★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<head>1820 <sic>Apr.</sic> 9</head> <!-- in pencil --> <p>Radicalism not dangerous<lb/> (1) 1 <note>§ Bill of rights abrogated</note></p> <p>§§ The Constitution subverted — Bill of Rights abrogated</p> <p>As to those by | <head>1820 <sic>Apr.</sic> 9</head> <!-- in pencil --> <p>Radicalism not dangerous<lb/> (1) 1 <note>§ Bill of rights abrogated</note></p> <p>§§ The Constitution subverted — Bill of Rights abrogated</p> <p>As to those by whom the Bill of Rights <del><gap/></del> with<lb/>that clause in it was enacted, what they ought to have meant <add> it was right they should mean</add> <lb/>by it is perfectly clear what they actually meant by it<lb/> is not capable of being <add>can not be</add> ascertained, and would be scarce worth<lb/> ascertaining if it could be.</p> <p>That which the <del>preservation</del> security of the people<lb/>against the conjoined power of the Monarchy and the Aristocracy<lb/> required was, a counterpoise <add>force</add> to the military power in the <lb/> hands of the government. For England as every where else<lb/>it was sufficiently understood that the Soldiery <add>a standing army</add>, under the command<lb/> of the Monarch would at all times never <del>be ready to</del> in<lb/> any contest between the <add>body of the</add> people and the Monarch be made to<lb/>act on his side, joined with him in decrying <add>whatsoever</add> the liberties<lb/>were left to the people, and removing all those limitations<lb/> by which the next monarchy <add>stood</add> was distinguished from an<lb/> <sic>mixt</sic> despotism. Against this designer what was the security<lb/>that was understood to be provided? The power of the Lords?<lb/> the power of the Commons? severally or jointly were <add>are</add> these counterforces<lb/> more than any thing that in case of a contest could be<lb/> sufficient. No security: none for this reason. On both parts,<lb/>the here requisite correspondent interest and adequate power<lb/><add>and even correspondent interest</add> were both of them wanting, First as to power. Against the<lb/> Monarch <add>with his thousands of armed and trained Soldiers</add> what could the 513 Members of the House of Commons<lb/>do, even with the assistance of the 100 members, if so<lb/> many of there then were of the House of Lords? Just nothing.<lb/>no strength <add>force</add> could they oppose to the <add>armed</add> force of the Monarch;<lb/><add>unless it was</add> but the force of an armed people. That <add>What then was it that</add> which was requisite<lb/>for their security? In the first place the existence of a people<lb/>in sufficient numbers with arms in their hands ready to<lb/>act <add>if they thought fit</add> against the standing army, should ever a call be made<lb/>upon them for that purpose by <del>either or</del> the Houses of Parliament<lb/> either or both of them <del><gap/></del></p> | ||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} | ||
1820 Apr. 9
Radicalism not dangerous
(1) 1 § Bill of rights abrogated
§§ The Constitution subverted — Bill of Rights abrogated
As to those by whom the Bill of Rights with
that clause in it was enacted, what they ought to have meant it was right they should mean
by it is perfectly clear what they actually meant by it
is not capable of being can not be ascertained, and would be scarce worth
ascertaining if it could be.
That which the preservation security of the people
against the conjoined power of the Monarchy and the Aristocracy
required was, a counterpoise force to the military power in the
hands of the government. For England as every where else
it was sufficiently understood that the Soldiery a standing army, under the command
of the Monarch would at all times never be ready to in
any contest between the body of the people and the Monarch be made to
act on his side, joined with him in decrying whatsoever the liberties
were left to the people, and removing all those limitations
by which the next monarchy stood was distinguished from an
mixt despotism. Against this designer what was the security
that was understood to be provided? The power of the Lords?
the power of the Commons? severally or jointly were are these counterforces
more than any thing that in case of a contest could be
sufficient. No security: none for this reason. On both parts,
the here requisite correspondent interest and adequate power
and even correspondent interest were both of them wanting, First as to power. Against the
Monarch with his thousands of armed and trained Soldiers what could the 513 Members of the House of Commons
do, even with the assistance of the 100 members, if so
many of there then were of the House of Lords? Just nothing.
no strength force could they oppose to the armed force of the Monarch;
unless it was but the force of an armed people. That What then was it that which was requisite
for their security? In the first place the existence of a people
in sufficient numbers with arms in their hands ready to
act if they thought fit against the standing army, should ever a call be made
upon them for that purpose by either or the Houses of Parliament
either or both of them
|
Identifier: | JB/137/228/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 137. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
1820-04-09 |
|||
|
137 |
radicalism not dangerous |
||
|
228 |
radicalism not dangerous |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
c1 / e1 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::[prince of wales feathers] i&m 1818]] |
||
|
arthur wellesley, duke of wellington |
|||
|
1818 |
|||
|
46945 |
|||
