A FEW REMARKS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 EVIDENCE RECEIVED 
 
 BY THE 
 
 IRISH TAXATION COMMITTEE. 
 
A FEW EE MARKS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 EVIDENCE EECEIVED 
 
 BY THE 
 
 IRISH TAXATION COMMITTEE. 
 
 TOGETHER WITH 
 
 21 brief rebtefo of tfje subject. 
 
 THE O’CONOR DON, M.P. 
 
 (9 ' cJLa^ jJIsLa (bus-tr 
 
 DUBLIN: 
 
 JOHN F. FOWLER, 3 CROW STREET, 
 DAME STREET. 
 
 1865. 
 
PEEFACE. 
 
 Although the subject with which I propose to 
 deal in the following pages may, to an ordinary 
 reader, appear uninteresting; yet, as it is one 
 which at all times has provoked much discussion, 
 and has latterly occupied much public attention, 
 I venture to think that a short record of the 
 main facts elicited by the Committee of Inquiry 
 may not be quite useless. It is true that a record 
 of these facts can be found in the Blue Books 
 published by parliament; but still, so few would 
 take the trouble of wading through the great 
 mass of evidence therein contained, I have endea- 
 voured to abstract what seemed to me the princi- 
 pal points of interest. 
 
 I am not at all blind to the difficulties at- 
 tendant on dealing with this question, and to 
 the objection, that the whole inquiry by the 
 Committee was useless or futile, as taxation at 
 
11 
 
 the present day must be guided by the general 
 interests of the empire, and cannot be made 
 dependent on transactions completed more than 
 half a century ago. 
 
 Yet, admitting this principle to the fullest ex- 
 tent, it may not be uninteresting or wholly use- 
 less to examine how far the different theories re- 
 lating to those transactions are really correct. It 
 is constantly said, and I do not dispute the truth 
 of the statement, that equality in bearing im- 
 perial burdens is the only true claim to equality 
 in imperial privileges. Nevertheless, we may 
 with profit consider how far the former equality 
 has been attained, and in what it consists. 
 
 To give a short review of the main features 
 of the case up to 1817, — to follow the progress of 
 taxation towards equality since that period, — 
 to show the various effects of the remission 
 and imposition of taxes, — and to examine the 
 relative positions of Great Britain and Ireland 
 at the present day as regards taxation, — are, then, 
 my principal objects in the following pages. 
 
 For the figures which I quote, I rely chiefly on 
 the returns presented by Mr. Chisholm on behalf 
 
Ill 
 
 of the Treasury. Into the dispute relative to their 
 accuracy I do not at all enter. In some instances, 
 on account of the different forms in which almost 
 similar returns have been drawn up, I have found 
 it difficult to determine which to select; but, on 
 the whole, I trust my quotations are in the main 
 correct. 
 
 That many grounds existed for the appointment 
 of the Committee, I fully believe; that its labours 
 have not been fruitless, I equally trust; and that 
 it elicited many curious facts worthy of the con- 
 sideration of those to whom is entrusted the ma- 
 nagement of the public finances, I hope to show. 
 Should I succeed in establishing any of these 
 points, I will not have written fruitlessly; and I 
 must now ask such of my readers as take an in- 
 terest in the question, to bear with me for a time, 
 whilst endeavouring to place before them the 
 results of an investigation into what I trust they 
 will not consider a tedious, wearisome, and barren 
 subject. 
 
CHAPTER L 
 
 GENERAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT. 
 
 The Report of the Irish Taxation Committee, 
 and the evidence on which it is founded, have now 
 been, for a short time, before the public, and with 
 regard to the merits of both, very contradictory 
 views seem to be entertained. The report has 
 been made the subject of various articles both in 
 the British and Irish press, and from the frequent 
 allusions to it, the topic is evidently one which, 
 although dry and uninviting in its general cha- 
 racter, yet commands a considerable amount of 
 interest. Whether Ireland has been overtaxed, 
 undertaxed, or justly taxed; whether she received 
 a financial benefit from the Act of Union and the 
 proceedings which followed it; whether the trans- 
 actions of those days have anything to do with 
 the present taxation of the empire; or whether we 
 are now justified in looking to anything but abso- 
 lute similarity in taxation, are all questions on 
 which the most contradictory opinions have been 
 held. 
 
 To a great extent, since the amalgamation of 
 the exchequers and the thorough financial union 
 
 1 
 
/ 
 
 2 
 
 in 1817, Ireland has had no separate financial 
 history. Since that period, Great Britain and Ire- 
 land have, for practical purposes, formed hut the 
 one kingdom, and yet, when dealing, even with the 
 taxation of the present day, it is necessary to refer 
 to the past as something more than historically 
 interesting. That complaints have been and are 
 made on the part of Ireland that taxation there is 
 excessive, we know to be a fact; that those com- 
 plaints are backed up by a reference to the trans- 
 actions between 1800 and 1817, we know to be 
 equally true; and although the justice of those 
 complaints is denied, and this reference to past 
 transactions disputed, yet such a reference cannot 
 be banished from any investigation into the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 Since the year 1817, according to some, Ireland 
 ceased to have any claim to separate financial 
 existence, or to exceptional treatment. At the 
 present day she is politically, legislatively, and 
 financially as much an integral part of the United 
 Kingdom as any English county, and, according 
 to this view, has as little claim for separate consi- 
 deration as Yorkshire or Lancashire. Conse- 
 quently, it is said, in considering the taxation to 
 which she is subject, we have only to examine 
 whether it is exceptionally oppressive, or whether 
 there is any burden on any Irish manufacture or 
 industry from which a similar manufacture or 
 industry in any other portion of the empire is free. 
 That this theory is not universally admitted, I 
 
3 
 
 need hardly mention; but, before entering on the 
 consideration of the facts on which the different 
 views are supported, it may be well clearly to 
 understand the essence of the difference. 
 
 Assuming no ground for exceptional consider- 
 ations to exist in the fact of Ireland’s former in- 
 dependent condition, and banishing altogether 
 from our view the transactions subsequent to the 
 Union, yet there are many who would be far from 
 admitting that similar taxation over the whole 
 United Kingdom must be equal, or that it is a 
 matter of indifference to the various portions of the 
 empire in what that taxation consists. Were the 
 condition of the people everywhere alike; were 
 their habits, wants, and mode of living similar; had 
 they the same manufactures and commerce, and 
 were there no difference in the natural productions 
 of the soil and the mineral treasures of the earth, 
 then, no doubt, similar taxation would everywhere 
 produce similar results. But so long as this is not 
 the case, it is a mistake to argue that nothing has 
 to be looked to but similarity in the nature of im- 
 posts, and it is equally erroneous to hold that 
 similar taxes must necessarily equally affect the 
 different portions of the empire. 
 
 Even, then, those who are ready to disregard all 
 reference to the former relations between Great 
 Britain and Ireland, may not be ready to admit 
 that taxation at the present day, because similar 
 throughout the United Kingdom, is not more 
 oppressive on Ireland, or that a comparison as to 
 
4 
 
 the relative burdens on each country is absolutely 
 futile. If this be the case with regard to those 
 who are willing to forget the fact of Ireland’s 
 former independent existence, how much more is 
 it true in regard to those who hold that that 
 financial independence was lost through over- 
 taxation and unjust treatment ! To understand the 
 subject properly, it is, then, absolutely necessary 
 we should turn to a consideration of the relations 
 which existed between Great Britain and Ireland 
 immediately after the Union in 1800; and hence a 
 great portion of the time of the Committee was 
 devoted to this point. 
 
 In connection with this it is worthy of remark, 
 that in all the discussions which have taken place 
 as to the taxation of Ireland, whether conducted 
 by word of mouth or through articles or letters 
 in the public press, it is practically admitted by 
 all sides, that reference must be made to what took 
 place in the seventeen years succeeding the Union. 
 Those who hold that Ireland is only fairly taxed, 
 do so on the grounds that after the Union she 
 failed to meet her engagements; that,' failing to 
 meet them, and getting involved in debt, she bene- 
 fited by the Amalgamation Act; and that now 
 she is not subject to any tax from which Great 
 Britain is exempt. On the other hand, those hold- 
 ing the opposite view, maintain that the engage- 
 ments into which Ireland entered in 1800 were 
 practically too onerous ; that, in spite of this, she 
 held up to them; and that even admitting that the 
 
 
5 
 
 advantages which in 1800 she possessed, were, by 
 subsequent events, forfeited; yet the mere fact of 
 their being no exceptional tax on Ireland is no 
 proof that that country is not more heavily bur- 
 dened than Great Britain. 
 
 We thus at once perceive that in the various 
 views which have been put forward regarding 
 Imperial taxation, there are two essential points 
 of difference: differences as to facts, and differences 
 as to principle. Differences as to the facts of the 
 case between the years 1800 and 1817, differences 
 as to principle in regard to the taxation of the 
 present day. 
 
 When we examine closely the grounds of what 
 I may term the Irish side of the case, we will find 
 that they mainly rest on the assumption that the 
 principle of the Act of Union, viz. taxation in pro- 
 portion to resources, ought still to be the rule. A 
 fixed proportionate contribution with dissimilar 
 taxation, may not be claimed; it may even be ad- 
 mitted that the advantages which, in 1800, Ireland 
 possessed, in being subject to a smaller debt, have 
 since been forfeited; but still the main principle of 
 the Act of Union, though not clearly and openly, 
 is yet not the less decisively, insisted on, and the 
 complaints that Ireland is overtaxed, are really 
 complaints that this principle is not adhered to. 
 With some, the complaints go even further. The 
 advantages lost to Ireland through the transac- 
 tions between 1800 and 1817 are not admitted to 
 have been justly lost, and, therefore, before pro- 
 
6 
 
 ceeding to the consideration of taxation at the 
 present day, we would do well to look for a 
 moment to the main features of the case up to the 
 year 1817. 
 
 Before the year 1800, Great Britain and Ireland 
 were financially and legislatively two distinct and 
 independent kingdoms. In that year a legislative 
 union was brought about, but in consequence of 
 a difference in the pressure of debt on the two 
 countries, a financial union was not effected. An 
 arrangement was entered into under which each 
 country was to provide for its own debt, and to 
 contribute towards the Imperial expenditure in 
 certain fixed proportions, supposed to be adjusted 
 according to the relative ability of each. As the 
 debt of Ireland at that time was comparatively 
 smaller than the debt of Great Britain, Ireland, 
 so far, possessed an advantage. This advantage, 
 according to the theory of the Act of Union, she 
 was to retain. She was to contribute to the gene- 
 ral expenditure only in proportion to her resources, 
 and had to meet besides only the charge of her 
 own smaller debt. 
 
 In addition to this, it was provided that, should 
 the two debts at any time come into the same 
 proportions as the resources, the system of separate 
 contribution might be abolished and general tax- 
 ation established in its stead, always supposing 
 that this general system would affect the two 
 countries similarly; and as the principle of a sink- 
 ing fund was then in full operation, the equaliza- 
 
7 
 
 tion of the two debts through their partial or 
 entire liquidation, did not then seem an impossi- 
 bility. 
 
 Such were the principles embodied in the treaty 
 of union, and with regard to their abstract fair- 
 ness, I do not believe much dispute has ever been 
 entertained. In form, the treaty was loosely drawn 
 up, and as events turned out, some of its provisions 
 are difficult of interpretation. It is not, however, 
 to these forms or principles that we are chiefly to 
 look, but rather to the results produced by this 
 financial arrangement. 
 
 However just in the abstract a system of pro- 
 portionate contribution might have been, its prac- 
 tical fairness of course consisted in the proper 
 selection of the proportions in which the contribu- 
 tions were to be made. These were fixed by Lord 
 Castlereagh at two parts for Ireland to fifteen for 
 Great Britain, or, of every £100 required, Ireland 
 was to furnish £11 15s., and Great Britain £88 5s. 
 That these proportions were ever just is denied by 
 many; that, if at first just, they soon ceased to be 
 so, is generally maintained; but, no doubt, they 
 were originally selected, because it was supposed 
 that the resources of the two countries were in 
 the same proportions. 
 
 In the year 1800, before the arrangement was 
 inaugurated, the funded unredeemed debt of 
 Great Britain was about 420,000,000,* and her un- 
 funded debt about £37, 800, 000, f whilst her gross 
 
 * Ap. to Report, 1864, p. 396. t Ibid., p. 396. 
 
8 
 
 revenue after deducting drawbacks amounted to 
 £84,979,727.* * * § In the year ending January, 
 1817, her unredeemed funded debt had risen to 
 £682,5 20,03 3 ;f her unfunded debt was valued at 
 £44,650,600,J and her revenue or receipts from 
 taxation amounted to £64,577,839.§ 
 
 In the year 1800, the Irish funded debt 
 amounted to £26,841,219, the unfunded debt to 
 £1,699,938, and the revenue to £3,159,214. || At 
 the end of the year 1816 this was all changed, and 
 then the account stood as follows : funded unre- 
 deemed debt, £113,680,158 unfunded debt 
 about £5,000,000;** and gross revenue after de- 
 ducting drawbacks about £6,000,000. 
 
 It thus appears that in those sixteen years the 
 debt of Great Britain had increased more than 62 
 per cent., and its taxation more than 84 per cent., 
 whilst the debt of Ireland had increased more 
 than 320 per cent., and its taxation more than 
 100 per cent., and the debts of the two countries, 
 which in 1800 were to each other in the propor- 
 tion of about 1 to 15, were in 1816 in the pro- 
 portions of about 1 to 6. 
 
 With such results as these, it is not a subject 
 for wonder that great dissatisfaction should have 
 
 * Return No. 110, session 1865. 
 
 t Ap. to Report, 1864, p. 402. 
 
 I Ap. to Report, 1864, p. 410. 
 
 § P. 344, Ap. to Report. This sum is calculated by deduct- 
 ing from gross receipts within the year drawbacks and pay- 
 ments from Ireland. 
 
 |l Return No. 110, session 1865. 
 
 ^ Ap. to Report, 1864, p. 402. 
 
 ** Ibid., p. 410. 
 
9 
 
 been felt on the part of Ireland, or that a belief 
 should exist that she was unfairly treated. To 
 the Irishman the conclusion that his country was 
 grossly wronged was almost irresistible. Look- 
 ing to the Act of Union, he found indications that 
 Ireland would be a great gainer by its being 
 passed; he saw in it the existence of surpluses pro- 
 vided for the extinction of debts contemplated. 
 He found there special provisions for keeping all 
 post union debts as joint debts, and also other 
 clauses, ambiguous to be sure, which perhaps he 
 interpreted as preventing the increase of separate 
 debts after the union. Looking to the results, he 
 found that, instead of a surplus, there was always 
 a deficiency; instead of debt being extinguished, it 
 had enormously increased; and that, in some minor 
 particulars at least, the Act of Union had not 
 been strictly adhered to. Hence he probably, and 
 not unnaturally, concluded that, not only had the 
 Act of Union placed an unjust burden on his 
 country, but that act had been fraudulently carried 
 out. 
 
 To the Englishman, or one approaching the 
 subject with different feelings, perhaps a different 
 conclusion presented itself. He could not, indeed, 
 deny that the results were very disastrous to Ire- 
 land ; that year after year she was sinking lower 
 in financial infirmity; and that, if things went on 
 much longer in the same way, she would have to 
 succumb to national bankruptcy. Finding, how- 
 ever, that during that period Ireland was free from 
 
10 
 
 many taxes to which Great Britain was subject, 
 he concluded, perhaps, that the unhappy position 
 in which the former country found herself was 
 due to her impatience of taxation. To him it 
 seemed that Ireland resembled the reckless spend- 
 thrift, who, disregarding the future, preferred in- 
 curring disastrous obligations, to undergoing, for 
 the moment, any self denials; and if this course in 
 the case of Ireland, as in that of the individual, 
 led to difficulties and proximate bankruptcy, Ire- 
 land, like the individual, was alone to blame. 
 Moreover, he found that in the year 1817, the 
 Imperial Parliament stepped in, saddled Great 
 Britain with the entire of this Irish debt, and 
 established full and perfect equality between the 
 two countries, at a time when the Irish debt was 
 comparatively excessive; from which he concluded 
 that it was Great Britain, and not Ireland, that 
 had reason to complain. 
 
