3. A revenue rising, but very slowly and inelastically as compared with that of Great Britain, and now showing a ratio of 1 to 15; so that the "over-taxation" of Ireland, as reckoned on the Royal Commission's principles, is still at least three millions.[116]
4. A local expenditure growing rapidly and disproportionately to Irish revenue; now just double the expenditure of 1893-94.
5. A net contribution to Imperial services automatically diminishing with the growth of Irish expenditure, disappearing altogether in 1909-10, and now converted into an adverse balance against Ireland of £1,312,500.
In Great Britain during the same seventeen years, population, taxable capacity, revenue, expenditure, and net contribution to Imperial services have all grown steadily, and, what is more important, in healthy proportions to one another.
On the next page will be found the comparative figures for Ireland and Great Britain of revenue, expenditure, and contribution for 1893-94 and 1910-11.
Let me remark at the outset (a) that they and other official figures given in this chapter are taken from the annual Treasury returns alluded to at p. 242, "Revenue and Expenditure (England, Scotland, and Ireland)" and "Imperial Revenue (Collection and Expenditure) (Great Britain and Ireland)." For the current year 1910-11 the official numbers of these Returns are 220 and 221, and the latter of the two is virtually a continuation of the original return, No. 313 of 1894; (b) that the non-collection of a large part of the revenue of 1909-10, owing to the delay in passing the Budget, makes the revenue figures of the last two years, regarded in isolation, misleading; those of the first year being abnormally low, those of the last abnormally high. I therefore give the mean figures of the two years. Expenditure is, of course, unaffected, (c) That the Irish revenue shown as "true" is reduced by heavy deductions from the revenue as actually collected in Ireland. At p. 244 I explained that this adjustment can be regarded only as approximately correct, owing to the admittedly unreliable methods adopted by the Treasury, (d) That the revenue shown includes non-tax as well as tax revenue.
| Ireland. | Great Britain. | |||
| 1893-94. | 1910-11. | 1893-94. | 1910-11. | |
| Population | 4,638,000 | 4,381,951 | 33,469,000 (estimated) | 40,834,790 |
| "Collected" revenue (including non-tax revenue) | £9,650,649 (mean of two years, 1910-11, 1909-10) | £11,704,500 | £88,728,428 | £156,574,250 (mean of two years, 1910-11, 1909-10) |
| "True" revenue (including non-tax revenue) | £7,568,649 (mean of two years, 1910-11, 1909-10) | £10,032,000 | £89,286,978 | £155,137,250 (mean of two years, 1910-11, 1909-10) |
| Local Expenditure | £5,602,555 | £11,344,500 | £30,618,586 | £60,544,000 |
| Contribution to Imperial Services | £1,966,094 | Nil[A] | £58,668,392 | £94,593,250 |
Irish expenditure has been rapidly overtaking Irish revenue during the last three years. In 1907-08 there was a balance available for Imperial services of £1,811,000; in 1908-09, of only £583,000; and in 1910-11, on the basis of a mean of that and the previous year, the deficit shown above of £1,312,500. The principal cause is the Old Age Pensions Vote, which began in 1908.
If all the elements of the problem be considered together, it will be seen that the fiscal partnership is as ill-matched as ever, and has produced results increasingly anomalous. Each of the partners and their united interests suffer. Ireland is still more heavily taxed relatively to Great Britain, yet Ireland's contribution to Imperial services has been converted into a minus quantity. Why? Because Irish expenditure, paid out of the common purse, has doubled, while Irish revenue has increased by less than a third.
Let me give the final survey of Anglo-Irish finance since the Union, in the tabular form shown by Professor Oldham at the meeting of the British Association in September, 1911: