★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
<note>Parliament shut</note> | <note>Parliament shut</note> | ||
<p><add>is</add> because you choose to be so. Move that two<lb/>short hand writers be appointed to take & publish<lb/>the debates by the authority of the house, the one<add>to be chosen</add> by the majority, the other by the minority of<lb/>those who vote on the election of the first with<lb/>liberty for any others to check them that think<lb/>proper, in short make it possible for you not<lb/>to be <del>misrepresented</del> <add>misrepresented</add> then <add>after that</add> if you think proper<lb/>to complain you may complain with reason.<lb/></p><p>The <del>plain and candid</del> truth seems to be that the members in<lb/>general would wish not to be <del>have their speeches</del> represented at all:<lb/>some <add>undoubtedly</add> for fear of being convicted of inconsistency with <lb/>themselves or with the sentiments of the people: but<lb/>many more from modesty. [I respect the motive]<lb/>The latter motive is respectable <add>to be respected</add>: but the former <del>h</del><lb/>is to be guarded against. I feel the weight of the<lb/>inconvenience: but what is it in comparison of<lb/>that which is in the opposite scale? Whose interest<lb/>has the best claim to set the law? that of the public<lb/>or that of the individual? If a man feels himself<lb/>unfit for the trust why <add>accept it?</add> will he | <p><add>is</add> because you choose to be so. Move that two<lb/>short hand writers be appointed to take & publish<lb/>the debates by the authority of the house, the one <add>to be chosen</add> by the majority, the other by the minority of<lb/>those who vote on the election of the first with<lb/>liberty for any others to check them that think<lb/>proper, in short make it possible for you not<lb/>to be <del>misrepresented</del> <add>misrepresented</add> and then <add>after that</add> if you think proper<lb/>to complain you may complain with reason.<lb/></p><p>The <del>plain and candid</del> truth seems to be that the members in<lb/>general would wish not to be <del>have their speeches</del> represented at all:<lb/>some <add>undoubtedly</add> for fear of being convicted of inconsistency with <lb/>themselves or with the sentiments of the people: but<lb/>many more from modesty. [I respect the motive]<lb/>The latter motive is respectable <add>to be respected</add>: but the former <del>h</del><lb/>is to be guarded against. I feel the weight of the<lb/>inconvenience: but what is it in comparison of<lb/>that which is in the opposite scale? Whose interest<lb/>has the best claim to set the law? that of the public<lb/>or that of the individual? If a man feels himself<lb/>unfit for the trust why <add>accept it?</add> will he court it, why<lb/>accept it? Does an advocate who has the interest<lb/>of a <del> <gap/></del> shoemaker or a tallow-chandler in charge<lb/>repine at giving this pledge of his <add>diligence &</add> ability? and<lb/>shall it be injustice to expect equal <add>diligence &</add> ability at the<lb/>hands of him who stands charged with the interests<lb/>of the nation?<lb/></p> | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{ | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} | ||
4
Indirect
Parliament shut
is because you choose to be so. Move that two
short hand writers be appointed to take & publish
the debates by the authority of the house, the one to be chosen by the majority, the other by the minority of
those who vote on the election of the first with
liberty for any others to check them that think
proper, in short make it possible for you not
to be misrepresented misrepresented and then after that if you think proper
to complain you may complain with reason.
The plain and candid truth seems to be that the members in
general would wish not to be have their speeches represented at all:
some undoubtedly for fear of being convicted of inconsistency with
themselves or with the sentiments of the people: but
many more from modesty. [I respect the motive]
The latter motive is respectable to be respected: but the former h
is to be guarded against. I feel the weight of the
inconvenience: but what is it in comparison of
that which is in the opposite scale? Whose interest
has the best claim to set the law? that of the public
or that of the individual? If a man feels himself
unfit for the trust why accept it? will he court it, why
accept it? Does an advocate who has the interest
of a shoemaker or a tallow-chandler in charge
repine at giving this pledge of his diligence & ability? and
shall it be injustice to expect equal diligence & ability at the
hands of him who stands charged with the interests
of the nation?
|
Identifier: | JB/087/114/004"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 87. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
087 |
indirect legislation |
||
|
114 |
indirect |
||
|
004 |
|||
|
text sheet |
4 |
||
|
recto |
f1 / / / f4 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::gr [crown motif] [britannia with shield motif]]] |
||
|
27639 |
|||