 To these two very different conclusions may 
 be traced all the disputes and discussions which 
 have taken place both in parliament and elsewhere 
 as to imperial taxation; and as the truth or false- 
 hood of either conclusion rests on the facts of the 
 case up to the year 1817, I purpose in the follow- 
 ing chapters briefly to examine them. 
 
11 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 PROBABLE CAUSES OF INCREASE OF DEBT AND TAXATION 
 BETWEEN 1800 AND 1817. 
 
 Before entering on the examination of the finan- 
 cial details on which rest the truth or falsehood of 
 the different views referred to in the preceding 
 chapter, it may not he uninteresting to consider 
 those political transactions which during the same 
 period produced such marvellous effects on the 
 finances of the two countries. We have already 
 seen that between 1800 and 1816 the debt of 
 Great Britain had increased from £420,305,944 to 
 £682,520,033, and the debt of Ireland, from 
 £26,841,219 to £113,680,158, whilst at the same 
 time the annual levy of taxation had progressively 
 advanced year by year from £34,979,729 for Great 
 Britain to £64,577,839, and for Ireland from 
 £3,159,214 to £6,000,000. The debt of Great 
 Britain we thus perceive was increased nearly two. 
 thirds, the debt of Ireland was more than qua- 
 drupled, and this with an addition to the annual 
 burdens of taxation in almost similar proportions 
 in the two countries. 
 
 Looking to the terms of the act of union, quite a 
 different state of things would seem to have been 
 anticipated. The framers of that act evidently ex- 
 pected a steady and perhaps rapid reduction of the 
 debt, and took great care to provide for the distri- 
 bution of a surplus arising out of the receipts 
 
12 
 
 from ordinary revenues. In the 7th article of 
 that Act we find the following clauses : — 
 
 11 That if at the end of any year, any surplus shall accrue 
 from the revenues of Ireland after defraying the interest, 
 sinking fund, and proportional contributions, and separate 
 charges, to which the said country shall then be liable, taxes 
 shall be taken off to the amount of such surplus , or the sur- 
 plus shall be applied by the parliament of the United King- 
 dom to local purposes in Ireland, or to make good any de- 
 ficiency which may arise in the revenues of Ireland in time 
 of peace, or may be invested by the Commissioners of the 
 National Debt of Ireland in the Funds, to accumulate for 
 the benefit of Ireland at compound interest, in case of the 
 contribution of Ireland in time of war, provided that the 
 surplus so to accumulate shall at no future period be suf- 
 fered to exceed the sum of £5,000,000”. 
 
 And again : 
 
 “ That if at any future day the separate debt of each 
 country respectively shall have been liquidated , or if the 
 values of the respective debts shall be to each other in the 
 same proportion with the respective contributions of each 
 country respectively, it shall be competent to the parlia- 
 ment to declare”, etc. 
 
 On the other hand neither in this nor any other 
 article of the Act of Union is it easy to find any 
 adequate provision for the eventualities which 
 really arose, and hence the great doubts and dif- 
 ficulties thrown on the interpretation of the 
 financial sections of the treaty of Union. 
 
 Reading this treaty together with the speeches 
 of the statesmen who supported it, and then look- 
 ing to the results which it produced, or rather to 
 the state of things which existed after it had been 
 
13 
 
 i 
 
 in operation sixteen years, we cannot help asking 
 ourselves, how it was that the views so confidently 
 put forward by the most eminent statesmen in 
 1800, were doomed to be so sadly disappointed, 
 and how it was that a financial treaty professedly 
 arranged on the principle of proportionate equa- 
 lity of burden, very nearly terminated in the 
 financial bankruptcy of Ireland? 
 
 To answer these questions, it is absolutely neces- 
 sary we should turn for a moment to the conside- 
 ration of the great political events which have ren- 
 dered those sixteen years memorable in the world’s 
 history. During those sixteen years one of the 
 greatest struggles ever recorded was going on; 
 more thrones were overturned, more new dynasties 
 formed, to be dissolved after a brief existence, 
 than, in a like period, the world had ever before 
 seen. Commencing with a directorate,. the French 
 nation had passed under the almost supreme 
 power of a consul, who in a short time changed 
 its constitution into that of an aggressive em- 
 pire. The ephemeral republics of the continent 
 of Europe, formed through French influence, and 
 supported by French power, successively merged 
 into dependent monarchies, and with each and 
 every one of the great powers of Europe did 
 Napoleon in turn wage war. Nor was Great 
 Britain exempt from taking part in those great 
 conflicts. Protected to a great extent by her 
 insular position from direct aggressive attack, no 
 power in Europe was more mixed up with the 
 
14 
 
 struggle against French aggression. From first 
 to last, she maintained the defence against 
 France, and, unlike the other powers, was never 
 found the one day the opponent, the next the 
 ally, of the French ruler. Scarcely a year passed 
 which was not made memorable by some great 
 battle or decisive disaster to some of the great 
 powers of Europe. 
 
 In the year 1805 a confederacy was formed 
 between Great Britain and some of the con- 
 tinental powers, to resist the aggressions of the 
 French, and the same year witnessed the battles 
 of Ulm and Austerlitz, in the former of which the 
 Austrians, in the latter the Russians and the 
 allies, were completely defeated. 
 
 In 1806 Prussia, who stood practically neutral 
 in the preceding year, when her neighbours were 
 engaged in. a struggle for existence, had to pay 
 the penalty of her inaction, and by the battle of 
 Jena was placed almost at the mercy of Napoleon. 
 
 In 1807 the battle of Friedland shook the power 
 of Russia, and forced her into alliance with 
 France. In 1808 Joseph Buonaparte was pro- 
 claimed king of Spain, and the tremendous penin- 
 sular struggle commenced. In 1809 the Aus- 
 trians saw their capital occupied by French 
 troops, and after the battle of W agram the 
 humiliating peace of Vienna had to be signed. 
 The years 1810 and 1811 witnessed the great con- 
 flict of the British and French in Spain and 
 Portugal, and the first blow was given to French 
 
15 
 
 power by the triumphant defence of the lines 
 of Torres Yedras. 1812 witnessed the campaign 
 of Moscow, and the disastrous retreat which com- 
 pletely turned the tide of prosperity against 
 Napoleon. In 1813 by the battle of Yittoria 
 Joseph Buonaparte was driven out of Spain, and 
 by the battle of Leipsic, in the same year, 
 Napoleon himself was forced to retreat ; the year 
 1814 saw his downfall and abdication; 1815, his 
 return and final overthrow at Waterloo. 
 
 In all these eventful proceedings Great Britain 
 took a prominent part. Where her soldiers or 
 sailors were not engaged, there were her warlike 
 stores and her supplies of money, and the armies 
 which assembled on the Elbe and the Danube were 
 at times as dependent for their support on the 
 United Kingdom as those under the command of 
 Wellington in the Peninsula. Nor were British 
 exertions confined to the Continent of Europe. 
 During the same period a war had to be main- 
 tained in America, and though of shorter duration 
 and much less magnitude than the European con- 
 flict, yet through the injury it did her commerce, 
 it tried England’s resources even more than some 
 of the struggles with Napoleon. 
 
 Considering, then, the vastness of the enterprise 
 undertaken by Great Britain during those fifteen 
 years, we cannot wonder that her expenditure 
 largely increased, and that with a considerable 
 increase of taxation a large addition had still to be 
 made to the national debt. 
 
16 
 
 That the great European conflict was not anti- 
 cipated in 1800, is evident from the statements then 
 made, and from the condition in which Europe then 
 was. The French Republic had at that time been 
 in existence about thirteen years, during which it 
 had been in constant warfare with its neighbours; 
 but a term to those conflicts seemed close at hand. 
 France had evidently suffered much both from her 
 own internal commotions and her disagreement 
 with foreign nations, and there was every prospect 
 that before very long some arrangement would be 
 entered into by which the peace of Europe would 
 be restored. The realization of this expectation 
 was not long delayed, and towards the close of the 
 year 1801 negociations were commenced which 
 terminated in the peace of Amiens, by which, ap- 
 parently, the long desired restoration of tranquil- 
 lity was accomplished. 
 
 The existence of peace, or at least the cessation 
 from any expensive warlike proceedings, in the 
 earlier years after the passing of the Act of Union, 
 made a sensible impression on the condition of 
 the finances of the empire, and accordingly we 
 find that in the first few years, the proportions 
 between debt incurred and taxation levied on 
 Great Britain and Ireland, did not vary very much 
 from the proportions fixed by the treaty, the 
 enormous disproportionate increase in the debt of 
 Ireland being reserved for later times. The hopes, 
 however, raised by the treaty of Amiens were not 
 destined to be of long duration, and, as we have 
 
17 
 
 seen, Europe, before the year 1805, was fully en- 
 gaged in that destructive war to which we have 
 alluded. 
 
 It must not, however, be supposed that the 
 events which occurred in Europe during the 
 period of the war were, in a financial point of 
 view, of unmixed evil to Great Britain. On 
 the contrary, if on the one hand she had to 
 pay largely for the prosecution of the war, on 
 the other, through its instrumentality her trade 
 and commerce received a great impulse. To 
 injure that trade and destroy Britain’s maritime 
 supremacy, was Napoleon’s pet idea; but in this 
 he altogether failed, and although successful in 
 shutting, through what was termed the “ Conti- 
 nental system”, many of the' European ports to 
 British ships, yet any loss consequent on this 
 was more than made up by the development of 
 British colonial power. Moreover, during the 
 entire time Great Britain was internally at peace; 
 no foreign invader disturbed her insular tran- 
 quillity; and, almost the only country in Europe 
 free to cultivate the arts of peace without distur- 
 bance, she became the workshop of Europe. In 
 spite of all the endeavours of Napoleon, the carry- 
 ing trade of the world passed into her hands, and 
 British merchants, manufacturers, and traders, 
 became undoubtedly the great gainers by the 
 paralysed state into which Europe was thrown. 
 Thus, if her taxation were doubled and her debt 
 increased by two-thirds, yet at the end of the 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 period she was in a more flourishing financial 
 state than at its commencement. 
 
 The same unfortunately cannot be said with 
 regard to Ireland. Her commerce was very con- 
 tracted, her trade and manufactures very limited, 
 and although having to contribute her proportion 
 to the increased expenditure, she did not receive 
 similar compensating advantages. As we have 
 seen, the enormous expenditure attendant on the 
 Napoleonic war was not anticipated at the time 
 when the proportion of contribution was arranged, 
 and although Ireland, under ordinary circum- 
 stances, might have been able to contribute two- 
 seventeenths of a peace expenditure, she entirely 
 failed to contribute that proportion by revenue, 
 ■$dien the expenditure had so enormously in- 
 creased. 
 
 The great European war and the expenses 
 attendant on it, may then to a certain extent 
 account for the fact, that the expectations held 
 out in 1800 were never realized, and that the debt 
 and revenue increased with such rapid strides 
 between 1800 and 1816. 
 
19 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 SEPARATE TAXATION BORNE BY GREAT BRITAIN BETWEEN 
 1800 AND 1817. 
 
 In the preceding chapter some of the causes 
 which led to the heavy burdens imposed on the 
 United Kingdom between 1800 and 1816 have 
 been alluded to, but, as before remarked, those 
 burdens were not similarly supported in Great 
 Britain and Ireland. In the former country a far 
 larger proportion of the annual charge was met 
 by revenue than in the latter country, and many 
 taxes were imposed on Great Britain from which 
 Ireland was free. This separate taxation on the 
 part of Great Britain has led to many curious 
 deductions, and, as the most erroneous views seem 
 to have arisen from it, I purpose briefly to 
 examine what appears to me to be the only com 
 elusion which it proves. 
 
 It is quite clear, in the commencement, that 
 had Ireland met her contribution by revenue in 
 the same proportion as Great Britain did, it would 
 have been a matter of perfect indifference in what 
 way she met it. Whether the taxes she paid 
 were similar to those in use in Great Britain, or 
 whether they were not, she would have equally 
 fulfilled her obligations, and would not have been 
 open to any charge of exemption from taxation. 
 But this was not the case. Ireland’s revenue 
 
20 
 
 failed to meet her contributions, a failure ascribed 
 to her exemption from many British taxes; and 
 as the amount contributed by those taxes in Great 
 Britain was very large, the exemption enjoyed by 
 Ireland is set down as being also very consider- 
 able. 
 
 The amount levied by separate taxes in Great 
 Britain has been variously estimated, and is not 
 very easily arrived at, and to ascertain it now 
 with perfect accuracy would be almost an im- 
 possibility. According to Mr. Chisholm’s re- 
 turns,* it would appear that nearly two-thirds of 
 the revenue of Great Britain was raised by taxes 
 peculiar to that country. Out of a revenue of 
 £888,000,000, he calculates that £582,000,000 
 were raised by taxes not imposed on Ireland; and 
 this no doubt, at first sight, would lead one to the 
 belief that Ireland must have been very lightly 
 taxed as compared with Great Britain. As some 
 writers have gone so far as to estimate the whole 
 of this £582,000,000 as excessive taxation on the 
 part of Great Britain, it may not be useless to 
 examine in detail how far it really can be con- 
 sidered as such. 
 
 Before entering on this, however, we must 
 remark that this calculation of £582,000,000 of 
 separate taxation paid by Great Britain, is only 
 an estimate, and that it is an estimate formed on 
 principles which have never been explained, and 
 which therefore it is not easy to follow. 
 
 * Ap. to Report, session 1865, p. 143. 
 
21 
 
 In the year 1834 a return* was presented to 
 parliament purporting to show the gross receipts 
 from excise and taxes levied in Great Britain, 
 but not in Ireland, during the thirty-three pre- 
 ceding years. This return did not particularize 
 the amount received each year, nor did it give in 
 any separate form the receipts between the years 
 1800 and 1816. In it also appeared a calculation 
 of the separate taxation of Great Britain under 
 the head of customs duty, a calculation, however, 
 based not on the receipts in Great Britain, but on 
 the receipts in Ireland, an estimate being made of 
 what the receipts in the latter country would 
 have been, had the rate of the duty been assimi- 
 lated to the British rate. 
 
 On this return Mr. Chisholm founds his 
 estimate, with this difference, that he calculates 
 the customs duties, “ as far as can now be ascer- 
 tained”, on the same principle as that followed in 
 the return regarding the excise, and makes an 
 average of the amount contributed each year, 
 which he multiplies by sixteen to discover the 
 receipts between 1800 and 1816. With the cor- 
 rectness of this return, or of Mr. Chisholm’s cal- 
 culations on it, I hardly desire to deal, but still 
 it is necessary to remark that the return itself 
 does not profess to give a correct account of the 
 actual nett receipts from separate taxation in 
 Great Britain, and in the next place, that the 
 system of taking an annual average cannot give 
 
 Session 1834, No. 194. 
 
22 
 
 us anything but a rough idea of the state of 
 things, as the same taxes were not in operation 
 all the time. 
 
