★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
Auto loaded |
No edit summary |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<add><p>when the proclaiming the <hi rend="underline">commencement</hi><lb/> | |||
of the war was<lb/> | |||
as much to be avoided, as<lb/> | |||
<hi rend="underline">now</hi> the <hi rend="underline">continuance</hi>.<lb/> | |||
The objection, if <hi rend="underline">good</hi>, would<lb/> | |||
be good against all regulations<lb/> | |||
regarding war as <hi rend="underline">possible.</hi></p></add> | |||
<p>unless the gain was very considerable.</p> | |||
<p>3ly. I do not think the indirect addition to the War Sinking Fund<lb/> | |||
would be considered as very <hi rend="underline">objectionable</hi></p> | |||
<add>I do not mention it <hi rend="underline">as such</hi>,<lb/> | |||
or likely to be <hi rend="underline">thought</hi> such;<lb/> | |||
but the less likely to be<lb/> | |||
thought such, the less need<lb/> | |||
of employing an indirect<lb/> | |||
mode for bringing it to pass.<lb/></add> | |||
<p>that Fund which goes on at<lb/> | |||
Compound Interest for ever being the favourite Fund—whereas what is<lb/> | |||
called the <hi rend="underline">Old</hi> Sinking Fund stops at a definite amount.</p> | |||
<p>4ly Your discrimination of the six Sinking Funds is also correct:<lb/> | |||
but there is also a convention in adhering to the Popular distinction<lb/> | |||
because your 1st and 2d apply to the <hi rend="underline">Old Debt</hi> and therefore are called<lb/> | |||
the <hi rend="underline">Old Sinking Fund</hi>: Your 3rd, being the Sinking Fund for the general<lb/> | |||
War Debt has acquired the name of the <hi rend="underline">New Sinking Fund</hi>, and being<lb/> | |||
subjected to a peculiar system of regulations, may well continue so to be<lb/> | |||
called.</p> | |||
<add>Admitted, that in general a<lb/> | |||
discourse or writing, authoritative<lb/> | |||
or unauthoritative,<lb/> | |||
there would be neither use<lb/> | |||
nor propriety in changing<lb/> | |||
the established language or<lb/> | |||
this head. However in the<lb/> | |||
closet the <hi rend="underline">rapprochemens</hi><lb/> | |||
in question may possibly<lb/> | |||
have their use.<lb/></add> | |||
<p>Your 4th and 5th stand upon separate grounds: and for other reasons<lb/> | |||
require a distinction to be preserved.</p> | |||
<p>Your 6th may never become a Sinking Fund.</p> | |||
<p>Reply</p> | |||
<p>These observations strike me in their full force: so much so, that<lb/> | |||
were it my province to decide, I am by no means clear that it would<lb/> | |||
not appear to me best upon the whole to adhere to the negative, toward<lb/> | |||
which they seem to lean.</p> | |||
<p>I wake the liberty, <hi rend="underline">without the participation of the Commentator, to</hi><lb/> | |||
submit comment and text together: flattering myself that the discussion<lb/> | |||
thus conducted may perhaps be neither displeasing nor altogether uninteresting<lb/> | |||
to those to whom it belongs to judge.</p> | |||
<p>J.B.</p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} |
when the proclaiming the commencement
of the war was
as much to be avoided, as
now the continuance.
The objection, if good, would
be good against all regulations
regarding war as possible.
unless the gain was very considerable.
3ly. I do not think the indirect addition to the War Sinking Fund
would be considered as very objectionable
I do not mention it as such,
or likely to be thought such;
but the less likely to be
thought such, the less need
of employing an indirect
mode for bringing it to pass.
that Fund which goes on at
Compound Interest for ever being the favourite Fund—whereas what is
called the Old Sinking Fund stops at a definite amount.
4ly Your discrimination of the six Sinking Funds is also correct:
but there is also a convention in adhering to the Popular distinction
because your 1st and 2d apply to the Old Debt and therefore are called
the Old Sinking Fund: Your 3rd, being the Sinking Fund for the general
War Debt has acquired the name of the New Sinking Fund, and being
subjected to a peculiar system of regulations, may well continue so to be
called.
Admitted, that in general a
discourse or writing, authoritative
or unauthoritative,
there would be neither use
nor propriety in changing
the established language or
this head. However in the
closet the rapprochemens
in question may possibly
have their use.
Your 4th and 5th stand upon separate grounds: and for other reasons
require a distinction to be preserved.
Your 6th may never become a Sinking Fund.
Reply
These observations strike me in their full force: so much so, that
were it my province to decide, I am by no means clear that it would
not appear to me best upon the whole to adhere to the negative, toward
which they seem to lean.
I wake the liberty, without the participation of the Commentator, to
submit comment and text together: flattering myself that the discussion
thus conducted may perhaps be neither displeasing nor altogether uninteresting
to those to whom it belongs to judge.
J.B.
Identifier: | JB/003/080/004"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 3. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
003 |
annuity notes |
||
080 |
|||
004 |
|||
copy/fair copy sheet |
4 |
||
recto |
f5 / f6 / f7 / |
||
1798 am |
|||
1798 |
|||
"spoilt" |
1490 |
||