JB/122/271/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/122/271/001: Difference between revisions

Ohsoldgirl (talk | contribs)
m Protected "JB/122/271/001": 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:


<!-- header and marginal summaries in pencil -->
<!-- header and marginal summaries in pencil -->
<p>10 <sic>Aug.</sic>> 1808 V. + B<lb/><note>To Mallet</note><lb/>(1) <note>V. Irresponsibility<lb/>2. Reforming Statute</note></p> <p><note>1.<lb/>Evidence of the <add>acknowledged</add.<lb/>untrustworthiness of the<lb/>Board for want of<lb/>individual responsibility<lb/>afforded by the Act<lb/>25.G.3.c.52 which<lb/>takes away from the<lb/>Board the allowing of<lb/>claim for the alleged<lb/>loss of Vouchers, giving<lb/>it to the Court of Exchequer.</note></p> <p><note><del>Judges</del> Exchequer Judges<lb/>act in public<lb/>Audit Commissioners<lb/>in secret.</note></p> <p>Of <add>Among</add> the Statutes which have for their subject the<lb/>business of the Audit Board, there is one + <note>+ 25.G.3.c. 52 &sect;&sect;.23</note> I observe,<lb/>by which the <gap/> of allowing items on the <add>any such</add> ground of<lb/>an alleged loss of <gap/> is taken from the <add>Board of</add> Audit<lb/>Board and reserved for the Court of Exchequer.</p> <p>As matters stand: it seems difficult to refuse this<lb/>approbation to a provision to this effect.</p> <p> In the <add>old-established</add> Court of Exchequer, Parliament <add>beheld</add> one of<lb/>the <add>gap/></add> objects of its <del>high</del> accustomed confidence.</p> <p>In the recently established Board of Audit, Parliament<lb/><del>did not behold</del> <add>behold</add> an establishment presenting any <add>which did not appear to present</add><lb/>sufficient claim to an <add>altogether</add> equal share of <del>its</del> confidence.<lb/>How should it? <del>P</del> In shewing the cause, the parallel<lb/>above drawn between the two judicatories has <gap/><lb/>the reasonable ground of the difference in respect of the<lb/>degree of confidence, the Court of Exchequer <add>like the other <gap/> in Westminster Hall</add> are open<lb/>Court, furious to the light of day: the Audit Board<lb/>a dark <gap/> into the recesses of which the public<lb/>eye can <add>is never allowed to</add> never penetrate.</p>   
<p>10 <sic>Aug.</sic> 1808 V. + B<lb/><note>To Mallet</note><lb/>(1) <note>V. Irresponsibility<lb/>2. <unclear>Reforming</unclear> Statute</note></p> <p><note>1.<lb/>Evidence of the <add>acknowledged</add><lb/>untrustworthiness of the<lb/>Board for want of<lb/>individual responsibility<lb/>afforded by the Act<lb/>25.G.3.c.52 which<lb/>takes away from the<lb/>Board the allowing of<lb/>claim for the alleged<lb/>loss of Vouchers, giving<lb/>it to the Court of Exchequer.</note></p> <p><note><del>Judges</del> Exchequer Judges<lb/>act in public<lb/>Audit Commissioners<lb/>in secret.</note></p> <p>Of <add>Among</add> the Statutes which have for their subject the<lb/>business of the Audit Board, there is one + <note>+ 25.G.3.c. 52 &sect;&sect;.23</note> I observe,<lb/>by which the powers of allowing items on the <add>any such</add> ground of<lb/>an alleged loss of vouchers is taken from the <add>Board of</add> Audit<lb/>Board and reserved for the Court of Exchequer.</p> <p>As matters stand: it seems difficult to refuse this<lb/>approbation to a provision to this effect.</p> <p> In the <add>old-established</add> Court of Exchequer, Parliament saw <add>beheld</add> one of<lb/>the <add><unclear>desir<del>e</del>ing</unclear></add> objects of its <del>high</del> accustomed confidence.</p> <p>In the recently established Board of Audit, Parliament<lb/><del>did not behold</del> <add>beheld</add> an establishment presenting <add>which did not appear to present</add> any<lb/>sufficient claim to an <add>altogether</add> equal share of <del>its</del> confidence.<lb/>How should it? <del>P</del> In <sic>shewing</sic> the cause, the parallel<lb/>above drawn between the two judicatories has <sic>shewn</sic><lb/>the reasonable ground of the difference in respect of the<lb/>degree of confidence, the Court of Exchequer <add>like the other <del>W</del> <unclear>judiciaries</unclear> in Westminster Hall</add> are open<lb/>Court, <unclear>pervious</unclear> to the light of day: the Audit Board<lb/>a dark closet into the recesses of which the public<lb/>eye can <add>is never allowed to</add> never penetrate.</p>   






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

Latest revision as of 14:34, 18 January 2021

'Click Here To Edit

10 Aug. 1808 V. + B
To Mallet
(1) V. Irresponsibility
2. Reforming Statute

1.
Evidence of the acknowledged
untrustworthiness of the
Board for want of
individual responsibility
afforded by the Act
25.G.3.c.52 which
takes away from the
Board the allowing of
claim for the alleged
loss of Vouchers, giving
it to the Court of Exchequer.

Judges Exchequer Judges
act in public
Audit Commissioners
in secret.

Of Among the Statutes which have for their subject the
business of the Audit Board, there is one + + 25.G.3.c. 52 §§.23 I observe,
by which the powers of allowing items on the any such ground of
an alleged loss of vouchers is taken from the Board of Audit
Board and reserved for the Court of Exchequer.

As matters stand: it seems difficult to refuse this
approbation to a provision to this effect.

In the old-established Court of Exchequer, Parliament saw beheld one of
the desireing objects of its high accustomed confidence.

In the recently established Board of Audit, Parliament
did not behold beheld an establishment presenting which did not appear to present any
sufficient claim to an altogether equal share of its confidence.
How should it? P In shewing the cause, the parallel
above drawn between the two judicatories has shewn
the reasonable ground of the difference in respect of the
degree of confidence, the Court of Exchequer like the other W judiciaries in Westminster Hall are open
Court, pervious to the light of day: the Audit Board
a dark closet into the recesses of which the public
eye can is never allowed to never penetrate.




Identifier: | JB/122/271/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 122.

Date_1

1808-08-10

Marginal Summary Numbering

1

Box

122

Main Headings

Panopticon

Folio number

271

Info in main headings field

Image

001

Titles

Category

Text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

Recto"Recto" is not in the list (recto, verso) of allowed values for the "Rectoverso" property.

Page Numbering

C1

Penner

Watermarks

Marginals

Jeremy Bentham

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

See note 5 to letter 1986, vol. 7

ID Number

001

Box Contents

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