 It is on the principle of the argument arising 
 from the apparent results of this calculation that 
 I wish to dwell, and therefore, for the time being, 
 I will not dispute the correctness of the figures. 
 Assuming then that a large sum, say £500,000,000, 
 was raised in Great Britain by taxes not imposed 
 on Ireland, does this prove that Great Britain 
 paid £500,000,000 of excess as compared with 
 Ireland, or that the latter country was propor- 
 tionately leniently treated? Certainly it does 
 not. In the first place, it does not at all follow, 
 had the taxes through which this large sum was 
 collected, never been imposed, that none of the 
 £500,000,000 would have found its way into the 
 exchequer. On the contrary, we may very con- 
 fidently assert that, in all probability, a very large 
 portion of it would have been received through 
 increased receipts from the other branches of 
 revenue. Moreover, a considerable amount of 
 this £500,000,000 is made up from a calculation 
 of the higher rate of duty charged on certain 
 articles in Great Britain over that charged in 
 Ireland, and to conclude that the entire of this 
 amount was due to the increased duty is clearly a 
 fallacy, as there is scarcely a principle in finance 
 more generally admitted, than that that a reduc- 
 tion in the rate of customs and excise duties does 
 not lead to the loss of the entire revenue con- 
 
23 
 
 tributed by the higher duty, a great portion of 
 the loss consequent on the reduction being made 
 up by increased consumption at the lower rates. 
 Therefore, even so far as Great Britain was con- 
 cerned, it would be a most erroneous conclusion 
 to draw from the figures given us, that she paid 
 £500,000,000 in taxation which she would never 
 have raised had the taxation been similar with 
 that of Ireland. 
 
 Proceeding, however, in our investigation, and 
 assuming that, had her taxation been assimi- 
 lated to that of Ireland, she would have been 
 relieved of £500,000,000 of payments, does this 
 show that the payment of this sum was, as com- 
 pared to Ireland, excessive taxation ? Certainly 
 it does not, unless we assume that the mode of 
 living of the people of the two countries, their 
 habits and customs, the trades in existence there, 
 and the productions of the soil were all similar; 
 because, unless all this be granted, no argument 
 can be derived as to the excessive taxation of 
 Great Britain when compared with Ireland, from a 
 calculation of the amount contributed in the for- 
 mer country by taxes specially levied there. I 
 hardly know whether it is necessary to attempt 
 any illustration of this, but an example may not 
 be useless. 
 
 Suppose we take two countries, in one of which 
 the common beverage of the people is beer or ale, 
 and in the other wine or spirits, and suppose a 
 common tax on wine or spirits is imposed on 
 
24 
 
 both, will this affect each similarly? According 
 to our supposition, in the first country, which we 
 will call A, very little wine or spirits at all is 
 drunk, its use being substituted there by beer or 
 ale, whilst in the second country, B, wine or 
 spirits is the ordinary beverage of the people. Is it 
 not clear that this common tax on wine or spirits 
 presses far more heavily on B than on A, and 
 that with this similar taxation A really is enjoying 
 an exemption, whilst B, as compared with it, is ex- 
 cessively taxed? W ell, supposing that, to meet this 
 inequality, a tax is imposed in A on ale and beer, 
 but that this tax is not imposed in B, how do 
 things then stand? A then may be over-taxed as 
 compared with B; but which does that over- 
 taxation arise from the tax on the beer or the tax 
 on the spirits ? From the preceding comparison 
 it is evident that the tax on the beer was 
 absolutely necessary to put A and B on an 
 equality, and if A has now anything to complain 
 of, it is not the tax on the beer, but the tax on 
 the spirits — a tax on a commodity corresponding 
 to that one which in the other country still 
 remains free from taxation. If then any one 
 were to assume that the whole amount contribu- 
 ted by A under the tax on beer was excessive, 
 because that tax was not extended to B, it is clear 
 that he would assume what in point of fact was 
 completely erroneous. Well, this is exactly what 
 is done when it is assumed that all the revenue 
 raised in Great Britain by separate taxes was 
 
25 
 
 excessive taxation. A great amount of these 
 taxes were taxes on articles of almost purely 
 British consumption or production, such as beer, 
 printed calicoes, etc. As they formed the staple 
 articles either of consumption or production, it 
 cannot be said that by a tax on them Great 
 Britain was unduly burdened, unless it can be 
 shown that on corresponding though not similar 
 articles no tax was borne in Ireland. 
 
 If then it cannot be assumed that the total 
 amount contributed by separate taxes in Great 
 Britain was excessive taxation on that country, 
 still less can it be argued that to a proportionate 
 amount Ireland w~as leniently treated. The ex- 
 emptions enjoyed by Ireland cannot in any pos- 
 sible way be calculated on the basis of the amounts 
 contributed by Great Britain. For instance, be- 
 tween 1800 and 1834, according to the returns of 
 1834, £40,000,000 were raised in Great Britain 
 by a tax on printed calicoes, from which tax Ire- 
 land was exempt: but surely from this fact it is 
 not possible to ascertain what exemption Ireland 
 enjoyed. Indeed, it is possible, and even probable, 
 that from the non-imposition of certain British 
 taxes the Irish revenue suffered no loss whatever. 
 Had many of these taxes been extended to Ire- 
 land, they would scarcely have paid the cost of 
 collection, whilst on the other hand such an 
 extension, by diminishing the receipts arising from 
 other duties, might rather have injured than in- 
 creased the public income. 
 
26 
 
 I think I have therefore shown that from a 
 vague, indefinite, and even incorrect estimate of 
 the amount contributed by Great Britain in 
 separate taxes, no possible conclusion can be 
 drawn either as to the over-taxation of that 
 country, or the under-taxation of Ireland; because 
 equality of taxation in no way depends on simi- 
 larity in the actual taxes, nor can the amount 
 contributed by certain taxes in the one country 
 give us any criterion by which to judge of the 
 amount which would have been contributed by 
 the other, had the same system been adopted in it. 
 
 I have dwelt particularly on this topic, and gone 
 perhaps into too much detail, because I was anxious 
 carefully to consider an argument often used, and 
 referred to in a preceding chapter, viz., that Ire- 
 land failed to meet her liabilities, and became 
 involved in debt, because she was impatient of 
 taxation and never bore many of the burdens im- 
 posed on Great Britain. Whether this argument 
 is true in fact or not, I do not undertake here to 
 determine, but I think it is pretty clear that it 
 cannot be proved from the fact that a certain large 
 amount of taxation was levied in Great Britain by 
 taxes not extended to Ireland. Had those taxes 
 been made general over the United Kingdom, it is 
 possible that the revenue raised from Ireland 
 might have been less than it was, and at least the 
 actual amount contributed by these taxes in Great 
 Britain affords us no criterion by which to judge 
 of the exemption enjoyed by Ireland. 
 
27 
 
 Equality in taxation, or more properly, simi- 
 larity in the taxes imposed, might have been 
 brought about in two ways; either by absolving 
 Great Britain from all those taxes which were not 
 extended to Ireland, or by extending them to the 
 latter country. Had the former system been 
 adopted, and were the calculations concerning the 
 amount realized by those taxes correct, the only 
 result would have been, that at the end of the six- 
 teen years Great Britain would have been involved 
 in far more heavy debt than Ireland. According 
 to Mr. Chisholm, nearly two-thirds of the British 
 revenue was raised by these taxes, and if we are 
 to presume that their remission would cause a loss 
 of these two-thirds, of course it follows that the 
 deficiency would give rise to an increased debt, 
 and thus, though Ireland would not be directly 
 affected, Great Britain would be in a much worse 
 position than before. On the other hand, were 
 the similarity established by the extension of all 
 the British taxes to Ireland, it is impossible to say 
 what would have been the result. The revenue 
 of Ireland might have been increased — it might 
 have been left as it was— it is even possible to sup- 
 pose that it might have been diminished. As, 
 therefore, the establishment of similarity in the 
 first way would not have affected Ireland at all, 
 and the result of its establishment in the second 
 way cannot by possibility be accurately ascer- 
 tained, it is hardly necessary to urge that no prac- 
 tical conclusion can be drawn, as to the exemption 
 
28 
 
 enjoyed by Ireland, from a consideration of the 
 amount of revenue contributed in Great Britain 
 by taxes not extended to the sister country. 
 
 Whether Ireland was comparatively undertaxed 
 between 1800 and 1816, may be judged of by other 
 tests, and with some of these I purpose to deal in 
 the succeeding chapters. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE PROPORTION FIXED ON IRELAND EXCESSIVE. 
 
 It by no means follows from the argument used 
 in the last chapter, that Ireland did not enjoy cer- 
 tain exemptions from taxation during the period 
 from the Union to the amalgamation of the ex- 
 chequers. We know as a fact that many taxes 
 were not imposed on her, and although the amount 
 contributed by these taxes in Great Britain cannot 
 give us any criterion by which to judge of the ac- 
 tual exemption enjoyed by Ireland, yet it is possi- 
 ble, and at first sight seems probable, that the 
 resources of the latter country were not so 
 severely taxed as those of the former. Whether 
 such was the case or not, and whether the propor- 
 tions of two to fifteen were in reality too heavy 
 for Ireland, depends altogether on different con- 
 ditions, to which I purpose now to proceed. 
 
 Examining more in detail those years during 
 which the war expenditure existed, and dividing it 
 
29 
 
 into three parts, we find that the revenue of Great 
 Britain successively advanced from £35,262,508* 
 in 1801, to £50,228,236 in 1805, being an increase 
 of about 42 per cent., from which there was a still 
 further advance in 1810 to £68,573,702, or an in- 
 crease of 36 per cent., and in 1815 to £76,869,272, 
 or an increase of 12 per cent., whilst the total ad- 
 vance in the revenue raised in the last year over 
 that raised in the first, amounted to 117 per cent. 
 Meanwhile the funded unredeemed debt had risen 
 from £420,000,000 to £524,000,000, £552,000,000, 
 and £700,000,000, respectively, showing an in- 
 crease on the whole of about 66 per cent. 
 
 As far as the revenue was concerned, almost 
 similar results took place in Ireland. In the year 
 1805 the Irish revenue was 22 per cent, over what 
 it was in 1800; in 1810 it was 20 per cent, over what 
 it was in 1805; and between 1810 and 1815 it in- 
 creased 40 per cent., whilst the total advance on 
 the whole period was over 107 per cent. As to 
 the Irish debt, it had, as before remarked, been 
 quadrupled. 
 
 We thus perceive that the actual increase in the 
 Irish revenue was greater than that which took 
 place in the British; and when we examine the 
 nature of the taxes imposed in the two countries, 
 we will find that the Irish permanent revenue 
 had increased in far greater ratio than that of 
 Great Britain. On this point the committee that 
 inquired into the subject in 1815, report : 
 
 * Ap. to Report, 1865, p. 140. 
 
30 
 
 “ Ireland has advanced in permanent taxation more rapidly 
 than Great Britain herself, notwithstanding the immense 
 exertions of the latter country, and including the extraordi- 
 nary war taxes. 
 
 The permanent revenue of Great Britain having in- 
 creased from the year 1801, in the proportion of 16£ to 10, 
 and the revenue of Ireland in the proportion of 23 to 10”. 
 
 Although, therefore, Ireland was exempted from 
 many taxes imposed on England, it is clear this 
 did not result in a diminished call on her resources. 
 
 The enormous and disproportionate increase in 
 the Irish debt has been before alluded to ; but this 
 does not give us the actual loss sustained by this 
 borrowing. Many of the loans were negociated 
 on very disadvantageous terms, and although the 
 stock created on account of loans for Ireland 
 during the period amounted to £113,000,000, yet 
 the amount received was only £76,000,000. How- 
 ever, of the money thus required for her service, 
 she was scarcely able to supply any herself, most 
 of the loans for the service of Ireland being ne- 
 gociated in England. 
 
 The proportionate amounts of the different 
 loans furnished by Great Britain and Ireland, are 
 given in tables presented to the Committee by Mr. 
 Chisholm; and from these it appears that, of the 
 whole amount raised for the service of the United 
 Kiugdom, Ireland furnished only 4 5 per cent. Of 
 the amounts raised for the service of Ireland, 
 Great Britain furnished 75*5 per cent, and Ireland 
 only 24*5, whilst Mr. Chisholm goes on to say:* 
 
 * Ap. to Report, session 1865, p. 141. 
 
31 
 
 “ There is evidence to prove that it was the inability of Ire- 
 land to raise money from her own resources, which alone 
 compelled her thus to fall back upon the more abundant 
 and increasing wealth of Great Britain”. 
 
 If Ireland therefore was unable to furnish more 
 than so small a proportion of the money required 
 for her own service, and if, contemporaneously 
 with an enormousdncrease in her debt, her taxation 
 was increasing as rapidly as that of Great Britain, 
 we can hardly avoid coming to the conclusion that 
 the contributions fixed at the time of the Union, 
 though perhaps at that time just, had subsequently 
 become much too high, and pressed too heavily on 
 the resources of Ireland. This conclusion is borne 
 out by the expressed opinion of very high autho- 
 rities, both in parliament and elsewhere, many of 
 which will be found quoted in the appendix to the 
 Taxation Committee Report. Mr. Chisholm him- 
 self concludes his remarks on this branch of the 
 subject with the following observation : 
 
 “ It appears to be impossible to reconcile the assumed fact 
 of the ability of Ireland to contribute two-seventeenths, or 
 11' 7 per cent, of the imperial expenditure with the ascer- 
 tained fact of her inability to contribute from her own 
 resources more than £4 5s. per cent, of the money 
 required to be raised by the creation of debt for the largely 
 increased war expenditure during the sixteen years from 
 1801 to 1816”.* 
 
 Although it thus appears that, notwithstanding 
 the non-imposition of certain taxes on Ireland, 
 
 * Ap. to Keport, session 1865, p. 142. 
 
32 
 
 her resources were as severely tested as those of 
 Great Britain, and although the proportion of two 
 to fifteen would clearly seem to have been too high 
 for Ireland, yet it is sometimes urged, that as this 
 proportion was never actually raised by taxation 
 from Ireland, and as Great Britain undertook the 
 entire of the Irish debt at the time of the amalga- 
 mation of the exchequers, no real injury was done 
 to Ireland from the nominal imposition of a bur- 
 den which was really never exacted. 
 
 Is it, however, perfectly correct to argue that 
 the proportion of contribution fixed by the act 
 of union was not exacted ? It is, to be sure, true 
 that this proportion was not raised by taxation from 
 Ireland, but up to the year 1817, though the reve- 
 nue failed to meet it, we have seen that Ireland did 
 actually pay her contribution, # and that she paid it 
 by adding largely to her debt. It may be said that 
 this did her no wrong, as the debt was subsequently 
 adopted by Great Britain, but then it seems to be 
 forgotten, that at that time Ireland also was sub- 
 jected to the liabilities consequent on the British 
 debt. In fact, what took place in 1817 was simply 
 this: the two countries were placed on perfect 
 equality, both as regards debt charges, and ordinary 
 general expenditure, a course which might have 
 been adopted at the time of the act of union, 
 were it not that Ireland then possessed an advan- 
 
 * According to Mr. Chisholm’s accounts, Ap. to Report, 1864, 
 p. 394, the final balance due by Ireland to Great Britain, that 
 is to say, the amount by which Ireland failed to meet her con- 
 tributions during the sixteen years, was only £2,001,457. 
 
tage, inasmuch as her debt was comparatively 
 smaller than the British debt. This advantage she 
 lost between 1800 and 1817. In the latter year 
 her debt was even in a greater proportion than the 
 British debt, and if the advantage she possessed in 
 1800 was lost, and her debt unduly increased 
 through having too high a proportion of contribu- 
 tion fixed on her, it is hardly fair to argue that 
 it was merely a nominal imposition, because never 
 raised by taxation. In the year 1800 Ireland had a 
 claim to be less heavily taxed than Great Britain, 
 a claim recognized as a right by the act of union ; 
 in the year 1817 she had lost that right, and if we 
 admit that the proportion of two-seventeenths 
 was excessive, we can hardly deny that the claim 
 or right, which existed in the year 1800, was lost 
 to Ireland through her having to make up an 
 excessive amount of contribution. 
 
