nce he took for granted, a change of general
taxation to suit Ireland was simply impracticable. He did, it is true,
point out incidentally that the same hardship might be said to affect
poor localities in Great Britain and poor individuals in Great Britain,
but he recoiled from the absurd fallacy involved in saying that on that
account Ireland was not unjustly taxed. If he had gone to that length he
could never have signed the unanimous Report.

I only mention this latter point because some outside critics have been
bold enough to assert the fallacy in its completeness, proving, as they
easily can, that the purchase of a pound of tea or a pint of beer is as
great an expense to a man with 10s. a week in Whitechapel as to a man
with 10s. a week in Connemara. Such reasoning nullifies the whole
science of taxation. It would be as sensible to say that our whole
fiscal system might wisely be transplanted in its entirety to any
foreign country or to any self-governing Colony absolutely irrespective
of their social and economic conditions and of their habits. Yet Ireland
in these respects has always differed from Great Britain at least as
much as any self-governing Colony and many European countries. The
tea-tax produces scarcely anything in France; it produces an enormous
amount relatively in Ireland, and is a greater burden there than in
Great Britain. The wine-tax is not felt by Ireland; it is felt more by
England; it would cause a revolution in France. Beer is taxed lightly in
the United Kingdom, but the Irishman drinks only half as much beer as
the Englishman. Meat is untaxed, but the Irish poor eat no meat. Spirits
and tobacco are highly taxed, and they are consumed more largely in
Ireland than in England. And so on. The whole Commission recognized that
the circumstances of the two countries were different, and stated "that
identity of rates of taxation does not necessarily involve equality of
burden."

Nor could Sir David Barbour have dissociated himself from these
conclusions without destroying the rest of his argument. He pointed out
with truth that merely to reduce Irish taxation to its correct level,
and to leave Irish expenditure where it was, would be to wipe out
Ireland's contribution to Imperial purposes and leave her with a subsidy
from Great Britain of three-quarters of a million. On the other hand, he
held, as I have already indicated, that unduly heavy taxation in Ireland
was already compensated for by an ex