IRISHMEN are on the war-path, and for once in line against a common enemy, the British taxpayer. Liberals and Conservatives, Unionists and Separatists, Home Rulers of every camp, the Mayor of Cork, the Bishop of Cloyne, Lord Castletown, Mr Smith Barry, Mr Healy, Sir J. Mackenna, Mr Dillon, Mr Clancy, -all join in demanding that the Government shall "take immediate steps to give effect by remedial legislation to the conclusions suggested by the Report of the Royal Commission." What were these conclusions? They are embodied in eight separate reports, and are of the most diverse character. We shall deal with them later in detail. Who were the Commissioners? Eleven professed and, for the most part, ardent Home Rulers; Sir D. Barbour, who had served in the Indian Treasury; Mr G. W. Wolff and Mr C. E. Martin, two Irish Unionists; and Sir Thomas Sutherland, the Unionist M.P. for Greenock. The eleven Home Rulers are naturally biassed in favour of a conclusion well calculated to furnish a good effective cry against the Imperial, and especially against the Unionist, Government. The two Irish Unionists, finding that the air is thick with demonstrations that money by the million should be poured into the lap of Irishmen, naturally hail the proposition and append their signatures. Mr John Morley vehemently contends that the Commission was impartially constituted. That the Commissioners gave their decisions without conscious partiality must in fair OVERTAXED? Mr Childers, an ex-Cabinet Minister, four Irish Home Rule members, the O'Connor Don, the Hon. E. Blake, Mr Sexton, and Mr Redmond; one Scotch Gladstonian member, Mr Hunter; and two newly created Gladstonian Peers, Lords Farrer and Welby, the policy of a Unionist Government does not stand much chance. Nor is it surprising that the Irish Unionist contingent, sore and irritated as they are-whether with or without reason— at the legislation of last session, distressed and almost despairing, should join in a cry for money, money which might still save their estates, money which might even yet avert personal ruin. There are only two Commissioners who are neither liable to bias as Home Rulers nor as Irishmen, Sir David Barbour and Sir Thomas Sutherland, and both these repudiate the findings of the majority. Few can spare the time to scan the eight reports, fewer still even to skim the evidence. But the country is destined to hear a great deal more of the subject whenever finance is under discussion in the House of Commons; and an effort to disentangle the essential from the subordinate, clearly to grasp the main argument, and to present the case in its simplest aspect, must be made. A question has arisen as to which the average British voter and taxpayer, always disposed to generosity and indisposed to much research into intricate questions of finance, must, for reasons higher than those which concern his pocket, adequately inform himself. The Commission base their recommendations on the postulate that Great Britain and Ireland are to be treated financially as separate entities. In this lies the fallacy and in this the danger. It is on this argument Mr Morley dwells; and it is owing to Mr Goschen's alleged adhesion to this theory of separate entities in 1890 that certain Unionists are disposed to justify their support of the recommendations of the majority of the Commission. The one effective question interesting to everybody which has to be considered is this: What is the true proportion between the taxable capacity of Great Britain and Ireland? Which for reasons hereafter given must read: What taxes ought the State to require A B and C D, residing respectively in Great Britain and Ireland, to pay? If C D, although excused certain taxes now paid by A B, is still said to be contributing in excess of the respective capacity of his nation, what changes are requisite in the system of the Imperial Exchequer ? Other theoretical and historical questions are asked, but this is the great point of effective interest to that mass of mankind indisposed to the barren study of speculative statistics. The majority of the Commission pronounce 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." Let it here be made clear what is the one central point round which the whole argument revolves. With certain exceptions the Commissioners insist that there are two separate and distinct groups of taxpayers, one group resident in Great Britain, one in Ireland, and that C D, the Irish 119 taxpayer, must not be called upon Now the shortest method of At present taxation is laid on individuals without care for where they live. The Commission say it should be on countries or districts. This involves a radical change. The Commissioners shall state for themselves how it is to be realised. Individuals resident in Ireland con tribute in round figures £7,500,000 Treasury