 Without calling in question, then, in any way 
 the motives of those who passed the act of union, 
 or ascribing to them any other desire than that of 
 benefiting the two countries, we have seen that 
 the events which subsequently occurred were of 
 such an extraordinary character, and the expenses 
 of the United Kingdom increased to such an un- 
 precedented degree, as altogether to falsify the 
 predictions and expectations held out in the year 
 1800. Nor is it necessary that we should impute 
 any inaccuracy or inconsistency to the accounts 
 kept between Great Britain and Ireland. No 
 doubt, those accounts are very intricate, and have, 
 
34 
 
 at times, bedft presented in forms that would, at 
 first sight, justify us in believing them contradic- 
 tory; but inmost instances those apparent contra- 
 dictions, on examination, are capable of explana- 
 tion, and without at all entering in detail into their 
 examination, or expressing an opinion as to their 
 accuracy, there appear sufficiently strong reasons 
 explanatory of the very unexpected turn events 
 took, without impugning their correctness. 
 
 That Ireland was the chief loser by what oc- 
 curred during the fifteen years with which we are 
 dealing, can, I think, hardly be doubted. We 
 have seen that her taxation had more than doubled, 
 that her debt had increased beyond all proportion, 
 and that her resources had fallen off to such a de- 
 gree that she was unable to furnish more than 
 one-fourth of the loans required for her own ser- 
 vice. Her poverty at the end of the period was 
 universally admitted, and as a country in which 
 taxation was pressed beyond reproductive limits, 
 Ireland has been quoted in works on political 
 economy. 
 
 This being the case, can it justly be said that 
 Great Britain was a loser by the Amalgamation 
 Act, or that she then undertook responsibilities 
 which were not justly hers ? If during the sixteen 
 years that the exchequers were separate, Ireland 
 contributed by taxation as much as she was able, 
 and if to meet the balance of the contribution fixed 
 on her, she was obliged to borrow to such an ex- 
 tent as to lose the advantage which at one time 
 
35 
 
 she possessed over Great Britain in having a 
 smaller debt, in what way can it be shown that 
 unduly heavy burdens were thrown on Great 
 Britain? Of course if Ireland had been treated 
 leniently in taxation, if the revenue which her 
 resources could easily have yielded had not been 
 raised, and if her falling into debt was due to this, 
 then there might be some ground for complaint 
 on the part of Great Britain. But everything 
 leads us to the opposite conclusion, and although 
 it is impossible to prove it with mathematical pre- 
 cision, yet all the facts to which I have, in the fore- 
 going, alluded, seem to show that Ireland’s re- 
 sources were as heavily taxed as those of Great 
 Britain, and that the proportion of two- seven- 
 teenths fixed by the Act of Union was too much 
 for her to bear. 
 
 The contract entered into in 1800 was, to be 
 sure, by its terms, to have lasted unchanged for 
 twenty years, but if it were found unfair and 
 leading to the bankruptcy of Ireland, it would not 
 have been consistent either with the principle of 
 the act of union or with justice, to continue it, and 
 its alteration before the legally fixed period cannot 
 be regarded as any great concession to Ireland. 
 
 On the other hand, we must not overlook the 
 fact that, if Ireland’s resources in the year 1800 
 were over-estimated, the difference between the 
 pressure of her debt and that of Great Britain must 
 have been over-estimated also. As before remarked, 
 the advantage which Ireland possessed in the 
 
36 
 
 year 1800 was, that her debt was in a much lower 
 proportion to the British debt than her resources 
 compared with British resources; but if the Irish 
 resources were over-estimated, of course it follows 
 that this advantage did not really exist to the ex- 
 tent that was supposed, and that the loss which 
 she sustained on being deprived of this advantage 
 was not so great as otherwise might be imagined. 
 
 The main facts, then, which we collect from the 
 evidence on this part of the subject are, 1. That 
 in the year 1800 Ireland had an advantage over 
 Great Britain, in as much as she was subject to a 
 proportionately smaller debt; 2. That the pro- 
 portion of contribution fixed on her, whatever it 
 was at the commencement, subsequently proved 
 to be too large, and that in making it up Ireland’s 
 debt was unduly increased, and her advantage 
 lost; and lastly, that having thus increased her 
 debt, and lost her advantage, the principle of pro- 
 portionate contribution was abandoned, and the 
 new principle, the one at the present day disputed, 
 was established in its stead. 
 
37 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 PROGRESS OF TAXATION UP TO THE PRESENT TIME. 
 
 With the report of the committee in IS 15, 
 recommending the amalgamation of the British 
 and Irish exchequers, came also the termination 
 of the great European war, and the previous 
 enormous expenditure of Great Britain was no 
 longer required. The natural result of this was 
 a very large diminution in taxation, and thus 
 we find that immediately after the thorough 
 financial union of the two countries, a considerable 
 number of taxes were repealed. It has been be- 
 fore remarked, that during the war Great Britain 
 received a large amount of revenue by special or 
 war taxes, many of which, by the terms of their 
 imposition, ceased with the termination of the 
 struggle. 
 
 Taxes of this description, however, had no exis- 
 tence in Ireland. All the imposts there, or such a 
 near approximation to the entire as to render the 
 exception not worth noticing, were laid on as 
 permanent burdens, and consequently no absolute 
 source of revenue ceased with the cessation of 
 hostilities. From this we might naturally expect 
 to find, after the amalgamation of the exche- 
 quers, that the remissions of taxation would be 
 greater in Great Britain than in Ireland. Such 
 in fact was the case, and to an extent perhaps 
 greater than would have been warranted by 
 
38 
 
 the mere fact of the additional war taxes pre- 
 viously borne by Great Britain. The amount of 
 taxes remitted and imposed in the United King- 
 dom subsequent to the year 1817, appear in 
 several parliamentary returns, and have been 
 very succinctly given by Mr. Chisholm in the 
 following tables, handed in by him to the Taxation 
 Committee : 
 
 TAXES REMITTED. 
 
 
 TOTAL REMITTED. 
 
 _ . 
 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Ireland. 
 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Proportion 
 per cent. 
 
 [ Proportion 
 to 2. 
 
 Amount 
 
 Proportion 
 per cent. 
 
 Proportion 
 of 2. 
 
 1816-1841 - - 
 
 £ 
 
 28,580,548 
 
 918 
 
 22*4 
 
 £ 
 
 2,549,159 
 
 8-2 
 
 2 
 
 1842-1852 - - 
 
 12,405,610 
 
 94*45 
 
 34- 
 
 729,051 
 
 5*55 
 
 2 
 
 1853-1864 - - 
 
 31,493,692 
 
 93-44 
 
 286 
 
 2,210,769 
 
 6 # 56 
 
 2 
 
 1816-1864 - - 
 
 72,479,850 
 
 93* 
 
 26-5 
 
 5,488,979 
 
 7* 
 
 2 
 
 From Return No. 1 10, of Session 1865. 
 
 TAXES IMPOSED. 
 
 1816-1841 - 
 
 £ 
 
 6,671,914 
 
 86-6 
 
 13- 
 
 £ 
 
 1,039,010 
 
 13-4 
 
 2 
 
 1842-1852 - 
 
 5,887,589 
 
 93-8 
 
 so- 
 
 390,774 
 
 6-2 
 
 2 
 
 1853-1864 » 
 
 23,170,336 
 
 86-7 
 
 is- 
 
 3,551,239 
 
 13-3 
 
 2 
 
 1816-1864 - 
 
 35,729,839 
 
 87-76 
 
 14-3 
 
 4,981,023 
 
 12-24 
 
 2 
 
 From Return 286, of Session 1865. 
 
BALANCE OF TAXES REMITTED OR IMPOSED. 
 
 39 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 53 
 
 co 
 
 co 
 
 < 
 
 Eh 
 
 O 
 
 EH 
 
 Great Britain, - - - 58,428,850 17,342,839 41,086,011 98*1 103*3 
 
40 
 
 From these tables it appears that of the total 
 amount of remissions, Great Britain received ninety- 
 three per cent., and Ireland only seven per cent. ; 
 whilst, on the other hand, the per-centage of new 
 impositions amounted to 87*8 per cent, for Great 
 Britain, and 12*2 per cent, for Ireland; and of the 
 balance of remissions, after deducting the imposi- 
 tions, Great Britain enjoyed 98*6 per cent., and 
 Ireland only 1*4 per cent. In round numbers, 
 Great Britain was relieved from seventy-two and 
 a half millions of old taxes, and subjected to thirty- 
 five and a half millions of new ones, leaving a clear 
 balance of remissions amounting to about thirty- 
 seven millions, whilst Ireland was relieved from 
 five and a half millions, and subjected to nearly 
 five millions, leaving a balance of remissions of 
 only half a million. As before remarked, of course 
 a great deal of this was due to the fact that in 
 Great Britain a large amount of war taxes fell 
 to the ground on the restoration of peace; but 
 then, it must be remembered, that during the war 
 a great many new taxes were imposed on Ireland, 
 and that the fact of their having been imposed 
 without being restricted to the duration of the 
 war, did not in any way lessen the burden which 
 they placed on the country. If then Ireland 
 was proportionately as heavily taxed as Great 
 Britain during the continuance of the war, there 
 seems no reason for supposing that the great 
 preponderance of remissions of taxation enjoyed 
 by Great Britain after the restoration of peace, 
 
41 
 
 can be justified on the ground that British taxes 
 were made dependent on the continuance of the 
 war, whilst Irish taxes were imposed without any 
 such condition. 
 
 Moreover, it must also be borne in mind that 
 the remission of taxation in the years subsequent 
 to the amalgation of the exchequers, was not 
 altogether due to the falling in of the war duties 
 or the reduction of the war expenditure. A 
 considerable diminution in taxation resulted from 
 the abandonment of the sinking fund and the 
 charges consequent upon it. However, it does 
 not appear that either from the reductions in the 
 war expenditure or from the temporary ease en- 
 joyed by the nation from the abandonment of the 
 sinking fund charges, Ireland received anything 
 like the same diminution of burden which was 
 accorded to Great Britain, at least if we may 
 judge by a comparison of the remission and im- 
 position of taxes. 
 
 The general result, then, of the changes in tax- 
 ation between 1817 and 1864 shows a large 
 balance of remissions in favour of Great Britain, 
 and only a small balance in favour of Ireland; 
 but it is curious to remark that within the last ten 
 years of this period, whilst the balance of remis- 
 sions in favour of Great Britain was still large, 
 things had entirely changed in Ireland, and there 
 the balance was on the side of the taxes imposed. 
 During this period the income tax was for the 
 first time extended to Ireland, but excluding it 
 
42 
 
 from our calculation, we find* that contempora- 
 neously with its imposition, other taxes to the 
 amount of £2,074,239 were imposed, and only 
 £996,767 remitted. In Great Britain, on the 
 contrary, excluding also the income tax, the re- 
 missions had amounted to £16,442,692, and the 
 additions to taxation to only £9,883,326; so that, 
 excluding all consideration of the income tax 
 from both sides of the account, we get the re- 
 sult that during those ten years additions were 
 made to the taxation of Ireland more than double 
 the amount of remissions, whilst the remissions 
 received by Great Britain were nearly double the 
 impositions placed on her. Subtracting the re- 
 missions in the case of Ireland from the impositions, 
 we find a balance of £1,079,472 of additional tax- 
 ation, whilst in Great Britain there was a balance 
 of remission amounting to £6,559,356. 
 
 As some objections may be made to deductions 
 drawn merely from a consideration of the receipts 
 or estimated receipts from taxes imposed or re- 
 mitted, it may be well also to consider the actual, 
 absolute, and relative changes in taxation between 
 1817 and 1864. Starting with the year 1817-18, 
 the first after the amalgamation of the exchequers, 
 we find that the revenue of Great Britain then was 
 £51,614,484, and that of Ireland £5,285,654, and 
 that in the year 1861-2 these sums had changed 
 respectively f to £61,366,747 and £6,792,606, 
 
 * Ap. to Report, 1865, p. 145. 
 
 f Ap. to Report, 1864, p. 413. 
 
43 
 
 showing an increase of 18*8 per cent, for Great 
 Britain, and 28 per cent, for Ireland. Dividing 
 this period into three parts, the first terminating 
 with the year 1842, the second with the year 1852, 
 and the third with the year 1862, we find still 
 more interesting results. In the first period the 
 taxation of the two countries had decreased from 
 £51,000,000 to £46,000,000, and from about 
 £5,000,000 to £4,000,000. In the second period 
 it again rose to £52,400,000 and £4,400,000 re- 
 spectively; whilst in the third period the increase 
 continued, and the amount of taxation then stood, 
 as before stated, at £61,360,749 for Great Britain, 
 and £6,792,606 for Ireland. 
 
 This last increase is very remarkable, and to it, 
 to a great extent, must be attributed the general 
 outcry in Ireland of late years respecting taxation. 
 Whilst, during those ten years, the taxation of 
 Great Britain increased only 17 per cent., that of 
 Ireland increased 52 per cent., and it cannot be a 
 subject for wonder that such an increase as this 
 should have excited the greatest attention in Ire- 
 land, and should have produced the complaints 
 which of late years have been so general. 
 
 The proportions which the Irish bore to the 
 British taxation during the periods alluded to, 
 are, one-thirteenth in the first period, one-twelfth 
 in the second, and one- ninth in the third; thus 
 showing that since 1817 there has been a pro- 
 gressive increase in the proportions of revenue 
 contributed by Ireland. 
 
44 
 
 In looking to the question of imperial taxation, 
 of course we must not confine our view to any par- 
 ticular portion of the empire, and if we find any 
 system which contributes to the benefit of the 
 nation at large and to the increase of its general 
 wealth, it would not be fair to characterize that as 
 unjust because through all the portions of the 
 empire the benefits were not equally divided. In 
 drawing attention, then, to the remarkable advan- 
 tages which Great Britain has derived from the 
 system of taxation adopted during the last fifty 
 years, I am far from wishing to make it appear 
 that that system has been unjust. Indeed, the 
 remarkable fact, that with such large remissions 
 of taxation the revenue continued to increase, 
 would, in itself, be sufficient justification of the 
 course adopted. I, therefore, desire merely to 
 point out that during this period Ireland did not 
 receive the same advantages as Great Britain, and 
 that, if claims are put forward on her behalf, they 
 are not altogether without foundation. 
 
 Ireland no doubt is benefited by anything which 
 benefits the empire, and a development of the 
 resources of Great Britain, which renders it pos- 
 sible to raise a larger amount of revenue without 
 any increase in the rate of taxation, must without 
 doubt also benefit Ireland : but still it is clear 
 from the facts contained in the foregoing tables, 
 that those benefits have not been equally divided, 
 and on the conclusion which ought to be drawn 
 from this 1 may have hereafter to dwell. 
 
45 
 
 To enter fully into a detailed examination of all 
 the taxes repealed, and of the effect of their repeal, 
 would require an extension of this sketch far 
 beyond the limits I assigned to it, and could not 
 be properly undertaken except by some one more 
 competent to deal with it than I am. With these 
 remarks, then, I would close this chapter, were it 
 not that, having seen the increase in the taxation 
 of the empire, it may not be uninteresting to con- 
 sider for a moment the probable increase in its 
 wealth. 
 
