ot Great Britain,
would be the loser by such a policy. The market of Great Britain is of
infinitely greater importance to Ireland than that of Ireland to Great
Britain." The only point on which the three Commissioners differed
concerned Ireland's contribution to Imperial services. Lord Farrer and
Mr. Currie, taking Home Rule as the foundation of their argument, and
prophesying, quite correctly, that under the Union, in a few years,
Ireland's contribution would disappear altogether, recommended that no
such contribution should be exacted by law until Ireland's taxable
capacity approximately reached that of Great Britain. Lord Welby,
regarding Home Rule as an essential but a distant ideal, was for an
immediate reorganization of Anglo-Irish finances which should provide
for a large reduction of Irish Civil expenditure, the saving to be
devoted, on Sir David Barbour's principle, to Irish purposes, and for a
fixed contribution from Ireland to the Army, Navy, National Debt, etc.
How Lord Welby, consistently with his previous argument, could count
upon any reduction of expenditure in Ireland under the existing
political system it is difficult to see. At any rate, subsequent events
proved both him and Sir David Barbour signally wrong on this important
point.[113]
In every other point the wisdom of the three Commissioners has been
abundantly proved by lapse of time. Do not the conclusions set forth
above bear upon them the stamp of common sense? If it were not for the
inveterate prejudice against Home Rule on other than financial grounds,
no one would dream of disputing them; for they are based on principles
universally accepted in every part of the British Empire but Ireland,
and in most parts of the civilized world. They constitute, in fact,
financially, one of the strongest arguments possible for political Home
Rule.
There, at any rate, lies a clear issue. Seventeen years have not altered
the essential principles involved. On the contrary, it will be seen that
every year of the seventeen has strengthened the argument of Lord Farrer
and his colleagues, and weakened the argument of Sir David Barbour. But,
before proceeding to this final demonstration, let me in general terms
describe what befell the Royal Commission's Report, which was published
in 1896. For a moment all Ireland, irrespective of class or creed, was
alight with patriotic excitement. Few listened to Sir David Barbour's
view, namely, that so long as Irish expe
|