1802. ] 
vanity, in M. N. when he advifes menot to 
refume my. pen, until Tam ‘* become a 
greater proficient in finance.’’ Is not this 
exhortation an evident proof of felf-com- 
placence? M. N. may write upon fi- 
nance, but J amunqualified for the arduous 
tafk, Hewho boldly, and confidently ac- 
cufes another of dullnefs and ignorance, 
and recommends his opponent to retire from 
the field, as being unworthy to cope with 
him, may, in general, be faid to entertain 
a moft exalted, if not an ill-founded, opi- 
nion, of his own talents. But I muft not 
forget, that the public cannot be interefted 
in a queftion, whether M.N. or O. P. be 
infected with vanity, or which. poffeffes 
the greateft fhare of it; and therefore, I 
difmifs this part of M. N’s-letter, in 
which it appears, that he has not been fuf- 
ficiently accurate in his quotation. 
Having made this perfonal attack 
(which, I hope, has been completely re- 
pelled,) M. N. proceeds to ftate, that 
‘< this pretenfion of fupplying the public 
with amore accurate account of its debt is 
wholly founded on the difcovery, that a 
nation may fell the fee-fimple of a tax, and 
yet continue to reckon the annual produce of 
zt, asa part of its income.’ Ihave ade 
vanced, Sir, no fuch abfurdity. I have, 
on the contrary, blamed the minifter for 
continuing to reckon 2,000,000l. as the an- 
nual produce of theland-tax, after having 
fold the fee-fimple of a part—but I mutt 
intreat you, Sir, to infert, a fecond time, 
the words which I have really ufed. 
*< True it is, as M.N. has remarked, that 
the minifter ought not to calculate, in. his 
ways and means, upon 2,000,c001. as the 
annual produce of the land-tax, and, at 
the fame time deduét that part of it, 
which has been redeemed, from the public 
debt; but it is only in over-rating his 
ways and means,that he has erred. He 
fells an eftate, and appropriates the pur- 
chafe money to the payment of debts; and 
then reckons upon the rents of the eftate, 
as arefource for future debts, which he. 
may incur.’” (Vide the remainder of the. 
paragraph.) In truth, Sir, M. N. feems 
to have read my ohfervations with the 
fame hafte, with which he took up the 
idea, erroneous according to his own con- 
feffion, that Mr. Tierney had confidered 
the imperial loans, as part of the funded 
debt of Great Britain. Far be it from 
me, to accufe him of wilful mifreprefenta- 
tion: I.would not wrong him by fo un- 
warrantable a fuppofition. ) 
Let me now, Sir, proceed to notice 
M.N’s defence of the amount of the funded 
debt, as tated by Mr. Morgan. To juf- 
tify Mr. Morgan in computing it to be 
MonTaiy Mac. No, 84, 
Reply to Md. N. onthe National Debt. 
105 
558,000,000], without deducting the 
52,000,000]. in the hands of the com- 
miffioners for reducing the national debt, 
M,N. contends, that the latter fum ought 
to be included, becaufe it, was Mr. More 
gan’s object ‘¢ to. lay before the public an 
account of the money adtually expended, 
during Mr, Pitt’s adminiftration.””. But 
J rather chufe to take Mr. Morgan’s own 
words, than M. N’s explanation of them, 
Mr. Morgan afferts, 22 an unqualified 
manner, that ‘the capital of the public debt 
had accumulated to the enormous mals of 
558,000,000]. ;°” but I fhall ever main- 
tain that, in eftimating the prefent amount 
of the capital of the public debt, he ought to, 
have deducted the 52,000,0001. of ftock 
in the poffeffion of the commifMioners, &ce 
&c. unlefs, indeed, I can be brought to 
believe that a debt, and the means of can- | 
celling it, be one and the fame thing. 
Now Mr. Morgan fhould he read this cons: 
troverfy, muft {mile to fee his unknown 
admirer-fcatter his harmlefs weapons, and. 
difplay fuch feeble effurts in his vindica- 
tion! I cannot refrain, Sir, from taking 
notice, in this place, how M. N. appears 
to kindle with indignation at a fuppofed 
accufation, on my part, of want of can- 
dour in Mr. Morgan, for having omitted 
to deduct the ftock redeemed. No per- 
fon is le{s inclined to {peak difrefpeétfully 
of Mr. Morgan, than myfelf. I profeffed 
the admiration which I felt for his ta- 
lents and character. I meant to convéy, 
that Mr. Morgan’s ftrong averfion to 
Mr. Pitt’s adminifration might, infen= 
fibly to himfelf, have given a wrong bias 
to his judgment in this inftance, and led 
him to commit an at of unfairnefs, which 
was totally at variance with the whole of 
his former conduét. If my words juftly 
bear the interpretation of M. N, Tfhall be 
extremely forry that I made ufe of them. 
As to the attack made upon my efti- 
mate of the unfunded debt, I am ready to 
allow that it is forcible, nay irrefittible. 
I am convinced that [ ought not to have 
excluded from my computation the whole 
3,000,000]. advanced to Government by 
the Bank of England,- without interelt, 
and to be repaid in 1806. As my only 
object was to give a ftatement of the pre- 
fent debt, and the fum abovementioned 
could be in’ no fhape a charge upon the 
public until a very diftant day, I thonghe 
that, at zhzs time, it fhould not ‘be reckon- 
ed. In this reafoning i confefs, without 
hefitation, that I was miftaken,. and un< 
doubtedly ] ought to have added to the 
amount of the outiending demands the 
3,000,000], after dedudting that abate- 
ment which, the bank would of courfe 
5 make 