 Unfortunately it is difficult, when we desire to 
 make a separate estimate for the two countries, 
 to ff nd any sure standard by which this wealth can 
 be arrived at. The imports and exports might be 
 taken as a test, were it not that since 1812 no ac- 
 count has been kept of the cross-channel trade, 
 and hence no distinction between British and Irish 
 imports and exports can really be made. The in- 
 come tax, or the value of property assessed to it, 
 might be selected, but of it we are unable to avail 
 ourselves, except during the last ten years of the 
 period with which we are dealing, for before 1853 
 there was no assessment to an income tax in Ire- 
 land. There is therefore no test, which during the 
 entire period can serve as a standard by which to 
 judge of the actual and comparative increase or 
 decrease of the wealth of Great Britain and Ire- 
 land. But, although there does not appear to be 
 any one standard, which during the entire period 
 can be selected for estimating the increase or de- 
 
46 
 
 crease of the national wealth, yet during the last 
 ten years we are not without such, and in the as- 
 sessments to the income tax, have perhaps as fair 
 a criterion as can possibly be found. 
 
 The increase in the values assessed to the income 
 tax, as a test of the increase in the value of the 
 general wealth of the country, has, moreover, in 
 its favour, the high authority of the present Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer, for in his famous budget 
 speech in 1860, when alluding to the enormous in- 
 crease in the public expenditure, and showing the 
 comparative increase in the resources of the 
 nation, he selected the values assessed to the in- 
 come tax, and the variations which took place in 
 them, as fair tests of the variations which took 
 place in the national wealth. In order to be 
 strictly correct, we should exclude from these 
 values those appearing under schedules C and E of 
 the income tax, the one representing funded pro- 
 perty, the other representing pensions or salaries 
 from the state, as neither of these can be said 
 justly to have any connection with the wealth of 
 the countries: however, as their retention does not 
 make any material alteration in the comparison, it 
 may be hardly necessary to exclude them. 
 
 Taking, then, the average value assessed in the 
 three first years after the extension of the income 
 tax to Ireland, and the average value in the three 
 years ending 1863, we find* that the increase in 
 
 * Ap. to Report, IF 65, p. 161. 
 
47 
 
 Great Britain under schedule A, was 22 per cent., 
 under schedule B, 15*9 per cent., and under sche- 
 dule D, 23*8 per cent,, whilst under all the sche- 
 dules together it was 21*6 per cent.; and deducting 
 the income under schedules C and E, which, as 
 before remarked, are properly no tests at all, the 
 increase of the worth of Great Britain during these 
 ten years, as estimated by the values assessed to 
 the income tax, would be about 21*8 per cent. 
 During the same period the increase in Ireland 
 under schedule A, was 13 per cent., under sche- 
 dule B, 11*8 per cent., and under schedule D, 2*3 
 per cent., or under the three schedules about 10^ 
 per cent. From this it appears that the increase in 
 the wealth of Great Britain during these ten years 
 was about 21*8 percent., the increase in the wealth 
 of Ireland was only 10*5 per cent., whilst, as before 
 noted, these were the ten years during which the 
 taxation of Ireland had increased 52 per cent., and 
 the taxation of Great Britain only 17 per cent. 
 
48 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 PRESENT IMPERIAL TAXATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. 
 
 As before remarked, there does not appear to be 
 very much difference of opinion as regards the facts 
 connected with the present imperial taxation of 
 the United Kingdom, the difference, here, being one 
 rather of principle. Nevertheless, it is still desirable 
 briefly to state the facts, and as other burdens press 
 on the people of the two countries besides those 
 which are usually placed in the category of impe- 
 rial taxes, I purpose in the succeeding sections to 
 consider these which are commonly placed under 
 the head of local taxation, confining this to a con- 
 sideration of the general revenue as voted by par- 
 liament. 
 
 In the year 1863-4 the gross revenue of the 
 United Kingdom amounted to £68,115,300,* of 
 which 90*5 per cent, was contributed by Great 
 Britain and 9*5 per cent, by Ireland. Of this 
 amount £64,167,271 were raised by general taxes, 
 similar throughout the United Kingdom, whilst 
 £3,948,029 were raised by taxes peculiar to Great 
 Britain. Imperial taxation, then, is at the present 
 day in form identical throughout Great Britain 
 and Ireland, with the exception of the assessed, 
 railway, and some other minor imposts peculiar 
 to Great Britain, which, on the whole, yield a sum 
 
 Ap. to Report, 1865, p. 145. 
 
49 
 
 somewhat under £4,000,000. With this similar 
 taxation, however, the question has arisen, whether 
 the one country is not more heavily burdened than 
 the other, or whether a greater proportion of the 
 resources of the one is not absorbed by taxation 
 than of the resources of the other; and here of 
 course we find ourselves at once at issue on a ques- 
 tion of principle. I know it is held, that it is 
 an error to speak of countries being taxed; that 
 countries are not taxed; that it is the individual 
 who is taxed; and that the mere locality in which 
 he resides can in no way affect the justice or injus- 
 tice of the impost placed upon him. This is an 
 argument often used, and although I desire care- 
 fully to abstain from any discussion on questions 
 of abstract justice or injustice, yet as such an 
 argument cuts at the root of any comparison 
 being made between the pressure of taxation on 
 Great Britain and Ireland, it is absolutely neces- 
 sary fairly to consider it. 
 
 It is no doubt perfectly true, that individuals, 
 not countries, are taxed ; but as the wealth of a 
 country is in the hands of the individuals compos- 
 ing its population, anything which diminishes their 
 wealth diminishes the wealth of the country, 
 and it is but an idle discussion to argue a diffe- 
 rence between the taxes on a country, and those 
 on the individuals who live in it. Again, it is 
 said the locality in which the individual taxpayer 
 lives is not an ingredient in the lightness or heavi- 
 ness of the burden; the man worth £200 a year 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 in Ireland is just as well able to pay his income 
 tax as the man worth £200 a year in Great Britain; 
 and the taxes on tea, sugar, and tobacco are not 
 more oppressive on the small traders, struggling 
 farmers, and poor labourers of Ireland, than on 
 individuals similarly circumstanced in Great Bri- 
 tain. IFnquestionably this, in the abstract, is also 
 true; but can it with equal truth be said, for in- 
 stance, that the indirect taxes above mentioned, 
 such as those on tea, tobacco, etc., do not press 
 more heavily on the poor than on the rich, or that 
 our taxation is so nicely adjusted that it presses 
 with equal or corresponding severity on all classes 
 or individuals in the community. 
 
 It is held by some, and, I think, not without 
 reason, that the pressure even of a direct tax pro- 
 portionate to the amount of income, is unequally 
 felt a and that those possessing small incomes feel a 
 deduction of a fixed proportion in a much greater 
 degree than those of more ample means; but 
 whether this is true or not as regards direct taxes, 
 it cannot be denied in dealing with taxes in the 
 indirect form. These are not levied in proportion 
 to the means, but rather in proportion to the 
 wants of the taxpayer, and unquestionably press 
 more heavily on some classes of individuals than 
 on others, abstracting a larger proportionate 
 amount of the income of the former than of the 
 latter. As the consuming power of an individual 
 or a class is not limited exactly in proportion as 
 his or their income is diminished, nor indefinitely 
 
51 
 
 increased with an increase of income, taxes on ar- 
 ticles of ordinary consumption will invariably be 
 found to press more heavily on the poorer than 
 on the richer classes of the community. That in 
 the abstract this is the case, cannot be doubted, 
 but how it affects localities or countries may not 
 be so apparent. The consuming class in Great 
 Britain is similarly taxed with the consuming 
 class in Ireland, and all classes or individuals 
 similarly circumstanced are similarly taxed ; yet it 
 is, nevertheless, possible, indeed I believe it is cer- 
 tain, that out of the annual wealth or income of 
 Ireland a larger proportion is paid towards state 
 expenses than is paid by Great Britain. 
 
 As before stated, the wealth or income of a 
 country is the wealth or income of its inhabi- 
 tants, and if that wealth be divided in smaller por- 
 tions over a greater number of individuals, a 
 greater proportion of it will be taken by a tax on 
 articles of general consumption. If it be true that 
 such a tax takes away a larger proportion of the 
 incomes of persons possessed of small means, it 
 follows that the country whose inhabitants possess 
 the lowest average wealth will pay the largest pro- 
 portionate share towards the national expenditure. 
 This, then, is what is meant when it is said, that 
 Ireland contributes a larger proportion of its wealth 
 to the national expenditure than Great Britain, 
 and this also is what is meant when it is said that 
 Ireland is more heavily taxed than Great Britain. 
 
 There can be little doubt, I believe, taking the 
 
5 2 
 
 annual income of Ireland and comparing it with 
 the revenue raised there, and adopting a similar 
 course with regard to Great Britain, that the taxa- 
 tion of Ireland will show a larger per-centage on 
 her resources than the taxation of Great Britain on 
 hers. To prove this with mathematical correctness 
 is not, however, very easy; for, although we have 
 an accurate account of the taxation, we have none 
 of the resources of the two countries, and can 
 judge of them only by approximation. In the as- 
 sessments to the income tax we have indeed very 
 fair tests, but still against them objections have 
 been raised, and in all respects they are not strictly 
 accurate. 
 
 According to these assessments, it would appear 
 that of the wealth of the United Kingdom Ireland 
 possessed about 7*2 per cent.,* and Great Britain 
 92*8 per cent., whilst of the taxation, Ireland con- 
 tributed 9*5 per cent, and Great Britain 90*5 per 
 cent.; or, according to another return, f Ireland and 
 Great Britain on every pound of income contri- 
 bute in the proportions of 6s. 8|d to 4s. Ofd. If 
 then the income tax returns can be taken as safe 
 tests for ascertaining the respective resources of 
 the two countries, it would be self-evident that 
 the inhabitants of Ireland as a body pay a greater 
 proportion of their income in taxation than the 
 inhabitants of Great Britain, Ireland’s income 
 
 * Ap. to Report, 1865, p. 161. 
 f Return 452, Session 1863. 
 
53 
 
 being about one-thirteenth of the entire, and her 
 taxation about one-tenth. 
 
 Against the income tax returns, as valid tests of 
 the resources of the two countries, two objections 
 are generally made. The test would be unobjec- 
 tionable, if the assessments were made on the same 
 principle in Great Britain and Ireland, and if they 
 included all incomes, whether above or below 
 £100 a year; but neither of these is the case, and 
 hence the objections. In the first place, it is said 
 that the income tax under Schedules A and B is 
 assessed differently in Great Britain and Ireland, 
 in the former country the assessment being on the 
 gross rental, in the latter on the net receipts; and 
 in the next place, as incomes below £100 a year 
 are excluded from the returns in both countries, a 
 large amount of annual receipt is omitted, an 
 amount, however, proportionately much larger in 
 Ireland, as property in that country is more mi- 
 nutely subdivided. 
 
 On the first objection it is sufficient to say that, 
 although in principle the assessments are different, 
 yet in practice the results are said to be very 
 similar. Taking a series of years and making 
 allowance for the increased expense of the collec- 
 tion of Irish rents, and the frequent failure of 
 Irish tenants, there is probably as much difference 
 between the real net receipts from the ownership 
 of land in Ireland and the valuation on which the 
 tax is assessed, as there is between the gross and 
 net rental in Great Britain. Even admitting, how- 
 
54 
 
 ever, that the difference which exists in principle 
 had existence also in practice, and that in conse- 
 quence of it some deduction should be made from 
 British returns, yet this would not alter to any 
 appreciable extent the proportions above stated. 
 
 The second objection, if used as an argument 
 against believing that a greater proportionate 
 amount of the income of the inhabitants of Ire- 
 land is absorbed by taxation, entirely fails to show 
 this, as it tells rather in the contrary sense. If it 
 be true, as before argued, that taxes on articles of 
 ordinary use, such as tea, sugar, tobacco, etc., 
 which enter into the consumption of the poorer 
 classes, press more heavily on those with small 
 than on those with large incomes, surely anything 
 tending to show that a larger proportionate 
 amount of incomes under £100 exists in Ireland 
 than in Great Britain, tends also to the conclusion 
 that of the income of Ireland a larger propor- 
 tionate amount is paid in taxation than of the in- 
 come of England. Indeed, if it be once admitted 
 that the average individual income is lower in 
 Ireland than in Great Britain, and that in the 
 former country the population is comparatively 
 poorer, there is no necessity for recurring to the 
 income tax assessments in order to show that 
 similar taxation, in the indirect form at least, is 
 heavier on the resources of Ireland. So far, then, 
 from the second objection being an argument 
 against believing in the results shown by the in- 
 come tax returns, it is in fact an argument which? 
 
55 
 
 in the absence of these returns, would lead us to 
 the same results. 
 
 • In addition to the value of property assessed to 
 the income tax, there are other tests which have 
 sometimes been used for estimating the compara- 
 tive resources of the two countries. Several of 
 these appear in the report of the Taxation Com- 
 mittee, and are chiefly the following: Deposits in 
 public savings’ banks, which are nineteen times 
 greater in Great Britain; deposits in post office 
 savings’ banks, which are twenty -three times 
 greater; money orders, fourteen times greater; 
 railway receipts, nineteen and a-half times; interest 
 on public stocks, seventeen times; and legacy and 
 probate duty, sixteen times as much in Great 
 Britain as in Ireland. All of these then bear out 
 the conclusion indicated by the income tax returns, 
 viz., that the resources of Ireland do not constitute 
 more than one-thirteenth or one-fourteenth of the 
 resources of the United Kingdom, whilst, as before 
 remarked, her contribution to the imperial reve- 
 nue is about one-tenth. None of these tests, taken 
 separately of course, would prove much, but the 
 remarkable coincidence that they all tend in the 
 same direction, cannot but lead us to the con- 
 clusion that beyond doubt the resources of Ireland 
 are comparatively much lower than her present 
 proportion of contribution to the imperial revenue. 
 
 So far, then, as regards the actual and compara- 
 tive gross taxation of the present day, it appears 
 that in the nature of the imposts, with some trifling 
 
56 
 
 exceptions, taxation is similar, whilst in the pres- 
 sure of this similar taxation the burden is propor- 
 tionately greater in Ireland than in Great Britain. * 
 From the assessed taxes which make up the greater 
 portion of the four millions of separate taxation 
 now borne by Great Britain, Ireland is free, but 
 it may not be uninteresting to estimate in a rough 
 way the amount of this exemption. The chief 
 taxes from which most of this revenue is derived 
 are the taxes on inhabited houses of £20 value 
 and upwards, on horses, on dogs, and on carriages. 
 As to the remaining ones, on servants, hair powder, 
 and armorial bearings, their receipts in Ireland 
 would be so trifling that it is hardly necessary to 
 mention them. 
 
 The amount of house duty paid in Great Britain 
 in 1863 was £788,471, and the number of houses 
 on which it was raised was 577,671, whilst it ap- 
 pears that there were in Ireland in the same year 
 33,763 houses of £20 value and upwards. As- 
 suming, then, that the average value of each house 
 was the same in Great Britain and Ireland, had 
 the tax been extended to the latter country, it 
 would have produced only about £46,000. Cal- 
 culating the duty on horses in a similar way, it 
 would not have amounted to more than £23,000 
 or £24,000; and as to that on dogs, although those 
 animals are now numerous in Ireland, yet a tax 
 of twelve shillings would so diminish their numbers 
 that the revenue derived from it would be ex- 
 ceedingly small. Of the principal assessed taxes 
 
57 
 
 there remains but that upon carriages. What this 
 would produce in Ireland we have no means of 
 judging, but we may safely assume it would not 
 differ very much from the others in its results. 
 On the whole, then, the exemption enjoyed by 
 Ireland in freedom from the assessed taxes cannot 
 be considered anything but trifling. 
 
