1. "Indefinitely expensive."
2. "The ultimate success problematical."
3. "The expenditure utterly incapable of being calculated."
1. With regard to the "indefinite expense." Lord Rosse had proposed to refer this question to the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers, who would have given his opinion after a careful examination of the drawings and notations. These had not been seen by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, if seen by him, would not have been comprehended.
The objection that its success was "problematical" may refer either to its mechanical construction or to its mathematical principles.
Who, possessing one grain of common sense, could look upon the unrivalled workmanship of the then existing portion of the Difference Engine No. 1, and doubt whether a simplified form of the same engine could be executed?
As to any doubt of its mathematical principles, this was excusable in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was himself too practically acquainted with the fallibility of his own figures, over which the severe duties of his office had stultified his brilliant imagination. Far other figures are dear to him—those of speech, in which it cannot be denied he is indeed pre-eminent.
Any junior clerk in his office mighty however, have told him that the power of computing Tables by differences merely required a knowledge of simple addition.
As to the impossibility of ascertaining the expenditure, this merges into the first objection; but a poetical brain must be pardoned when it repeats or amplifies. I will recall to the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer what Lord Rosse really pro-
