JB/137/482/001: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 15:57, 3 August 2020

1819 Decr 2
Radicalism not dangerous

II Experience
(7) II. Ireland
After Grattans Speech

After the compleat groundlessness of the assertion has been
then demonstrated what will they now say if they say
any thing?

Will they say that Great Britain is not Ireland

That
That the Irish associated Volunteers are not all of
them without property

That America is not Britain?

Well then suppose all this allowed then what
would it prove?

At the utmost nothing more than this namely
that virtually universally suffrage and not in the
first instance to a single experiment.

But against seeing if what would it
prove?

What against virtual equality of suffrage
What against annuality of suffrage
What against suffrage, as if that
would not entail then payment of assessed taxes to
a certain amount or some other evidence of property
so long as it was not limited to landed property or
any other such narrow shape.

No: the logic would still be there. Universal
suffrage would produce destruction of property:
therefore no other scheme of representation that would
prevent the ruling few from to their interest
the interest of the subject many is endurable.

Identifier: \| JB/137/482/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 137.
Date_1	1819-12-02	Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	137	Main Headings	radicalism not dangerous
Folio number	482	Info in main headings field	radicalism not dangerous
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	c7
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks
Marginals		Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	47199
Box Contents

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
-<head>1819 <sic>Dec<hi rend="superscript">r</hi></sic> 2<lb/>Radicalism not dangerous</head> <!-- marginal notes in pencil --> <p><note>II Experience</note><lb/>(7) <note>II. Ireland<lb/>After Grattans Speech</note></p> <p>After the <sic>compleat</sic> groundlessness of the assertion has been<lb/>then demonstrated what will they now say if they say<lb/>any thing?</p> <p>Will they say that Great Britain is not Ireland</p> <p><del>That</del><lb/>That the Irish associated Volunteers are not all of<lb/>them without property</p> <p> That America is not Britain?</p> <p>Well then suppose all this <unclear>allowed</unclear> then what<lb/>would it prove?</p> <p>At the utmost <gap/> more than this namely<lb/>that virtually universally suffrage and not in the<lb/>first instance to a single experiment.</p> <p>But against seeing if <gap/> what would it<lb/>prove?</p> <p>What against virtual equality of suffrage<lb/>What against <sic>annuality</sic> of suffrage<lb/>What against <gap/> suffrage, as if that<lb/>would not entail then payment of <unclear>assisted</unclear> taxes to<lb/>a certain amount or some other evidence of property<lb/>so long as it was not limited to landed property or<lb/>any other such narrow shape.</p> <p>No: the <gap/> would still be these Universal<lb/>suffrage would produce destruction of property:<lb/>therefore no other scheme of representation that would<lb/>prevent the ruling few from <gap/> to their interest<lb/>the interest of the subject many is endurable.</p>
+<head>1819 <sic>Dec<hi rend="superscript">r</hi></sic> 2<lb/>Radicalism not dangerous</head> <!-- marginal notes in pencil --> <p><note>II Experience</note><lb/>(7) <note>II. Ireland<lb/>After Grattans Speech</note></p> <p>After the <sic>compleat</sic> groundlessness of the assertion has been<lb/>then demonstrated what will they now say if they say<lb/>any thing?</p> <p>Will they say that Great Britain is not Ireland</p> <p><del>That</del><lb/>That the Irish associated Volunteers are not all of<lb/>them without property</p> <p> That America is not Britain?</p> <p>Well then suppose all this allowed then what<lb/>would it prove?</p> <p>At the utmost nothing more than this namely<lb/>that virtually universally suffrage and not in the<lb/>first instance to a single experiment.</p> <p>But against seeing if <gap/> what would it<lb/>prove?</p> <p>What against virtual equality of suffrage<lb/>What against <sic>annuality</sic> of suffrage<lb/>What against <gap/> suffrage, as if that<lb/>would not entail then payment of <unclear>assessed</unclear> taxes to<lb/>a certain amount or some other evidence of property<lb/>so long as it was not limited to landed property or<lb/>any other such narrow shape.</p> <p>No: the logic would still be there. Universal<lb/>suffrage would produce destruction of property:<lb/>therefore no other scheme of representation that would<lb/>prevent the ruling few from <gap/> to their interest<lb/>the interest of the subject many is endurable.</p>
 <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
-{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}}
+{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Views

JB/137/482/001: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 15:57, 3 August 2020

Navigation

Search