 Although the taxation of the United Kingdom 
 is thus practically similar, the proportions contri- 
 buted by Ireland to the different branches of the 
 revenue are not in all cases alike. As might 
 naturally be expected, in that country where the 
 population is greater in proportion to its wealth, 
 the receipts from indirect taxes on commodities 
 which are in fact taxes on population, are much 
 greater in proportion than the receipts from the 
 other branches of revenue.* In the three years 
 ending March, 1864, the revenue from articles of 
 general consumption was contributed in the fol- 
 lowing proportions: 87*3 per cent, by Great Britain, 
 and 12*7 per cent, by Ireland; the revenue from 
 the income tax in the proportions of 93*3 per cent, 
 by Great Britain, and 6*7 per cent, by Ireland; 
 the total indirect taxation being 88*3 per cent, by 
 Great Britain, and 11*7 per cent, by Ireland; and 
 the total direct taxation being 93*5 per cent by 
 Great Britain, and 6 '5 per cent, by Ireland. 
 
 The proportions of the revenue of each country 
 which were contributed under the different heads 
 appear to have been the following. Of the entire 
 
 * Ap. to Keport, 1865, p. 147. 
 
58 
 
 revenue of Great Britain, GOG per cent, was con- 
 tributed by taxes on articles of general consump- 
 tion, 76*1 per cent, by indirect taxes generally, and 
 23*9 per cent, by direct taxation. Of the entire 
 amount of revenue raised in Ireland, 7 5 per cent, 
 was raised by taxes on articles of general consump- 
 tion, 85*9 per cent, by indirect taxes generally, 
 and 14*1 per cent, by direct taxation. As direct 
 taxes may be considered as taxes on wealth, and 
 indirect taxes as taxes on population, this still 
 further corroborates the view before taken as to 
 the comparative condition of the wealth of the two 
 countries. 
 
 The remarkable fact that of the Irish revenue 7 5 
 per cent., or three-fourths, is contributed by taxes on 
 articles of general consumption, leads one to examine 
 what these articles chiefly are. The first and prin- 
 cipal is spirits, which in 1863-4 yielded a revenue 
 of £2,300,000; then come tobacco, tea, sugar, etc. 
 The revenue contributed from Ireland under the 
 tea and sugar duties, viz., about £700,000, though 
 large, does not indeed at all amount to the 
 actual duty paid by the Irish on those articles, for 
 the greater proportion of the duty, especially on 
 the sugar consumed in Ireland, is paid in Great 
 Britain and credited to her account. However, by 
 the duty raised in Ireland on these four articles, 
 more than two-thirds of the Irish revenue is con- 
 tributed. 
 
 The changes which have taken place during 
 the last twenty years in the consumption of some 
 
59 
 
 of these articles, are also deserving of some notice. 
 In the first place, as regards tea, it appears* that 
 the average annual consumption, as calculated 
 on the three years ending 1860, has increased 
 in Ireland during the last twenty years from 
 4,107,7141bs. to 10,944,9941bs., being an increase 
 of over 100 per cent., whilst the average con- 
 sumption per head of the population is more 
 than treble what it used to be, being now about 
 1 Jib. per head, whereas in the year 1840 it was 
 but ^lb. In Great Britain a somewhat similar in- 
 crease has taken place as regards the entire quan- 
 tity entered for home consumption, but the aver- 
 age consumption per head of the population, in- 
 stead of having trebled as in Ireland, has not quite 
 doubled. Moreover, it must be remembered that 
 a great deal of the Irish tea trade is carried on 
 through Great Britain, and all this of course is set 
 down as consumption in Great Britain, and not in 
 Ireland. With regard to sugar, somewhat different 
 results appear from the parliamentary returns, 
 there being an actual decrease in the quantity on 
 which duty was paid in Ireland, whilst the amount 
 in Great Britain had increased from 3,482,101 cwt. 
 to 8,497,672 cwt. This again, however, is attribu- 
 table to the fact, that nearly all the sugar used in 
 Ireland comes in, duty paid, from England, there 
 being no sugar refineries in Ireland. Yet, on the 
 small portion on which duty is paid in Ireland there 
 has been an increase of about one-fourth on the 
 
 Return No. 14, Session, 1865. 
 
60 
 
 average consumption per head of the population, 
 this having in 1840 been about 4 lbs. and in 1860 
 about 51bs. In tobacco the increase in Ireland has 
 been from 5,221,0001bs. to 5,891,3181bs., and in 
 Great Britain from 17,800,0001bs. to 28,706,0001bs. 
 
 In spirits there has been in Great Britain an 
 increase from 14,700,000 gallons to 16,600,000 
 gallons, whilst in Ireland there has been a diminu- 
 tion from 7,400,000 gallons to 4,714,000 gallons, 
 and the average consumption per head of the 
 population has decreased in both countries. But 
 whilst this is the case, the actual revenue received 
 has, in consequence of the higher rate of duty, 
 largely increased, the actual amount per head 
 contributed by the spirit duty being now in Ire- 
 land 8s. Old., whereas in 1840 it was only 2s. 6d., 
 and being now in Great Britain 6s. 4d., whilst in 
 1840 it was only 4s. 6d. 
 
 Such then seems to be the general analysis of 
 the present imperial taxation in the United King- 
 dom. In its nature it is almost identical through- 
 out the kingdom; but, pressing more heavily on 
 the poor than on the wealthy, it apparently 
 absorbs more of the resources of Ireland; whilst 
 the exemption enjoyed by the latter country in 
 freedom from the assessed taxes, seems to be but 
 very trifling. 
 
 On the other hand, with the exception of the 
 high duty on spirits, it cannot be said that there 
 is any principal tax which interferes specially with 
 any Irish manufacture or enterprise. No doubt 
 
61 
 
 the great increase in the consumption of tea and 
 sugar amongst the population of Ireland has ren- 
 dered the duties on those articles rather heavy 
 burdens; and, inasmuch as tea and sugar are 
 more heavily taxed than beer, the tea drinkers of 
 Ireland contribute proportionately more than the 
 beer drinkers of Great Britain. That there is a 
 disposition to rectify this is evidenced by the Budget 
 of last Session; and, on the whole, if Ireland has 
 not equally benefited by the alterations in taxa- 
 tion during the last twenty years, this is chiefly 
 due to her comparative want of commerce and 
 manufactures. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 LOCAL TAXATION, AND GRANTS IN AID OF SUCH. 
 
 In considering the question of the local taxation 
 of Great Britain and Ireland, especially in a com- 
 parative point of view, we are met with the diffi- 
 culty of defining accurately what really constitutes 
 a local tax. There are many imposts annually 
 raised, which are of such a nature that it is diffi- 
 cult to determine whether they can really be 
 classed under the head of taxation at all. Many 
 of these duties are levied for services directly ren- 
 dered, and resemble more a portion of the cost of 
 
62 
 
 certain enterprises than those charges which, 
 ordinarily speaking, are considered taxes. More- 
 over, the services for which those charges are 
 made are in some places rendered by public 
 bodies, when the charge appears as a tax ; in 
 other places by private individuals, when a similar 
 charge appears only as the cost of the under- 
 taking. Thus, even if we were of accord as to the 
 classification of charges raised by public bodies as 
 taxes, yet, when we institute a comparison be- 
 tween two localities where different systems are 
 carried out, our comparison will not be fair. 
 
 To a great extent the charges on railways for 
 the conveyance of passengers and goods differ 
 little in principle from the charges on turnpike 
 roads — both are mainly paid for the use of 
 the road, for the expense of making it and keep- 
 ing it up; both are paid in proportion to the 
 use made of the road; and both are paid to com- 
 panies or individuals who expect to make a profit 
 out of the transaction. Tet the one is usually 
 considered amongst the expenses necessarily atten- 
 dant on the production and distribution of wealth, 
 the other usually as a tax. 
 
 But were we on this account to exclude from the 
 category of local taxes the payments made on turn- 
 pike roads, should we equally exclude from that 
 category the payment of highway rates and road 
 cess, which take the place of turnpike tolls in those 
 localities where the roads are kept up by a public 
 rate instead of by charges on the conveyances pass- 
 
63 
 
 ing over them? To be sure, the turnpike toll 
 differs from the road rate in this, that the one is 
 paid for a direct service rendered, and only in pro- 
 portion to that service, whilst the other is paid 
 for public utility, without any necessary connec- 
 tion between the amount paid by the individual 
 and the benefit to himself derived from it. Tet 
 both are payments to a similar object, but under 
 different forms, and both are mainly paid by and 
 for the benefit of the inhabitants of the localities 
 through which the roads pass. 
 
 Again, are we to consider harbour dues, rates 
 for conveyance on canals, etc., in the light of local 
 taxes, or even as taxes at all ? They are all paid 
 to meet the expenses necessarily attendant on 
 keeping up the harbours, canals, etc., and, espe- 
 cially in the case of harbour dues, are in no sense 
 locally contributed. Nor do the difficulties o f 
 arriving at a proper classification of local taxes 
 end here. What are we to say to the charges for 
 public worship and the maintenance of religion ? 
 In these countries a compulsory charge is made 
 for these purposes, but then it is confined to the 
 maintenance of one worship and one religion. 
 Tithes, Church Rates, etc., were, no doubt, origin- 
 ally intended to supply a public want, to afford 
 to the people houses of worship and ministers ^of 
 religion on a definite, secure, and fixed principle; 
 and, if the people were all of one faith, no difficulty 
 would arise as to their classification. This, how- 
 ever, is not the case. Whilst the members of the 
 
64 
 
 Established Church have their religious wants 
 supplied by means of a public tax, the Roman 
 Catholics and Dissenters find the want unsupplied, 
 and have to supplement their payments towards 
 the state Church by additional payments towards 
 the support of their own clergymen and churches. 
 If, then, we are to consider Church Rates, for 
 instance, as a local tax in Great Britain, where it 
 supplies the majority of the inhabitants with the 
 requirements of their worship, how can we insti- 
 tute any fair comparison between it and Ireland 
 without bringing in with the latter country the 
 sums paid by the Roman Catholics, who form the 
 bulk of the population, in keeping up their 
 churches and chapels? Church Rates in Great 
 Britain, and the voluntary subscriptions of the 
 Roman Catholics in Ireland, both accomplish a 
 similar purpose; they both secure for the majority 
 of the people the requirements of their worship, 
 but the one being compulsory and the other 
 voluntary, the former is included in, the latter ex- 
 cluded from, the category of taxation. But this 
 exclusion, on the ground of the voluntary ele- 
 ment, does not render the charge the less real or 
 the less burdensome on Ireland, and consequently 
 presents the case for comparison in an unfavoura- 
 ble light. 
 
 Indeed, a parallel may be drawn between 
 Church rates and road cess, on the one hand, and 
 the subscription towards Catholic churches and 
 turnpike tolls, on the other, which will not, 
 
perhaps, be at all extravagant. Turnpike tolls 
 and the payments by the Roman Catholics to 
 their churches are both, to a certain extent, 
 voluntary. You need not pay the toll if you do 
 not use the road, and you may be prevented from 
 using the church if you do not pay the subscrip- 
 tion or entrance fee; for, although the latter 
 course is not adopted, still the legal right to it 
 exists. Again, both the turnpike tolls and the 
 payments towards Catholic and Dissenting houses 
 of worship are payments towards purposes which, 
 in some localities and under some circumstances, 
 are considered deserving of being provided for by 
 a compulsory rate. Thus we have seen that the 
 roads in some places are so maintained, whilst in 
 like manner the expenses of the houses of worship 
 of certain classes of the community are similarly 
 provided for. 
 
 I need not say that I have not brought forward 
 this argument to show that the voluntary sub- 
 scriptions of the Roman Catholics or Dissenters 
 should be included in the local taxation returns, 
 but I have noticed it merely to show that no 
 absolute bona fide comparison as to the burden of 
 local taxation can be made whilst these anomalies 
 exist. The British churchman of course pays his 
 church-rate and his tithe, but, if he does, he has 
 his religious wants supplied without further cost. 
 The Irish Catholic, on the other hand, though he 
 pays tithes, and in it church-rate, has still, in ad- 
 dition, to supply the requirements of his religion, 
 
66 
 
 and therefore the burden in the one case is not 
 similar to that in the other. 
 
 Subject, however, to these remarks, it may be 
 desirable to give, as far as possible, a statement of 
 the amount of local taxation in the two countries. 
 On this point, Mr. Chisholm has given us in- 
 formation, and according to his returns,* the 
 amount of local taxation in Great Britain in 
 1845 was £12,653,213, and in 1864, £17,848,875; 
 and in Ireland in 1845, £1,636,966, and in 1864, 
 £2,031,264, In these returns, however, many 
 items are included, the amounts of which could 
 not be accurately ascertained in both countries. 
 For the purpose of a comparative statement, the 
 following, also supplied by Mr. Chisholm, f may be 
 taken as substantially accurate : 
 
 1 
 
 Great Britain, 
 Ireland, 
 
 United Kingdom, 
 
 1845. 
 
 1863-4. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 £11,190,820 
 
 1,490,681 
 
 Per cent. 
 88*24 
 
 11-76 
 
 Amount. 
 
 £13,765,853 
 
 1,816,275 
 
 Per cent. 
 8824 
 11-76 
 
 £12,681,451 
 
 £15,582,128 
 
 We thus see that the local taxation of Ireland 
 is even higher in proportion than the imperial 
 taxation, although, of course, as before remarked, 
 no very substantial conclusion can be drawn from 
 this fact. 
 
 A more important item for consideration may 
 be what are called the grants in aid of local tax- 
 
 * Ap. to Report, 1865, p. 119. t Ibid., p. 120. 
 
67 
 
 ation, and those for charitable and literary pur- 
 poses, etc.; that is to say, the amounts granted 
 out of the public revenue for purposes more or 
 less local in their character. These, according to 
 the Report of the Taxation Committee, appear to 
 be the following : 
 
 
 1801. 
 
 1817. 
 
 1845. j 
 
 1863-4.' 
 
 » 
 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Per 
 
 cent. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Per 
 
 cent. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Per 
 
 cent. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Per 
 
 cent. 
 
 , Great 
 Britain, 
 
 77,898 
 
 34 
 
 158,607 
 
 37 
 
 609,679 
 
 53 
 
 2,722,675 
 
 67 
 
 Ireland, 
 
 146,976 
 
 65 
 
 268,257 
 
 62 
 
 537,942 
 
 46 
 
 1,297,988 
 
 32 
 
 From these tables, at first sight, it would seem 
 that the grants in aid of local taxation are, pro- 
 portionately to the general taxation, much greater 
 in Ireland than in Great Britain ; but, if examined 
 into, it will be found that more than two- thirds of 
 the sum granted to Ireland is to meet the expen- 
 diture upon the Constabulary force, and that in 
 connection with this grant many peculiar circum- 
 stances have to be taken into consideration. 
 
 In the first place, the origin of this grant was 
 as a compensation to the owners of land for the 
 abolition of protection. Mr. Chisholm, in his 
 paper, states :f “ In 1846, when proposing the 
 
 * Ap. to Report, 1865, p. 129. 
 
 t This table is taken from the report of the Committee. The 
 per-centage does not appear to be exactly accurate, but is so 
 very nearly so that I have thought it better to quote it as given, 
 rather than to alter it by correction. 
 
68 
 
 abolition of the corn laws, and avowedly as a 
 relief to the burdens on land, on the ground that 
 Ireland especially might suffer from a withdrawal 
 of protection, Sir Robert Peel proposed that the 
 entire expense of the Irish Constabulary should 
 be paid out of the public treasury, and that, to 
 prevent the possibility of all interference by local 
 bodies, the Constabulary force should be placed 
 completely under the control of the Executive 
 Government”. In the next place, the Constabu- 
 lary are not only completely under the control of 
 Government, but to a great extent they act in 
 a sort of military capacity, and are in their con- 
 stitution a semi-military body; and lastly, they are 
 employed for revenue and other purposes of purely 
 imperial and not local character. No doubt, in 
 addition to these duties, they do discharge also 
 the duties of local police, and so far as their pay- 
 ment for these services is concerned, the counties 
 in Ireland do receive an advantage. 
 
