The misrepresentation of the increase of the peace establishment is still more extraordinary than that of the interest of the unfunded debt.  The increase is great, undoubtedly.  However, the author finds no fault with it, and urges it only as a matter of argument to support the strange chimerical proposals he is to make us in the close of his work for the increase of revenue.  The greater he made that establishment, the stronger he expected to stand in argument:  but, whatever he expected or proposed, he should have stated the matter fairly.  He tells us that this establishment is nearly 1,500,000_l._ more than it was in 1752, 1753, and other years of peace.  This he has done in his usual manner, by assertion, without troubling himself either with proof or probability.  For he has not given us any state of the peace establishment in the years 1753 and 1754, the time which he means to compare with the present.  As I am obliged to force him to that precision, from which he always flies as from his most dangerous enemy, I have been at the trouble to search the journals in the period between the two last wars:  and I find that the peace establishment, consisting of the navy, the ordnance, and the several incidental expenses, amounted to 2,346,594_l._ Now is this writer wild enough to imagine, that the peace establishment of 1764 and the subsequent years, made up from the same articles, is 3,800,000_l._ and upwards?  His assertion however goes to this.  But I must take the liberty of correcting him in this gross mistake, and from an authority he cannot refuse, from his favorite work, and standing authority, the “Considerations.”  We find there, p. 43[57], the peace establishment of 1764 and 1765 stated at 3,609,700_l._ This is near two hundred thousand pounds less than that given in “The State of the Nation.”  But even from this, in order to render the articles which compose the peace establishment in the two periods correspondent (for otherwise they cannot be compared), we must deduct first, his articles of the deficiency of land and malt, which amount to 300,000_l._ They certainly are no part of the establishment; nor are they included in that sum, which I have stated above for the establishment in the time of the former peace.  If they were proper to be stated at all, they ought to be stated in both accounts.  We must also deduct the deficiencies of funds, 202,400_l._ These deficiencies are the difference between the interest charged on the public for moneys borrowed, and the produce of the taxes laid for the discharge of that interest.  Annual provision is indeed to be made for them by Parliament:  but in the inquiry before us, which is only what charge is brought on the public by interest paid or to be paid for money borrowed, the utmost that the author should do, is to bring into the account the full interest for all that money.  This he has done in p. 15; and he repeats it in p. 18, the very page I am now examining, 2,614,892_l._ To comprehend afterwards in