In 1893-94, the last year under review, Ireland, in round figures, was producing a net revenue of seven and a half millions, was costing five and a half millions, and was, therefore, contributing to Imperial services a surplus of two millions. In the same year, while contributing her two millions, she was overtaxed, according to the lowest estimate of the Commissioners, by two and three-quarter millions. But the significance of these figures cannot be discerned without an examination of their counterparts on the British side of the account. In the whole period Great Britain's "true" revenue had risen from L51,445,764 to L89,286,978; her local expenditure from L4,439,333 to L30,618,586, and her net contribution to Imperial services from L47,006,431 to L58,668,392. Her population had increased from 13,765,000 in 1820 to 33,469,000 (estimated) in 1893, but her "true" revenue had _fallen_ per head of the population from L3 13s. to L2 13s. 4d. (approximately), although her local expenditure had risen from 4s. 7d. to L1 2s. (approximately). In other words, a great increase of wealth had enabled the British taxpayer to pay far more while feeling the burden far less. The converse was true of Ireland. The current state of the account in 1893-94 was as follows: Great Britain Ireland 1893-94 (Population, (Population, Totals. 33,469,000). 4,638,000). L L L "True" Revenue 89,286,978 7,568,649 96,855,627 Local Expenditure 30,618,586 5,602,555 36,221,141 Net contribution to Imperial Services 58,668,392 1,966,094 60,634,486 Great Britain, though raising in "true" revenue between eleven and twelve times as much as Ireland, was costing only between five and six times as much to administer as Ireland, and was therefore contributing to Imperial services twenty-eight times as much as Ireland. Now the Commissioners had stated that the taxable capacity of Ireland was not one-eleventh, but, at the utmost, one-twentieth --in other words, that she ought to contribute not more than one-twentieth of the United Kingdom revenue. On that basis she should as we have seen, have been showing a revenue in 1893-94 not of L7,568,649, but of L4,842,781. But, if her local expenditure had also been proportionate to her true taxable capacity of one-twentieth, instead of standing at L5,602,555, it would have stood at L1,811,057, or two-thirds less, while if her net contribution to Imperial services had likewise been a twentieth, instead of paying L1,966,094, she would have had to pay L3,031,724, or a million more.