 Although, on the whole, including the charges 
 for the Constabulary, a larger proportionate 
 amount is received in Ireland than in Great 
 Britain, yet it is curious to observe, that since 
 1845 the proportion received by Ireland has 
 greatly diminished. Taking in all the grants in- 
 cluded in the above tables, it appears to have 
 fallen off from 46 to 32 per cent. Yet, during 
 this period, the free trade system came into opera- 
 tion, from the effects of which it was not sup- 
 posed that Ireland would benefit in the same pro- 
 
69 
 
 portion as Great Britain. As before remarked, 
 Sir Robert Peel, when introducing the repeal of 
 the corn laws, believed it necessary to lighten in 
 some way the burdens then pressing on land, and 
 believed this specially necessary with regard to Ire- 
 land. With this view, many local expenses in addi* 
 tion to the Irish Constabulary were transferred to 
 the imperial charge ; but it is rather singular that 
 the result of this should be, that Ireland, the coun- 
 try which peculiarly stood in need of this compen- 
 sation, should receive actually a smaller proportion 
 of assistance from the State than she did before. 
 Several local charges were, in Great Britain, 
 transferred from being a burden on the land to 
 the imperial exchequer, but some of these were 
 not so transferred in Ireland. Amongst them we 
 find the half-payment of medical officers of work- 
 houses and dispensaries, the half-payment of union 
 schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, etc., charges 
 from which the land was relieved specially on 
 account of the withdrawal of protection. As yet 
 these charges remain on the land in Ireland ; but 
 it is to be hoped that, next session of Parliament, 
 what was evidently the intention of Sir Robert 
 Peel will be carried out, and these charges placed 
 on the same footing in the two countries. 
 
 I have now done with the question of local taxa- 
 tion, and the grants in its aid. The fullest informa- 
 tion on each of these grants in particular will be 
 found in Mr. Chisholm’s papers, which, on this as on 
 other points, are most instructive and interesting. 
 
70 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 GRANTS AND ADVANCES FOR WORKS OF PUBLIC UTILITY. 
 
 Having now considered both the financial policy 
 of the past and the present burdens on the United 
 Kingdom, as well imperial as local, I might per- 
 haps at once close this sketch. There is, however, 
 another topic intimately connected with the fore- 
 going on which I should wish to say a word, viz., 
 the grants or advances at various times made by 
 the State for works of public utility in the coun- 
 try. During the existence of the Irish Parliament, 
 and before the Union, it seems to have been very 
 much the policy of that body to make grants of 
 this description, and in the annual votes of that 
 period we find sums regularly set apart for such 
 purposes as inland navigation, wide streets, etc. 
 Several of these grants were bequeathed to the 
 Imperial Parliament at the time of the Union, 
 and for many years afterwards we find them ap- 
 pearing in the votes. 
 
 It is not, however, with these old grants that I 
 now purpose to deal, but rather with those of a 
 more modern date, and with those advances by 
 way of loan, of which so much advantage has 
 been taken in Ireland. Strictly speaking, the sys- 
 tem of grants for public works has long ago ceased > 
 and although within the last thirty years Ireland 
 has received many such, yet originally they were 
 given, not as grants, but as advances, and were 
 
71 
 
 subsequently converted into grants, generally in 
 consequence of some mismanagement in their ap- 
 plication, which would have rendered it unjust to 
 have insisted on their repayment. 
 
 Advances for works of utility are now chiefly 
 made through the following channels — either 
 through the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, the 
 Enclosure Commissioners in Great Britain, or the 
 Board of Public Works in Ireland ; and all are 
 supplied from certain funds set aside by Parlia- 
 ment for the purpose. For the better under- 
 standing of the subject, it may be well to consider 
 these systems separately, and then to take a general 
 view of the special advances which were made to 
 Ireland in cases of emergency, and most of which 
 have since been converted into grants. 
 
 In the first place, as regards the advances made 
 by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, it appears 
 from the evidence of Mr. Barnes, the solicitor to 
 that commission, that the total sum advanced to 
 Great Britain was £13,000,000,* of which about 
 £8,000,000 has been repaid, whilst the amount 
 advanced to Ireland, exclusive of a sum for the 
 erection of Union Workhouses, was £ 2, 72 6, 000, f 
 of which £1,200,000 has been repaid. Of the 
 balances yet unpaid in both countries, a certain 
 amount may be considered lost. Amongst these 
 may be included the advance for the Caledonian 
 Canal, Battersea Park, Chelsea Bridge, in Great 
 Britain, and the Ulster Canal in Ireland. The 
 * Report and Evidence, 1865, p. 21. f Ibid., p. 18. 
 
72 
 
 greater proportion of the balance in both coun- 
 tries will probably be repaid, and is still in regular 
 course of payment. 
 
 Although the State can itself borrow money at 
 about three per cent., or, perhaps, a little more, 
 yet the loans under the Exchequer Loan Commis- 
 sion are given only at five per cent. There is, 
 consequently, in all these loans a per-centage of 
 gain to the Exchequer; and, except where a loan 
 is specially provided for by act of parliament, the 
 commissioners grant none without being fully 
 satisfied of the adequacy of the security on the 
 strength of which the loan is contracted. Indeed, 
 so adequate has been the security in every instance 
 required, that the commissioners have never suf- 
 fered any loss, or had the slightest difficulty in 
 enforcing the repayment, except in certain pecu- 
 liar cases where the loans were granted under 
 special acts of parliament. 
 
 Under this last class comes a loan of £1,422,680, 
 granted by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners 
 for Union Workhouses in Ireland, which must 
 be added to the sum of £2,726,000 above quoted. 
 Of this sum £1,323,266 was remitted in what were 
 called the Consolidated Annuities, to which I pur- 
 pose shortly to refer, and £52,145 was repaid.* 
 
 Next to the advances by the Exchequer Loan 
 Commissioners, which are made at five per cent., 
 come those through the Board of Public Works 
 in Ireland. These advances have been made for 
 * Report and Evidence, 1865, p. 19. 
 
73 
 
 various purposes, but chiefly in connection with 
 the improvement of land, drainage, etc., and are 
 made on the principle of a terminable annuity, 
 a portion of the principal, with interest at 3^ 
 per cent., being annually paid. Of these loans 
 £2,243,265* have been advanced for arterial drain- 
 age and navigation, of which £1,190,559 has been 
 remitted, leaving a balance of £970,725, principal, 
 and £418,670, interest, to be repaid. Of this 
 balance £669,524 has been already cleared off, 
 leaving the present balance in course of repay- 
 ment £719,870. In addition to the advances for 
 arterial drainage and navigation, the Board of 
 Public W orks has advanced to private proprietors, 
 under the Land Improvement Acts, sums amount- 
 ing to £1,804,467, and of these none have been 
 remitted. The rent-charge created on this ac- 
 count, including principal and interest, amounted 
 to £2,516,549, and of this sum* more than half, or 
 £1,460,178, has been already repaid, whilst the 
 balance, £1,056,371, is in regular course of repay, 
 ment, without any apprehension of loss in its re- 
 ceipt. The total amount, therefore, advanced for 
 drainage and land improvement was £4,047,732; 
 of this £1,190,559 was remitted, and £2,211,682 
 principal and interest repaid. 
 
 Besides these ordinary loans, several sums have 
 been advanced on extraordinary occasions by spe- 
 cial acts of parliament, such as the large advances 
 at the time of the famine in Ireland. The greater 
 
 Ap. to Report, 1665, p. 78. 
 
74 
 
 proportion of these were subsequently remitted, 
 and, in point of fact, ought to have been grants 
 rather than advances. These were not all made 
 at the same time or for the same purpose; but all 
 that remained unpaid or unremitted in the year 
 1850 were, by act of parliament, formed into 
 what were called the Consolidated Annuities. 
 These Consolidated Annuities amounted in the 
 year 1853 to about £4,000,000, and involved an 
 annual payment of £245,000. In the year above 
 mentioned Mr. Gladstone brought in his famous 
 Budget extending the income-tax to Ireland, and 
 increasing the spirit duties in that country, at the 
 same time blotting out those £4,000,000 of ad- 
 vances. The remission of these loans was at the 
 time represented as a set-off for the imposition of 
 the income-tax and the increased spirit duties, 
 and as the former tax was then imposed merely 
 as a temporary burden, which was expected to 
 diminish annually, and at length expire in 1860, 
 it was calculated that Ireland, by the remission of 
 the Consolidated Annuity charge, would gain 
 more than she would lose by the imposition of the 
 new taxes. 
 
 These calculations, I need hardly say, have 
 proved altogether fallacious; for under the income 
 tax alone Ireland has already contributed over 
 £9,000,000 since 1853; and without alluding to 
 the spirit duties at all, this in itself would have 
 been quite sufficient, not only to pay off the en- 
 tire of the advances, but to leave a large balance 
 behind. 
 
75 
 
 These, then, appear to be the principal advances 
 made' to Great Britain and Ireland for works of 
 public benefit; but to them must be added 
 £3,741,000, advanced by the Inclosure Commis- 
 sion for drainage purposes in Great Britain, the 
 payment of which is in progress. On the whole, 
 if we except certain large sums advanced on ex- 
 traordinary occasions to meet certain emergencies, 
 the State has been no loser by these advances, 
 whilst it cannot be doubted that the country has 
 much benefited. In the advances made through 
 the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, as I have 
 already mentioned, there is an actual money gain 
 to the Exchequer, inasmuch as the State raises 
 money at 3J per cent, and lends it at 5 per cent, 
 interest; and on the other advances, although the 
 interest is not equally high, yet it is always equal 
 to that paid by the State itself for a loan. Of 
 these advances, Ireland, no doubt, appears to have 
 had even more than her proportion, but not more 
 than the circumstances of the country seemed to 
 require. 
 
76 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 Having now come to the conclusion of the de- 
 tailed examination of the principal facts elicited 
 by the Committee, it may not be undesirable 
 briefly to review the whole, and to consider 
 what points they seem to establish. It has been 
 shown — 
 
 1st, That in the Act of Union the principle of 
 payments towards the general expenditure pro- 
 portionate to the resources of the two countries 
 was clearly recognized. 
 
 2nd, That it was so recognized and laid down 
 as the basis of the Union, because at that time 
 the liabilities of the two countries in the way of 
 national debt were not considered to be respec- 
 tively proportionate to their resources, the debt 
 of Ireland being comparatively lower than the 
 debt of Great Britain. 
 
 3rd, That the contributions of each towards 
 the general expenditure were settled in the pro- 
 portions of 2 for Ireland to 15 for Great Britain, 
 this being 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 appa- 
 rently confidently expected, and the heavy charges 
 
77 
 
 consequent on the great European war seem not 
 to have been anticipated. 
 
 5th, That these heavy charges were to a great 
 extent instrumental in falsifying the expectations 
 of the framers of the Union, and that under them 
 Ireland completely broke down, not being able to 
 meet by revenue the amount of her proportion of 
 contribution, 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 had 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 Great Britain. 
 
 8th, That this result having taken place, the ex- 
 chequers were amalgamated, and all distinctions 
 arising out of the proportionate contribution of 
 revenue were done away with, one general finan- 
 cial system for the United Kingdom being estab- 
 lished, although, under it, exact similarity in taxes 
 was not adopted. 
 
78 
 
 9th, That, since the amalgamation of the ex- 
 chequers, 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 1*36 per cent,, and Great Britain 98*64 per 
 cent. 
 
 10th, That through these remissions the trade, 
 commerce, and prosperity of the United Kingdom 
 have largely advanced ; but that in those benefits 
 Ireland has not participated to the same extent as 
 Great Britain, probably in consequence of her 
 comparative want of trade and manufactures. 
 
 11th, That during the last ten years a large 
 increase in the taxation of the kingdom has taken 
 place, but the increase has been proportionably 
 greater in Ireland than in Great Britain. The in- 
 crease 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 ab- 
 solute increase in the taxation of Great Britain, 
 there has been a comparative decrease, 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 advance in wealth being 
 there in a lower ratio than the advance in taxation. 
 
79 
 
 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 
 on the reduction of taxes afiecting it : an elas- 
 ticity and development unfortunately not enjoyed 
 by 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 Ireland 
 is exempt ; but that it does not appear that, were 
 those imposts extended to Ireland, they would 
 yield a considerable amount of revenue. 
 
 16th, 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 population, 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 
 
80 
 
 country appears to be due to the comparative 
 poverty of its inhabitants. 
 
 19th, That the local taxation of Ireland, as far 
 as such can be ascertained, bears a still greater 
 proportion to that of Great Britain than the 
 imperial taxation of the one country does to 
 that of the other, the proportions of local tax- 
 ation being 11*7 per cent, to 88*3 per cent., 
 whilst imperial taxation, as above stated, is con- 
 tributed in the proportion of 10 per cent, to 90 
 per cent. 
 
 20th, That as regards grants in aid of local 
 taxation, including in them the grant for the Irish 
 Constabulary, the proportion received by Ireland 
 is considerable, but is now lower than before the 
 repeal of the corn laws, many grants having been 
 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 Constabulary 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 
 
81 
 
 that of the Irish famine, sums were advanced, the 
 repayment of which had to be remitted. 
 
 23rd, That under the Land Improvement Acts 
 £1,804,467 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 ad- 
 vances Ireland seems to have fairly participated; 
 and that, according to the reports of the Commis 
 sioners of Public Works, she seems to have been 
 greatly served by them. 
 
 These seem to me the principal results esta- 
 blished by the investigation with which I have 
 endeavoured to deal, and with this recapitulation 
 I might be content to close, were it not that a 
 sketch of this description would be imperfect if 
 some consideration were not given to the various 
 schemes proposed for the amelioration of Irish 
 taxation. To the consideration of these I purpose 
 to devote one section more, and in the next chap- 
 ter will briefly consider the various proposals 
 made as to the remission of taxes, and the other 
 indirect methods in which a readjustment might 
 be brought about. 
 
 6 
 
82 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 From the facts narrated in the preceding sections 
 it is evident that, although there are no peculiar 
 taxes pressing on Ireland, and although she is free 
 from certain taxes borne by Great Britain, yet, 
 out of the aggregate wealth of her inhabitants, a 
 larger proportionate amount is contributed to the 
 public revenue than in Great Britain. We have 
 seen that within the ten years commencing 1853 
 the taxation of Ireland increased 52 per cent., and 
 her resources, as estimated by the income tax, 
 only 10 per cent.; whilst the taxation of Great 
 Britain increased only 17 per cent., and her re- 
 sources, similarly estimated, increased 21 per 
 cent. We have also seen that within these ten 
 years many taxes were remitted, but chiefly those 
 which pressed peculiarly on British trade and • 
 manufactures, and from the withdrawal of which 
 that trade and those manufactures immensely 
 benefited. Nor can it be denied that Ireland did 
 not derive from these remissions equal advantages. 
 
 In the first place, the amount of the remissions 
 was less in Ireland, as, from the want of com- 
 merce and manufactures, she had not previously 
 contributed largely to several of these taxes; and, 
 in the next place, through the same comparative 
 absence of trade and manufactures, her resources 
 
83 
 
 did not receive commensurate development on the 
 withdrawal of those commercial shackles. 
 
 From these facts, then, what is the conclusion 
 we ought to draw, or what are the conclusions 
 which have been drawn by others ? I know perfectly 
 well that these comparisons, as stated in the com- 
 mencement, are held by some to be based on an 
 entirely wrong principle, and to be worthless as 
 far as leading to any practical conclusion. They 
 say taxation in the empire ought not to be geo- 
 graphically estimated. If there be no tax pecu- 
 liar to any locality, nor any tax peculiarly oppres- 
 sive to any trade or manufacture, there is no 
 ground for complaint nor ground for remission in 
 the mere fact that the inhabitants in some dis- 
 tricts are poorer than those in others. Or, if you 
 admit this as an ingredient in the levying of taxa- 
 tion, in justice you must not confine it to a dis- 
 tinction between Great Britain and Ireland, but 
 must also distinguish between the richer and 
 poorer districts of Great Britain herself. 
 
