JB/122/249/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/122/249/001: 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 2: Line 2:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


<!-- header and marginal summary in pencil --> <p>15<lb/><note>To Mallet</note><lb/>15</p> <p>Suspicions founded or unfounded no <unclear>meter</unclear> of shame.<lb/>A <gap/> <gap/> may not free the hand of one intended <gap/><lb/><gap/></p> <p>To speak still more plainly, my apprehension is,<lb/>that the Letter by which, in terms so hasty but not the<lb/>less intelligible, complaint was made, on no light grounds<lb/>(so at elast it appeared to me) against <sic>M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi></sic> Chief Inspector<lb/>Whitcomb had <add>either</add> never passed into any other hands than<lb/>the hands, or at any rate had never received consideration<lb/>from any other heads than the head, of <sic>M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi></sic> Chief<lb/>Inspector Whitcomb: that the appeal I was <add>had been</add> making<lb/>was that sort of appeal which is <del>r</del> known by the<lb/>character of an Appeal from Caesar to Caesar, and<lb/><del>for</del> to a Caesar who if better informed the second time<lb/>than the first, <del>had derived but little <add>little enough</add> profit from the <gap/><lb/>was much above deriving</del> <add> was by far too much of a Caesar to have derived</add> any profit from the information<lb/>so received.</p> <p><note>25. 8<lb/>On the <add>part of</add> Great <del>Court</del><lb/>Judges the habit<lb/>of setting the names<lb/>to papers never<lb/>considered by them<lb/>has the sanction<lb/>of old established<lb/>practice</note></p> <p>In the <add>our</add> oldest established judicatories the sacrifice<lb/>of truth to form has unhappily obtained to a degree<lb/>which it is <gap/> impossible to avoid <gap/> and to defend<lb/>the signature of a Judge is but too many instances<lb/><del>ass</del> applied to a paper which <del>neither in <add>the</add></del> mind neither<lb.<of that Judge nor any other Judge has ever been applied.<lb/>In establishments which are held up as <gap/>, it<lb/>is but too natural that the bad posts should be copied<lb?>with at least as much readiness as the good: another<lb/>ground for my suspicion, that in the present instance, the<lb/>potatoes in question, always supposing them in existence,<lb/>have on occasion like the present, contracted the habit<lb/>of setting their necks awry, in consideration that Alexander's<lb?>was in the same case.</p>   
<!-- header and marginal summary in pencil --> <p>15<lb/><note>To Mallet</note><lb/>15</p> <p>Suspicions founded or unfounded no matter of shame.<lb/>A <gap/> <unclear>manner may not free the hand of one intended</unclear> <gap/><lb/><gap/></p> <p>To speak still more plainly, my apprehension is,<lb/>that the Letter by which, in terms so hasty but not the<lb/>less intelligible, complaint was made, on no light grounds<lb/>(so at least it appeared to me) against <sic>M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi></sic> Chief Inspector<lb/>Whitcomb had <add>either</add> never passed into any other hands than<lb/>the hands, or at any rate had never received consideration<lb/>from any other heads than the head, of <sic>M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi></sic> Chief<lb/>Inspector Whitcomb: that the appeal I was <add>had been</add> making<lb/>was that sort of appeal which is <del>r</del> known by the<lb/>character of an Appeal from Caesar to Caesar, and<lb/><del>for</del> to a Caesar who if better informed the second time<lb/>than the first, <del>had derived but little <add>little enough</add> profit from the <gap/><lb/>was much above deriving</del> <add> was by far too much of a Caesar to have derived</add> any profit from the information<lb/>so received.</p> <p><note>25. 8<lb/><del>I</del>On the <add>part of</add> Great <del>Court</del><lb/>Judges their habit<lb/>of setting the names<lb/>to papers never<lb/>considered by them<lb/>has the sanction<lb/>of old established<lb/>practice</note></p> <p>In the <add>our</add> oldest established judicatories the sacrifice<lb/>of truth to form has unhappily obtained to a degree<lb/>which it is <unclear>alike</unclear> impossible to avoid seeing and to defend<lb/>the signature of a Judge is but too many instances<lb/><del>ass</del> applied to a paper which <del>neither in</del> <add>the</add> mind neither<lb/>of that Judge nor any other Judge has ever been applied.<lb/>In establishments which are held up as credits, it<lb/>is but too natural that the bad parts should be copied<lb/>with at least as much readiness as the good: another<lb/>ground for my suspicion, that in the present instance, the<lb/><unclear>petulates</unclear> in question, always supposing them in existence,<lb/>have on occasions like the present, contracted the habit<lb/>of setting their necks awry, in consideration that Alexander's<lb/>was in the same case.</p>   






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

Latest revision as of 14:20, 12 April 2021

'Click Here To Edit

15
To Mallet
15

Suspicions founded or unfounded no matter of shame.
A manner may not free the hand of one intended

To speak still more plainly, my apprehension is,
that the Letter by which, in terms so hasty but not the
less intelligible, complaint was made, on no light grounds
(so at least it appeared to me) against Mr Chief Inspector
Whitcomb had either never passed into any other hands than
the hands, or at any rate had never received consideration
from any other heads than the head, of Mr Chief
Inspector Whitcomb: that the appeal I was had been making
was that sort of appeal which is r known by the
character of an Appeal from Caesar to Caesar, and
for to a Caesar who if better informed the second time
than the first, had derived but little little enough profit from the
was much above deriving
was by far too much of a Caesar to have derived any profit from the information
so received.

25. 8
IOn the part of Great Court
Judges their habit
of setting the names
to papers never
considered by them
has the sanction
of old established
practice

In the our oldest established judicatories the sacrifice
of truth to form has unhappily obtained to a degree
which it is alike impossible to avoid seeing and to defend
the signature of a Judge is but too many instances
ass applied to a paper which neither in the mind neither
of that Judge nor any other Judge has ever been applied.
In establishments which are held up as credits, it
is but too natural that the bad parts should be copied
with at least as much readiness as the good: another
ground for my suspicion, that in the present instance, the
petulates in question, always supposing them in existence,
have on occasions like the present, contracted the habit
of setting their necks awry, in consideration that Alexander's
was in the same case.




Identifier: | JB/122/249/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 122.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

[[marginal_summary_numbering::25 [or] 8]]

Box

122

Main Headings

Panopticon

Folio number

249

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

D15 / E15

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