JB/137/467/001: 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/137/467/001: Difference between revisions

Ohsoldgirl (talk | contribs)
m Protected "JB/137/467/001": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))
TB Editor (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


<head>1819 <sic>Dec.</sic> 3<lb/>Radicalism not dangerous</head> <!-- marginal notes in pencil --> <p><note>Notes<lb/>II. Experience</note><lb/>4 <note>II Ireland<lb/>Grattans Speech</note></p> <p><sic>Par.</sic> 12. [Permanent intoxication and revolutionary riot]<lb/>In these words we have the close and the quintessence of the<lb/>preceding rhodomontade.  Intoxication? O yes those who<lb/>choose to have intoxication may have enough it to make<lb/>sure of the mark they need but keep to open suffrage.<lb/>with the <gap/> and the <del><gap/>,/del> bribery &#x2014; bribery in the<lb/>dry shape, <del>d</del> bribery in the wet shape as they phrase it,<lb/>and intoxication in plenty is the well-assured consequence<lb/>Those who choose to have it, yes: but they and they only<lb/>have it that choose <add.to have it</add> and are determined to have it.  Those<lb/>who do not choose to have it, have secrecy of suffrage<lb/>and there is <del>no</del> neither intoxication nor disturbance.<lb/>Intoxication?  what is there to produce it? who is there who<lb/>has anything to gain by the expense.  <del>Acco</del></p> <p> Accordingly in the United States though at all times<lb/>there is but too much intoxication yet at that one time<lb/>there is no more of it than ay <add>any</add> other times.</p> <p><sic>Par.</sic> 12 [Buyouts, bludgeons and whiskey elected the House &amp;c] Supposing<lb/>suffrage open, this would indeed be a natural <del.<gap/></del> and<lb/><del>n</del> to a vast extent a next to certain consequence. Suppose<lb/>suffrage secret, quite certainly no such state of things would<lb/>have place.  <add>As to bayonets and bludgeons</add> Suffrage secret, what work could then possibly<lb/>be for them?  where would be the mast for them to strike at?<lb/>what would be the provocation <del>for</del> under the spur of which<lb/>they would have to strike.  Accordingly in the United States<lb/>not only buyouts but bludgeons are as <del>much <gap/></del> more<lb/>seen that at a Monarch's <add>the Prince Regent's</add> Drawing Room.</p> <p>Then as to the whisky, suffrage supposed secret, who is<lb/>there to furnish it?  What security could any Candidate have<lb/>that the voters whom he was at the pains and expense of intoxicating<lb/><add>were</add><lb/><!-- continues in margin -->were not any or all<lb/>of them his adversaries?</p>                 
<head>1819 <sic>Dec.</sic> 3<lb/>Radicalism not dangerous</head> <!-- marginal notes in pencil --> <p><note>Notes<lb/>II. Experience</note><lb/>4 <note>II Ireland<lb/>Grattans Speech</note></p> <p><sic>Par.</sic> 12. [Permanent intoxication and revolutionary riot]<lb/>In these words we have the close and the quintessence of the<lb/>preceding rhodomontade.  Intoxication? O yes those who<lb/>choose to have intoxication may have enough it to make<lb/>sure of the mark they need but keep to open suffrage.<lb/>with the intimidation and the <del><gap/></del> bribery &#x2014; bribery in the<lb/>dry shape, <del>d</del> bribery in the wet shape as they phrase it,<lb/>and intoxication in plenty is the well-assured consequence<lb/>Those who choose to have it, yes: but they and they only<lb/>have it that choose <add>to have it</add> and are determined to have it.  Those<lb/>who do not choose to have it, have secrecy of suffrage<lb/>and there is <del>no</del> neither intoxication nor disturbance.<lb/>Intoxication?  what is there to produce it? who is there who<lb/>has anything to gain by the expense.  <del>Acco</del></p> <p> Accordingly in the United States though at all times<lb/>there is but too much intoxication yet at that one time<lb/>there is no more of it than ay <add>any</add> other times.</p> <p><sic>Par.</sic> 12 [Bayonets, bludgeons and whiskey elected the House &amp;c] Supposing<lb/>suffrage open, this would indeed be a natural <del><gap/></del> and<lb/><del>n</del> to a vast extent a next to certain consequence. Suppose<lb/>suffrage secret, quite certainly no such state of things would<lb/>have place.  <add>As to bayonets and bludgeons</add> Suffrage secret, what work could there possibly<lb/>be for them?  where would be the mast for them to strike at?<lb/>what would be the provocation <del>for</del> under the spur of which<lb/>they would have to strike.  Accordingly in the United States<lb/>not only buyouts but bludgeons are as <del>much <gap/></del> more<lb/>seen that at a Monarch's <add>the Prince Regent's</add> Drawing Room.</p> <p>Then as to the whisky, suffrage supposed secret, who is<lb/>there to furnish it?  What security could any Candidate have<lb/>that the voters whom he was at the pain and expense of intoxicating<lb/><add>were</add><lb/><!-- continues in margin -->were not any or all<lb/>of them his adversaries?</p>                 






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

Latest revision as of 14:28, 27 July 2020

Click Here To Edit

1819 Dec. 3
Radicalism not dangerous

Notes
II. Experience

4 II Ireland
Grattans Speech

Par. 12. [Permanent intoxication and revolutionary riot]
In these words we have the close and the quintessence of the
preceding rhodomontade. Intoxication? O yes those who
choose to have intoxication may have enough it to make
sure of the mark they need but keep to open suffrage.
with the intimidation and the bribery — bribery in the
dry shape, d bribery in the wet shape as they phrase it,
and intoxication in plenty is the well-assured consequence
Those who choose to have it, yes: but they and they only
have it that choose to have it and are determined to have it. Those
who do not choose to have it, have secrecy of suffrage
and there is no neither intoxication nor disturbance.
Intoxication? what is there to produce it? who is there who
has anything to gain by the expense. Acco

Accordingly in the United States though at all times
there is but too much intoxication yet at that one time
there is no more of it than ay any other times.

Par. 12 [Bayonets, bludgeons and whiskey elected the House &c] Supposing
suffrage open, this would indeed be a natural and
n to a vast extent a next to certain consequence. Suppose
suffrage secret, quite certainly no such state of things would
have place. As to bayonets and bludgeons Suffrage secret, what work could there possibly
be for them? where would be the mast for them to strike at?
what would be the provocation for under the spur of which
they would have to strike. Accordingly in the United States
not only buyouts but bludgeons are as much more
seen that at a Monarch's the Prince Regent's Drawing Room.

Then as to the whisky, suffrage supposed secret, who is
there to furnish it? What security could any Candidate have
that the voters whom he was at the pain and expense of intoxicating
were
were not any or all
of them his adversaries?




Identifier: | JB/137/467/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 137.

Date_1

1819-12-03

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

137

Main Headings

radicalism not dangerous

Folio number

467

Info in main headings field

radicalism not dangerous

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

e4

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

47184

Box Contents

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