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 expenditure came near Irish revenue there could be no Irish grievance.  Home Rulers and Unionists met on friendly platforms to denounce the over-taxation of Ireland and to display figures showing the hundreds of millions of profit made by Great Britain out of an unconscionable fiscal bargain.  This criticism missed the real point and the unanimity was short-lived.  No change could be made in the system without Home Rule, and the dissension about Home Rule was strong enough to prevent Irishmen from uniting against a fiscal system which was not only unjust but demoralizing to Ireland.  A Unionist Government was in power for nine more years after 1896, and a Liberal Government, pledged temporarily not to give Home Rule, for four further years.  The natural result was that, in default of Home Rule, all parties in Ireland embraced Sir David Barbour’s insidiously attractive reservation, and have ever since fallen into the habit of regarding additional expenditure on Ireland, not only on its merits, but as a set-off to excessive taxation and as something having no relation whatever to the taxable resources of the country.  Nobody took seriously Sir David Barbour’s counsel of perfection about the reduction of the cost of Irish Civil Government and the allocation of the saving to Ireland, because such a process was, humanly speaking, impossible.  Expenditure is never reduced except by those who raise the money for it.  On the other hand, in the face of the findings of the Royal Commission, and in the face of Ireland’s economic condition, no Government which refused Home Rule could have refused large additional Irish expenditure.  Much of it, indeed, was merely an automatic reflection of the immense growth of national expenditure in the wealthy and expanding partner-country over the water, and took the form of “equivalent grants,” whether for the corresponding British head of expense or for something totally different.  No doubt some of the money was well spent, but all of it came in a wrong form, through wrong channels, and was regarded in Ireland in a false light.  Lastly came Old Age Pensions applied on the British scale to a far poorer population.