xml:lang="en" lang="en" dir="ltr">

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

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

JB/141/005/002

Jump to: navigation, search
Ready for review. Submitted by Kdownunder

Click Here To Edit

Note

* In order to render the distinction between those
several objects as clear as I can make it, I will
illustrate it by an example as familiar and popular
as I can think of.

In 1779 a Jury gave £4000 damages against
the Earl of Halifax for the false imprisonment of
John Wilkes Esqr on suspicion of being the author
of a State libel. The I am asked then what not
of an act it was the Jury did when by giving this
verdict they appointed the sum of money in question
to be paid by one person to another: † whether it was an act of pure hostility of vengeance, of constraint, of antipathy, of self-defence &c. I answer not
an act of pure hosit hostility, for it was on account
of Mr Wilkes: not an act of compulsion – the sum
being once paid nothing further was required of him,
nor of self defence for that implies that there is some
person who is actually using his endeavour to do mischief
to the party defending himself.

Was it an act of vengeance an act of restraint
an act of prevention or act of compensation an
act of self-preservation

I answer that it might have been all these acts
together or either of them separately according to the intention
of the Jurymen.

If any of the Jurymen being irritated against Lord
Halifax whether on a public or private account intended to
produce pain in him and nothing further it was an
act of vengeance and so on that account an act
of punishment.

If any of Juryman felt a prejudice against
Lord Halifax on account of his being a Peer or
Minister or because he was an Irishman or Scotchman
&c it was on the part of that Juryman an act of antipathy

If any Juryman did it in the view of restraining
Lord Halifax, or any one who might occupy that
noblemans place in future, from doing acts of a sort
for which such damages were given & so of preventing
such mischief, it was an act of prevention; and in so
far as the pain suffe evil inflicted on Lord Halifax was
necessary for this purpose, an act of punishment.


Identifier: | JB/141/005/002
"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 141.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

141

Main Headings

rationale of punishment

Folio number

005

Info in main headings field

Image

002

Titles

Category

copy/fair copy sheet

Number of Pages

2

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

f10 / f4

Penner

richard smith

Watermarks

[[watermarks::[britannia with shield emblem]]]

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

48222

Box Contents

UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk