★ Keep up to date with the latest news - subscribe to the Transcribe Bentham newsletter; Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
20
did not see the decision staring him full in the face. The
decision did not turn in the least upon numbers: it is
impossible therefore it should be affected by any variation
in respect of numbers. If the three Parishes in question
were not quite so populous twelve years ago as now, still
they were populous parishes, and very populous: if the
Villas in them were not quite so abundant then as now, still
they were abundant. Suppose for example 200 Villas of
sufficient account then, and 220 of sufficient account now:
would the difference between 200 and 220 make any difference
in the propriety & conclusiveness of the decision?
Will it be said that though good against 200, it becomes
bad the moment the 200 get 20 more, or 200 more,
or any other number more, to join them?
So far from it, that your Memorialist humbly contends,
that if the decisions of the 12 Judges have any
weight when applied as precedents, or any authority in
this country in point of law, beyond the individual instances
which have respectively called them forth, the
moment those Magistrates had decided, that the inhabitants
of that particular vicinity, claiming relief against the
proposed establishment in question on the vague ground of
vicinity were not intitled to such relief, it became law, a
rule of law, and a general rule of law, that not only in that
vicinity, but in every other vicinity, persons claiming relief against
a similar establishment on the mere ground of vicinity,
have no title to relief: and that a Minister who,
after notice given him of such decision, should, upon the mere
|
Identifier: | JB/118/117/004 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 118.
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
26 |
|||
|
118 |
panopticon |
||
|
117 |
|||
|
004 |
|||
|
copy/fair copy sheet |
4 |
||
|
recto |
d17 / d18 / d19 / d20 |
||
|
see note to letter 988, vol. 5 |
39171 |
||