JB/051/225/004

Click Here To Edit

4

Accommodation Appeal retrograde Why try new establishments when the tried ones
promise so much better? What have the Committee
to say against the Consular jurisdiction.
I have looked at it, and from all I
can find concerning it, it sums perfection itself
in comparison of any all the systems that
surround and cramp it. It has too many
Judges by all that are above one: it were easy
to strike off all that are above one. It has no
appeals above it: it were easy to give it appeals.
Duty sensible, in spite of Montesquieu Duty sensible of the importance of uniformity, they yet suffer their uniformity to be deformed by this ireveracnce It has not so much publicity once as were to be wished:
it were easy to give it more. It is in good odour,
I conceive it should seem with the public: for the Committee,
though not ill-disposed to abrogation will not do not
venture choose to abrogate it. I will venture — why?
because my mode system of procedure is the same
with the procedure system observed there, I will have
none no one of my Courts a Consular Court — why?
because they are all Consular. In a Consular
Court I see a real Reconciliation-Office without
the name.

Identifier: | JB/051/225/004 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 51.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	051	Main Headings	evidence; procedure code
Folio number	225	Info in main headings field
Image	004	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	4
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	d1 / d2 / d3 / d4
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	[[watermarks::floyd & co [britannia with shield emblem]]]
Marginals		Paper Producer	arthur young
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	16390
Box Contents