JB/137/187/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/137/187/001: Difference between revisions

Ohsoldgirl (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
TB Editor (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


<head>1820 <sic>Jan.</sic> 27<lb/>Radicalism not dangerous</head><!-- marginal notes in pencil --> <p><note>III<lb/>II</note><lb/>4 <note>(o) &sect;. Democracy extended</note></p> <p>As to impracticability, to carry <add><del>radical parliamentary</del></add> reform <del>into<d/el> radical<lb/>parliamentary reform into practice, they had nothing <add>no more</add> to<lb/>do but go on <Add>to continue</add> as they began: to go on as they had been<lb/>going on for four five or six years. <!-- brackets in pencil --> [for four years says<lb/>Lord Sheffield]  Universality of suffrage they have already:<lb/><add>for as already observed</add> of the bodies <del>of which</del> of <del>whose</del> <add>of the <gap/> description of those by which delegates</add> the delegates from which the<lb/>Convention was composed <add>were sent to the Convention</add> none were excluded: and of <del>those</del><lb/>the individuals <del>of whom those bodies are composed,</del><lb/><del>it</del> who offered themselves to be received into those bodies<lb/>it does not appear that any were rejected: or if any<lb/>were rejected it was on <del>account of</del> <add> some account applying to the</add> individual <del>chos</del> only,<lb/> and not on any generally applicable principle <add>cause</add> of exclusion:<lb/>the great majority being catholics.<hi rend="superscript">+</hi> <note>+ Lord Sheffield</note></p> <p><add><del>Virtual</del> Practical</add> Equality of suffrage, with the consequent demarcation <add>would have</add> followed<lb/>of course: so likewise commonality in some other short period,<lb/>though in comparison of <del>more univers</del> the <gap/> others the difference<lb/>between one and two years would <add>is</add> here of minor<lb/>importance.  Secrecy of suffrage would <add>might</add> have required<lb/>reflection, though under universality reflection would not<lb/>have failed to have this <del>for <sic>tis</sic> the most importan</del><lb/>without which universality would have been no better<lb/>than aristocracy and imposture, for its result.  In this<lb/>there would <del>h</del> indeed have been a change <!-- brackets in pencil -->[though <add>but</add> the only<lb/>change:] a change in <del>this mode of</del> <add> mode only</add>, <add>a change</add> indispensable for producing<lb/>sameness in the effect.  In the original association<lb/>as all joined in the same wish, no man had <add>could have</add> any motive<lb/>for the concealing of his wishes.  Not so, when upon the establishment<lb/>of a regular system of Election for representation to<lb/>sit in Parliament &#x2014; in Parliament the source of <gap/> and<lb/>power, and corruption &#x2014; no vote could be <del>given <add>openly</add></del> known to be given to <!-- continues into margin --> one candidate without offence<lb/>given to all others and their friends</p> <p>[+] when these exerted<lb/>no power that could<lb/>apply any effectual<lb/>opposition to the manifestation<lb/>of that wish,</note></p>
<head>1820 <sic>Jan.</sic> 27<lb/>Radicalism not dangerous</head><!-- marginal notes in pencil --> <p><note>III<lb/>II</note><lb/>4 <note>(o) &sect;. Democracy extended</note></p> <p>As to impracticability, to carry <add><del>radical parliamentary</del></add> reform <del>into</del> radical<lb/>parliamentary reform into practice, they had nothing <add>no more</add> to<lb/>do but go on <add>to continue</add> as they begun: to go on as they had been<lb/>going on for four five or six years. <!-- brackets in pencil --> [for four years says<lb/>Lord <unclear>Sheffield]</unclear> Universality of suffrage they had already:<lb/><add>for as already observed</add> of the bodies <del>by which</del> of <del>whose</del> <add>of the <del><gap/></del> description of those by which delegates</add> the delegates from which the<lb/>Convention was composed <add>were sent to the Convention</add> none were excluded: and of <del>those</del><lb/>the individuals <del>of whom those bodies were composed,</del><lb/><del>it</del> who offered themselves to be received into those bodies<lb/>it does not appear that any were rejected: or if any<lb/>were rejected it was on <del>account of</del> <add> some account applying to the</add> individual <del>chos</del> only,<lb/> and not on any generally applicable principle <add>cause</add> of exclusion:<lb/>in particular, latterly at least not on account of<lb/>Catholicism: the great majority being Catholics.<hi rend="superscript">+</hi> <note>+ Lord <unclear>Sheffield</unclear></note></p> <p><add><del>Virtual</del> Practical</add> Equality of suffrage, with the consequent demarcation <add>would have</add> followed<lb/>of course: so likewise commonality in some other short period,<lb/>though in comparison of <del>more univers</del> the two others the difference<lb/>between one and two years would have <add>is</add> of minor<lb/>importance.  Secrecy of suffrage would <add>might</add> have required<lb/>reflection, though under universality reflection would not<lb/>have failed to have this <del>for <sic>tis</sic> the most importan</del><lb/>without which universality would have been no better<lb/>than aristocracy and imposture, for its result.  In this<lb/>there would <del>h</del> indeed have been a change <!-- brackets in pencil -->[though <add>but</add> the only<lb/>change:] a change in <del>this mode of</del> <add> mode only</add>, <add>a change</add> indispensable for producing<lb/>sameness in the effect.  In the original association<lb/>as all joined in the same wish, no man had <add>could have</add> any motive<lb/>for the concealing of his wishes.  Not so, when upon the establishment<lb/>of a regular system of Election for representation to<lb/>sit in Parliament &#x2014; in Parliament the source of emolument and<lb/>honour, and corruption &#x2014; no vote could be <del>given <add>openly</add></del> known to be given to <!-- continues into margin --> one candidate without offence<lb/>given to all others and their friends</p> <p><note>[+] when there existed<lb/>no power that could<lb/>apply any effectual<lb/>opposition to the manifestation<lb/>of that wish,</note></p>






