452 



EJlablishment of the Sbiking Fund. 



[pec. !< 



Sidiually eftabliflied was plainly laid down 

 in a pamplilet, entitled " A Letter to a 

 Member ut' the late Parliament concern- 

 m% the Debts of the Nation," publillied 

 in iroi. 



Sir Kobert Walpole claimed great 

 merit as the father of the linking fund 

 eflablillicd by Parliament in 171(j, though 

 it is evident that it I'equired very little 

 knowledge or invention to copy a plan 

 which liad been found fuccefsfui in other 

 Countries, and which had been publicly 

 recommended feveral years before : but 

 whatever claims Sir 1{. Walpole might 

 have to the formation of the plan, he 

 jndifputably bus all the difij;race of hav- 

 ing perverted and dellroycd it. The pe- 

 riod of its ftri6t appropriation to the 

 purpofes for which it was eftablillied was 

 only about fixteen years ; after which it 

 was only occalionally and irregularly ap- 

 plied 10 tlie reduciion of the debt, and 

 at leni'jth the finking fund became a mere 

 nominal diilinction. 



. It thus appears clearly, that the idea 

 •f paying off the national debt by the 

 «onliant and increafui:: operation of a 

 finking fund, is by n(j n)cans a now in- 

 vention ; it certainly did not originate 

 with the gentlemen of Glafgow alluded 

 to by your correfpondent, nor with any 

 writer or projector of the hill hundrecl 

 years. 



About the year ireo. Dr. Price firft 

 effered to the public fome oblerxations 

 on the national debt, in the third chap- 

 ter of his Obfervations on llcverfionary 

 Payments. He ftrongly pointed out the 

 tendency of the funding fyrteni, and that, 

 rather than to continue to contract debts 

 without providing for their rcdeniption, 

 it would be better to ^aife no money 

 but upon terminable annuities; by which 

 means, time would do that necelfarily 

 for the public which, if trulled to uniii- 

 fters, might never be done : bat tlie 

 object which he particularly recommend- 

 ed was the ellablillimeut of a permanent 

 linking fund, on the principle of the 

 fund that had been formerly ellabliflied, 

 and fo foon deftroyed. In 1771, in an 

 Appeal to the Public on the lubject of 

 the National Debt, be iliewed that the 

 beft fcheme for paving otT the national 

 debt was that which had long been 

 known, which had been ellablillied, but 

 unhappily cruflied in its infancy ; and in 

 "1773, in the jMeface to the third edition 

 of his Tieatife on Keveriionary Pay- 

 ments, he took the opportunity of again 

 enforcing the neccflity of reltoring the 

 glan formerly elUibliOied, aiid fccuriug 



it from future perverfion. This advicar 

 was repeatedly urged on fubfequent oc» 

 cafions; and in 1785, when Mr. Pitt was 

 deliberating on the beft means of ef-> 

 tablifhing a new linking fund, he pnrti- 

 cularly fought the advice and afiillance 

 of Dr. Price, who communicated three 

 plans which he conceived to be beft 

 adapted for carrying into execution a 

 meafure he had fo long and fo earneftly 

 recommended. It was one of tiie three 

 plans tiius communicated which was ac- 

 tually adopted, but with fome alterations 

 whicli conliderably aflfeitcd its etlicaryi 

 and which it has lince been found ncecl- 

 fary to correct. 



From thefe circumftances, I truft, your 

 correfpondent will be convinced that liB 

 has gone a little too far in allerting that 

 Dr. Price's ideas on this fubjcft were 

 " wholly overlooked or difrcgarded bv 

 government, as being tlieireiical and 

 impracticable;'' and that, if his friends 

 had not come from Glafgow to London 

 to propofe a tax, objectionable on many 

 grounds, and peculiarly unfit for the pur- 

 pofe to which it was to be applied, " the 

 prefent linking fund, in all probability, 

 would never have exiilcd." 



October IG, IcJOG. J. J. G, 



For the Mont/ih/ Magazine. 



AS the controvcrfy refpetting the late 

 election of a Matlicmatical Pro- 

 fcflbr iu the Univcrlity of Edinburgh has 

 atlrafted very general attention, and is 

 indeed a fubject not a little interefting, 

 inaiinuch as it has branclicd out into 

 fcvcral particulars of foinc importance 

 anil much cini.)iity, a brief re\iew of it, 

 it is prefunud, will not be unacceptable 

 to our readers. 



The controverfy is comprized in a fliort 

 ftatenient of facts by Profetl'or Stewart, 

 an Exiiminatiou of Mr. Stewart's Pam- 

 phlet by a minifter of Edinburgh, and 

 a Letter to the Author of this Examina- 

 tion, by 31r. John Playfair, Profefior of 

 Natural Philofophy in the Univcrfity of 

 Edinburgh. 



The moft prominent and curious fea- 

 ture of this oontroveriy is, that even iu 

 the prefent age of unbounded Inveftiga- 

 tion on all fubje6ts, a particular I'edt, or 

 rather a particular party of a religious 

 fe6t, chiinis the privilegi; of fuperintend- 

 ing tlie proceedings, and deciding con- 

 cerning the doctrines of a very celebrat- 

 ed Uni\crfity ; a privilege which had 

 been iuftered to lie dormant for half a 

 century. It was underflood, we had 

 Uiiaeiucd, that divines aad philofophers 



