"If N had left those estates and their incomes to the new state"
He did not find them "with the states". He found them as the personal holdings of the prior dynasts, and from those holdings some grants being made to the prior dynasts' functionaries. Are you accusing Napoléon of "systemmatic plundering" for failing to introduce reforms in income and wealth distribution that both prior and later non-Bonapartiste régimes did not themselves implement ?
"I have no way of quantifying the size of these accounts except by going through Six and adding them up. I don`t have the time or inclination."
Maybe take a random sample of some pages and scale up the sample ? This was all your assertion, your opinion. If you don't want to adduce any actual evidence to support your comments, it is fine to leave them as examples of prejudice and/or ill-informed and biased anti-Bonpartiste propaganda.
"There is also no really reliable way to know how much N`s generals squeezed out of Spain and Portugal"
I am sorry. You spoke of Westphalia. I asked about Westphalia. Westphalia was not a combat zone. There was no popular uprising. The systems and methods of the civil administraition of the Empire apply in Westphalia. They did not apply in Iberia or Eastern Europe and Russia.
"I do know that the Westphalian state budget was extremely limited, so much so, that N wrote on that topic to Jerome, reminding him that he (J) `had no money`. N knew this, because he was milking the place dry."
Your assertion. No facts adduced at all. If this was true that Jérôme had "no money", it could have been from a failure to collect taxes, either due to low rates or poor compliance, or to one or more of hundreds of other effects. You throw out "milking dry". Merely repeated your assertions, even if your phrases are more and more colorful, does not inlcude substatiation nor evidence.
"deny that his saintly fingers ever entered any till in Europe"
I denied nothing of the sort. I just asked about your assertion regarding Westphalia. I am not a "fan" of any of these despots !
"You may well be right that the upgrading of the defences of the old state of Holland drained the exchequer in Paris a bit in 1810, but it was N who ordered the expenditure and it was an imperial need, met from imperial funds."
No, if you read my prior post, you will note that the one-time improvements in the coastal installations were paid in 1810 by confiscations of British contraband and the collection of previously evaded customs duties on colonial imports. The items paid by the exchequer in Paris were for the Dutch military and to service prior-incurred Dutch debts.
"The Dutch seem to have been comfortable with a porous sea front through which large amounts of contraband colonial goods flowed"
Well, centainly those involved in this trade (quite a vocal group in Amsterdam) liked it. In general, the Continental System harmed those who traded with Britain or participated in the profits from this trade (the importers themselves, shippers/logistics, insurance, banking, commerical goods manufacturing). Those who benefitted were those whose pursuits were more similar to the French economy's main elements (agriculture, natural resource extraction, government infrastructure and military constructors).
"he invaded Russia in 1812 to try to stop it."
So he announced. The actual decision may well have been a bit more complicated than the announcement.