JB/121/008/003

'Click Here To Edit

Marg Contents Dispensing Power

Dispensing Power

23 16 27
Leave mala fide misconstruction
unpunished
the dispensing power
is established. p.15

2617. 27
The Duke's words would
serve for a formulary
as the non-obstante
did to James 2nd p.15

22 18.
Mention made of the
old Act 19.G.3 to
chicken the confusion
- this another proof
of mala fides. p.17

2119
Proofs of mala fides
drawn from collateral
circumstances -
1. Plain tenor of the
Act.
2. Notice taken of
it by the Finance
Committee.
3. Deference paid by
Treasury in their
Proceedings to Finance
Reports.-
4. J.B.'s remonstrances
to King - & King's studied neglect. -
5 King an ex-lawyer.
6. Baldwin in the
Duke's Law- Clerk -
7. Nepean's remonstrances
to King.
pp.18.19. & 20.

Excuse 1 20 23
Excuse - the Letter
did not mean to
exclude either classes -
because 2150 was the
number it recommended
instead of 1000.
p.21.

---page break---

Dispensing Power

Excuse 1st21
Answer - This was
from fr confusion of
mind - That number
(2150) was a reduced
number being lower
than a fair number
and King had not
yet learnt from
Long to draw from
those principles
the further reductions
which they afterwards
drew from them.
p.27,22

22. Though other Letters
and not this may
have been the letters
to which the proceedings
of the Treasury
referred - yet this
Letter exists and
serves to shew principles
& explain designs.
p.23

Analoge 2h23 28
Comparison between
the Duke's mode of
assuming legislative
and super-judicial
power and that employed
in the case
of Ship-money. p.24

25 24. 29
The case of this
exercise of dispensing
power compared with
that defended by
Earl Camden. p.25

25.
This though nonsense
is not the less
punishable. p.26

26. 34
The Treasury to
save themselves
called in the Duke
of Portland to rid
them of the Act.
p.27 26 32
In what respect the
commonality was hard
by the Treasury - It was
to find a minister for
the

---page break---

Excuses
1. Not meant to reduce
- it augmented to 2150
2. Not necessary to the
reduction which
which could have been done
without it.
3. Intention not supposable
because success not
possible.
4. Intention not supposable
because attempt not could
have appeared safe.

the plan of manufacturing
it themselves from
the Act, that they
called in the Duke -
who for this purpose
helped them with
the chain of letters
of which this is the
first link.

---page break---

Excuse 2nd 24
Though the individual
letter was not
necessary to produce
the effect, yet the
chain of letters, of
which it is the first
link, was looked
upon by them as necessary,
- since
they thought they
counted a function
read durst not apply
for one to Parliament
&c.

Excuse 3rd 25
This is as much
an instance of
his assumption of
legislative power
as any that can
be conceived: -
Such assumption,
however impossible
in the case of Parliament,
has been realized
behind its
back.

Excuse 4th 26
How this aspersion
came to appear
safe -
Apparent absence
of mala fides, the
only thing necessary:
abuses of error, not:
either in the fight
of J.B. or of the
non-conspiring
Lords
(a
That Nepean would
see the letter was not
known at the time
of writing it.

Identifier: | JB/121/008/003 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 121.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering	1-26
Box	121	Main Headings	Panopticon
Folio number	008	Info in main headings field	Dispensing Power Marg. Contents
Image	003	Titles	Dispensing Power
Category	Marginal summary sheet	Number of Pages	2
Recto/Verso	"Recto" is not in the list (recto, verso) of allowed values for the "Rectoverso" property.	Page Numbering
Penner		Watermarks	CW 1799
Marginals		Paper Producer	C. Abbit Lees
Corrections	Jeremy Bentham	Paper Produced in Year	1799
Notes public		ID Number	003
Box Contents