1804.] 
Price publifhed his Additional Obferva- 
tions on Civil Liberty ; in which an hifto- 
rical analyfis was given of the national 
debts, and the bef? methods were propofed 
for conducting public loans in future.” 
Nor was it till the publication of his 
Supplement to his two tracts on Civil Li- 
berty, in 1778, that he propofed his 
{cheme for converting ‘low into high 
intereft funds,’ which he renewed in his 
State of the Public Debts, in r783 3 and, 
according to Mr. Morgan, in his Review, 
page 19 et fub. he urged this {cheme to 
r. Pitt in 1786. 
Dr, Price’s propofal upon this fubject 
was introduced, in 1778, by the following 
paragraph, p. 29 of his Supplement, fe- 
cond edition :—<‘* I have obferved, that 
our reductions of intereft have been the 
effect of too narrowia policy. It feems 
to me, that one of the beft meafures that 
can now be adopted, would be to undo 
what we have done in this inftance, by 
refloring the 3 per cent. capitals toa higher 
inierefi, and making this reftoration one 
. the means of raifing the neceflary fup- 
plies.”’ 
Sir James Steuart, in the fecond volume 
and fourth book of his Inquiry, p, 480, 
after defcribing the principle of his 
icheme, fupports it by this example : “ Let 
‘me fuppofe, that in time of war,* the 
3 per cents fell at 742, might not govern- 
ment receive them at 75, and conftitute the 
new fubfcription at 4 percent.” And in 
his recapitulation of this book, p. 636, he 
goes on to fay, ‘*by fuch means, the fum 
of the old capitals would be reduced, and 
a {mali benefit would accrue to the fub- 
feribers.”"-—And he clofes his remarks 
with faying, «* from which a double bene- 
fit would refult ; the price of ftocks would 
be ‘upported on the one hand, and the 
capitals of the public debts would be re- 
duced on the other.” 
Thefe are the very advantages afcribed 
to this fcheme by Dr. Price, p. 33 of his 
Supplement ; namely, the faving of capi- 
tal, and keeping up public credit. 
Objerving then, that Sir James Steuart 
publifhed his work in 1767, and that the 
fourth book of it contains this propofal : 
that Dr. Price quoted this very fourth 
book, for another purpofe, in 1774, and 
in 1778 brought forward his fcheme, 
without either a dire&t or an indireét ac- 
knowledgement to the fource whence he 
had derived it, I think, in faying ‘‘ he 
forgot to acknowledge his debt,” I 
uled the mildet language, to point out the 
* Dr. Price 
publifhed his {cheme in time 
of war, 
Remarks on L. Murray's Englifh Exercifes. 
405 
a 
a 
ungenerous conduct of M. N.’s friend ; 
efpecially when I confider, that the friends 
of Dr. Price claimed for him; in virtue of © 
his writings and fuggeftions upon finking — 
funds and national debts, to have his name 
joined with that of Mr. Pitt,* ‘‘on a 
pillar to public credit, as its pieferver and 
reftorer.”’ Surely juftice requires the 
name of Steuart alio to be included in 
the infcription! Is, therefore, M. N. or 
myfelf moft juftly chargeable with igno- 
rance and folly? “i 
I feel little difpofed to contiaue the em- 
ployment of criticifing the letters of 
M. N. I have, by reference to edition 
and page, endeavoured to eftablifh the 
ftaternents in my former letter to you; a 
cuftom, which, for the future, I would 
recommend to M..N. as it would fave his 
correfpondents fome trouble in detecting 
his mis-quotations: and I feel perfectly 
eafy to leave the ftyle and manner in 
which this controverfy has been conducted, 
to the decifion of your readers; though 
I ftiliretain my firft opinion, that fuch 
epithets as, ‘‘abfurd”’ and ‘‘difeufting,”* 
as **conceited”’ and *¢ illiberal,”? and as 
“fignorance”’ and ‘¢ foliy,’’ ought not to 
difgrace a literary journal. 
London, Now. 2, 1804. W.D. 
Yo the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
$ the Englifh Grammar and Exer- 
i cifes, publifhed by Mr. Lindlay 
Murray, feem to have met with the gene- 
ral approbation of the inffructors of youth, 
it may be worth while to notice one or two 
inftances. of falfe grammar, which have 
received the fanction of this gentleman’s 
authoity. 
In the Key to the Exercifes, at the be- 
ginning of the fecond chapter, the fol- 
lowing is among the corrected fentences. 
‘© Time and chance happen to all mens 
but every perfon does not perceive whom 
it is that governs thele powerful caufes.”’ 
The relative whom, I conceive, fhould be 
in the nominative, and not in the accufa+ 
tive cafe, as it ftands in the above paflage ; 
not only becaufe fuch is the praétice of 
the belt writers, but becaufe it 1s governed 
by the fubftantive verb zs, which always 
requires its object to be in the nominative 
cafe. The noun or objeét, governed by 
the tranfitive verb percezve, is not ex- 
prefled, but underfilood. The refolution 
of the fentence, I take it, is this: ‘* but 
every perion does not perceive the being, 
(that is to fay, that being,) who governs 
thefe powerful caufes.” . The  phrale, 
* Mr. Morgan’s Review, p. 28. 
whe 
