JB/104/106/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts

JB/104/106/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto loaded
 
Phil.fawcet (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<p>17 July 1810 17</p>
<note>10</note>
<head>Fallacies</head>
<note>Ch. <gap/><gap/></note>
 
<p>4</p>
<note>§.2. Lawyers where trustworthy</note>
 
<p><del><gap/> <gap/> but will first truth of trustwothiness <gap/> <gap/><lb/>
<gap/><gap/><gap/> out of  <gap/> would rather have recourse<lb/>
<gap/><gap/><gap/> of the sovereign is <gap/><gap/><gap/> sovereign himself.</del></p>
 
<p>Within the demesne of the same phantasmagoric species<lb/>
of law When <del><add>as above</add></del> the question is, <hi rend="underline">what is law</hi>, <add>there is</add> another reason<lb/>
<del>there is</del> why <del>authority should have</del> reference must<lb/>
if to any thing be made to authority, and that is<lb/>
that were it not for authority there would be no ground<lb/>
at all to go upon; reason <add>from first to last</add> never having been consulted<lb/>
on the subject, nor on any other that has any<lb/>
practically applicable relation to it.</p>
 
<note>7<lb/>
2. In many cases,<lb/>
but for authority<lb/>
there would be <hi rend="underline">no</hi><lb/>
ground for judgment,<lb/>
reason never having<lb/>
been consulted</note>
 
<p><del>On this particular question one authority there is <add>should seem to be</add> which<lb/>
has some claim to be considered as better <add>rather more</add> <add>safe</add> <add>safer to trust to</add> than that of<lb/>
the gentleman of the long robe <add>sitting at his chambers</add>, or even that of the astrologer:<lb/>
and that is that of the legislator. But <add>[+] in both</add> so as<lb/>
<note><add>[+]</add> except for <gap/> a few<lb/>
odd jobs of a temporary<lb/>
nature such as raising<lb/>
money and coin to<lb/>
keep out Bonaparte</note><lb/>
Houses of Parliament, as well as in every Court in Westminster <note>Hall, and every<lb/>
<gap/> as well of</note><lb/>
universal and so derided is the opinion <add>this sort of <gap/></add> of his unfitness<lb/>
for making law, that should any one <add>man</add> be<lb/>
mad enough to propose any such encroachment upon<lb/>
the property of the twelve Judges, he as well might he<lb/>
have proposed or endeavoured to let a mad dog into the <add>either</add><lb/>
House.</del></p>
 
<note>8<lb/>
For determining what<lb/>
shall be considered<lb/>
as law, legislative<lb/>
authority seems<lb/>
more competent<lb/>
than lawyers or<lb/>
astrologers. Yet<lb/>
propose to refer it to<lb/>
the legislator, <gap/><lb/>
considered as an <gap/><lb/>
on the authority<lb/>
of the Judges<lb/>
and regarded <gap/><lb/>
<gap/> proposed to let a<lb/>
mad dog into the House.</note>
 
<p><del>Not an Attorneys Clerk [is there] in the first <unclear>Zenith</unclear><lb/>
of his Clerkship is there to be found to whose authority<lb/>
<unclear>namely</unclear> more <gap/> of that at least out of every hundred<lb/>
of that mass of harmony and virtue personified would [+],<lb/>
<note>[+] (if I may <gap/> <gap/><lb/>
any trust be put to<lb/>
the whole <gap/> of the<lb/>
assurances I have<lb/>
received from those<lb/>
respectable quarters)</note><lb/>
not rather have recourse <add>see reference</add> made as to the standard of <add>in the character of the rule of action</add><lb/>
obedience rath would not rather in answer to the question<lb/>
what is the determination <add>will, the decision</add> of sovereign power than to what<lb/>
in a word ought the will of <add>is it right fit and right <unclear>thus</unclear></add> the sovereign should be deemed<lb/>
to be <add>[+]</add><lb/>
<note><add>[+]</add> conduct being moreover <add>thereupon</add><lb/>
shaped accordingly</note><lb/>
than to any expression given of that will by the sovereign<lb/>
himself in his own words, in and by the pieces of paper or parchment <gap/><lb/>
<gap/> his own words and as such touched with his own sceptre.</del></p>
 
<note><!-- This note is interpolated between marginal additions above -->
<del>9<lb/>
For the rule of action<lb/>
lawyers would rather<lb/>
take the <gap/><gap/><lb/>
Attorney Clerks, than<lb/>
the will of the <unclear>Legislator</unclear></del></note>





Revision as of 09:16, 10 July 2018

Click Here To Edit

17 July 1810 17

10 Fallacies Ch.

4

§.2. Lawyers where trustworthy

but will first truth of trustwothiness
out of would rather have recourse
of the sovereign is sovereign himself.

Within the demesne of the same phantasmagoric species
of law When as above the question is, what is law, there is another reason
there is why authority should have reference must
if to any thing be made to authority, and that is
that were it not for authority there would be no ground
at all to go upon; reason from first to last never having been consulted
on the subject, nor on any other that has any
practically applicable relation to it.

7
2. In many cases,
but for authority
there would be no
ground for judgment,
reason never having
been consulted

On this particular question one authority there is should seem to be which
has some claim to be considered as better rather more safe safer to trust to than that of
the gentleman of the long robe sitting at his chambers, or even that of the astrologer:
and that is that of the legislator. But [+] in both so as
[+] except for a few
odd jobs of a temporary
nature such as raising
money and coin to
keep out Bonaparte

Houses of Parliament, as well as in every Court in Westminster Hall, and every
as well of

universal and so derided is the opinion this sort of of his unfitness
for making law, that should any one man be
mad enough to propose any such encroachment upon
the property of the twelve Judges, he as well might he
have proposed or endeavoured to let a mad dog into the either
House.

8
For determining what
shall be considered
as law, legislative
authority seems
more competent
than lawyers or
astrologers. Yet
propose to refer it to
the legislator,
considered as an
on the authority
of the Judges
and regarded
proposed to let a
mad dog into the House.

Not an Attorneys Clerk [is there] in the first Zenith
of his Clerkship is there to be found to whose authority
namely more of that at least out of every hundred
of that mass of harmony and virtue personified would [+],
[+] (if I may
any trust be put to
the whole of the
assurances I have
received from those
respectable quarters)

not rather have recourse see reference made as to the standard of in the character of the rule of action
obedience rath would not rather in answer to the question
what is the determination will, the decision of sovereign power than to what
in a word ought the will of is it right fit and right thus the sovereign should be deemed
to be [+]
[+] conduct being moreover thereupon
shaped accordingly

than to any expression given of that will by the sovereign
himself in his own words, in and by the pieces of paper or parchment
his own words and as such touched with his own sceptre.

9
For the rule of action
lawyers would rather
take the
Attorney Clerks, than
the will of the Legislator




Identifier: | JB/104/106/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 104.

Date_1

1810-07-17

Marginal Summary Numbering

7

Box

104

Main Headings

fallacies

Folio number

106

Info in main headings field

fallacies

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

d17 / e4

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

Marginals

jeremy bentham

Paper Producer

Corrections

peregrine bingham

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

34077

Box Contents

UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk
  • Create account
  • Log in