official, and the old nature to the Imperial revenue, or onethirteenth. The Commissioners estimate the taxable capacity of Ireland, as a whole, at various proportions not exceeding onetwentieth, and argue that the Irish taxpayers are consequently paying the difference between these proportions, or rather more than £2,500,000 per annum too much. What follows? How is this inequality to be remedied? The chairman and four colleagues with great prudence decline to make any suggestion at all. "What remedies should be applied must rest with other authorities." Lord Farrer, Lord Welby, and Mr Bertram Currie adopt the following remarkable paragraph: "One sure method of redressing the inequality which has been shown to exist between Great Britain and Ireland would be to put upon the Irish people the duty of levying their own taxes and of providing for their own expenditure, leaving to the wisdom of Parliament to decide the question of contribution out of Irish taxes to the Imperial Exchequer." This involves two consequences. The "Irish people" cannot levy their own taxes without a Parliament, to grant which is Home Rule; further, if they did levy their own taxes, which must necessarily, in order to attain the object in view, be different from and lower than the taxes paid in Great Britain, a fiscal barrier is raised between the two islands. The recommendation is accompanied by the suggestion that for an indefinite period the Irish people should make no contribution whatever to Imperial expenditure; but Lord Welby having signed this report, appears suddenly to recollect that he was a is too strong upon him to relinquish without a struggle 2 millions per annum. He therefore advances another proposal. Before apparently the Irish people have framed for themselves a new scheme of taxation, a separate account of Irish revenue and expenditure is to be kept, and a first charge placed on the former by way of " reasonable contribution" to Imperial services. This charge Lord Welby fixes at £2,700,000, a materially higher figure than the existing balance. The second charge on Irish revenue would be the cost of civil administration in Ireland, and any surplus saved out of this would go to "relief of Irish burdens, or to useful public purposes in Ireland." Lord Welby cites the Isle of Man as an instance in point. By an Act of Parliament passed in 1866, the customs duties were to be first employed in defraying the expenses of Government in the island, and then were to be charged with £10,000 for Imperial uses, the balance being applied locally. If the Isle of Man possessed, like Ireland, 103 members in the Imperial Parliament, it may be doubtful how long the tribute would have continued. The three Commissioners having parted company in the manner described, join again to declare that they "can find no efficient remedy other than that above suggested for lightening the burden of taxation which now presses with such heavy weight on the Irish people." They undoubtedly carry weight in public estimation than any other trio of their colleagues. It is therefore satisfactory that their language is so decisive as to the only possible remedy. Gladstonian Peer, Lord Farrer, the Gladstonian Peer, Lord Welby, more The and the Gladstonian Mr Currie join in recommending that the Irish people should levy their own taxes and control their own expenditure. This is perfectly right and natural for Home Rulers to do. They are further extolled as experts in finance and affairs. This is just, and the more just it is, the more damnatory to the conclusions of the majority of their brethren is their conviction as business men that no other efficient remedy can be found. The next report bears the signatures of Mr Sexton, Mr Edward Blake, and Mr Henry Slattery. In their opinion there is but one remedy -that of "casting upon Ireland the duty of conducting and providing for her own administration," with for a period "exemption from any burden in connection with Imperial expenditure." This is separate Parliament, separate Exchequer, Home Rule in the widest sense, except that Great Britain is left to pay the whole cost for Ireland as well as herself of army and navy, diplomacy and debt. Mr Edward Blake only signs this report under reserve, publishing at the same time an individual draft report of his own. He has, however, no separate remedy to propose. Sir David Barbour, who reports alone, holds that if an estimate is formed of taxable capacity, that of Ireland being taken at onetwentieth of the United Kingdom, then she contributes more than her share from indirect taxes. The reason of this is, that she consumes an excessive proportion of spirits as compared with beer. To meet this, there are only two remedies possible either to relieve the spirit - drinker at the expense of the beer-drinker, or to reduce the duties on excisable articles