariat clerk to the Crimea. After his return he was 
 appointed to a clerkship in the Office of Works, where 
 he became known to the Treasury. In 1861 Mr. Lowe, 
 who was Vice-President of the Education Department, 
 selected him to take charge of education finance. In 
 1869 he was placed at the head of the financial branch 
 of the Board of Trade. The recent extension of the 
 work of the Board of Trade necessitated the employ- 
 ment of an acknowledged financial expert. In 1878 he 
 was made Accountant-General of the Navy, and in 1882 
 Permanent Secretary of the Admiralty. He was Under- 
 Secretary for Ireland from 1882 to 1886, and Governor 
 of Tasmania from 1886 to 1893. He was Secretary to 
 the Royal Commission of which Sir Lyon Playfair was 
 chairman, which inquired into the organization of the 
 Civil Service. He was a member of the Royal Com- 
 mission on Colonial Defences, 188 1-82, and of the Royal 
 Commission which inquired into the working of the 
 political constitution of Dominica in 1893. He died on 
 22nd April, 1895. The Freeman s Journal Record says 
 of him: — " Evidence of his views on one most important 
 question considered by the Commission was given by 
 Sir Robert Giffen. He was strongly opposed to the 
 view that, in considering the taxation of Ireland, the 
 country should be held responsible for imperial expen- 
 diture, or what the Treasury terms ' local services.' It 
 is well known that during his Irish Secretaryship he 
 made strong recommendations on the extravagance of 
 the cost of civil government in Ireland as administered
 
 122 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 by imperial officials. In a signed article published in 
 The Speaker he pointed out that, under imperial control, 
 the cost of the administration of the law has become so 
 extravagant that there is an average of ^700 a year legal 
 patronage for every practising barrister in Ireland." 
 
 Sir Thomas Sutherland, K.C.M.G., LL.D., born at Aber- 
 deen in 1834, was educated at the Grammar School and 
 University of that city. He entered the service of the 
 P. and O. Company, and represented that company in 
 China for some years. He was for several years a 
 member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, and 
 was one of the founders of the Hong Kong Docks and 
 the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank. He is chairman 
 of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Com- 
 pany, a director of the Suez Canal Company, of the City 
 Bank, of the Bank of Australasia, and is a Chevalier of 
 the Legion of Honour. 
 
 Bertram Wodehouse Currie,born in 1827, was educated 
 
 at Eton. He afterwards travelled abroad, and acquired 
 
 a mastery of foreign languages. On returning home he 
 
 entered his father's banking business. In 1880 he was 
 
 appointed to the Board of the Indian Council, from which 
 
 he retired in 1895. To his energy, resolution, and sound 
 
 business capacity was due the liquidation, in 1890, by 
 
 the Bank of England, of the affairs of Messrs. Baring, 
 
 though the bills payable by that firm amounted to 
 
 i^i 5,750,000. In 1892 he represented England at the 
 
 International Monetary Conference at Brussels, and was 
 
 High Sheriff of London in that year. In 1893 he was a 
 
 member of the committee which, under the presidency 
 
 of Lord Herschell, decided on sanctioning the closing of 
 
 the Indian Mints to the free coinage of silver, and in 1895 
 
 he initiated the Gold Standard Defence Association. 
 
 He died on 29th December, 1896. 
 
 William Alexander Hunter, born in 1844, was educated 
 at the University of Aberdeen. Called to the Bar in
 
 THE ROYAL C^)MMISSION. I23 
 
 1869, he was Professor of Roman Law at University 
 Collef:je, London, from 1869 to 1878. He was Examiner 
 in Jurisprudence to the University of London from 1879 
 to 1884. He is the author of a work on Roman Law 
 which has already become a classic, and has marked 
 an epoch in the English study of the subject. 
 
 Gustav Wilhelm Wolff, born in 1834, was educated at 
 a private school in Germany and at Liverpool College. 
 He became a draughtsman in the Queen's Island Works, 
 Belfast, in 1858, and subsequently a partner in the great 
 shipbuilding firm of Harland and Wolff 
 
 John Edward Redmond, born in 1856, was educated at 
 Clongowes Wood and Trinity College, Dublin ; entered 
 Gray's Inn, June, 1880; was called to the Bar there in 
 1886, and to the Irish Bar in 1887. He has represented 
 Irish constituencies in Parliament since 1881. He was 
 a member of the Royal Commission on the Irish Land 
 Laws. 
 
 Thomas Sexton, born in Waterford in 1848, was 
 educated in that city. Became a writer on The Nation 
 newspaper in 1869. He was High Sheriff of Dublin 
 in 1887, and Lord Mayor in 1888 and 1889. He con- 
 verted the debt of Dublin, and thereby effected con- 
 siderable economy in the city finances. He was in 
 Parliament from 1880 to 1895. 
 
 The Honourable Edward Blake, born in 1833, was 
 educated at the University of Toronto. Called to the 
 Bar in 1856, he was President and Treasurer of the Law 
 Society of Upper Canada in 1879. He was Chancellor 
 of the University of Toronto in 1876; Premier of 
 Ontario, 1871-72 ; and Minister of Justice, 1875-77. He 
 was elected to the Imperial Parliament for South Long- 
 ford in 1892. 
 
 Mr. Charles E. Martin is Deputy-Governor of the Bank 
 of Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Henry F. Slattery was Chairman of the National 
 Bank of Ireland.
 
 124 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 The terms of reference were : — To inquire into the 
 financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, 
 and their relative taxable capacity, and to report : — 
 
 1. 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 pro- 
 portion, 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 im- 
 perial expenditure; also the imperial expenditure to 
 which it is considered equitable that Ireland should 
 contribute. 
 
 The witnesses examined were : — Mr. Herbert H. 
 Murray, C.B., Chairman of the Board of Customs ; Mr. 
 Thomas J. Pittar, Principal of the Statistical Office of 
 the Board of Customs; Mr. Alfred Milner, Chairman of 
 the Board of Inland Revenue; Sir Edward W. Hamilton, 
 K.C.B., Assistant Secretary to the Treasury; Mr. Henry 
 A. Robinson, Commissioner of the Local Government 
 Board for Ireland; Sir Joseph M'Kenna ; Dr. T. W, 
 Grimshaw, Registrar-General of Ireland ; Mr. William 
 L. Micks, Secretary to the Congested Districts Board for 
 Ireland ; Mr. John Chaloncr Smith, President of the 
 Institute of Civil P^ngineers in Ireland ; Most Rev. Dr. 
 O'Donnell, Bishop of Raphoe, and member of the Con- 
 gested Districts Board, Ireland ; Mr. W. P. O'Brien, C.B., 
 formerly Poor Law Inspector and Local Government 
 Inspector, and Vice-Chairman of General Prisons Board, 
 and Assistant Royal Commissioner on Labour ; Sir
 
 RKPOKT OK THE KONAL COMMISSION. 1 25 
 
 Richard II. Sankey, K.C.I}., C.K., Chairman of the Board 
 of Pubhc Works, Ireland; Mr. Murrough O'Brien, 
 Member of the Land Commission, Ireland ; Mr. John 
 G. Barton, Commissioner of Valuation, Ireland ; Mr. \V. 
 F. Bailey, Assistant Commissioner, Irish Land Com- 
 mission ; Mr. G. F. Howe, Surveyor of Taxes ; Mr. K. 
 J. Harper, Surveyor to the London County Council ; Sir 
 Robert Giffen, K.c.i'.., LL.i)., Controller-General to the 
 Commercial, Labour, and .Statistical Department of the 
 Board of Trade ; and Mr. Thomas Lough, Member of 
 Parliament for West Islington. The Commission made 
 a most exhaustive examination. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVll. 
 
 A.D. 1896-97. 
 
 REPORT OF THE ROVAL COMMISSION. 
 
 EFFECT IN IRELAND, 
 
 In the autumn of 1896 the Royal Commission com- 
 pleted its labours and issued its reports. 
 
 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, and Mr. Wolff) signed a joint 
 report, setting forth the following conclusions : — 
 
 "(i) That Great Britain and Ireland must, for the 
 purpose of this inquiry, be considered as separate 
 entities. 
 
 " (2) That the Act of Union imposed upon Ireland a 
 burden which, as events showed, she was unable to 
 bear. 
 
 " (3) That the increase of taxation laid upon Ireland
 
 126 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATKJN. 
 
 between 1853 and i860 was not justified by the then 
 existing circumstances. 
 
 " (4) That identity of rates of taxation does not 
 necessarily involve equality of burden. 
 
 "(S) 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." 
 
 Eight separate reports were added, including one 
 each by the two dissentient Commissioners, Sir David 
 Barbour and Sir Thomas Sutherland. 
 
 The phrase in the first conclusion of separate entity 
 gave rise to much discussion. Mr. Goschen, when 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 22nd June, 1891, 
 denied that Wales was a separate fiscal entity when 
 moving the appointment of a select committee to 
 inquire into the financial relations of England, Ireland, 
 and Scotland. 
 
 The second conclusion was only another version of 
 that of the Parliamentary Committee of 181 5, which 
 reported that the debt and taxation of Ireland after 
 the Union was a bnrden wliicJi experience has proved too 
 gj'eat. 
 
 The third conclusion was reiterated by Irishmen, both 
 in and out of Parliament, from 1853 onwards. Succes- 
 sive Governments, whether Liberal or Conservative^ 
 either denied or ignored it. 
 
 The fourth conclusion enunciates a canon of inter- 
 national taxation which was a necessary answer to 
 Mr. Gladstone's doctrine of equalized taxation. This 
 canon is foreshadowed in the writings of the O'Conor 
 Don, but was stated with unmistakable clearness by 
 Sir Joseph M'Kenna : — 
 
 The fallacy which underlay all his (Mr. Gladstone's) reasoning 
 was the assumption that ulentitij of imposts on articles consumed in
 
 Ki:i'()KT Ol' THE KUVAL COMMISSION. 12/ 
 
 Great Britain autl Ireland was equivalent to aiuuUty of taxation of 
 the two countries. It would dignify that assumption to describe it 
 as a Hopliisni. . . . Proclaiming the principle of e<juality of 
 taxation, he substituted for real equality the spurious device of 
 identical imjjosts. 
 
 The fifth conclusion states the proportion of Irish 
 over-taxation. The several reports contain a concrete 
 estimate for the financial year 1893-94. Ireland con- 
 tributed, according to Mr. Childers, 
 
 in round numbers, about two and three-quarter millions in excess 
 of that whicii she would have contributed if taxed according to her 
 relative taxable capacity ; 
 
 and this was adopted by the O'Conor Don, Messrs. 
 Redmond, Martin, Hunter, and Wolff. 
 
 According to Lord Farrer, Lord Welby, and Mr. B, 
 W. Currie — 
 
 She contributed about two and a-half millions more than she 
 would have contributed if taxed according t(j what we believe to be 
 her relative taxable cajiacity. 
 
 According to Sir David Barbour, one of the two 
 dissentient Royal Commissioners — 
 
 Ireland paid about two and three-quarter millions sterling more 
 than she w^ould have paid if the total revenue taken from her had 
 been in proportion to her "taxable capacity." 
 
 Messrs. Sexton, Blake, and Slattery found that the 
 proportion of Irish to British taxable capacity was as 
 I to 16. 
 
 The publication of these findings, clothed with all the 
 authority of a Royal Commission, found Ireland bled as 
 white as veal by excessive taxation. Mr. Arthur 
 lialfour's academic declaration at Alnwick on 20th Jul)-, 
 1895, that the poverty of Ireland was in part the work 
 of England and Scotland, expressed a truth whose far- 
 reaching character he can have scarcely realized, and for
 
 128 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 the reparation of which, it is not evident whether it be 
 the will or the power that he lacks. 
 
 Since 1853 Ireland had been a battle-ground whereon 
 was waged a long series of political, religious, and social 
 wars. Domestic events had so thoroughly widened the 
 breach between classes, that scarcely a bond remained 
 on which to unite them, save the common ruin which 
 has overwhelmed all. This makes the memorable pro- 
 tests of 1896-97 all the more remarkable. Her Majesty's 
 Lieutenants of Cork, Sligo, Dublin, Limerick, Ros- 
 common, Louth, Wexford, Carlow, Kildare, Galway, 
 Meath, Kerry, and Donegal, in compliance with requisi- 
 tions, called public meetings, which were attended by all 
 classes of the community. Resolutions were unani- 
 mously adopted at these meetings, of which those passed 
 at Cork are here set out as representative of all : — 
 
 (1) That this meeting of the taxpayei\s of the City and County 
 of Cork hereby expresses its sense of the enormous national 
 importance of the findings of the Royal Commission on the 
 Financial Relations of Great Britain and Ireland, and declares its 
 belief that the future prosperity of Ireland and the social 
 happiness and welfare of her people are vitally concerned in 
 securing such a re-adjustment of the present system of taxation as 
 will give eft'ective relief to the Irish taxpayer from a burden 
 which that report conclusively proves to be excessive and unfair. 
 
 (2) That it is the duty of the Government to take immediate 
 steps to give effect by remedial legislation to the conclusions 
 suggested by the report of the Royal Commission. 
 
 (3) That we call upon the Irish Parliamentary representatives 
 of all shades of political opinion to give to the question of the 
 excessive taxation of Ireland the prominence which its importance 
 deserves, and to press it as a united national demand. 
 
 (4) That the Earl of Bandcin and proposers and seconders of 
 the foregoing resolutions be appointed a permanent committee 
 (with power to add to their number) to watch the progress of this 
 movement, and to take such action as may be necessary to ensure 
 its success; and that cojjies of these resolutions be forwarded to 
 the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
 the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chief Secretary to the Lord 
 Lieutenant, and the leaders of the Irish I'arliamentary Parties.
 
 RErOkT OF Tllli RO^■AL COMMISSION. 1 29 
 
 Similar resolutions were adopted at most Irish public 
 boards, municipal and poor-law ; and Earl Cadogan, 
 Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, thus referred to the cha- 
 racter of the movement in a sj^eech delivered at Belfast 
 on 20th Januar)% 1897 : — 
 
 I hope my words will be endorsed l)y everyone present, that 
 there never was a movement in Ii'eland apparently more unanimous 
 throughout the country, among all sections and parties in the 
 country, and one which has been discussed in various districts and 
 by men of various sympathies in a more calm and temjjerate and 
 sober spirit, in the history of political controversy. I must s<iy I 
 have been very much struck by the manner in which this move- 
 ment has been org;inized and carried out in Ireland. ( )f course, 
 there have l)een exceptions to the rule which I have laid down 
 from time to time. We have specimens of the rampant rhetoric 
 of amateur rebels ; we have occasionally heard language which, 
 perhaps, we may regret, and to which we do not attach any undue 
 importance ; but taking the meetings throughout the country as a 
 whole, and taking into consideration all I have had an opportunity 
 of reading— perhaps more than any gentleman present — consider- 
 ing all the resolutions passed at these meetings, it is imjiossiVjle to 
 deny that the attitude of the Irish people at this time, the manner 
 in which they are pressing their desires and wishes, has been such 
 as to leave nothing to desire, and, further, to render it imperative on 
 the Government and Parliament to inquire into and discuss this 
 matter, which is regarded with such universal interest in Ireland. 
 
 The columns of The Times for the months of December, 
 1896, and January, February, March, 1897, contain a 
 long array of correspondence from Lord Castletown, 
 the Earl of Dunraven, Lord Farrer, Mr. Bagwell, 
 Professor E. P. Culverwell, F.T.C.D., Mr. Malcolm Inelis, 
 Sir Joseph M'Kenna, Mr. Robert Sanders, and a host 
 of others, which, taken in connection with a series of 
 special and leading articles, shows unmistakabl}' that 
 the question of Irish taxation monopolized during those 
 months the attention of England. A fierce war of 
 passion, prejudice, hatred, ignorance, C}-nicism, and 
 criticism was waged round the five majority findings 
 
 K
 
 I30 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 of the Roj'al Commission. Now that the storm has 
 abated, these findings, uninjured and unimpaired, hold 
 the field. 
 
 At the memorable meeting in the Mansion House, 
 Dublin, on the 28th December, 1896, a committee was 
 formed to co-operate with such committees as might be 
 appointed by other cities, counties, and public bodies 
 to secure the success of the movement. This com- 
 mittee met weekly, and on the 9th February, 1897, at a 
 conference of delegates from twenty-seven out of the 
 thirty-two Irish counties, held under the presidency of 
 the Earl of Mayo, the constitution and membership of 
 the committee were much enlarged. 
 
 On 1 6th February, the All- Ireland Committee, for so 
 it came to be named, unanimously passed the following 
 resolution : — 
 
 That this committee are of opinion that the Irish Parliamentary 
 representatives of all shades of opinion should hold a conference, 
 and take immediate united action on the (juestion of the over- 
 taxation (jf Ireland and the proposed Royal Commission ; and that 
 copies of this resolution be sent to all the Irish Members of Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
 Correspondence took place, on the 19th, 20th, and 
 22nd February, between Mr. Patrick O'Brien, M.P., and 
 Captain Donelan, M.r., in which Mr. John Dillon was 
 asked to sign a circular, calling a conference of all Irish 
 members. Mr. Dillon wrote : — 
 
 With reference to the proposal you made to me to-day, I beg to 
 say that 1 shall be prepared to advise my friends to attend any 
 conference of Irish members of the House of Commons which 
 may be arranged to consider the possibility of common action on 
 the over-taxation of Ireland, and the proposed Royal Conuuission. 
 
 The following circular was finally issued on the 25th 
 February, signed by Colonel Saunderson and Messrs. T. 
 M. Healy, Horace Plunkett, and J. E. Redmond:—
 
 RKPOKT OF TIIK ROVAL TOM MISSION. 131 
 
 In view of the forthcoming debate on the question of the financial 
 relations between Great Britain and Ireland, it has been suggested 
 that a conference f )f all Irish members should be held , so that au 
 interchange of views should take i)lace upon the matter, it being 
 understood that attendance ;it such conference does not imply- 
 either acquiescence in or disagreement with the findings of the 
 recent Connnission. We beg, therefore, to request your attendance 
 at such a conference on Tuesday, the 9th March, at five p.m., in 
 Committee Room No. 12. 
 
 The All-Ireland Committee, at a largely attended 
 meeting on the 26th February, passed a resolution 
 approving of the conference. 
 
 The conference took place on 9th March, and was 
 attended by sixty-three Irish members. Colonel 
 Saunderson took the chair, and Messrs. Abraham, 
 P. O'Brien, T. B. Curran, and Horace Plunkett were 
 appointed honorary secretaries. A sub-committee, 
 consisting of Colonel Saunderson, Mr. T. M. Healy, 
 Mr. J. J. Clancy, and Mr. W. E. H. Lecky, was ap- 
 pointed. Fifty-one Irish members attended the second 
 meeting on the 13th March. Colonel Saunderson again 
 took the chair. Mr. J. J. Clancy read the resolution 
 adopted by the sub-committee: — 
 
 That the findings of the Rijyal Commission on the Financial 
 Relations between Great Britain and Ireland disclose a dispropor- 
 tion between the taxation of Ireland and its taxable capacity as 
 compared with the other parts of the United Kingdom which 
 deserves the innnediate attention of Parliament. 
 
 This did not meet with the unanimous approval of the 
 conference, which separated after passing a hearty vote 
 of thanks to the chairman. 
 
 In the meantime a deputation from the All- Ireland 
 Committee was received by the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer on the 5th March. The deputation con- 
 sisted of the Lord Mayor of Dublin ; Sir Joseph 
 N. M'Kenna, D.L.; Mr. Simon Mangan, Her Majesty's
 
 132 IRISH PROTEST ACAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 Lieutenant for County Meath ; Count Plunkett, Barristcr- 
 at-La\v ; Mr. R. Keating Clay, ].r., Solicitor, Chairman 
 of the Dalkey Town Commissioners; Captain Loftus 
 Bryan, n.L., Wexford ; Alderman M. M. Murphy, Solicitor, 
 Kilkenny; Mr. More O'Ferrall, D.L., Kildare; Major 
 Johnson, J.l'., Chairman of the Glenties Union ; Mr. James 
 Ross, J.r., Edgeworthstown ; the Hon. Martin Morris, 
 J.P., High Sheriff, Gahvay; Mr. W. H. Cobbe, J.P., Chair- 
 man, Mountmellick Guardians; Alderman Hadden, J. P., 
 Wexford ; Mr, P. O'Conor, Barrister-at-Law, Roscom- 
 mon ; Mr. Daniel J. Wilson, Barrister-at-Lavv; and 
 \lderman .Sir Robert Sexton, D.L., Dublin. The depu- 
 tation was introduced by the Right Honourable Horace 
 Plunkett, and was authorized by the All- Ireland Com- 
 mittee to call the attention of the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer to the over-taxation of Ireland disclosed by 
 the Royal Commission, and if he expressed any views in 
 favour of further inquiry, to object to the appointment 
 of a second Royal Commission. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 
 A.D. 1897. 
 
 THE ATTITUDE OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
 
 "The Times " of 29th December, 1896, declared that 
 Parliament was the sole authority which should settle 
 the taxation of Ireland : — 
 
 We have contended, surely not without reason, that issues of such 
 vital importance to the whole population of the United Kingdom 
 should be determined by no authority less th;in Parliament itself. 
 
 Mr. Goschen, with the concurrence of his chief, in the 
 Ministry of 1869, stated that the Government would
 
 THE ATTITUDK OF Till'! OOVERXMliNT. 1 33 
 
 not refer the />o/iij> affecting" taxation to a Royal Com- 
 mission. Mr. Gladstone approved of that then, and 
 repeated his approval in the debates of 1893. The 
 attitude assumed b)- the Government was also con- 
 demned by Mr. Goschen in 1869 — ^i.e., proposing the 
 appointment of a Royal Commission, so as to hang up 
 a troublesome question for two or three years. 
 
 The Government attitude can be best understood 
 from the following pronouncements. 
 
 The Marquis of Lansdowne, Minister for War, in the 
 debate on Lord Castletown's motion in the House of 
 Lords, on 5th March, 1897, said : — 
 
 I am uut here to contend tliat, for jjur^joses of statistical com- 
 parison, Ireland may not, in one sense of the words, be regarded as 
 a "sejjarate entity." No one will, I suppose, deny that an indis- 
 criminate system of taxation may operate unequally upon different 
 parts of the same country, or that, in the imposition of taxation, a 
 prudent financier should always take care that no tax presses with 
 undue severity upon a particular section of the connaunity, whether 
 that section be represented by a class or Ijy a geographical area ; 
 nor will it be disputed that, when the limits within which the class 
 is distriljuted coincide with a well-detined geographical area, the 
 inequality, if there is one, becomes more marked, and the sense of 
 wrong more acute. These considerations must obviously api)]y 
 with peculiar force in the case of Ireland ; and if we mean that the 
 two countries should start with a common system of taxation, and 
 that we should then, having regard to all these considerations, ask 
 whether that system presses ineciuitably upon Ireland, we need not, 
 I think, quarrel with those who describe Ireland as a "separate 
 entity." I would even go further, and say, that to deny to her 
 the position of a " separate entity" in this sense is to tly in the 
 face of facts. Not a year passes without some legislation of specia 
 application to Ireland ; and I think that it may fairly be said that, 
 in proportion as her individuality in such respects is a marked 
 individuality, she has a stronger claim to separate consideration 
 for fiscal purposes. 
 
 In the debate on Mr. Blake's motion in the House of 
 Commons on 29th March, Sir M. Hicks-Beach, Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer, admitted that the burden
 
 134 IKISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 imposed on Ireland by the proportionate contribution 
 required by the Act of Union was more than she could 
 bear, and that Irish complaints against the imposition 
 of taxation in 1853 were justified. He showed that 
 there was large expenditure in Ireland, and that such 
 expenditure was a set-off against over-taxation, and 
 declared that further investigation was necessary. 
 
 I want an in((uiry into it ]jy persons whose verdict may be ac- 
 cepted as conclusive by honourable members below the gangway, 
 as well as by ourselves, and I maintain that it cannot be contro- 
 verted that this inquiry has formed no part whatever of the work 
 of the late Royal Commission, and that it cannot, as Lord Farrer 
 has suggested, be fairly and properly settled merely by Treasury 
 returns. We desire in this matter to do full justice to the claim of 
 Ireland, aye, and of Scotland, too, under the proviso as to par- 
 ticular exemptions and abatements in the Act of Union : we desire 
 that the facts as to expenditure shall be also carefully investigated ; 
 and when these facts are fully ascertained, when the meaning of 
 that proviso is laid down, and its application to our existing cir- 
 cumstances is shown by a tribunal in whose verdict both sides may 
 have confidence, then I can assure the House it will be our desire 
 to endeavour to do full justice in this matter to the poorest parts 
 of the United Kingdom. But, under this one condition, we will 
 take no step whatever to depart from that system of common tax- 
 ation which was established in 1817 ; we will do nothing to impair 
 either the financial or the jjolitical permanence of the Union 
 between Great Britain and Ireland ; least of all will we give any 
 countenance to the monstrous doctrine that any part of the United 
 Kingdom should Ije relieved from its fair obligation to contribute 
 to the necessities of the national debt and of the Army and Navy, 
 and to the maintenance of our great empire. 
 
 Before the conclusion of the debate Mr. Goschen de- 
 clared that the cardinal issue to be referred to the new 
 Commission was : — 
 
 Whether the sum spent on local purposes in Ireland ought to be 
 treated as a set-off or not. . . . The matter must be looked at 
 as a whole, and we must take the doctrine of set-off as it has 
 been taken previously on various occasions.
 
 THE PROPOSED NEW CO^nriSSION. I35 
 
 He defined the duty of the new Royal Commission 
 
 as follows : — 
 
 First, (niglit there to be ;i set-otf, and if so, was that properly 
 calculated in the Treasury returns ? Secondly, ought there, or ought 
 there not, to be a contril)ution towards imperial expenses from 
 Ireland t and tliirdly, is there anything in tlie circumstances of to- 
 day that would recjuire the apjjlication and giving efi'ect to that 
 part of the Act of Union that requires that under certain circum- 
 stances abatements and exemptions are fair to the poorer country ? 
 
 History again repeated itself. Defeated in the original 
 position it took up, the Government did not think of 
 doing right, but looked around for a new position. Not 
 a single reference in Mr. Goschen's proposed inquiry of 
 1897 was contained in his references to the select 
 committee of 1890-91-92. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIX. 
 
 A.D. 1897. 
 
 THE PROPOSED NEW COMMISSION. 
 
 THE TERMS OF REFERENCE STRONGLY OBJECTED TO. 
 
 On the I ith February, 1897, Mr. A. J. Balfour announced 
 in the House of Commons the terms of reference to the 
 new Royal Commission which the Government jjro- 
 posed to appoint. The "All-Ireland" Committee, 
 which met at the Mansion House, Dublin, on the 
 1 2th February, unanimously adopted the following 
 resolutions : — 
 
 (i) That this meeting protests against the appoint- 
 ment of a second Commission to further inquire into any 
 matters already inquired into and reported on by the 
 late Royal Commission. 
 
 (2) That whilst fully sympathizing with the financial 
 claims of Scotland, we consider that, having regard to
 
 136 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 the report of the late Royal Commission, the just claims 
 of Ireland are prior to, and should not be delayed for 
 or complicated with, those of Scotland. 
 
 (3) That the terms of reference to the proposed Com- 
 mission on expenditure common to England, Ireland, 
 and Scotland are most unfair and unjust to Ireland. 
 
 At a later stage, in June, the All-Ireland Committee, 
 after consultation with the leading Irish authorities on 
 the question, issued the following memorandum : — 
 
 " The All-Ireland Committee urgently presses upon 
 the Irish representatives in Parliament the great impor- 
 tance of demanding a modification of the terms of 
 reference to the new Commission as announced by the 
 Government. 
 
 " It is essential to secure that the constitutional rela- 
 tions of Great Britain and Ireland in fiscal matters, 
 provided for in the Act of Union and the Act for the 
 Amalgamation of Exchequers, shall not be left out of 
 consideration by the new Commission, and that this 
 Commission, which is (according to the statement of the 
 Government) to be supplementary to the former one, 
 shall not ignore the question of the comparative wealth 
 and comparative progress of Great Britain and Ireland 
 since the date of the Union, and the fact of the great 
 difference between the taxation borne by Ireland and 
 her taxable capacity. 
 
 " It is also urged that the consideration of the case of 
 Ireland should not be retarded by an investigation into 
 the fiscal position of Scotland. The terms of reference 
 to the former Commission were limited to the financial 
 relations between Great Britain and Ireland. If the 
 supplementary Commission is directed to inquire into 
 the case of Scotland, there will be a departure from the 
 scope of the previous inquiry. It is submitted that, if 
 the people of Scotland demand an inquiry into the 
 financial position of their country, this should be the 
 subject of investigation by a separate Commission.
 
 THE PROPOSED NKW COMMISSION. I37 
 
 " The Committee further submit that the question of 
 any re-adjustment or reduction of expenditure on Irish 
 services is one to be dealt with by ParHament and the 
 Government as a matter of pohcy, and cannot be 
 properly considered by a Commission inquiring into the 
 financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland. 
 
 " The second proposed term of Government reference 
 would practically involve a prolonged investigation into 
 all the Civil Service and other departments of the State 
 in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and into the posi- 
 tion, pay, and duties of the Government officials in the 
 three kingdoms. Again, the expediency of reducing or 
 re-adjusting the expenditure on Irish local services can- 
 not be considered on the grounds of financial advantage 
 alone, without taking into account historical, social, and 
 local influences, which must be weighed before any pro- 
 fitable conclusion can be reached." 
 