 In theory, I admit, it is not easy to answer this 
 argument, and w^ere Great Britain and Ireland 
 essentially the one country, corresponding to two 
 counties in England, I believe it would be almost 
 unanswerable. But in point of fact we know the 
 case is altogether different. Let us theorize about 
 it as we will, we know that there is something more 
 than a mere geographical distinction between 
 Great Britain and Ireland. The habits of the 
 people, their mode of living, the productions of 
 
84 
 
 the two countries, and their sources of wealth, are 
 not at all similar; and though separated only by a 
 narrow expanse of water, there is perhaps as great 
 a difference between them as between nations at 
 different extremities of the globe. In addition 
 to this, we cannot forget that until the com- 
 mencement of the present century these two 
 countries were financially and legislatively inde- 
 pendent, that they then became united on the 
 clear understanding of contributing to the general 
 expenditure only in proportion to their resources, 
 and that although the system of proportionate 
 contribution was subsequently abolished, yet at 
 no time has exact similar taxation been estab- 
 lished, there being some trifling exceptions to it 
 even at the present day. 
 
 That dissimilar taxation ought to be the rule is 
 not the conclusion which I desire to draw from 
 this, nor do I mention it with the view of showing 
 that the natural distinctions between the two coun- 
 tries ought to be perpetuated or increased, but 
 merely to account for comparisons being made, 
 and to justify an inquiry into them. Of course, if 
 we start with the premiss, that similar taxation, 
 no matter of what nature, must be equal ; if we 
 hold that it is sufficient to show that there is no 
 tax pressing on any particular industry in the one 
 country which does not also press on the same in- 
 dustry in the other ; and if all geographical and 
 natural distinctions must be cast aside as unten- 
 able, then, as before remarked, there is no ground 
 
85 
 
 for argument or inquiry. But in spite of these 
 general propositions, into the truth or incorrect- 
 ness of which I do not desire to enter, we must 
 still be aware that comparisons will be made, and 
 made by both sides. We know as a fact that they 
 have at all times been made, and are made at the 
 present day, and that whilst the Irish have com- 
 plained of over taxation, a very prevalent idea in 
 Great Britain has been, that Ireland did not at all 
 bear equal burdens with the rest of the empire, 
 and that, in point of taxation, she was leniently 
 treated. To meet these different views, the in- 
 quiry of last session can hardly have been useless; 
 but in considering its results we must not overlook 
 the various proposals made for the readjustment 
 of taxation, and the reasons why the Committee 
 do not seem to have accepted them. 
 
 From the foregoing I think it is tolerably clear 
 that, were the principle of the Act of Union — viz., 
 contribution in proportion to resources — now in 
 force, Ireland would have a strong claim for a 
 remission of taxation. Let us then, for argument 
 sake, adopt this principle, and in what way, for 
 the greatest benefit of the country, could it, under 
 existing circumstances, be put in force? We have 
 already seen that the description of taxation which 
 presses most on Ireland is that on articles of general 
 consumption. To remedy this would necessitate 
 differential customs duties between Great Britain 
 and Ireland, and would give rise to all the annoy- 
 ances and expense of a foreign cross-channel trade, 
 
86 
 
 the disadvantages of which would far more than 
 counterbalance any supposed advantages likely to 
 arise from the establishment of differential duties. 
 This description of alteration in taxation may, 
 therefore, be set aside as almost impracticable. 
 
 The abolition or reduction of the Income Tax 
 in Ireland has been proposed by some as a simple 
 and easy way of bringing about a readjustment. 
 No doubt this would be feasible and simple in its 
 operation, but then, with regard to it, we must 
 remember that this is not the description of tax- 
 ation which presses most heavily on the inhabitants 
 of Ireland. As far as the tax-payer himself is con- 
 cerned, there seems no reason why the individual 
 with a certain income in Ireland should be free 
 from the tax to which the individual with similar 
 income in England is subject. No doubt there is 
 some force in the argument, that the productive 
 capital of Ireland may, as. a whole, suffer more 
 from the absorption consequent on the income 
 tax, than the amazingly prolific capital of Great 
 Britain, yet it is hardly sufficiently strong to 
 justify the selection of this description of taxation 
 as that, the reduction of which, would be the most 
 beneficial to the country. 
 
 Again, with the exception of the spirit duty, 
 there is no tax peculiarly oppressive on any Irish 
 manufacture or trade. The spirit duty, to be sure, 
 is an exception, and its reduction has been proposed. 
 On the other hand, so far as such reduction would 
 lead to increased cheapness in the commodity, and 
 
87 
 
 increased cheapness to increased consumption, it 
 is doubtful whether the reduction would tend to 
 the moral and material benefit of the country. 
 The reduction, probably, is advocated moreTor the 
 sake of the producer and manufacturer than for 
 the sake of the consumer, and, no doubt, in this 
 respect, many strong arguments may be urged in 
 its favour. Like the malt tax in Great Britain, it is 
 represented as a tax on the agricultural interests 
 of the country, and there can be little doubt that, 
 should the anti-malt-tax agitation succeed in Eng- 
 land, the reduction or abolition of the duty on Irish 
 spirits must accompany the change. If not, the 
 present inequality of imperial burdens will be still 
 further increased, and further confirmation will be 
 given to the theory, that similarity in taxes by no 
 means implies equality in burden. 
 
 If, then, indirect taxation cannot be altered, 
 peculiarly for Ireland, without such inconvenience 
 and so many disadvantageous results as would 
 render it more hurtful than useful ; if direct tax- 
 ation be not that which presses most severely on 
 Ireland; and if the spirit duty — the only principal 
 tax which presses on Irish manufacture — be not 
 selected for reduction, must we conclude that no- 
 thing can or ought to be done in the matter ? 
 
 In the first place, one very obvious conclusion 
 which seems to me to arise from the facts we 
 have considered is this : that in any reduction 
 of taxation which may hereafter take place, 
 such imposts should be selected for remission 
 
88 
 
 as press most heavily on Ireland; and, on the 
 other hand, in the imposition of new taxes, such 
 as would press least heavily on her should be 
 chosen. Should the general interest of the empire 
 require a departure from this rule, and should the 
 imposition or remission of taxes in a different ratio 
 from that indicated above, appear expedient, then 
 Ireland would have a claim to be exceptionally 
 treated. Perhaps, to a certain extent, this claim 
 at present exists, for such has been the course of 
 remission and imposition of taxes during the last 
 twelve years, that whilst it undoubtedly tended to 
 the development of British trade and British re- 
 sources, it decidedly increased the proportion of the 
 national burdens thrown on Ireland. 
 
 But besides the direct readjustment of the tax- 
 ation of the country to which I have just alluded, 
 something also in an indirect form might be 
 effected. Here I may refer to one of the most im- 
 portant proposals brought before the House of 
 Commons during the late session of parliament, 
 viz., the proposed interference of Government in 
 the regulation of railway tariffs. I have before 
 incidentally compared railway fares with certain 
 taxes; and if we examine carefully their nature 
 and effects, we shall find their resemblance very 
 strong. 
 
 The cost of conveyance of goods from the place 
 of production to that of consumption is now 
 chiefly represented by railway fares, and this cost 
 of conveyance affects the producer and consumer 
 
89 
 
 exactly in the same way as a tax to a similar 
 amount. It is, moreover, a tax of the indirect 
 description, and, for the most part, one on articles 
 of general consumption, and, therefore, a tax of 
 that description which is found to press most 
 heavily on the Irish population. Had railways 
 been originally constructed by the state, and were 
 they under Government control and management, 
 the tariff would generally be considered a tax ; 
 but its effects do not alter from the fact that it is 
 now regulated by private companies. Indeed, its 
 evil effects are only aggravated by this, for it is 
 the business of a company to look mainly to 
 making large profits and to having large dividends, 
 and to frame their tariffs to this end; whilst a 
 government might be supposed to frame them for 
 the general benefit of the country. 
 
 In whatever light we regard the nature of rail- 
 way fares, it is clear that their effects are similar to 
 those of similar taxes, and their reduction would 
 be accompanied with similar results. In their 
 effects they resemble taxes on production, taxes 
 on consumption, and taxes on trade ; they are 
 levied, as 1 mentioned before, in the indirect 
 form, and yet are of such a character that they 
 can be easily remitted or reduced in one por- 
 tion of the empire without a similar reduction in 
 all; and the benefit which would arise from their 
 reduction is not one which would be confined to 
 any individual, to any class, or to any locality, 
 but is one which would be felt by the general 
 
90 
 
 producing, consuming, and trading population of 
 the whole kingdom. Wherever any of the articles 
 conveyed would be consumed, there would the 
 benefit be felt; and a reduction of the fares on 
 Irish railways, for instance, might make its effects 
 known in the great consuming populations of 
 Liverpool and Manchester. 
 
 It may be said, indeed, that railway fares have 
 nothing to do with state taxation. These charges, 
 after all, are not taxes; their effects may be 
 similar, but still they are but tariffs of private 
 companies, guaranteed to them by the state, with 
 which we have no right to deal. But is this 
 strictly correct ? Railway companies practically 
 possess a monopoly of the modes of conveyance 
 in the country, but this monopoly has been given 
 to them subject to certain conditions, and one of 
 these conditions, subject to which all railways made 
 since the year 1844 have been constructed, is, to a 
 right on the part of the government to step in 
 and purchase them for the benefit of the nation. 
 The time appointed for putting this right into 
 force was also laid down in the year 1844, and has 
 just now arrived, and into the desirability of its 
 exercise a commission is now inquiring. 
 
 Last session of parliament a proposal was made 
 that an experiment on the state purchase and the 
 lowering of fares should be first tried with regard 
 to the Irish railways. It was urged by the advo- 
 cates of this proposal that the reduction of rail- 
 way fares would not lead to any ultimate loss in 
 
91 
 
 the receipts. They argued that, like a reduction 
 in the rates of certain taxes, the increase in the 
 number of payments at the lower rate would 
 more than counterbalance any immediate loss 
 consequent on the reduction; they showed the 
 very great difference between the rates charged 
 in Ireland, and those charged in foreign countries 
 where the railways were in the hands or under the 
 direction of the government; and they also 
 * pointed to the very great increase in the receipts 
 where the low fares were adopted. 
 
 The state of the case, then, at present is simply 
 this. The government have the power of taking 
 possession of the Irish railways and of lowering the 
 fares, and consequently they have the power of 
 remitting to Ireland charges similar to so much 
 indirect taxation. The exercise of this power, 
 some say, would cause no loss to the exchequer; 
 but even if it did, has Ireland no claim to the re- 
 mission? We have already seen that to free the 
 commerce of Great Britain from the shackles of 
 indirect taxes, to open up her trade, and to ex- 
 tend her manufactures, the taxation of Ireland 
 has been proportionately largely increased; yet 
 this has been held as a fair, wise, and reasonable 
 proceeding, and surely if for similar purposes in 
 Ireland some calls have to be made on the 
 national exchequer, the demand is not unrea- 
 sonable. If to the Irish producer and trader, and 
 to the consumer, in whatever portion of the king- 
 dom he resided, advantages could be given by the 
 
92 
 
 reduction of railway fares, similar to those arising 
 from the remission of so much indirect taxation; 
 and if this could be given without any loss, or, at 
 all events, without the entire loss of the revenue 
 remitted, are there not very strong reasons in 
 favour of its being tried? 
 
 We have before seen the difficulties attendant 
 on any attempt to bring about a readjustment of 
 Irish taxation. We know that that taxation has 
 enormously increased; we may feel pretty certain 
 it is higher in proportion to the resources of the 
 country than the taxation of Great Britain; we 
 know that it is in the indirect form it is chiefly 
 contributed, and that three-fourths of it arise 
 from duties on articles of general consumption; but 
 to remedy this in a way that would affect all classes 
 generally is the difficulty. In the reduction of rail- 
 way fares we have a clear, simple, and efficacious 
 method of accomplishing this. We know that 
 these reductions would operate in the same way 
 as remissions of indirect taxation to a similar 
 amount, and yet would be attendant with none of 
 the disadvantages and inconveniences which, as 
 before mentioned, render every special reduction 
 of indirect taxation for Ireland almost an impossi- 
 bility. The reduction of railway charges would add 
 to the receipts of the landowner, of the manufac- 
 turer, and of the trader, just in the same way as 
 the remission of a tax on the produce of the land, 
 on manufactures, and on trade, would operate, and, 
 by diminishing the cost of conveyance, would so 
 
93 
 
 far diminish the difficulty of distance, and place 
 the lands of Ireland, as it were, in close proximity 
 with the consuming centres of Great Britain. 
 
 Moreover, we must not forget, that all at present 
 proposed regarding the railways of Ireland is as 
 an experiment. There cannot be any question of 
 the fact, that could railway tariffs be lowered 
 through governmental interference, without any 
 loss to the exchequer, this would be of immense 
 benefit to the nation, and the system under which 
 it arose should be extended to the whole United 
 Kingdom. But, in the first instance, before any- 
 thing is known by experience on the subject, the 
 railway system of Great Britain is so extensive 
 that it would be a hazardous undertaking to deal 
 with it all at once, yet to deal with it by piece- 
 meal would be very difficult. An experiment on 
 a small scale is absolutely essential in the com- 
 mencement, and this is what Ireland offers the 
 facility for attempting. 
 
 Any detailed examination of the merits or other- 
 wise of the proposed assumption of the railways 
 by the State would, of course, be quite foreign to 
 the purpose of this sketch, and would open up a 
 subject of entirely too great magnitude. I refer 
 to it here only in its financial aspect, with the 
 view of showing that should it, in the first in- 
 stance, involve a call on the national exchequer, 
 yet this ought not to be an insuperable difficulty, 
 as, for other reasons, Ireland would seem fairly 
 entitled to a remission of taxation if such could 
 
94 
 
 be given consistently with the general well-being 
 of the whole empire. 
 
 Besides remissions of taxation, other means for 
 bringing about a readjustment of the national 
 burdens, through the instrumentality of public 
 expenditure, have been proposed. Into a consider- 
 ation of these I do not purpose to enter, as my 
 object is rather to clear away the difficulties which 
 shroud the facts of the case, than to discuss the in- 
 tricate points of political economy connected with 
 the employment of the public revenue. 
 
 I may, however, briefly state, that it seems to 
 me that the public expenditure should be guided 
 by rules quite irrespective of considerations as to 
 the locality where the money was raised, and that 
 the only valid argument in favour of public ex- 
 penditure in any locality is, that in that locality 
 the object for which it is expended can be best 
 accomplished. Of course this does not so strictly 
 apply to grants or advances for works of public 
 utility. To extend the usefulness of these, and to 
 give to Ireland a full participation in this benefit, 
 * seems to be the general desire ; but still they can 
 be regarded only as supplementary to, and not 
 forming a part of, the financial system of the 
 empire. 
 
 With these remarks l now close this little sketch, 
 and can only say, that if I have succeeded in put- 
 ting this subject in a clearer light, and in placing 
 more prominently before such of the public as 
 take an interest in it, the principal points of in- 
 
95 
 
 terest laid before the Taxation Committee, I have 
 accomplished all I desired, and have to thank such 
 of my readers as have followed me through, per- 
 haps, dry and uninteresting details of a rather 
 intricate subject. 
 
 John F. Fowler, Printer, 3 Crow Street, Dame Street, Dublin. 
 


 4