ication, of the immense
difference between these several systems; you must compare them
yourself, article by article; no very pleasing employment, by the way,
to compare the agreement or disagreement of two chimeras. I now only
speak of the comparison of his own two projects. As to the latter of
them, it differs from the former, by having some of the articles
diminished, and others increased.[72] I find the chief article of
reduction arises from the smaller deficiency of land and malt, and of
the annuity funds, which he brings down to 295,561_l._ in his new
estimate, from 502,400_l._ which he had allowed for those articles in
the "Considerations." With this _reduction_, owing, as it must be,
merely to a smaller deficiency of funds, he has nothing at all to do. It
can be no work and no merit of his. But with regard to the _increase_,
the matter is very different. It is all his own; the public is loaded
(for anything we can see to the contrary) entirely _gratis_. The chief
articles of the increase are on the navy,[73] and on the army and
ordnance extraordinaries; the navy being estimated in his "State of the
Nation" 50,000_l._ a year more, and the army and ordnance
extraordinaries 40,000_l._ more, than he had thought proper to allow for
them in that estimate in his "Considerations," which he makes the
foundation of his present project. He has given no sort of reason,
stated no sort of necessity, for this additional allowance, either in
the one article or the other. What is still stronger, he admits that his
allowance for the army and ordnance extras is too great, and expressly
refers you to the "Considerations";[74] where, far from giving
75,000_l._ a year to that service, as the "State of the Nation" has
done, the author apprehends his own scanty provision of 35,000_l._ to be
by far too considerable, and thinks it may well admit of further
reductions.[75] Thus, according to his own principles, this great
economist falls into a vicious prodigality; and is as far in his
estimate from a consistency with his own principles as with the real
nature of the services.

Still, however, his present establishment differs from its archetype of
1764, by being, though raised in particular parts, upon the whole, about
141,000_l._ smaller. It is improved, he tells us, by the experience of
the two last years. One would have concluded that the peace
establishment of these two years had been less than that of 1764, in
order to suggest to t