JB/117/115/004: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/117/115/004: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto loaded
 
BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/117/115/004|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/117/115/004|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<head>Case relative to the Tothill Fields Bill</head>


''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<p>be a considerable <hi rend="underline">National</hi> benefit. &#x2014;</p>


<p>2 That the choice of the Spot in question could not upon the
<lb/>


whole be <hi rend="underline">prejudicial</hi> to the <hi rend="underline">Neighbourhood</hi> of that Spot. &#x2014;</p>
<p>3. That on the contrary it would be <hi rend="underline">beneficial</hi> to the Neighbourhood.&#x2014;</p>
<p>4. That with as few and as slight exceptions (if any) as in the case
<lb/>
of such a Transmutation of property can occur, it would be beneficial
<lb/>
to <hi rend="underline">every</hi> Description of Persons, <hi rend="underline">interested</hi> in point of proprietary Right. &#x2014;</p>
<p>5. That, at the same time, under the Circumstances of the case, no
<lb/>
<hi rend="underline">express</hi> general consent could reasonably be to be expected. &#x2014;</p>
<p>6. But, that is of the number of those cases, where consent
<lb/>
ought not to be looked upon as requisite.&#x2014;</p>
<p>7. That such Consent, not being to be required by the Legislature,
<lb/>
need not be, nor ought to be, applied for in the character of a
<lb/>
condition <hi rend="underline"><foreign>sini que non</foreign></hi>, on the part of the Government, by whom, if at
<lb/>
all, the Bill will be brought forward. &#x2014;</p>
<p>8. That the attempt to act in all points in concurrence with <lb/>
two such unwieldly bodies as a Vestry composed of 50 Members <lb/>
and the Dean and Chapter, would present such a prospect of <lb/>
delay as no Individual concerned in the execution of the measure <lb/>
would expose himself to, especially in addition to a chain of altogether <lb/>
unexpected (not to say unexampled) delays) that have <lb/>
already consumed a period of between five and six Years. &#x2014;</p>
<p>9. That in a case so perfectly in point as to have embraced the<lb/>
same parochial District and the same parties, an Act creating <lb/>
powers of the same sort, but much stronger and attended with<lb/>
prodigiously greater hardship, and having much less strong <lb/>
(if any) Public Ground for its support, was passed, not only<lb/>
<hi rend="underline">without application</hi> for consent, but <hi rend="underline">against</hi> a <hi rend="underline">strong</hi> and <hi rend="underline">general</hi><lb/>
<hi rend="underline">opposition</hi>, on the part of the parties principally interested. &#x2014; </p>
<p>10... That the proposed improvement of the Waste cannot be<lb/>
rejected, but for reasons, which, if admitted, would set up a <lb/>
perpetual Bar to its ever being improved at all. &#x2014;</p>


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

Latest revision as of 10:24, 4 February 2020

Click Here To Edit Case relative to the Tothill Fields Bill

be a considerable National benefit. —

2 That the choice of the Spot in question could not upon the
whole be prejudicial to the Neighbourhood of that Spot. —

3. That on the contrary it would be beneficial to the Neighbourhood.—

4. That with as few and as slight exceptions (if any) as in the case
of such a Transmutation of property can occur, it would be beneficial
to every Description of Persons, interested in point of proprietary Right. —

5. That, at the same time, under the Circumstances of the case, no
express general consent could reasonably be to be expected. —

6. But, that is of the number of those cases, where consent
ought not to be looked upon as requisite.—

7. That such Consent, not being to be required by the Legislature,
need not be, nor ought to be, applied for in the character of a
condition sini que non, on the part of the Government, by whom, if at
all, the Bill will be brought forward. —

8. That the attempt to act in all points in concurrence with
two such unwieldly bodies as a Vestry composed of 50 Members
and the Dean and Chapter, would present such a prospect of
delay as no Individual concerned in the execution of the measure
would expose himself to, especially in addition to a chain of altogether
unexpected (not to say unexampled) delays) that have
already consumed a period of between five and six Years. —

9. That in a case so perfectly in point as to have embraced the
same parochial District and the same parties, an Act creating
powers of the same sort, but much stronger and attended with
prodigiously greater hardship, and having much less strong
(if any) Public Ground for its support, was passed, not only
without application for consent, but against a strong and general
opposition, on the part of the parties principally interested. —

10... That the proposed improvement of the Waste cannot be
rejected, but for reasons, which, if admitted, would set up a
perpetual Bar to its ever being improved at all. —



Identifier: | JB/117/115/004"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 117.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

117

Main Headings

panopticon

Folio number

115

Info in main headings field

case relative to the tothill fields bill

Image

004

Titles

Category

collectanea

Number of Pages

4

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

f13 / f14 / f15 / f16

Penner

Watermarks

g & ep 1794

Marginals

Paper Producer

fr3

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1794

Notes public

ID Number

38732

Box Contents

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