 The terms of reference to the new Commission pro- 
 posed by the Government are as follows : — 
 
 1. To inquire unci report Ikjw much of the total expenditure 
 which the State provides may properly be considered to be expendi- 
 ture comniou to England, Scotland, and Ireland, and what share 
 of such common exi)enditure eacli country is contributing after the 
 amount expended on local services has been deducted from its true 
 revenue. 
 
 2. How the expenditure on Irish local services which the State 
 wholly or in part provides compares with the corresixjuding 
 expenditure in England and Scotland, and whether such Irish 
 expenditure may with advantage be re-adjusted or reduced. 
 
 3. Whether, when regard is had to the nature of the taxes now 
 in force, to the existing exemptions, and to the amounts of the 
 expenditure by the State on local services, the prtjvision in the Act 
 of Union between Great Britain and Ireland with regard to pav- 
 ticular exemptions or abatements calls for any modification in the 
 financial system of the United Kingdom. 
 
 At the convention held in the Mansion House, 
 Dublin, on 22nd April, 1897, the following resolution 
 was passed : —
 
 138 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATIOX. 
 
 That this convention further protests against the terms of 
 reference to the new Commission announced by Her Majesty's 
 Government, and condemns them as framed in disregard of Ireland's 
 constitutional rights, and as one-sided, and as relegating to a Com- 
 mission questions of policy and expediency fit for determination by 
 Parliament alone. 
 
 The All- Ireland Committee suggest that the Govern- 
 ment terms of reference should be modified as follows : — 
 
 1. To inquire and report whether or not it is the true meaning 
 of the Act of Union and the Act for the Amalgamation of the 
 Exchequers that the amount of Exchequer expenditure for civil 
 administration in Ireland, or any, and if so, what part of such 
 expenditure, should be taken into account in considering the rela- 
 tive capacity of Great Britain and Ireland to bear taxation, and the 
 proportion in which such taxation is borne by them respectively. 
 
 2. How much of the total expenditure which the State provides 
 may (within tlie meaning of the Act of Union and the Act for the 
 Amalgamation of the Exchequers) be considered to be expenditure 
 common to Great Britain and Ireland, and what share of such 
 common expenditure each has been and is contributing after the 
 amount expended upon services which (having regard to these 
 statutes) may be considered local services has been deducted from 
 its true revenue. 
 
 3. How much of the total expenditure which the State provides 
 for purposes considered as aforesaid common to Great Britain and 
 Ireland has been and is, on an average, actually expended in 
 Great Britain or Ireland respectively. 
 
 4. How the expenditure which the State provides in aid of 
 Irish local rates, or in support or aid of services in Ireland, wliich 
 in Great Britain are supported (jut of local rates, compares with 
 similar expenditure in Great Britain. 
 
 o. Whether, when regard is had to the nature of the taxes now 
 in force, to the existing exemptions, to the comparative wealth of 
 Great Britain and Ireland, to the comparative rate of their national 
 progress, and to the amount of the expenditure by the State as 
 aforesaid in Great Britain or Ireland respectively, the provisions 
 in the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland with 
 regard to particular exemptions or abatements call for any modi- 
 fication in the financial system of the United Kingdom, or for the 
 transfer to the Imperial Excheijuer of tlie liability for the support 
 of any services in Ireland at present, wholly or in part, maintained 
 from local rates in Ireland.
 
 THE PROPOSED NEW COMMISSION. 1 39 
 
 " N.B. — The proposed modification of the terms of 
 reference is not to be taken as in an)- way detracting 
 from the objections entertained to the appointment of 
 any new Commission." 
 
 In the debate in the House of Commons on 30th 
 March, 1897, Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., thus referred to 
 the proposed new Commission : — " The real question in 
 this debate is whether there is to be a further inquiry 
 with regard to certain matters which it is necessary to 
 ascertain. Now, Sir, I believe I can show the House 
 that the appointment of a new Commission is wholly 
 unnecessary. I find in the terms of the reference to the 
 new Commission which has been laid before the House 
 that the first thing it has to do is to inquire and report 
 
 Huw much of the total expenditure for which the State provides 
 may be properly considered expenditure common to England, 
 Scotland, and Ireland, and what share of sucli common exjjenditure 
 each country is contributing after the amount expended on local 
 services has been deducted from tlie true revenue. 
 
 There is no doubt that that question indicates matters 
 upon which the Government and Parliament ought to be 
 informed in dealing with this subject. But no one can 
 suggest a single question contained in that paragraph of 
 the reference to the new Commission which has not been 
 fully and completely answered by the officials of the 
 Treasury on the best information they could possibly 
 obtain. The amount of imperial expenditure on Ireland 
 is not a matter of dispute ; the returns are laid before 
 the House every year, and we have the amount of local 
 expenditure in each of the three kingdoms stated in a 
 complete table. Then we are to get the true revenue of 
 each of the three kingdoms ; and the moment you have 
 these figures it is merely a subtraction sum in order to 
 answer the question put in the first reference. Upon 
 these very questions a great amount of labour has 
 already been expended by the representatives of the 
 Treasury."
 
 140 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 He then alluded to the Select Committee of 1890; 
 to the terms of reference to it ; to the return pre- 
 sented to the House by Mr. Jackson on the loth of 
 July, 1891 (No. 329); to the further return presented 
 by Sir John Hibbert, the then Secretary to the Trea- 
 sury, on the 24th of February, 1893, giving the actual 
 figures to the end of the financial year 1891-92 ; to 
 the evidence of Sir Edward Hamilton ; and then con- 
 tinued : — 
 
 " With the figures supplied from these authoritative 
 sources it is perfectly easy to calculate the amount of 
 Ireland's contributions to the imperial expenditure from 
 the year 1889-90 down to 1896. I will not give the 
 totals, for the figures are many, but it is easy to take the 
 result on a percentage. The average contribution of 
 Ireland to imperial services for that period was 3-44 per 
 cent. I cannot understand what additional information 
 the Government can possibly want, or where they are to 
 go for it. The First Lord of the Treasury said himself 
 on February i6th : — 
 
 As all the iiifoniiatiuii that can be obtained about the estimated 
 ta\.ation of Ireland and Gi-eat Britain was laid bi^fore tlie late Com- 
 mission, it may be assumed that the new Cunnuission will not tind 
 it necessary to go into that again. 
 
 "Now, the figures which show a percentage of contribu- 
 tion to the imperial expenditure of 3*44 have been seized 
 upon by the opponents of the Irish claim as if they 
 absolutely disposed of it. The argument is that the 
 Irish claim to pay taxes in the proportion of one to 
 twenty, but that, as a matter of fact, they are only con- 
 tributing to imperial expenditure in the proportion of 
 one to thirty-two or thirty-three. 
 
 " Sir David Barbour says in his report : — 
 
 On the assumption that the taxable capacity of Ireland is one- 
 twentieth of that of the United Kingdom, Ireland paid in ISiJo-Oi 
 about two and three-(iuarter miliums sterling mme tlian she would
 
 TIIK PKOIV^SKD Xi:W rOMMTS.STON. I4I 
 
 luivi' p.iid if the total vovonue biken from her had boeii in propor- 
 tion to ]u!r tiixaUle capacity. In the same year there was expended 
 for Irish piiri)oses about three and tliree-(piartor millions in excess 
 of what would have been admissible if the expenditure for Irish 
 jjurposes had also been in proportion to Ireland's "taxable 
 capacity." On the whole account, Ireland may be said to have 
 been a gainer in 1893-i)4 of about one milium sterling ; or, in other 
 words, after meeting the expenditure for Irish purposes, she con- 
 tributed about ime million less towards imi)'jrial purixtses than she 
 would have done if her contribution for imperial purposes had been 
 in proportion to her "taxable capacity." 
 
 " Sir David Barbour seems to think that that disposes 
 of the whole question, and the Edinburgh reviewer takes 
 much the same view. But it seems to me that this pro- 
 portion of one to thirty-two is highly disputable. The 
 representatives of Ireland upon the Commission, it is 
 true, did not greatly resist its acceptance ; they ex- 
 plained that they attached comparatively little import- 
 ance to it, because in their opinion the calculation was 
 irrelevant. The Irish representatives were, however, 
 perhaps remiss in allowing the figure to pass unchal- 
 lenged, because there is very good reason for believing 
 that this alleged contribution of only one-thirty-second 
 to the imperial expenditure is a loose calculation 
 altogether. But, if I were objecting to the claim of 
 Ireland in this matter, and refusing to consider her case 
 upon the ground that there was no grievance of this 
 kind, I certainly should not appoint another Com- 
 mission, for a new Commission will probably examine 
 the figures more exhaustively. We have some means 
 of correcting the calculation ourselves. The distinction 
 between payments for local services and the amounts 
 contributed to the imperial revenue began in 1890, in 
 the reference to the committee then appointed ; and the 
 Treasury, in the report which they then supplied, dealt 
 with 'imperial services, English services, Scotch services, 
 and Irish services,' and said that expenditure on the
 
 142 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 National Debt service and expenses incurred under the 
 National Debt Redemption Act, the Naval Defence 
 Fund, Army services, Ordnance services, and Navy ser- 
 vices, must be regarded as strictly imperial. They also 
 said that the expenditure charged upon the Consoli- 
 dated Fund included items which were clearly imperial, 
 or which could not be divided between the three 
 kingdoms. Lord Welby's name appeared upon this 
 paper as that of the Treasury official who supplied 
 the information ; and, of course. Lord Welby was not 
 likely to quarrel with his own classification before the 
 committee. The authority for that classification was 
 found when Sir Edward Hamilton came to be ex- 
 amined, and gave his evidence, which will be found in 
 the second volume of the report of the evidence at page 
 1 24. He said that he appeared there as the represen- 
 tative of the Treasury, and he said that he had talked 
 the matter over with his colleagues, and that he was ex- 
 pressing not merely his personal opinion, but that of the 
 Treasury. The declaration of Sir Edward Hamilton 
 was made to the Commission on the 14th of November, 
 1895, when his superiors at the Treasury, for whom he 
 professed to speak, were the present First Lord of the 
 Treasury (Mr. Balfour) and the present Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer (Sir M. Hicks-Beach). Then he went 
 on to give a history of this classification. He was 
 asked if it was a Treasury classification simply, and his 
 answer was : — 
 
 Yes. Mr. Goschen was the original authority for it, and it 
 has been carefully considered since. I do not mean to say that 
 exception may not be taken ; it is a line that is difBcult to draw. 
 
 " So far as this distribution of figures is concerned, it 
 has so clearly and distinctly the strongest authority of 
 the Treasury, that I do not think Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment can expect that any further investigation of the
 
 TITK PKOI'OSFD XEW TOMMISSIOX. 143 
 
 matter will alter the fij^ures to the detriment of Ireland ; 
 but it might quite possibly alter them the other way. 
 Sir Edward Hamilton in Ins evidence— Question 10,511 
 — said the item for the collection of taxes in Ireland was 
 a moot point. Again — Question 10,518 — he said the 
 Lord Lieutenant's charge was a moot and doubtful 
 charge. He was pressed with regard to education in 
 the Queen's Colleges, which is aver)- large item, amount- 
 ing to a million. That also he thought was a moot 
 charge. Then comes the police. He admitted the 
 proposition that, instead of one and a-half million — 
 iJ"i,439,ooo -being charged to Irish expenses, as is done 
 under the calculation with which I have been dealing, a 
 large proportion of it ought to have been charged to 
 imperial expenditure; and if these alterations w^ere made, 
 they would very largely alter the figure with respect to 
 Ireland. In the return of 1891 the figures giving the 
 contribution to imperial expenditure show a percentage 
 of about 3 or 4 per cent. There v^^as an appendix to 
 that return, showing the percentages of expenditure in 
 1889-90, 1890-91, and 1891-92 on English, Scotch, and 
 Irish services ' after the cost of the police in each of the 
 three kingdoms (so far as that cost is met out of revenue 
 contributed to the Exchequer, or under the Local Taxa- 
 tion Act), and the special grants for light railways and 
 distress works in Ireland, have been deducted from 
 that expenditure.' Who suggested in 1891 that that 
 should be deducted ? Of course, the authorities then in 
 power. Why ? Because it must have occurred to some 
 of them that it was not fair to charge all this against 
 Ireland in her local account, and that a portion at least 
 ought to be deducted. I hope I am making it clear. It 
 brings me to this point. The Edinburgh reviewer deals 
 with this question in one of the most interesting pas- 
 sages of his article, and he comes to the conclusion that 
 if you made adjustments which might be reasonable
 
 144 IKISH PROTEST ACAINST UVEK-TAXATI(;\. 
 
 upon this particular figure, you would deduct from it — 
 from the local expenditure of Ireland — a sum of three- 
 quarters of a million ; and he says that that would still 
 leave Ireland short of the contribution which, according 
 to her taxable capacity — one in twenty — she ought to 
 pay. If you make the alteration in the figures and the 
 allowance which the Edijiburgli reviewer suggests to be 
 a fair allowance, you will find that Ireland contributes, 
 and has contributed, to the imperial expenditure in the 
 proportion of one in twenty-two, which is very little 
 indeed short of the full contribution which anybody 
 suggests that she ought to make. I think there are 
 other considerations which undoubtedly ought to be 
 borne in mind ; and possibly, if this new Commission is 
 to be appointed, it would be as well to take some note 
 of the extent to which the moneys voted by Parliament, 
 whether for English, Scotch, Irish, or imperial purposes, 
 are expended within England, Scotland, and Ireland 
 respectively. I confess I do not think the calculation is 
 legitimate at all, for reasons which stand apart from this 
 discussion of the figures ; but if you deal with this matter 
 on the footing that there are three taxable entities or 
 areas to be considered, and you are endeavouring to 
 ascertain the burden upon these areas, it is obvious that 
 the question how much expenditure takes place within 
 the limits of each area, is a most important question. Of 
 the money expended on the public service in Ireland, I 
 should think a good deal comes to England ; but of the 
 money that is expended on the public service in England, 
 I am afraid very little flows over to Ireland ; and should 
 it be thought necessary again to investigate these figures 
 which we all have at hand, I hope that the Commission 
 will be entitled to examine what proportion of the sums 
 voted under each head of expenditure is actually ex- 
 pended in the country to which the account refers. Now, 
 let me pass at once to the second question stated in
 
 tin; I'KorosEi") \i:\v (•oM>rT,s,STON. 145 
 
 this reference upon Financial Relations. The second 
 question is — 
 
 How the expenditure on Irish local services, for which the 
 State wholly or in part provides, compares with the corresponding 
 expenditure in Eniflaud or in Scotland, and whether such Irisli 
 expenditure may with advantage be readjusted or reduced. 
 
