JB/003/410/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts

JB/003/410/001: Difference between revisions

Kdownunder (talk | contribs)
m Protected "JB/003/410/001": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))
Kdownunder (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/003/410/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/003/410/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<p><!-- pencil -->27 July 1801<lb/>
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<!-- pencil --><head>Annuity Notes</head></p>
 
<p>I was however too scrupulous:  I erred against<lb/>
 
myself:  for <del>the instance</del> <add>by the case <add>above</add></add> just alluded to,<lb/>
 
it is established, that people <hi rend="underline">will</hi> accept £3<lb/>
per cent, even for sums much more than adequate<lb/>
to the purchase of Exchequer Bills.</p>
<p>Observe that though it should be true<lb/>
<del>(to recurr to my own expression)<hi rend="superscript">+</hi></del> that Exchequer<lb/>
Bills would, <add>(to recurr to my own expression<hi rend="superscript">+</hi>) <note><hi rend="superscript">+</hi> Plan, p.17.</note></add> <hi rend="underline">draw off</hi> from the proposed Security<lb/>
Notes all customers for <hi rend="underline">Notes</hi> above <del>that</del><lb/>
the sum spoken of on that occasion, viz: £<del>50:8.</del><add>51..4s.</add><lb/>
notes, yet it is neither true – nor there given<lb/>
by me as true – that they would throw out<lb/>
of the market all <hi rend="underline">sums</hi> above that amount.<lb/>
They would neither shut the door <add>of the market</add> against Annuity<lb/>
Notes, nor so much as rival them, in<lb/>
respect of any sums <del><gap/> to that amount</del> <add>less than £100.</add><lb/>
<del>for</del> <add>because</add> what is <add><del><gap/> <gap/> the <gap/> for</del></add> an offer of £5 an upwards<lb/>
per Cent for £100 <add>good for,</add> to a man who can raise<lb/>
but £99? – He <del>will</del> <add>must</add> content himself<lb/>
with the next best offer he can get.</p>
<p>As to Exchequer Bills – <add>and the notion of their</add> "never <hi rend="underline">having <add>yet</add> performed<lb/>
the functions of money</hi>" – in the first<lb/>
place it is not true – <del>in the next place</del> <add>besides that</add><lb/>
if it were true, <del>it would be nothing to the purpose</del><lb/>
– it would prove nothing against Annuity<lb/>
Notes.</p>
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Untranscribed}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Ready_For_Review}}

Revision as of 01:23, 2 December 2024

Click Here To Edit

27 July 1801
Annuity Notes

I was however too scrupulous: I erred against
myself: for the instance by the case <add>above</add> just alluded to,
it is established, that people will accept £3
per cent, even for sums much more than adequate
to the purchase of Exchequer Bills.

Observe that though it should be true
(to recurr to my own expression)+ that Exchequer
Bills would, (to recurr to my own expression+) + Plan, p.17. draw off from the proposed Security
Notes all customers for Notes above that
the sum spoken of on that occasion, viz: £50:8.51..4s.
notes, yet it is neither true – nor there given
by me as true – that they would throw out
of the market all sums above that amount.
They would neither shut the door of the market against Annuity
Notes, nor so much as rival them, in
respect of any sums to that amount less than £100.
for because what is the for an offer of £5 an upwards
per Cent for £100 good for, to a man who can raise
but £99? – He will must content himself
with the next best offer he can get.

As to Exchequer Bills – and the notion of their "never having yet performed
the functions of money
" – in the first
place it is not true – in the next place besides that
if it were true, it would be nothing to the purpose
– it would prove nothing against Annuity
Notes.


Identifier: | JB/003/410/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 3.

Date_1

1801-07-27

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

003

Main Headings

annuity notes

Folio number

410

Info in main headings field

annuity notes

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

e2 / f47

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

1820

Box Contents

UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk
  • Create account
  • Log in