
¢ 



35° 
tranferibe the whole paffage in which he 
has endeavoured to demonttrate the truth 
of this affertion. 
«<< The peace-eftablifhment of 
Great Britain, (exclufive of 
intereft for debt) was 
“* That of Ireland 
«* In a proportion of 5 2 to one.” 
5,800,000 
1,012,000 
<¢ The war-eftablifmment of 
Great Britain ~ ~ - 27,000,C00 
*¢ Of Ireland - - 3,076,000 
_¢* almoft nine to one. Taking a mean 
between thefe proportions it was 8 = to 
one. The proportion of years of peace to 
thofe of war, during the prefent century 
had been fix years of peace to one of war, 
which produced a farther mean of 7 to 
one. Nearly this was the proportion now 
propofed, 7 £ to one, — 
€* To thew the operation of this 
proportion, his lordihip ftated 
the total expenditure-of Great 
Britain laft year at = 
«¢ That of Ireland: = - 
32,700,000 
59439;000 

«¢ Total (Britifh Money) 385,139,000 
«© According to the proportion of 
7 + to the expenditure of Great 
Britain, would have been” 33,699,000 
¢¢ Of Ireland = = 45442,000 
** making a faving to the country on the 
aftual expence of nearly one million fter- 
Hing, which million will, in effect, be 
. thrown upon the. fhoulders of the Britifb 
Miniter to provide for, inftead of giving 
him any financial advantage by the pro- 
pofed Union.”” « (Page 26). 
The peace-eftablifhment of Great Bri- 
tain, as given in this paflage, agrees nei- 
ther with the refolutions of the Englifh - 
Houfe of Commons in July laf, nor with 
the Report of Committee of Finance in 
279%, nor even with the conjectures of that 
Committee when ‘they took upon them- 
felves to prophefy the future annual ex- 
penditure of the country. Compared with 
the two firft, it falls fhort of the a@tual ex- 
penditure, after every deduétion for tem- 
porary -charges, by more than 400,000. 
per annum. Compared with the laft, it 
exceeds the eftimated expenditure by more 
than £150,000 per annus : confequently 
it is lupported neither by experience nor 
hypotheis. The war-eftablifhment in 
both countries becomes every year more 
enormous, anc therefore it is not eafy to 
difcover from what documents, or by what 
procefs, [an expenditure always increafing 
has been afcertained to he fixed and inva. 
riable. But what is ftill more furprifing, 
this very expenditure acain, fo far’from 
continuing invariable, is reprefented in the 
+ 
OLfervations on Lara Caftlereagh’s printed Speech, [May 1, 
very fame page to have increafed confider- 
ably ; and conclufions are drawn from this 
latter ftatement diametrically oppofite to 
thofe which might have been drawn from 
the former one. Thus; the amount of — 
the whole expenditure of Great Britain, 
according to the firft ftatement is {aid to 
be £32,300,000, and of Ireland to be 
£4,088,000. In the fecond it is faid to 
be in each country £32,700,000 and 
£5439,000 refpectively. By taking the 
proportion between thete two latter fums, 
Lord C. finds, that as Great Britain is to 
bear the burthen of 7 4 parts, while Ire, 
land is to bear that of only one part of the 
expence, the former will have to pay in 
future £33,699,000, and the latter only 
£41442,000, or nearly one million lef 
than her ufual expenditure. But if he 
had taken the proportion between the two 
expenditures in his firft ftatement, he 
would have found that Great Britain, ine 
ftead of paying £32,800,000, would in fu- 
ture have only to pay £32,548,000, while 
Ireland, inftead of paying £4,088,000, 
would have to>pay £4,340,000;  ma- 
king a /ofs to the country on the aGtual 
expence> of more than £250,000 fterling, 
which fum will, in effect, be thrown on 
the fhouiders of the Ir Minifter to pro- 
vide for, inftead of giving him any finan- 
cial advantage by the propofed Union.” 
This is certainly,a very ingenious me- 
thod of ftating accounts, and well adapted 
to the purpofes of any Minifter, whether 
he contend for the interefts of Great Bri- 
tain or of Ireland, as it furnifhes him wih 
arguments equally conclufive, by which 
he may prove the financial effedts of the 
Union to be favourable or injurious to ei- 
ther country. 
*¢ The peace-eftablifhment of Great 
Britain to that of Ireland, is here faid to 
be in the proportion of 53 to one; the 
war-eftablifhment in the proportion of nine 
to one;”’ and, therefore, the mean between 
thefe two proportions is faid to be “as 
83 to. one.”"——The readers I believe, will 
be puzzled to find out by what new rule 
in arithmetic this mean has been deter- 
mined. It certainly is neither an arith- 
metical,~nor geometrical mean, and there- 
fore may poflibly be an Jrifo mean ; which, 
depending on the peculiar idiom of his 
country, muft be left for the inventor’s 
own explanation. Indeed, one miftake fol- 
lows another in {uch quick fucceffion, 
throughout the whole of this extraordinary 
patiage, that it is hardly poffible to dif- 
. cover in it an accurate ftatement or ex- 
preflion. Having by one erroneous ope- 
ration determined the expenditure of the 
two 