in Ireland, thus setting up a customs barrier between the two countries, a proposal Sir David Barbour emphatically condemns. The only change or remedy suggested in the report is that wasteful and extravagant expenditure should be reduced in Ireland, and that that country should be allowed, as a sort of illogical concession, the exclusive advantage of any savings that could be effected in the cost of internal government. The benefit would be applied "in such form as might be approved," a suggestion which does not seem to put things much further forward. The last separate report is by Sir Thomas Sutherland. He traverses the conclusions of his colleagues, and supports the present financial system of individual taxation as just and necessary so long as this country acknowledges only one Government and one Exchequer. The draft report by Mr Childers, the chairman, left by him at his death for the consideration of his colleagues, enters more fully into the remedies to the alleged inequality by which Ireland pays one-thirteenth of the revenue of the United Kingdom, her "taxable capacity" being one-twentieth. He says three courses present themselves 1. A change in the general fiscal policy of the United Kingdom. Less might be received from the Irish and more from the British taxpayer if part of the duty on tea and tobacco were transferred to meat, live stock, and dairy produce imported from abroad. The same end might be attained if taxation on tea, beer, tobacco, and spiritsespecially spirits were greatly reduced, and the gap filled by increased taxation on in tribute in round figures £7,500,000 to the Imperial revenue, or onethirteenth. The Commissioners estimate the taxable capacity of Ireland, as a whole, at various proportions not exceeding onetwentieth, and argue that the Irish taxpayers are consequently paying the difference between these proportions, or rather more than £2,500,000 per annum too much. What follows? How is this inequality to be remedied? The chairman and four colleagues with great prudence decline to make any suggestion at all. "What remedies should be applied must rest with other authorities." Lord Farrer, Lord Welby, and Mr Bertram Currie adopt the following remarkable paragraph: "One sure method of redressing the inequality which has been shown to exist between Great Britain and Ireland would be to put upon the Irish people the duty of levying their own taxes and of providing for their own expenditure, leaving to the wisdom of Parliament to decide the question of contribution out of Irish taxes to the Imperial Exchequer." This involves two consequences. The "Irish people" cannot levy their own taxes without a Parliament, to grant which is Home Rule; further, if they did levy their own taxes, which must necessarily, in order to attain the object in view, be different from and lower than the taxes paid in Great Britain, a fiscal barrier is raised between the two islands. The recommendation is accompanied by the suggestion that for an indefinite period the Irish people should make no contribution whatever to Imperial expenditure; but Lord Welby having signed this report, appears suddenly to recollect that he was a Treasury official, and the old nature is too strong upon him to relinquish without a struggle 2 millions per annum. He therefore advances another proposal. Before apparently the Irish people have framed for themselves a new scheme of taxation, a separate account of Irish revenue and expenditure is to be kept, and a first charge placed on the former by way of "reasonable contribution" to Imperial services. This charge Lord Welby fixes at £2,700,000, a materially higher figure than the existing balance. The second charge on Irish revenue would be the cost of civil administration in Ireland, and any surplus saved out of this would go to "relief of Irish burdens, or to useful public purposes in Ireland." Lord Welby cites the Isle of Man as an instance in point. By an Act of Parliament passed in 1866, the customs duties were to be first employed in defraying the expenses of Government in the island, and then were to be charged with £10,000 for Imperial uses, the balance being applied locally. If the Isle of Man possessed, like Ireland, 103 members in the Imperial Parliament, it may be doubtful how long the tribute would have continued. The three Commissioners having parted company in the manner described, join again to declare that they "can find no efficient remedy other than that above suggested for lightening the burden of taxation which now presses with such heavy weight on the Irish people." They undoubtedly carry weight in public estimation than any other trio of their colleagues. It is therefore satisfactory that their language is so decisive as to the only possible remedy. The Gladstonian Peer, Lord Farrer, the Gladstonian Peer, Lord Welby, more |