 Surely we want no Commission about that. There are 
 two questions, and two questions only. The first is, 
 how Irish local expenditure, classified as I have already 
 shown, compares with the local expenditure of England 
 and Scotland. We know it : we have all the figures, 
 and have had them for years, and if there was another 
 Commission to-morrow, the only thing would be for Sir 
 Edward Hamilton to hand in again a copy of the state- 
 ment which he handed in before, and which gives the 
 whole information on the subject. The other question 
 put is this : whether Irish expenditure may with advan- 
 tage be readjusted or reduced. Now, really, it seems a 
 •little absurd to refer that question to a Commission. The 
 question is not how it should be reduced, but whether it 
 could with advantage be readjusted or reduced. O'Conor 
 Don, the chairman of the late Commission, says in his 
 report that the possibility of reducing it may be a proper 
 subject for a separate inquiry. But it is not a question 
 of the possibility of reducing it. The question put 
 by the Government is, whether it could with advan- 
 tage be readjusted or reduced. I refer them to page 50 
 of the report — the report of Lord Farrer and his col- 
 leagues, who say : — 
 
 We are of opinion that the excessive expenditure of Ireland which 
 we have described, although it may lie no justification for the 
 excessive taxation of Ireland, is at once a pecuniary loss to the 
 taxpayers of Great Britain and a cause of demoralization to Ireland. 
 
 And no Commission you ever have will recommend more 
 strongly than that the readjustment or reduction of 
 Irish expenditure But if )'ou want a stronger te.sti- 
 
 L
 
 T46 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 mony, and from another quarter, I refer you to page 105 
 of the report of Mr. Sexton. Mr. Sexton contends that 
 the present cost of administering Ireland is very excessive, 
 and there says : — 
 
 For this flagrant evil of wasteful .md disproportionate expendi- 
 ture there is but one remedy. 
 
 " Of course, the remedy that was proposed was one 
 which goes into the question of political action. But 
 upon the question whether e.xpenditure in Ireland is ex- 
 cessive, or whether it can with advantage be readjusted 
 or reduced, that Commission are absolutely clear and 
 unanimous in their reports. Just let me put this prac- 
 tical consideration to the House. Suppose a new Com- 
 mission were appointed, and it reported, in answer to 
 this second paragraph, that the expenditure in Ireland 
 could with advantage be readjusted and reduced, you 
 would have learned nothing new, you would have 
 learned exactly what this Commission has told you. 
 But suppose the Commission were to report that the 
 expenditure upon civil government in Ireland was 
 moderate in amount and reasonable in character, and 
 that it produced an effective and satisfactory result in 
 economical and good government, the House would 
 tear up the report with ridicule. We know the facts 
 better than that. I know the reason of much of this 
 extravagant expenditure. Hon. members opposite have 
 said, so long as this country was dealing with them in 
 a way which they did not approve of, and incurring ex- 
 penditure which they did not desire to sanction by their 
 votes, they were determined to get all they could ; and 
 as long as they were being taxed so heavily, they meant 
 to get as much back as they could, and did not mind 
 very much whether it was the salary of an unnecessary 
 judge or was expended in any other way. The way 
 in which this House has dealt with Irish expenditure
 
 THE PROPOSED NEW COMMISSION. I47 
 
 has been perfectly grotesque. Last night the Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer said that, if hon. members 
 opposite would assist in making a little reduction in 
 the excessive cost of the judicial establishment in 
 Ireland, he would promise them that they should have 
 full advantage of every shilling of the saving." 
 Mr. T. M. Healy : " He denied that to-day." 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer : " No, I did not. 
 I adhere to every word of that statement. I said I 
 could not deal with matters of the past, and that I was 
 only responsible for matters of the future." 
 
 He then referred to the late appointment of an Irish 
 judge, and resumed : — " I would like to call attention to 
 the third paragraph in the terms of reference to the pro- 
 posed Commission, the words of which are extremely 
 important, I think, because these words do carry with 
 them a most important acknowledgment of the case of 
 the Irish members : — 
 
 Wliether, when regard is had to th3 nature of the taxes now in 
 force, to existing exemptions, and to the amount of expenditure 
 by the State on local services, the provision in the Act of Union 
 between Great Britain and Ireland with regard to " particular ex- 
 emptions or abatements " calls for any modification in the tinancial 
 system of the United Kingdom. 
 
 " Sir, I confess I think that the insertion of those 
 words in that reference is a very important fact. It 
 recognises that the Act of Union is still in force, con- 
 tinued as it was, and having effect given to it, by the 
 Act of 1816, and it acknowledges the right of the Irish 
 people now to come with the Act of Union and the Act 
 of 1 8 16 in their hands, and to claim, if they can show 
 good cause in the circumstances of their country, to 
 have exemptions or abatements. But just let me 
 suggest this, that the question now has passed from 
 the region of Treasury investigation and of financial 
 fact into a region of most controversial discussion of
 
 148 IRISH TROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 political matters. I must, in passing, say that I greatly 
 regretted to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 last night that he proposed to take a judge from Eng- 
 land, and one from Scotland, and one from Ireland to 
 serve on the proposed Commission. I do hope we are 
 not going on with the practice of withdrawing judicial 
 officers from their proper work to put them upon Com- 
 missions with which they have nothing to do, and upon 
 which their authority will practically be of no use at all. 
 It is acknowledged by the terms of this reference that 
 the Act of Union and the Act of 18 16 are still effective 
 instruments for the protection of Ireland, if the circum- 
 stances of Ireland entitle her to claim such protection ; 
 and what does this House care about the report of one 
 judge, or of three judges, as to what they say is the 
 meaning of these words ? The House of Commons 
 must construe them for itself, and will construe them, 
 as I believe, not in a technical or niggardly spirit, but 
 with the desire to give full effect to the pledge which 
 was contained in those Acts as to the treatment, and 
 separate treatment, which Ireland should receive." 
 
 He then mentioned the Marquis of Salisbury's classi- 
 fication of Royal Commissions, and continued :— 
 
 " If it is only financial fact that is to be obtained, we 
 do not want a Commission. If the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer gave directions to the Treasury officials, he 
 would have within the next week reports upon all these 
 points given by persons whose authority would never be 
 questioned, and he would gain nothing if they were 
 filtered, as Sir Edward Hamilton's report was, through 
 the different members of a Royal Commission. If, on 
 the other hand, we are going to adopt the second kind 
 of Royal Commission, and to shut up violent persons to 
 fight out between themselves in the Commission-room 
 the meaning of the Act of Union and the Act of 18 16, 
 surely it would be far better to let us have the facts stated
 
 THE PKOrOSED NEW COMMISSION. I49 
 
 before the House, and to let us, here in the House, and 
 not within the h'mits of a Royal Comrru'ssion, have these 
 questions fought out. Let me say further, the question 
 now referred to in that third paragraph of the terms of 
 reference is a serious question of poHc\', and it is not a 
 question of fact at all. We have got all the facts ; the 
 question is whether, in dealing with Ireland, you are 
 entitled to set off the expenditure upon the local services 
 in Ireland against her general contribution. I confess I 
 take the strongest view that you are not. Upon this I 
 would refer special 1\- to the terms of the Act of 18 16. 
 It is perfectly clear that the scheme of that Act was 
 that the taxes being imposed, such taxes as Parliament 
 might think right, the produce of those taxes was to 
 come into a common fund, and out of that fund the 
 expenditure was to take place by one authority, which 
 is the authorit)' of this House, and for all the purposes 
 of the empire. To my thinking, the expenditure upon 
 the payment of the police in Ireland is as much an 
 imperial charge, in the true sense of the word, as any- 
 thing else that appears on our accounts. When I hear 
 these conflicting voices, when I hear it said from that 
 side. 
 
 Oh, your expenditui^e i.s an imperial expenditure ; when you 
 spend money in Ireland, you are spending money at the direction 
 of the Council of the whole nation, and for purpo.ses which it 
 thinks wise ; 
 
 and when, on the other hand, I hear it said. 
 
 Oh, you must not consider that as an imperial expenditure ; I am 
 going to look and see how much you cost us ; I am going to make 
 out a balance of account, and see what we are to debit and credit 
 Ireland with— 
 
 I ask myself with some wonder, 
 
 Which is the Unionist voice? 
 
 " If this were truly and properly to be called Irish 
 expenditure, I could see no escape from the conclusion
 
 t50 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 that it must be governed by Irishmen according to Irish 
 ideas. It is because I believe that the expenditure 
 which is under the control of this House, the great 
 majority here being representatives of Great Britain, is 
 all imperial expenditure, that I would protest against 
 the attempt to cut and carve up the accounts with regard 
 to England and Scotland and Ireland with a debit and 
 credit account, as if they were mere branches which were 
 connected together by commercial associations, but were 
 not part of the one imperial whole. I must say, from 
 my own point of view, I feel very strongly that while 
 it is necessary, in order that we may fulfil our treaty 
 obligations to Ireland, and the obligations we came 
 under in i8i6, that we should carefully regard the con- 
 dition of Ireland, and endeavour to deal fairly and 
 generously with her in her need, if need be proved to 
 exist, we should absolutely refuse to cut up the accounts 
 of our imperial expenditure because we happen to spend 
 one sum of money in Ireland, as if Ireland herself had no 
 separate and exclusive control in it. I would just like 
 to add, almost in parenthesis, that there is this fatal flaw 
 about this calculation : you are trying to split the taxa- 
 tion as if it did not matter how large is the taxation you 
 impose so long as you spend it upon the population 
 where you raise it. According to that theory we should 
 be doing Ireland, in her poverty and trouble, no harm at 
 all if we were to impose three millions more taxes per 
 annum upon her, always provided that we doubled the 
 number of her police, and gave her more judges, and, for 
 the special benefit of the landlords of Ireland, gave her 
 an army of assistant-commissioners." 
 
 This utter pulverization of the pretexts for the appoint- 
 ment of a second Commission, and the exposure of the 
 irrelevancy and purposeless nature of the proposed 
 inquiry, seem to have settled the matter, as, after the 
 lapse of seven months, no Commission has been 
 appointed.
 
 RUINKD IRKLAND. 15I 
 
 CHAPTER XXX. 
 
 RUINED IRELAND. 
 
 The follovvin<i^ is taken from Mr. Murrough O'Brien's 
 memorandum, Appendix II, Voluinc I, of the Report of 
 the Royal Commission : — 
 
 " The misery and moral evils caused by over-taxation, 
 and the misspending" of the Irish revenue, cannot be 
 measured in money or expressed in figures." Two of 
 the four economic causes of Ireland's poverty and non- 
 progression in prosperity, as compared with the rest of 
 the United Kingdom, are : — 
 
 "(i) Over-taxation for over ninety years. 
 
 " (2) Drain of absentee rental. 
 
 " The manifest symptoms of this poverty are : — 
 
 "(i) A continually diminishing population. 
 
 " (2) Decaying towns and villages. 
 
 " (3) Emigration. 
 
 " (4) Migration of labourers for temporary employ- 
 ment to Great Britain and the United States. 
 
 "(5) i^nnually recurring distress and periodical famines. 
 
 "(6) Persistent and unabated social and political dis- 
 content. 
 
 " (7) The appearance of the mass of the people, their 
 houses, clothes, and food. 
 
 "It is doubtful whether Ireland has increased at 
 all in wealth during the last thirty years, although, 
 owing to the diminishing population, it may be shown 
 statistically that there are more acres of land, pounds of 
 valuation, miles of railway, &c., per head of the popula- 
 tion ; but this is not prosperity. 
 
 " No poor agricultural country such as Ireland could 
 stand the continued drain of excessive taxation she has
 
 152 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 been subjected to, and of remittances to absentees 
 without the economic effect of such unremunerative 
 payments becoming evident. These payments are 
 equivalent to a perpetual bad harvest or annual 
 cattle plague. If the entire potato crop or the 
 saleable produce of Ireland's live stock were annually 
 carried away without return, or if absentee payments 
 were made in one sum as a tribute, the magnitude of 
 the economic drain would be clearly recognised. The 
 evil is no less because these payments without return are 
 made to a number of individuals, or go to support the 
 dignity, maintain the strength, and reduce the debt of 
 Great Britain." 
 
 The following observations by Mr. Charles Booth are 
 taken from Appendix X, Volume II, of the evidence 
 received by the Royal Commission : — 
 
 " The view is commonly held that in general well- 
 being Ireland has enormously improved since the 
 famine. No evidence of this improvement is to be 
 found in the occupation returns, which, on the contrary, 
 point to a demoralization of industry likely to be the 
 cause as well as consequence of poverty and waning 
 trade, and certain to be the source of political dis- 
 content. I know that figures may be, and are, drawn 
 from bank deposits and other returns, which seem to 
 tell a different story. I shall not attempt to reconcile 
 this conflict of evidence. To do so would be beyond 
 the scope of this paper. I can only state the con- 
 clusions to which the census returns point. 
 
 " In the picture of desolation which the Irish figures 
 afford there seems little room for delusion. When 
 industries decay, those who have been supported by 
 them cling to their employment as long as possible, 
 , . . and the numbers given include many who no 
 longer find a living in what they profess to do. . . . 
 In such a case the facts are assuredly worse than the 
 figures disclose."
 
 KUINKI) IRKLANC. I 53 
 
 0{ general labourers, a very numerous class in Ireland, 
 he says : — 
 
 " They spranc^ into existence, not from any need of 
 their services, but as the outcome of agricultural and 
 industrial distress and charitable doles on an enormous 
 scale." 
 
 Domestic servants were in 1841, 4"2 per cent, of the 
 population ; in 1881, 8"2 per cent., there being an actual 
 positive increase of 85,000. Mr. Booth remarks : — 
 
 " What is the explanation of these remarkable figures? 
 It would be simplest to show they are incorrect ; . . . 
 but I have found no loophole of escape, and the com- 
 parison of successive decades shows how gradually the 
 position of Ireland was reversed, from being the most 
 economical to being the most extravagant in domestic 
 service. The only explanation which suggests itself is 
 that servants are more numerous where poverty makes 
 service cheap. 
 
 "The decrease in those employed in ag7'tcullu re, though. 
 affecting each branch, shows itself, of course, mainly in 
 the labourers and farm servants, who have fallen from 
 1,326,000 in 1 84 1 to 329,000 in 1881. 
 
 " In 1 841 there were 72,000 persons occupied in biciUi- 
 ing: in 1881 there were but 56,000." 
 
 '* The total employed at manufacture has dropped 
 from 989,000 to 379,000 (or 617 per cent.)."
 
 154 IKI^n PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION, 
 
 CHAPTER XXXI. 
 
 A.D. 1897. 
 
 ORGANIZATION. 
 
 A Convention was held in the Mansion House, 
 Dubh'n, on 22nd April, to establish an organization with 
 the object of redressing the over-taxation of Ireland 
 disclosed by the report of the late Royal Commission. 
 The attendance was most representative and influential, 
 and letters of apology were read from leading men in 
 all parts of the country. The Convention was addressed 
 by the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the Earl of Mayo, 
 Mr. R. Keating Clay, J.P., Solicitor ; the Rev. Mr. 
 Finlay, Protestant Dean of Leighlin ; Dean White, P.P., 
 Nenagh ; Professor Culverwell, F.T.C.D. ; Dr. Joseph E. 
 Kenny, Mr. Arthur W. Samuels, (^.c. ; Mr. John Carolan, 
 J. P. ; Mr. J. F. Riordan, Solicitor ; Captain O'Callaghan 
 Westropp, J.P. ; Mr. John Sweetman, Mr. Robert 
 Sanders, J.P. ; and Mr. Richard J. Kelly, Barrister-at- 
 Law. The following resolutions were adopted : — 
 
 The Earl of Mayo proposed the first resolution, as 
 follows : — 
 
 That this Convention expresses its dissatisfaction with the posi- 
 tion taken up by Her Majesty's Government in the recent debate 
 on the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, 
 protests against the appointment of the proposed new Commission, 
 and declares that the people of Ireland are determined by eveiy 
 legitimate means to prevent any delay in giving to Ireland the 
 relief to which she has been found entitled. 
 
 Professor Culverwell, F.T.C.D., proposed the second 
 resolution, as follows : — 
 
 That an organization, to be called the Irish Financial Reform 
 League, be now constituted, with branches in each county and
 
 ORGANIZATION. 155 
 
 cifcy iu Ireland, to further tliu moveiueut fur the redress of llie 
 imperial taxation in Ireland, and to maintain the financial rights 
 to which she is constitutionally entitled. That every per.son who 
 subscribes one shilling a year to this League shall be admitted a 
 member thereof, and that it be referred to the All-Ireland Com- 
 mittee to draw up the basis on which this League shall be founded. 
 That a subscription list be opened, pending the formation of the 
 organization referred to in this resolution, to defray the jjreliminary 
 expenses wliicli have been already incurred, and the further 
 expenses which must be met in forming this League, and in 
 advancing the objects which the All-Ireland Committee are 
 advocating. 
 
 Mr. Samuels, c^.C, proposed the third resolution, as 
 follows : — 
 
 That this Convention further protests against the terms of 
 reference to the new Commission announced by Her Majesty's 
 Government, and condemns them as framed in disregard of 
 Ireland's constitutional rights, and as one-sided, and as relegating 
 t(j a Commission (questions of policy and expediency tit for 
 determination by Parliament alone. 
 
 Captain O'Callaghan Westropp then proposed the 
 fourth resolution, as follows: — 
 
 This Convention demands that there shall be forthwith granted 
 to Ireland relief identical with that conferred upon England Ijy the 
 Agricultural Rating Act of 1890, by which farmers in England are 
 granted from the Imperial Exchequer relief to the extent of one- 
 half the rates payable on their agricultural holdings ; and this 
 Convention calls upon all Irish representatives in Parliament to 
 take steps forthwith to secure that in this respect right be done. 
 
 The All- Ireland Committee in due course issued an 
 address to the people of Ireland, and the constitution 
 of the Irish Financial Reform League: — 
 
 TO THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND. 
 
 In accordance with the resolution passed at the Mansion House 
 Convention on the 22ndApril, 1897, the All-Ireland Committee now 
 lay before their fellow-countrymen the Constitution of the Irish 
 Financial Reform League.
 
 156 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 It Is evident that passing events, butli in and out uf Parliament, 
 each day proclaim the necessity for, and show the advantage of, 
 united action on the part of all Irishmen to secure the redress of 
 their financial grievances. 
 
 They therefore appeal with confidence to the people of Ireland, 
 of all classes and every shade of politics, to support and extend this 
 League throughout the length and breadth of our country, in the 
 full confidence that the significant unanimity hitherto displayed on 
 this question will continue, and, deriving from organization fresh 
 vigour and power, will, in this weighty matter, secure that " right 
 be done." 
 
 As the organization of the Irish Financial Reform League, and 
 the conduct of the movement in a systematic and business-like 
 manner, will necessitate considerable expenditure, the All-Ireland 
 Committee consider that the time has come to appeal to their 
 countrymen for that financial support which has hitherto been only 
 asked from and attbrded by the members of the committee. 
 
 Subscriptions, either direct or through local branches of the Irish 
 Financial Reform I^eague, will be received and acknowledged by 
 the Hon. Treasurers of the League. Cheques and postal orders 
 maybe made payable to "Irish Financial Reform League, Mansion 
 House, Dublin." 
 
 IRISH FINANCIAL REFORM LEAGUE. 
 
 1. That this League be called the " Irish Financial Reform 
 League." 
 
 2. The objects of this League are to secure united action on the 
 part of all Irishmen in furthering the movement for the redress of 
 the over-taxation of Ireland, and to maintain the financial rights to 
 which she is constitutionally entitled. 
 
 3. Every person favourable to the objects of this League may 
 become a member on the payment of one sliilling a year to the 
 funds of the League. On his subscription being received, and his 
 name enrolled in the list of members, a card of membership will be 
 delivered to him, which will entitle him to admission to the general 
 meetings of the League. 
 
 4. That the All- Ireland Committee Meeting in Dublin be consti- 
 tuted the Central Body of the League. 
 
 5. That representatives be nominated to act on the All-Ireland 
 Committee by local committees of the League, to be formed in the 
 counties, cities, and towns of Ireland. 
 
 0. That in the event of there being no hjcal committee, the 
 League siiall invite local taxpayers to form a conunittee.
 
 ok(;anization. 157 
 
 7. That all .subscriptions when received by local coimnittues be 
 forwarded to the " TreasurerH, All-Ireland Committee, Mansion 
 House, Dublin," after dijfiayint,' oxiicnses. 
 
 8. That the Lord Maycjr (jf Dublin for the time being and the 
 Earl of Mayo ))e Treasurers to the Irish Reform League Fund. 
 The moneys received to be lodged by the Treasurers to the credit 
 of the Irish Financial Reform League, at the National Bank, 
 College Green, Dublin. 
 
 The ort^anization has been extended to man}- parts 
 of Ireland, and ver)' influential meetings have been held 
 for that purpose ; amon<^st others, in Carlow, with the 
 Right Honourable Henry Bruen presiding ; and in Cork, 
 with the Earl of Bandon presiding. At the latter meet- 
 ing, held on the 2nd November, the O'Conor Don made 
 an earnest appeal to Irishmen to unite on the taxation 
 question. From the day he entered Parliament, thirty- 
 seven years ago, he has been invariably found on the 
 Irish side of this question. He supported General 
 Dunne, Sir Joseph M'Kenna, and Mr. Mitchell Henr)- 
 when they raised it in Parliament. He voted for General 
 Dunne's Draft Report, and on the death of Mr. Childers 
 was elected Chairman of the Royal Commission. His 
 life is the bridge which joins these two great epochs in 
 the Irish effort for redress. No one recognises more 
 fully than he, who has played his part so honourably 
 and well in the history of the movement, why all the 
 protests of the past have been fruitless, and how vital 
 it is to Ireland that the justice which he has seen so 
 long delayed should be immediately done. Years of 
 experience have shown him how impossible it was, and 
 how difficult it will be, to overcome the hostility of 
 the predominant partner, and that it is not because a 
 good case has been made out, and clothed with the 
 authority of a Royal Commission, that redress will 
 follow. His admitted integrity and wisdom, his long 
 and faithful services to the cause of reform of Irish 
 Taxation, his recognised authority and disinterestedness,
 
 158 IRISH PKOTliST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 add a special pathos to the appeal he made at Cork, 
 which shall be the most fitting conclusion of this 
 History : — 
 
 To a really united Ireland nothing could be refused ; and as the 
 Financial Reform League has this unity for one of its principal 
 objects, it is surely deserving of your support. Now, my lords and 
 gentlemen, I have trespassed long on your attention, and it would 
 be unpardonable on my part to occujjy more of your time ; but I 
 would fail in the chief object for which I came amongst you if I 
 did not endeavour to impress upon you, as strongly as my poor 
 abilities permit, the great, the far-reaching, the lasting importance 
 of this unity of action. Why should not we be, at the end of this 
 century, "United Irishmen" in the truest, the broadest, and, at 
 the same time, the most constitutional sense I The liberties which 
 we enjoy, the powers which we can exercise, the influence which 
 we can bring to bear on the whole government of this United 
 Kingdom if we are only united, are so vast, so overwhelming, that, 
 if but rightly used, they are irresistible. I ask you, then, to-day 
 to form a branch of this association. I ask you to support it con- 
 tinuously, resolutely, perseveringly. I ask you to do so in the 
 words of an address issued to your countrymen one hundred years 
 ago — noble words, no matter what became the subsequent career of 
 those who penned them. I ask you to endeavour to obtain a unity 
 of mind and a knowledge of each other. To know each other is to 
 know ourselves, the weakness of one and the strength of many. 
 Union is, therefore, power ; it is also wisdom ; but it can be 
 brought about by only one rule of conduct — to attend to those 
 things in which we agree ; to exclude from our thoughts those in 
 which we differ, remembering that nothing can be good for one 
 part of the nation which has not for its object the interest of the 
 whole.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 TWO PETITIONS TO PARLIAMENT. 
 
 A.i). 1864. 
 
 Petition read at a meeting of the Dublin Corporation by Mr. 
 John B. Dill(Hi, on 8th February, 18(54, unanimously adopted by 
 the Municipal Council on loth March, and presented in state Ijy 
 the Lord Mayor, Peter Paul M'Swiney, at the Bar of the House of 
 Commons on 26th April, 1864 : — 
 
 TO THE KNIGHTS, BURGESSES, AND CITIZENS IN 
 PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED. 
 
 The Petition of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Buroesses 
 
 OF THE City of Dublin 
 Sheweth : 
 
 That by two returns made to your honoui-able House, dated re- 
 spectively the 2(lth February, 18(i2, and the 30th June, 1863, it 
 appears that the net ordinary revenue of Ireland, on an average 
 of three years ending on the 31st Deceml)er, 1862, amounted to 
 £6,472,688. That the people of Ireland pay, in addition to the 
 above sum, at least one million sterling in custom duties paid in 
 British ports on articles consumed in Ireland, and a further sum of 
 £200,000 from Crown rents and the Post Ofhce, both of these 
 sources of revenue being expressly excluded from the returns 
 above mentioned ; and your petitioners therefore submit that tlie 
 annual revenue now raised from Ireland somewhat exceeds 
 £7,600,000. That, by the returns above referred to, the average 
 amount of public expenditure in Ireland during the same three 
 years aj)pears to have been £3,905,838. That, in the expenditure 
 as above stated, the advances made out of the Consolidated Fund 
 for public objects are not included, neither are the repayments on 
 account of said advances included in the income as above stated ; 
 but your petitioners find by the same returns that during the three
 
 l6o IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 years referred to the rei^ayments exceeded the sums advanced by 
 £333,150. That a comparison of the income of Ireland with the ex- 
 penditure will show tliat, of the revenue raised in this country, the 
 aniount expended at home is very little over one-half ; the home 
 expenditure being £3,905,838, and the balance expended in Eng- 
 land or elsewhere amounting to about £3,700,000. That, on an 
 average of ten years ending 1851, the public revenue paid in 
 Ireland amounted to only £4,400,000 per annum, as against an 
 average of £fi,472,()88 for the last three years ; and that, owing to 
 the great increase in our taxation, the annual remittances from 
 Ireland to England have grown during tlie last fourteen years from 
 about £700,000 to about £2,700,000. That the rents remitted 
 from Ireland to absentee proprietors are estimated by your peti- 
 tioners to amount to between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 annually ; 
 and that, accordingly, between absentee rents and the portion of 
 her income expended abroad, Ireland seems to be depleted to an 
 amount between seven and eight millions sterling per annum. 
 That the annual value of all the real property in Ireland, including 
 the houses of its towns and cities, as well as lands, amounts, by 
 official valuation, only to £12,324,853 ; and when this amount is 
 compared with that which is annually sent out of the country, we 
 cannot reasonably hope for the accumulation of capital, or the con- 
 sequent growth of renumerative industry, as long as this ex- 
 hausting drain is permitted to continue. That, when the Act of 
 Union between Great Britain and Ireland was passed, the public 
 debt of Ireland amounted only to £20,841,211), the debt of Great 
 Britain being at the same time £420,305,944 ; and that, in sixteen 
 years after the passing of the Act of Union, Ireland was declared 
 liable for the entire of the British debt, incurred as well before as 
 after the Union, on the alleged ground that she had failed to pay 
 the proportion of the imjierial expenditure which had been assigned 
 to her, while it was on all hands admitted that the proportion so 
 assigned to her was much larger than an impartial comparison of 
 her ability with that of Great Britain would have warranted. And 
 your petitioners feel that they re-echo a sentiment all but uni- 
 versally shared by the Irish people in expressing their dissatisfac- 
 tion with an arrangement which subjected Ireland to an enormous 
 debt, in the contracting of which the representatives of the Irish 
 nation took no part, and from the expenditure of which the Irish 
 people derived no benefit. It would not be difficult for your peti- 
 tioners, by a reference to past dealings with this country, to show 
 that some compensation is due to her ; but they will content tliem- 
 selves with declaring that, in the history of her connection with
 
 APPKXDIX. l6l 
 
 Great Britain, they are unable to find any title in the latter 
 country to the tribute wliich is now levied from the too scanty re- 
 sources of Ireland. Your petitioners pray that your honourable 
 House may, either by remission of taxes, or l)y increased expendi- 
 ture in this country, establish a closer approximation than now 
 exists between the income and expenditure of Ireland. And your 
 petitioners will ever pray. 
 
 A.I.. 18JJ7. 
 
 The Municipal Council of Dublin, at their monthly meeting on 
 1st March, 1897, unanimously resolved to present a jjetitiou to 
 Parliament. It was presented in state by Lord Mayor R. F. 
 M'Coy on the 29th March. It was drawn up by Mr. Arthur W, 
 Sanuiels, q.c, and Mr. J. J. Clancy, Barristei'-at-Law, M.r., 
 instructed by the Law Adviser to the Corporation. 
 
 TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF THE UNITED 
 
 KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 
 
 IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED. 
 
 The Petition of the Right Honourable the Lokd Mavok, 
 Aldermen, and Burgesses of Dublin 
 
 Sheweth : 
 
 That under the Treaty of the Union between the kingdoms ot 
 Great Britain and Ireland a constitutional right is guaranteed to 
 Ireland to have her circumstances specially considered in reference 
 to the imposition of taxation l)y the Parliament of the United 
 Kinadom and to the incidence of such taxation. 
 
 That this right has been constantly and continuously insisted 
 upon in Parliament by the representatives of Ireland of all political 
 parties since the Union. 
 
 That the final report of Her Majesty's Commissioners appointed 
 by Royal Warrant of 2Gth May, 1894, to inquire into the Financial 
 Relations of Great Britain and Ireland establishes, nevertheless, the 
 fact 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 the 
 Conunissioners as exceeding one-twentieth ; and, consequently, 
 Ii'eland is now taxed to an amount of between two and a-half and 
 three millions pounds per annum in excess of her proper j^roportion. 
 
 That this grave injustice to Ireland, as further appears from the 
 said report, has been brought about not only by the imposition of 
 a financial burden at the time of the Union which, as events 
 
 M
 
 l62 IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 showed, she was unable to bear, but by a serious addition to that 
 burden in 1853 and several succeeding years, which was not 
 justified by the circumstances of Ireland, but which, nevertheless, 
 has been continued and even increased since that time. 
 
