JB/095/058/001

Click Here To Edit

XVI.

122 § 15 47

him: in the 47th the option is put of the question.

13 § 13

I know not from what stupidity [it happend, that after
reading this Section] I continued for a long time possessed myself with a notion possessed
with a notion, which continued with one a long which from observing the pains taken
to insert after "Calves" the words "alive or slaughter'd"
that the other amounts mentioned were not to
be within the indulgence, but in a living state: at last upon
closer inspection, I considered that Calves Poultry was
not the less Poultry for being killed dead , Rabbits the
less rabbits, nor Fish the less Fish not even good
red herring for being dried & salted, (although notwithstanding the proverb
honours it with a denomination apart to itself ) but that
labour what was when alive a Calf by being killed or at
least cut up, at least [+] [+] without such a word as "slaughter'd " to prevent it is changed turned <add> metamorphosed </add> into Veal - This being difficult form of
cleared up, I must still acknowledge confess myself to be in a little
great distress about others. embarassed to find an answer to <add> several other questions

1st Whether A carriage could be said to have Calves a single Calf in it, much
in it less "Calves" either "alive or slaughter'd" if every Calf
had lost for example its wanted a Head for example, with
the Pluck &c before it was put in:

---page break---

123 § 13

2dlyWhether Lambs tho' there were ever so many of them
would not, the instant the Breath was out of their body,
lose their & become "Lamb" upon the same principle
that Calves after the like Catastrophe, become
Veal?

3dly Whether it be by accident or design, that Sheep
& Mutton, Oxen & Beef,Deer & Venison, both Welsh
& English were excluded from the indulgence? of being

If by accident, the words "Fish, Flesh, or Fowl, " [+] [+] to which might be added if thought necessary the words "alive or dead" (The
the distinctions between the be not very well defined)
might it should seem be substituted to those in question
with advantage. I remembered not to insert them in
the Draught, least not knowing but that the exceptions which they exclude
might have might have been made in code for some good reason
tho' unknown to me.

Hordes & c If however the beasts are used than Horses, all these
difficulties are at end: for Waggons it is only when drawn by Horses
that the Waggons in question are subjected to the restriction.

So the Words "Animal Provision" there might be this
objection (besides that it is rather too informative the impression
is scarce familiar enough

---page break---

serve to include Provision manufactured as by falling
boiling Putting into Sense &c which seems not to have been within the intendedtion.

All this would be [easily enough ] settled, if one did but know one understood
the design of this Act clause: that is if one did but one know for
what reason it was that any of these commodities [in
any state] was + + was taken or sufferd to live was accepted out of the indulgence in dulto granted to the
rest: but this to many may not be altogether easy

Identifier: | JB/095/058/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 95.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	095	Main Headings
Folio number	058	Info in main headings field
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	[[watermarks::[partial gr crown motif] [partial lion with vryheyt motif]]]
Marginals		Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	30944
Box Contents