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

Latest revision as of 12:26, 17 August 2020

Click Here To Edit

1820 Jan. 27
Radicalism not dangerous

III
II

4 (o) §. Democracy extended

As to impracticability, to carry radical parliamentary reform into radical
parliamentary reform into practice, they had nothing no more to
do but go on to continue as they begun: to go on as they had been
going on for four five or six years. [for four years says
Lord Sheffield] Universality of suffrage they had already:
for as already observed of the bodies by which of whose of the description of those by which delegates the delegates from which the
Convention was composed were sent to the Convention none were excluded: and of those
the individuals of whom those bodies were composed,
it who offered themselves to be received into those bodies
it does not appear that any were rejected: or if any
were rejected it was on account of some account applying to the individual chos only,
and not on any generally applicable principle cause of exclusion:
in particular, latterly at least not on account of
Catholicism: the great majority being Catholics.+ + Lord Sheffield

Virtual Practical Equality of suffrage, with the consequent demarcation would have followed
of course: so likewise commonality in some other short period,
though in comparison of more univers the two others the difference
between one and two years would have is of minor
importance. Secrecy of suffrage would might have required
reflection, though under universality reflection would not
have failed to have this for tis the most importan
without which universality would have been no better
than aristocracy and imposture, for its result. In this
there would h indeed have been a change [though but the only
change:] a change in this mode of mode only, a change indispensable for producing
sameness in the effect. In the original association
as all joined in the same wish, no man had could have any motive
for the concealing of his wishes. Not so, when upon the establishment
of a regular system of Election for representation to
sit in Parliament — in Parliament the source of emolument and
honour, and corruption — no vote could be given openly known to be given to one candidate without offence
given to all others and their friends

[+] when there existed
no power that could
apply any effectual
opposition to the manifestation
of that wish,




Identifier: | JB/137/187/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 137.

Date_1

1820-01-27

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

137

Main Headings

radicalism not dangerous

Folio number

187

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

[[watermarks::[prince of wales feathers] i&m 1818]]

Marginals

Paper Producer

arthur wellesley, duke of wellington

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1818

Notes public

ID Number

46904

Box Contents

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