 That this burden of excessive taxation has seriously inj ured, and 
 is seriously injuring, the material interests of Ireland, and has con- 
 tributed in no small degree to retard her commercial progress and 
 prevent her industrial development, and that so long as it exists it 
 must continue to have that result, and to constitute a grave national 
 grievance affecting all classes of the Irish pojiulation. 
 
 That your petitioners feel confident that, in laying these views 
 before your honourable House, they are giving expression to con- 
 victions firmly held and well nigh universally entertained by the 
 citizens of Dublin. 
 
 Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will 
 take into consideration the grievance disclosed by the said report, 
 and will, at an early date, adopt such measures as justice may 
 dictate to redress that grievance and to alleviate its etiects. And 
 your petitioners will ever pray. 
 
 Lord Lieutenants of Ireland, 
 1853 to 1897. 
 
 1853. George Earl of Carlisle. 
 
 1858. Archibald Earl of Eglinton. 
 
 1859. George Earl of Carlisle. 
 
 1S64. John Lord Wodehouse, afterwards Earl ok Kimberlev. 
 
 1866. James Marquis of Abercorn, afterwards Duke. 
 
 1S68. John Earl Spencer. 
 
 1874. James Duke of Abercorn. 
 
 1876. John Duke of Marlborough. 
 
 1880. Francis Earl Cowper. 
 
 1882. John Earl Spencer. 
 
 1885. Henry Earl Carnarvon. 
 
 1886. John Earl of Aberdeen. 
 
 1886. Charles Marquis of Londonderry. 
 
 1889. Lawrence Earl of Zetland. 
 
 1892. Robert Baron Houghton, afterwards Earl Crewe. 
 
 1.S95. George Eari. Cadogan.
 
 AFl^ENDIX. 163 
 
 CHANXELLORS OF THK KxCUI:^)U1;k, 
 FROM 1852 TO 1897. 
 
 1S52. W. E. Gi-ADsroNE, 28i1j December. 
 
 1855. Sir George C. Lewis, 5th March. 
 
 1858. Benjamin Disraeli, 27th February. 
 
 1859. W. E. Gladstone, June. 
 1866. Benjamin Disraeli, 6th July. 
 
 1868. George Ward Hunt, 29th F'ebruary. 
 
 1868. RouERT Lowe, 9th December. 
 
 1873. ^^'- ^- Gladstone, August. 
 
 1874. Sir Stafford Northcote, 21st February. 
 1880. VV. E. Gladstone, 28th April. 
 
 1882. H. C. E. Childers, December. 
 
 1885. Sir M. Hicks-Beacii, 24th June. 
 
 1886. Sir W. V. Harcourt, 6th February. 
 1886. Lord Randolph Churchill, 26th July. 
 1S87. George J. Goschen, 3rd January. 
 
 1892. Sir W. V. Harcourt, i8th August. 
 
 1895. Sir M. Hicks-Beach, July.
 
 SPEECHES OF IRISH MEMBERS UN THE 
 BUDGET OF 1853, 
 
 MR. W. T. FAGAN. 
 
 Extracts from a Speech made by William Tkanx Fagan, 
 Mesiber for Cork City, on 25th April, 1853, in the 
 House of Commons. Mr. Fagan was a merchant and Alder- 
 man of Cork, and had filled the office of Mayor of that city. 
 He was a Repealer. 
 
 He freely admitted that the superstructure of the financial 
 scheme of the right hon. gentleman was grand — statesmanlike ; 
 but the keystone of the arch on which it was erected was the in- 
 quisitorial income tax to be extended to Ireland — not to Ireland 
 prosperous and prospering, but to Ireland downtrodden and 
 struggling from the sad efiects of a five years' famine. He felt it, 
 therefore, a duty to his constituents and to the country of which 
 he was one of the representatives, to offer the proposition the 
 most strenuous opposition. 
 
 He had shown, then, that for the benefits conferred on Ireland 
 by the continuance in times of peace of an income tax she already 
 pays her quota, without the necessity of extending that tax t(j 
 Ireland. But he proposed to go further and show that, by the 
 solemn treaty of the Union, Ireland Avas not bound to contribute 
 to the general expenditure beyond her relative ability with the 
 ability of England, to be ascertained by certain fixed and unalter- 
 able criteria. That was the principle on which the financial 
 pox'tion of the Act (jf Union was based. Taking these criteria as 
 the basis of the calculations, it was ascertained and settled at the 
 Union that Ireland's contribution to the general ex2:)enditure 
 should be two-seventeenths ; that, in case the relative ability of 
 both countries should alter, there should be a revision of the 
 proportion to be contributed in periods of twenty years, unless in
 
 AIM'KXDIX. 165 
 
 Mic iiic.iiitiiiu' tlu> (l('l)ts of tlu^ two countries, which . 'it the I'niou 
 were at tlic i;itio of i to l(j, should upproximate to 1 to 7j, in 
 wliich e;iso the two exchequers should be consolidated, and tlieiice- 
 forward tliere should be a coiinnon taxation. 
 
 Thus one (debt) increased four times (Ireland's), while the other 
 increased l)ut one-half (England's). Tliis proved beyond (juestion 
 that the principle of the Union — namely, that each country should 
 contribute according to its ability — was violated from the very com- 
 mencement oi that Act. The consequence was that, before the 
 period of revision came round, the two debts had approximated to 
 the relative proportion of 1 to TA) <ind the Exchequers were con- 
 solidated in 181G. This never could have occurred had Ireland 
 only contributed according to the solemn contract she had entered 
 into. Her relative ability to contribute would be periodically 
 revised, and they would now be in a position, under the force of 
 the Union Act, to ascertain and determine the fair proportion she 
 should be called upon to pay. 
 
 Why, since 1815, while €ol, 000,000 of taxes have been taken oft' 
 the shoulders of England, Ireland has received a relaxation 
 amounting to only £2,900,000 sterling up to 1840. He had now 
 established beyond question that, l)otli before and after the con- 
 solidation of the Exchequers, Ireland ought not to be forced to pay 
 more than her relative ability to the general taxation, that ability 
 to be ascertained according to the criteria set forth in the seventh 
 article of the Union — namely, her relative income and her relative 
 consumption of beer, sjiirits, sugar, wine, tea, and tobacco. Now, 
 the ratio of Ireland's consumption to that of England's in these 
 articles is as follows : — Beer, 1 to 25 ; spirits, 1 to 3 ; sugar, 1 to 
 15 ; wiire, 1 to 12 ; tea, 1 to 9 ; tobacco, 1 to 0. This gives an 
 average consumption of 1 to 11 L Well, the income of England is 
 ascertained to be £250,000,000. The income of Ireland is about 
 £20,000,000, or 12i to 1. The compound ratio, then, of con- 
 sumption and of income is 12 to 1, being England's ability 
 relatively to Ireland to contribute to the general expendi- 
 ture, which amounts to £52,000,000. Ireland pays into the Ex- 
 chequer, exclusive of unacknowledged taxes, £4,000,000 a year, 
 being one-twelfth of £48,000,000, England's contribution. Her 
 unacknowledged taxation — that is, the duties paid in England on 
 tea, sugar, wine, tobacco, coSee consumed in Ireland — is computed
 
 1 66 IRISH PROTEST ACiAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 to be nearly £1,000,000 a year. Consequently, Ireland pays now- 
 more than she ought under the terms of her treaty with England, 
 inde25endently of her local taxation, which, including county cess, 
 poor rates, and municipal taxes, amounts to £2,000,000 a year, or 
 five shillings in the pound on the saleable property in Ireland, 
 while England's local taxation is but £12,000,000 on £100,000,000 
 saleable property, being less than 2s. 4d. in the pound. 
 
 MR. ISAAC BUTT. 
 
 Extract from the Speech delivered by Mr. Isaac Butt in 
 THE House of Commons o:n 2nd May, 1853. Mr. Butt was 
 then a Conservative member. 
 
 If they were to have the income tax as an imperial tax, then he 
 would ask the committee to go fairly into the whole question of 
 the financial relations of Ireland. He would ask them to consider 
 what was its local taxation, and Avhat share of the national debt 
 Ireland in justice would be said to owe. Let them apjjoint a com- 
 mittee to inquire into that subject, and he ventured to say that no 
 man would come out of that committee without the impression that 
 Ireland was over-taxed. 
 
 MR. THOMAS CONOLLY. 
 
 Extract from a Speech of Mr. Thomas Conolly in the 
 House or Commons on 2nd May, 1853. Mr. Conolly was 
 a Tenant Right member. 
 
 Statistics would show that that country (Ireland) already paid 
 her full share of taxation, and that the claim for any greater 
 amount was devoid of justice. The gross income of Ireland was 
 calculated at £20,000,000, whereas the gross income of Great 
 Britain, according to the authority of the right hon. baronet the 
 member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood), then Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer, was stated at £250,000,000. He took that to l)e the 
 proportion which the taxation of Ireland ought to bear to that of 
 Great Britain, or about 1 to I25. The gross revenue of the empire 
 was £52,000,000, of which Great Britain contributed £47,840,000, 
 and Ireland £4,100,000. Now, the net produce of the Irish 
 revenue, on an average of ten years from 1835 to 1844, was 
 £4,164,000, so that Ireland liad been paying a small amount above
 
 APPENDIX. 167 
 
 her ((uota in proportion to tier gross annual income. And yet it 
 was now proposed to violate the Union compact by materially 
 adding to the Inu'dens of Ireland, and thus destroying that relative 
 
 pro]iortion which ought to exist. 
 
 LORD CLAUD HAMILTON. 
 
 Extract from a Speech of Lord Claud Hamilton, delivered 
 IX THE House of Commons on 23rd May, 1853. Lord 
 Claud Hamilton was a Conservative member. 
 
 The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had relied on the old 
 story of the remission of the consolidated annuities. But the right 
 lion, gentleman knew well he never could have got the whole of 
 the annuities after the report and evidence on that subject printed 
 by the other House of Parliament. Giving him credit, however, 
 for the whole, the remission was not half the amount of the income 
 tax. Would the right hon. gentleman, with all his skill in ciphers, 
 show that this was a benefit to Ireland ? Then, as to the spirit 
 duty, how could the Irish people be materially benefited ] Had 
 not the experience of 1842 shown what would be the result of 
 that measure 1 Had the right hon. gentleman attempted to answer 
 all those arguments, it would not have been necessary to re-advert 
 to them. The right hon. gentleman was bound to defend his 
 financial position, but had failed to do so. The position of Ireland 
 was exceptional, and the taxation to be imposed would most pro- 
 l)ably be permanent. If there was to ))e a permanent tax riveted 
 on the country under pretence of a temporary tax, the condition 
 of the country ought to be investigated, and some endeavour 
 made to vindicate the policy proposed. It was only the right hon. 
 gentleman's evasion of all these topics which had created the 
 necessity for noticing them again at a late period of the evening, 
 when the House Avas far more full than when they had first been 
 brought forward. There was a derangement of the balance of 
 taxation between the two countries, which had been arranged at 
 the time of the Union as the basis of their financial positions. 
 The terms then agreed upon were that the two countries were 
 to unite as to future expenses on a strict measure of relative 
 ability. He would not go into the figures. The right hon. gentle- 
 man proposed a new scheme affecting the fiscal relations between 
 the twt) countries. The total amount of remission to England, 
 after deducting the £250,000 of additional income tax, was
 
 1 68 IRISH PROTEST A(;AINST OVER-TAXATION, 
 
 £1,200,000, and the amount of increase of taxation ap[)lic<ible 
 exclusively to Ireland was £'658,000, whicli, after deducting the 
 £200,000 remission of consolidated annuities, left an increase of 
 taxation to Ireland of £458,000, thus granting large remissions to 
 England, while imposing new and lieavy liurdens on Ireland. How 
 could the I'ight hon. gentleman justify this disproportion ? 
 
 EARL OF MAYO. 
 
 Extract from a Speech delivered by Lord Naas, afterwards 
 Earl of Mayo, in the House of Commons, on 27th May, 
 1853. 
 
 He believed that the tax-paying capability of Ireland was much 
 greater then (1845) than it was at present, and therefore the 
 objections of those high financial authorities would prevail and 
 apply with far greater force now ; and to show this, it was only 
 necessary to remind the committee that the circulation of Ireland 
 was one-third less than it was in 1845 ; that the exjjortation of 
 cattle and corn Avas almost nearly one-third less ; and that, whereas 
 in 1845 3,000,000 quarters of grain and malt had been exported, 
 only 1,324,000 quarters had been exported last year. So that, in 
 {)oint of fact, it was impossible to make out the case that the tax- 
 ))aying capacity of Ireland had been enlarged since 1845. He was 
 justified, therefore, in asking what were the causes which had 
 enabled the Government to come to a difterent conclusion from that 
 of the Government of 1845, and also what was the amount expected 
 to be realized from an Irish income tax.
 
 Ai'PENnix. 169 
 
 IRISH TAXATION MENTIONED IN 
 PARLIAMENT. 
 
 1S53, 25th May. liy General Dunne. 
 1S60, 30th Marcli. By General Dunne. 
 
 1863, i2th June. By General Dunne. 
 
 General Dunnes Select Conunittec sat diirinq- 1864-65, and reported in 
 1S65. 
 
 1864, 26th February. By General Dunne. 
 
 1865, 24th February. By Mr. W. E. Gladstone. 
 
 1567, 9th July. By Sir Joseph N. M'Kenna. 
 
 1568, 13th March. By Sir Joseph N. M'Kenna. 
 1868, i6th July. By Mr. O'Beirne. 
 
 General Dunne and Sir Joseph N. M'Kenna lost their seats at the 
 General Election of 1868. Sir Joseph N. M'Kenna zons re-elected in 1874. 
 
 1874, 1st May. By Sir Joseph N. M'Kenna. 
 
 1874, 2nd July. By Mr. Mitchell Henrv. 
 
 1875, i2ih March. By SiR Joseph N. M'Kenna. 
 
 1876, 23rd May. By Mr. Mitchell Henry. 
 
 1877, 5th June. By Mr. Mitchell Henry. 
 1882, i8th April. By Siu Joseph N. M'Kenna. 
 1886, 23rd February. By Sir Joseph N. M'Kenna. 
 1886, 8th April. By Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Parnell. 
 1S90, 30th May. By Mr. Thomas Sexton. 
 
 1890, i4ihjuly. By Mr. Thomas Sexton. 
 1890, 1st August. By Mr. Thomas Sexton. 
 1890, I2th August. By Mk. Thomas Sexton. 
 
 1890, 13th August. By Mr. Thomas Skxton. 
 
 Mr. Goschen''s Select Committee held one sitting, but was never ;v- 
 appointed. 
 
 1 891, 27th February. By Sir T. G. Esmonde, Bart. 
 1891, 27th April. By Sir T. G. Esmonds, Bart. 
 1891, nth June. By Mr. Thomas Sexton. 
 
 1891, i8th June. By Mr. H. H. Fowler.
 
