JB/002/348/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/002/348/001: Difference between revisions

TB Editor (talk | contribs)
Created page with ''''[{{fullurl:JB/002/348/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> ''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet'' <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELO…'
 
BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<note><!-- Pencil note -->35 Cause &amp;c</note><lb/>
<p>In the Bank note too there is something in the <note><!-- Pencil note -->16 continued</note><lb/>
neatness of the engraving and the <add>conspicuous and</add> emphatic display<lb/>
of the sum, that can not but be particularly attractive<lb/>
and fascinating to an ordinary eye.  In the Exchequer<lb/>
Bill there is no such display of the sum, and<lb/>
the impression of the long winded explanation of the conditions<lb/>
of payment has nothing particulat to recommend<lb/>
it</p>
<p>&#x2014;</p>
<p>A Navy Bill is in all these points in a <lb/>
most remarkable degree inferior to the Exchequer<lb/>
Bill.  <del>In its <gap/> it</del> It is the whole of it in ordinary <lb/>
writing without any of <add>these</add> engrave embellishments which <lb/>
decorate in a small degree an Exchequer Bill, <add>but</add>and<lb/>
in a much higher degree a Bank note.  It has <del>in</del><lb/>
in short exactly the  <del><gap/></del> appearance of an ordinary<lb/>
Tradesman's Bill.  It occupies too a whole sheet of<lb/>
folio paper: and what is more this sheet is not <del>sufficient</del><lb/>
<del>for</del> transferable from hand to hand without<lb/>
an assignment in form occupying another sheet.<lb/>
<del>and which</del><add>Either of these sheets forms a mass so much too large for the pocket<lb/>
or the pocket-book as to <del><gap/> the instance</del> unfit the instrument in a</add> instead of being expressed in the concise <del>and</del> <note>very considerable degree<lb/>
for general circulation<lb/>
both of them together<lb/>
consequently still more.<lb/>
The assignment too </note><lb/>
<del>significant <unclear>stile</unclear> of</del><add>significance of the</add> mercantile <del>language</del><add><sic>stile</sic></add> is <del><unclear>conceived</unclear></del><add><del><unclear>stupid</unclear></del></add><lb/>
loaded and perplexed with the superfluities which characterize<lb/>
lawyers language. <add>But</add> Wherever the hand of the<lb/>
Lawyer is visible, diffidence follows of course.</p> <pb/>
 
 
 
 




<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 09:26, 4 February 2020

Click Here To Edit

35 Cause &c

In the Bank note too there is something in the 16 continued
neatness of the engraving and the conspicuous and emphatic display
of the sum, that can not but be particularly attractive
and fascinating to an ordinary eye. In the Exchequer
Bill there is no such display of the sum, and
the impression of the long winded explanation of the conditions
of payment has nothing particulat to recommend
it

A Navy Bill is in all these points in a
most remarkable degree inferior to the Exchequer
Bill. In its it It is the whole of it in ordinary
writing without any of these engrave embellishments which
decorate in a small degree an Exchequer Bill, butand
in a much higher degree a Bank note. It has in
in short exactly the appearance of an ordinary
Tradesman's Bill. It occupies too a whole sheet of
folio paper: and what is more this sheet is not sufficient
for transferable from hand to hand without
an assignment in form occupying another sheet.
and whichEither of these sheets forms a mass so much too large for the pocket
or the pocket-book as to the instance unfit the instrument in a
instead of being expressed in the concise and very considerable degree
for general circulation
both of them together
consequently still more.
The assignment too

significant stile ofsignificance of the mercantile languagestile is conceivedstupid
loaded and perplexed with the superfluities which characterize
lawyers language. But Wherever the hand of the
Lawyer is visible, diffidence follows of course.


---page break---




Metadata:JB/002/348/001

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