JB/095/076/001

Click Here To Edit

Qualification.

As the requisition of taking to take the Oath is guarded by
no other nor further sanction than the asking actual possession
of the qualification, required to be sworn to, is it is plain no other
advantage is granted by it, than the marking out
more conspicuously for a defaulter by his refusal: nor
even this, where but where it is than
it is not tendered to
him &
where he is unknown
no difficulty a person refusing the Oath being put under no further
difficulty than he would have been under if it
had never been requested.

It carries no compulsion with it upon him to
take the oath, nor upon them to require it:
all that it does amounts to is, that they may
as of liberty to
propose it to him
try whether he will take it or no if they think
proper, & he may & he often declining it, if he
pleases would be just exactly in the same situation he was in as he
was before.

This Section of the original will unavoidably
demand draw on a number many observations: as well concurring whether we consider
the design as the execution the execution or the design

To consider the
execution

As to the execution To take it on a general view besides being in the Oath
With respect to
the whole together
we may observe

The description Qualification is described d of expressed more twice over morein the
which is unnecessary, & it is described
once in the enacting part
differently, which is improper.

The 1st circumstance
which strikes, is different enacting part, and once again in the Oath
is described in the enacting part
which is respect tautology: and it is described expressed
differently, which is confusion.

In the Oath the word enjoyment is added
to the words "Possession or receipt viz viz to wit
"the persons" in a man's own right or that of wife",
of the enacting part: it should seem that
it might be substituted instead of them: and
this is what I have has been accordingly been done in
the new draught. I do not say that it is would not answer for it being
absolutely free from doubts: but if it is
not it is no more than may be said of
them; & cutting one doubtful expression against
another that is better the best exceptionable which is the
& most peculiar

In the original In the firstplace
It seems to have
been consider'd
that a man may
be benefitted by make his advantage of an
estate in two ways
either by taking
either the specific profits
of it himself, or
by a price instead
of them: to express
the 1st of these cases
the word Possession
was inserted.
The word's Receipt
of the Rents & Profit
to express the other
rather indeed for
the sake of explanation
than that
the word Possession
would was sufficient not in a
legal sense to
extend to the both
it was then consider'd
better that this might in a
be to understand it
literally, literal
included the
condition of a bare
Steward or Trustee
and , the
restriction in his
own right was
added.

Curtly it was consider'd
that these
words being frequently
put
in contradistinction opposition
to his wife's
might of themselves be understood
to do so
here, and therefore
the last
mentioned word
were
with them.

together Along with the words Possession or Receipt are inserted
the words or Receipt of the Rents or profits
to fix the unsteadiness of the word former: and order
to express fully the 2 conditions in which a
man's Estate may be said viz: either in
his own hands the hands of another person who pays him
not the specific profits but in practice instead
of them: or in his own hands, in which
latter case alone, according to one sense
of the word, he can be said to be in
actual possession of them, that in another sense
he may be said to be so in the former case.
In the 2d place to distinguish the proportion
from the bare Steward along with both the
foregoing expressions is inserted this further
one to wit "in his own right" and least this should
expression by its being sometimes put in opposition
to the a man's holding "and the right of his wife"
should be understood to do so bare the last mentioned
expression is coupled along with it.

I reason can see no reason why the word enjoyment
should not be understood to express all this:
a man may be said to enjoy x an Estate, and where nothing
more than a present enjoyment is requires
it signifies nothing whether it be in his own
right strictly as in that he came to it or that of his
wifes: whether it be by taking the specific
profits or a rent instead of them and he and
cannot be said he cannot to enjoy it by taking the
profits of it as the Steward for another.
I have said "a present enjoyment" or for
remarkable that nothing further is here
required: & it is from this circumstance
that it seems as if the design were rather
to secure a certain rank in the persons
invested with these powers Trusts than a certain
portion

A provision if
it is worth anything,
is worth all
that precise care in
the framing it
that is are necessary
to give it it's bring it
full efficacy
to perfection

Identifier: | JB/095/076/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 95.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	095	Main Headings
Folio number	076	Info in main headings field	qualification
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	[[watermarks::gr [crown motif] [lion with vryheyt motif]]]
Marginals		Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	30962
Box Contents