 I/O IRISH PROTEST AGAINST OVER-TAXATION. 
 
 1891, 22nd June. J!y Mr. Goschen. 
 1891, 23rd June. By Mr. Goschen. 
 
 1891, 9ih July. By Mr. Thomas Skxtox. 
 
 1892, 23id February. By Sir Joseph N. M'Ke.nna. 
 1892, 3rd March. By Mr. Hunter. 
 1892, 8th March. By Mr. S. Evans. 
 1892, 2ist March. By Dr. Clark. 
 1892, 22nd March. By Mr. A. O'Connor. 
 1892, 31st March, By Dr. Clark. 
 1892, nth April. By Mr. H. H. Fowler. 
 1892, 5th May. By Mr. G. J. Goschen. 
 1892, 6th May. By Dr. Clark. 
 
 1892, i2th May. By Mr. G. J. Goschen. 
 
 1893, loth February. By Mr. J. J. Clancy. 
 1893, 24th February. By Sir John HiunERT. 
 1893, 9th March. By Mr. Cochrane. 
 1893, 17th March. By Colonel H. Vincent. 
 1893, 9th May. By Lord R. Churchill. 
 1893, 15th May. By IMr. William Kenny. 
 1893, i6th May. By Mr. Cochrane. 
 1893, 22nd June. By Mr. Gladstone. 
 1893, 3rd July. By Mr. Provend. 
 1893, nth July. By Mr. Goschen. 
 1893, 13th July. By Mr. J. E. Redmond. 
 1893, 2lst July. 
 1893, 24th July. 
 1S93, 25th July. 
 1893, 26th July. 
 1893, 27th July. 
 1893, 25th August. By Mr. Cochrane. 
 1893, 1st September. By Mr. J. E. Redmond. 
 
 1893, 1st December. By Mr. T. Sexton. 
 
 1894, I2ih January. By Mr. Sexton. 
 1894, 13th February. CoLONEL Nolan. 
 1894, 13th March. By Mr. J. E. Redmond. 
 1894, 19th March. By Mr. J. J. Clancy. 
 1894, 19th April. By Mr. W. Field. 
 1894, 30th April. By Mr. L. Hayden. 
 1894, 4th May. By Mr. L. Hayden. 
 
 The Royal Com/nission aat during 1894-93-96, and reported in 1896. 
 
 1897, 2ist January. By Mr. M. Ferguson. 
 
 1897, 22nd January. By Dr. Clark. 
 
 1897, 26th January. By Sir W. Dunne. 
 
 1897, 29th January. By Sir T. G. Esmqnde, Bart. 
 
 Financial Clauses 
 of 
 Home Rule 
 Bill.
 
 APPENDIX. 171 
 
 1897, 2nd February. Hy Mk. J- Dili-ON. 
 1897, 8th February. P.y Mr. I). M acAlf.ese. 
 1897, 9tli February. l>y Mu. J. J. Clancy, 
 1897, nth February. r>y Mk. J. Dillon. 
 1897, I2th February. By Mr, P, O'Brien. 
 1897, i6th February, By Mr. Vesey Knox. 
 1897, i8th February. By Mr. J. H. Dai.ziel. 
 1897, 22iid February. By Mr. J. H. Redmond. 
 1897, 23rd February. By Mr. J. J. Clancy. 
 1897, 5th March. By Lord Castletown. 
 1897, i8th March. By Mr. J. Dillon. 
 1897, 29th March. By Mr. Blaick. 
 1897, 22ik1 July. By The Earl of Mayo.
 
 INDEX 
 
 Aberdeen, Lord, 1. 
 Abrahfini, Mr. W., 131. 
 Address to Irish people, 35, 155. 
 Agitation on over-taxation, 32, 128. 
 All-Ii"ebind Committee, 130, 131, 135, 
 
 130, 137, 138. 
 Amount of over-taxation, 2i, 28, 29, 
 34, 42, 55, (i2, GO, 69, 72, 75, 70, 
 78, 83, 80, 88, 94, 101, 107, 110, 
 127. 
 Anderson, Mr. W. G., 49. 
 Andrews, Mr. William, 51. 
 Association for Reduction of Taxation, 
 34, 35. 
 
 forms branches, 34. 
 Bagwell, Mr.. 120. 
 Bailey, Mr. W. F., 125. 
 Balfour, Mr. A. J., 127, 135. 
 Bandon, Earl of, 128, 157. 
 Barbour, Sir D. M., 120, 120, 127, 140, 
 
 141. 
 Barnes, Mr. H. H., 51. 
 Barry, Mr. J. Redmond, 51. 
 Barton, Mr. J. G., 125. 
 Beach, 8ir 31. Hicks, 131, 133, 134, 
 
 142, 147. 
 Blake, Hon. Ed., 123, 125, 127, 133. 
 Booth, Mr. Charles, 152. 
 Browne, Lord John Thomas, Life, 40. 
 votes for General Dunne's I>raft 
 Report, 55. 
 Bi-yan, Captain Loftus, 132. 
 Bruen, Mr. Henry, 05, 157. 
 Butt, Mr. Isaac, member of Home 
 Rule Committee on Financial Rela- 
 tions, 73. 
 
 seconds Sir J. N. M'Kenna's 
 
 motion in 1875, 79. 
 proposes a petition to Parliament, 
 
 83. 
 asks for a union of Irishmen, 84. 
 supports Mr. M, Henry, 89. 
 
 Byron, Lord, 40. 
 
 Byrne, Councillor, 23. 
 
 Cadogan, Earl, 129. 
 
 Castletovvni, Lord, 129. 
 
 Carolan, Mr. .J., 154. 
 
 Off.se of IrelcDid, 20, .31. 
 
 Childers, Right Hon. H. E. C, 118, 
 
 127. 
 Chisholm, Mr. H. W'., 49, 50. 
 Clancy, Mr. J. .1., 114, 117, 131. 
 Clanricarde, Marcjuis, 51. 
 Clarke, Sir Edward, 139-150. 
 
 on proposed terms of reference, 
 
 139. 
 on first term already answered, 139. 
 on Irish contribution to Imperial 
 
 Treasury, 140. 
 on under-estimation of Irish con^ 
 
 tribution, 140. 
 on Sir D. Barbour, 141. 
 on new Commission unable to 
 further minimize Ix'ish contri- 
 bution, 141. 
 on the Treasury classihcati(jn of 
 
 expenditure, 142. 
 on apocryjihal nature of Treasury 
 
 classification, 142, 143. 
 on where imperial exjjenditure 
 
 takes j)lace, 144. 
 on already sufhcient answer to 
 second term of reference, 145. 
 on Lord Farrer's answer to pro- 
 posed second term of reference, 
 145. 
 on Mr. Sexton's answer, 140. 
 on third term, 147. 
 on construing Act of L'nion, 148, 
 
 149. 
 on Government attitude, query, is 
 it a Unionist attitude? 149, 150. 
 on expenditure, no answer to 
 over-taxation, 150.
 
 174 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Clay, Mr. R. K., 132, 154. 
 
 Cobbe, Mr. W. H., 132. 
 
 Cogan, W. H. F., supports General 
 
 Dunne, 10. 
 Colthurst, Sir G. C. Life, 4(>. 
 
 votes against General Dunne's 
 Draft Report, 55. 
 Consolidated Annuities, 3. 
 Cork Examiner, 33. 
 Cork, meeting at, 128, 157. 
 Corn Laws, 39. 
 Cunan, Mr. T. B., 131. 
 Culverwell, E. P., 129, 154. 
 Currie, Mr. B. W., 122, 125, 127. 
 Dennehy, Mr. C, 73, 74. 
 Dillon, x\Ir. John, 97, 111, 112, 130. 
 DiUon, J. B. Life and character, 20. 
 brings over-taxation of Ireland 
 before the Corporation of Dub- 
 lin, 20. 
 (juotes the insults of llie Thm!>, 21. 
 his motion for a select committee 
 to examine the public accounts 
 of Great Britain and Ireland 
 unanimously carried, 21. 
 appeals for a union of Irishmen, 22. 
 on Joseph Fisher. 27. 
 Guardians of Thurles, on, 35. 
 Statistical and Social In(juiry 
 
 Society of Ireland, 38. 
 gives evidence before Gen. Dunne's 
 Comnuttee, 59. 
 Donelan, Capt., 130. 
 Donnelly, Mr. W., 49. 
 Drajjer, Councillor, on Public Ac- 
 counts, 23. 
 Dublin, Corporation of, on Piiblic 
 Accounts of Great Britain and 
 Ireland, 23. 
 
 select committee, 20, 23. 
 unaniuKjusly adopts Rejiort of 
 Select Committee on Public 
 Accounts, 32. 
 te.xt of a petition to Parliament 
 
 read, 35. 
 petitions to Parliament, 159, l(ji. 
 Dublht University Magazine, 58, 59. 
 Dunkellin, Lord, 43. 
 
 in Dublin University Maga:dnc, 58. 
 supports Sir J. N. M'Kenna, 07. 
 Dunne, Major-General, opposes exten- 
 sion of income tax to Ireland, 1. 
 life, 2. 
 
 Dunne, Major-Gen. — cojiiuiuerf. 
 
 motion for inquiry before exten- 
 sion of income tax, 3. 
 moves to reduce income tax, 10. 
 calls on Irishmen to unite on the 
 
 taxation question, 10. 
 refused a select committee, 14, 15, 
 
 10,17. 
 on Irish decay, 15. 
 accuses England of a breach of the 
 
 Union, 15. 
 asks for a select committee in 
 
 1864, 41, 42, 43. 
 Irish opinion of Gen. Dunne, 44. 
 attacked liy The Times, 44. 
 O'Neill Daunt on, 45. 
 composition of his select com- 
 mittee, 45, 40, 47, 48. 
 replies to Mr. Gladstone's stric- 
 tures, 51, 52. 
 action as chairman of select com- 
 mittee, 53. 
 draft report, 54, 55. 
 voting on draft report, 55. 
 abandons his select committee, 
 
 55, 50. 
 supports Sir J. N. M'Kenna, 07. 
 lost his seat in Parliament, (.>9. 
 on the report of the Home Rule 
 League on Financial Rela- 
 tions, 77. 
 Dunraven, Earl, 129. 
 Dwyer, Mr. J. S., 50. 
 Edinburgh Bei-iew, 141, 144. 
 Esmonde, Sir T. G., 90, 112, 113. 
 Exchequer, Irish contribution to, 0, 8, 
 
 24, 28, 42, 02, 75, 81, 83, 142, 144. 
 Exijenditure, Irish, 134, 145, 140. 
 
 no answer to over-taxation, 7, 90. 
 
 a set-oft" to over-taxation, 134, 135. 
 
 not a set-off to over-taxation, 149. 
 
 Farrer, Lord, 120, 125, 127,^ 129, 145. 
 
 Financial Reform League, 150. 
 
 Finlay, Mr. A. S. Life, 48. 
 
 absent from the division on Gen. 
 Dunne's Draft Rejiort, 55. 
 Finlay, Rev. Mr., 154. 
 Fisher, Joseph, gives evidence before 
 the Select Committee of the Corpora- 
 tion of Dublin on the Public Ac- 
 counts of Great Britain and Ireland, 
 23. 
 life of, 20.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 '75 
 
 Fisher, J <»n:[Ai—foid inncd . 
 
 on the excessive taxsitioii of Ire- 
 
 huid, 27, 28, 2!>, 30, 31, 32. 
 appeals to Irishmen to unite, 30, 
 
 31, 32. 
 l)efore select counuittee of House 
 of Conmums, 32, 49. 
 Fowler, Mr. II. H., 113. 
 Freeman's Joiinml llecunl, 121. 
 Galbraith, Professor, on Mr. Mitchell 
 
 Henry's speech, 85. 
 Geographical taxation, 5, 82. 
 Giffen, Sir Ilobert. Life, 100. 
 
 on Irish decline and taxation, 
 
 101. 
 gives evidence liefore Royal Com- 
 mission, 12;";. 
 Gladstone, Mr. W. E. 
 
 imposed the income tax, 1. 
 income tax to be temporary, S. 
 on over-ta.xation, 7. 
 opposes inquiry before extension 
 
 of income tax, 4. 
 opposes General Dunne's motion 
 
 for an inquiry, 18. 
 agrees to the appointment of a 
 
 select committee, 43. 
 on General Dunne's Connnittee, 
 
 prefers Sir Stati'ord Northcote's 
 
 report, 51, 53. 
 on Roy.il Co)nmissions, 70. 
 on Mr. Goschen's suggested 
 
 special committee, 97. 
 on the Royal Commission, 115, 
 IIG, 117. 
 Gore, Colcniel Knox, 50. 
 Goschen, Mr. G. J., on Royal Com- 
 missions, 70, 132, 133. 
 
 suggests the appointment of a 
 
 special counuittee, 90. 
 promises redress if injustice dis- 
 closed, 111. 
 appoints si)ecial connnittee, 1 i 2. 
 on separate fiscal entity, 113. 
 on separate financial entity, 114. 
 on proposed new Commission, 
 134, 135. 
 Gray, Councillor, on public accounts, 
 
 23. 
 Gregory, W. H., supports General 
 
 Dunne, 10. 
 Grimshaw, Dr. T. W., 124. 
 
 (jlrogau, Sir Edward, 45. 
 
 alisent from the division on (}en, 
 Dunne's Draft Report, 55. 
 Hadden, Alderman, 132. 
 Ilaun'lton, Lord ('laud, sup])orts Gen. 
 Dunne's protest against the income 
 tax, 4. 
 Hamilton, Sir R. G. C, 121. 
 lian.ilton, Sir E. W., 124. 
 ilankey, Mr. Thomson. Life, 43. 
 Harper, Mr. E. .!., 125. 
 Hayden, Mr. L., 117. 
 Healy, Mr. T. M., Ill, 112, 130, 131, 
 
 147. 
 Hennessy, Mr. .J. P. Seconds General 
 Dunne's moticni, 43. 
 life, 40. 
 
 absent from the division on Gen. 
 Dunne's Rei)ort, 55. 
 Henry, Mr. Mitchell. Life, 80. 
 
 refers to Irish taxation on 2nd 
 
 .July, 1874, 81. 
 speech in Dublin on 2Gth October, 
 
 1875, 81. 
 motion on Irish taxation on 23rd 
 
 Miiy, 1870, 85. 
 motion on Irish taxation on 5th 
 June, 1877, 87. 
 Heron, Serjeant, on Irisli Decay, 
 
 11. 
 Heygate, Sir F. W. Life, 40. 
 
 votes for General Dunne's Draft 
 
 Report, 55. 
 supports Sir J. M'Kenna, 07. 
 Home Rule League. Re])ort on Irish 
 Taxation, 71, 73, 74, 75, 70. 
 
 members agree to jjress Irish taxa- 
 tion, 85. 
 Howe, Mr. G. F., 125. 
 Howes, Mr. Edward. Life, 47. 
 
 votes against General Dunne's 
 Draft Report, 55. 
 Hunt, Mr., replies to Sir J. N. 
 
 M'Keinia, 07. 
 Hunter, Mr. W. A., 122, 125, 127 
 
 income tax, 1, 11, 27, 29, 37, ob, 
 72, 81, 100, 104, 108, 109, Uo. 
 Individual taxation, 57, 00, 80, 82. 
 Inglis, Mr. Malcolm, 129. 
 Irish Qmirterhj Eevieto, 8. 
 Irish insolvency. The Tiiaes on, 8. 
 Irish decay, 11, 12, 13. 
 Irish Daily Indepeadent, 103. 
 
 09,
 
 176 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Ireland, description oi 
 in 1853, 7, 65. 
 in 1862, 12. 
 in 1895, 151. 
 Serjeant Heron's, 12. 
 Sir Robert Giffen's, lOl. 
 Murrough O'Brien's, 151. 
 Charles Booth's, 152. 
 Johnson, Major, 132. 
 Kenny, Dr. J. E., 154. 
 Keogh, William, Solicitor-General in 
 the Governnient which imposed the 
 income tax, 1 . 
 Knox, Councillor, Committee on Public 
 
 Accounts, 23. 
 Lambert, Mr. A., 4!». 
 LansdoAvne, Mar<[uis of, 133. 
 Leader. Mr. N. P., 49. 
 Lecky, Mr. W. E. H., 131. 
 Leitrim, Earl of, 50. 
 Limerick, Corporation of, 35. 
 
 Association, 34. 
 Longfield, Robert, supports General 
 Dunne, 16, 43. 
 
 on Irish decay and taxation, 17. 
 on a union of Irishmen, 33. 
 life, 4(i. 
 resolutions for Select Committee, 
 
 54. 
 votes for General Dunne's Draft 
 Report, 55. 
 Lord Mayor of Dublin. Member of 
 Committee on Public Accounts, 22. 
 presents petition at Ijar of House 
 of Commons, 159. 
 Lough, Mr. Tliomas, 125. 
 Lowe, Mr. Robert. Life, 48. 
 on Irish taxation, 52. 
 votes against General Dunne's 
 
 Draft Report, 55. 
 on individual taxation, 57. 
 on the Fenian views of Irish tax- 
 ation, 68. 
 Mr. Mitchell Henry on, 86. 
 Tlw Times on, 87. 
 jNIacartney, Mr., secondsGen. Dunne,4. 
 Maguire, John Francis, o])poses ex- 
 tension of income tax to Ireland, 4. 
 life, 4. 
 
 supports General Dunne, 16. 
 gives evidence Ijufore General 
 Dunne's Committee, 49. 
 Mangan, Mr. Simon, 131. 
 
 Martin, Alderman, on Committee on 
 
 Public Accounts, 23. 
 Martin, Councillor, on Committee on 
 
 Public Accounts, 23. 
 Martin, Mr. C. E., 123, 125, 127. 
 May(j, Earl, 130, 154, 157. 
 Micks, Mr. W. L., 124. 
 Milner, Mr. A., 124. 
 Monteagle, Lord, on relative aljility, 
 
 100. 
 Morniiu/ Post on Irish decay, 18. 
 
 readjustment of taxation not the 
 remedy for Irish decay, 18. 
 Morris, Lord, on taxation of Ireland, 
 
 28. 
 Morris, Hon. Martin, 132. 
 Murphy, Mr. J. J. , on debt and taxa- 
 tion of Ireland, 36, 37. 
 Murphy, Alderman M. M., 132. 
 Murray, Mr. H. H., 124. 
 M'Kenna, Sir Joseph, 
 life, 64, 65. 
 
 on Irish over-taxation in 1866, 64. 
 The 0((se of Ireland Plainly Stated, 
 
 65. 
 description of Ireland in 1853, 65. 
 raises tlie question of taxation in 
 Parliament in 1867, 66 ; in 
 1868, 68 ; in 1875, 77; in 1882, 
 89 ; in 1886, 93. 
 lost his seat in Parliament, 69. 
 moves a resolution on 2nd Novem- 
 ber, 1875, 82. 
 asks for the appointment of a 
 
 select committee, 89. 
 publishes Imperial I'axatiuu ; The 
 Case of Treland Plainly Stated, 
 91. 
 moves for returns in 1886, 93. 
 and Mr. C. S. Parnell, 102. 
 publishes The Irish Land Q}iestion 
 considered in ro)ine<'tion with 
 Mr. Gladstonp^s Tajxition, 107. 
 a.sks for increased Irisli represen- 
 tation on Mr. Goschen's Com- 
 mittee, 113. 
 gives evidence before the Royal 
 
 Commission, 124. 
 on identical imposts, 126. 
 writes to The Times, 129. 
 member of the deputation to the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
 131.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 177 
 
 -M'Kerlie, Colonel, 51. 
 .AE'Swiney, P. P., 23. 
 Napier, Right Hon. Josujili, 4!>. 
 Natimi, The, on Report of Corporation 
 Committee, 33. 
 
 on the Report of the Home Rule 
 
 Committee, 70. 
 on Mr. Gladstone's system of tax- 
 ation, 77. 
 on Sir Joseph M'Kenna and Mr. 
 
 Mitchell Henry, 83. 
 on Mr. M. Heniy's motion of 
 1875. 87. 
 New Ross, l)an([uet at, 32. 
 Northcote, Sir Stafford. Life, 47. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone expresses a prefer- 
 ence for his report before adop- 
 tion, 51. 
 votes again.st Gen. Dunne's Draft 
 
 Report, 55. 
 general nature of his re{)ort, 56, 57. 
 O'Neill Daunt t>n report, 57. 
 Sir Edward Hamilton on, 57. 
 The Times on, 87. 
 Nugent, Sir Percy, 50. 
 O'Beirne, Mr. L., on Irish taxation, 
 
 68, 69. 
 O'Brien, Mr. P., 130. 
 O'Brien, Mr. W. P., 124. 
 O'Brien, Mr. Murrough, 125, 151. 
 O'Conor Don. Life, 46. 
 draft report, 54. 
 votes for General Dunne's draft 
 
 report, 55. 
 on evidence received by General 
 
 Dunne's C(jmmittee, 59. 
 supports Mr. Mitchell Henry, 86. 
 member of Royal Connnission,l 20. 
 signs majority report, 125. 
 Sir Edward Clarke on 145. 
 ajipeals for a union of Irishmen, 
 1.57. 
 O'Connor, Mr. P., 132. 
 O'Connor, Mr. T. P., 114. 
 O'Donnell. Most Rev. Dr., 124. 
 O'Ferrall, Mr. More, 132. 
 O'Loghlen, Sir C. M.,48. 
 O'Neill Daunt. Review of Mr. Fisher's 
 book, 33. 
 
 on Gen. Dunne's Committee, 45. 
 on Sir Staflbrd Northcote's Re- 
 port, 57. 
 life, 71. 
 
 O'Neill Biiimt—roiitiniidl. 
 
 chairman of Home Rule Com- 
 mittee on Financial Relations, 
 71. 
 replies to Mr. M'Laren, 72. 
 on the Hnancial aspect of the 
 Union, 73. 
 O'Regan, Rev. Dr., 49. 
 Parliament, motions in, 3, 14, 43, 66, 
 78, 85, 87, 89, 93, IK!, 
 .select committee, 45, 111. 
 Parnell, Mr. C. S., supports Mr. M. 
 Henry, 89. 
 
 and Sir J. N. M'Kenna, 102. 
 on Ireland's relative alnlity, 106. 
 Peel, Sir Robert (2nd Bart.). .39. 
 Peel, Sir Robert (3rd Bart.). Life, 48. 
 votes against Gen. Dunne^'s Draft 
 Report, 55. 
 Pittar,Mr. T.J., 124. 
 Plunkett, Count, 1.32. 
 Plunkett, Mr. Horace, 13U, 131, 132. 
 Redmond, Mr. J. E., 114, 115, 117, 
 
 12:i, 125, 127, 130. 
 Reynolds, Alderman, member of Com- 
 mittee on Public Accounts, 23. 
 Report of Municipal Council of Dublin, 
 22, 23, 24, 25. 
 
 Mr. J. .J. Murphy on, 3<i. 
 Lord Morris on, 40. 
 Limerick Corporation on, 35. 
 Thurles Guardians on, 35. 
 General Dunne on, 41. 
 Report of Home Rule League on 
 Financial Relations, 71, 72, 73, 74, 
 75, 76. 
 Riortlan, i\Ir. .1. F., 154. 
 Robinson, Mr. H. A., 124. 
 Ross, Mr. James, 132. 
 Royal Conuuission. 
 
 cannot decide on policy, 70, 116, 
 
 149. 
 apjiointed, 117. 
 members, 118-124. 
 witnesses, 124. 
 terms of reference, 124. 
 report of majority, 125. 
 meetings held to consider report. 
 
 127. 
 Government propose new, 134, 
 
 135. 
 Sii" Edward Clarke on proposed 
 new, 139. 
 
 N
 
 178 
 
 INDEK. 
 
 Royal Commission — continued. 
 
 Sir Edward Clarke on referring 
 policy to, 149. 
 Russell, Mr. T. W., Ill, 112, 117. 
 Salisbury, Marquis of, 52. 
 Samuels, Mr. A. W., 154, 155. 
 Sadleir, John, Lord of the Treasury 
 which in^Dosed income tax on Ire- 
 land, 1. 
 Sanders, Mr. Robert, 129, 154. 
 Sankey, Sir R. H., 125. 
 Saunderson, Col., 130, 131. 
 Select Committee of Corporation of 
 Dublin, 20, 23. 
 report, 23, 24, 25. 
 asks for a combined eflbrt on part 
 
 of Irishmen, 20. 
 (general Dunne on, 41. 
 Senior, Mr. Edward, 50, 102. 
 Separate entity, 5, 125, 126, 133. 
 Sexton, Alderman Sir Robert, 132. 
 Sexton, Mr. Thomas, on the Customs 
 
 Bill, loy. 
 
 asks for a^jpointment of select 
 
 committee, 111, 113, 116, 117. 
 life, 123. 
 
 signs majority report, 125. 
 estimates Ireland's taxable capa- 
 city, 127. 
 Sir Edward Clarke on. 146. 
 Shannon, Mr., 37. 
 Slattery, Mr. H. F., 123, 125, 127. 
 Smith, Sydney, 39, 40. 
 Statistical and Social Inquiry Society 
 
 of Ireland, 12, 36. 
 Smith, Mr. J. C, 124. 
 Stanhope, Mr. Banks. Life, 47. 
 
 votes against Gen. Dunne's Di"aft 
 Report, 55. 
 Staunton, Mr., Collector-General of 
 Dublin, gives evidence before the 
 Corporation Committee on Public 
 Accounts of Great Britain and Ire- 
 land, 23. 
 Stewart, Mr. Alec, 51. 
 Sullivan, A. M., on Corporation Com- 
 mittee on Public Accounts of Great 
 Britain and Ireland, 23. 
 
 supports Sir J. N. M'Kenna in 
 
 1875, 79. 
 interest in the taxation ques- 
 tion, 80. 
 supports Mr. M. Henry, 89. 
 
 Sutherland, Sir Thomas, 122, 120. 
 
 Sweetman, Mr. John, 154. 
 
 Synan, Mr., sujjports Sir J. N. 
 
 M'Kenna, 67. 
 Taxation, eipialized, 5, 6. 
 geograjjhical, 5, 82, 88. 
 over-, 7. 
 
 Irish, Quarterly Review on, 10. 
 results of over-, 11, 16, 30, 64, 
 82, 151. 
 Terms of reference, 43, 54, 112, 124, 
 135, 137, 138, 145. 
 
 Sir Edward Clarke on, 139. 
 Times, The, on Irish insolvency, 8, 9, 10. 
 hostility to Ireland, 10. 
 <jn Gen. Dunne's motion for an 
 
 inquiry in 1863, 19. 
 on adjustment of Irish taxation, 
 
 19. 
 on expenditure of Irish taxa- 
 tion, 19. 
 on the appointment of a select 
 
 committee, 44. 
 attacks General Dunne, 44. 
 on the Home Rule agitation on 
 
 taxatitm, 84. 
 on Sir Josejih M'Kenna and Mr. 
 
 Mitchell Henry, 84. 
 advocates an iufjuiry, 99. 
 on the Irish movement of 1896-97, 
 
 129. 
 declares that Parliament alone can 
 settle taxation, ] 32. 
 Thurles, Guardians of, on over- 
 taxation, 35. 
 Union, Act of, 3. 
 
 Joseijh Fisher on, 27. 
 Corporation of Dublin on, 23, 
 
 24. 
 General Dunne on, 16, 52. 
 public meeting in Waterford on, 
 
 34. 
 address of Association for Reduc- 
 tion of Taxation on, 35. 
 O'Conor Don on Irish opinion 
 
 of, 60. 
 O'Neill Daunt on the financial 
 
 aspect of, 73. 
 The Nation on the financial 
 
 aspect of, 76. 
 Mitchell Henrv on financial re- 
 sults of, 81, 82, 88. 
 The Times on, 84.
 
 INDKX. 
 
 179 
 
 Union, Act of — continued. 
 
 l)ro[)o,sL'tl new Comiuissiou ;uid, 
 
 134, r67>, i:]8. 
 
 Sir Edward Clarke on, 147, 
 148. 
 Union oi Irishmen on taxaticni, Gen. 
 Dnnne asks for, 10. 
 
 John B. Dillon asks for, 22. 
 
 Corporation of Dublin asks for, 
 2(1. 
 
 Mr. Robert Longtield on, .'J.'l. 
 
 O'Neill Daunt on, 33. 
 
 Mr. Butt asks for, 84. 
 
 The All-Ireland Connnittee asks 
 for, 130. 
 
 appeal for in the House of Com- 
 mons, 130, 131. 
 
 I'liioii cil Irishmen — londnnnd. 
 
 appeal by .Ml-Ircland (Committee, 
 
 loO. 
 api)eal l)y (J'Conin- Don, 158. 
 Ward, Dr., on Irish taxation, 82. 
 Wnl erf onl Mail. 2(i, 27. 
 Waterford, meeting at, 33,34. 
 \Vel)l), Mr. Alfred' 44. 
 Welby, Lord, 111), 12."), 127, 142. 
 Westropp, Capt. O'Callaghan, ].")4, 15.".. 
 \Vils,)n, Mr. D. J., 132. 
 White, Dean, 154. 
 
 Whiteside, Chief .lustice, su])ports 
 General Dunne, 10. 
 
 on the over-taxation of Ireland, 
 16, 17. 
 Wolff, Mr. G. \\'., 123. 
 
 ('. W. GiBBs & Son, Printers, Dublin.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.
 
 r w- 
 
 
 AA 000 564 145 
 
 HJ 
 
 2627 
 
 K38h 
 
 •--j-.f ■".■■■ ■ 
 
 ■■:.'( 
 
 ■•■,H,;v.v . ,,.;?V7...
 
 «v 
 
 w, 
 
 ■m