★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
No edit summary |
Auto approved |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<head>1825 Nov. 14<lb/> | |||
Constitutional Code</head> | |||
<note>1<hi rend="superscript">o</hi><lb/> | |||
Ch. XII. Judiciary collectively<lb/> | |||
§.16. Partiality obviated<lb/> | |||
<unclear>Information</unclear>.</note> | |||
<p><unclear>Reported</unclear>?</p> | |||
<p>As to the question are you or are you not in the<lb/> | |||
relative situation in question — <gap/> it to the question the objection<lb/> | |||
of its being a question calling for a self-accusing answer<lb/> | |||
does not apply to it: for in the being in any such situation<lb/> | |||
there is no blame. In this <unclear>way</unclear> no objection applies but<lb/> | |||
that by which the <del><gap/></del> <unclear>indecorum</unclear> is brought to view: and<lb/> | |||
this would of itself would be <unclear>pronounced</unclear> abundantly sufficient</p> | |||
<p>If <del><gap/></del> in the case of <del>any one</del> a Judge of the subordinate<lb/> | |||
grade to put any such question <del><gap/></del> would be indecorous,<lb/> | |||
<del>be put</del> put to any such high functionaries as the <del><gap/><lb/> | |||
in Westminster Hall</del> superordinates or to Court<lb/> | |||
of King's Bench or <add>any of</add> those other superiors in Westminster<lb/> | |||
Hall would be <del><gap/></del> still more shockingly and <unclear>revoltingly</unclear><lb/> | |||
indecorous.</p> | |||
<p>If so what would it be if put to the superordinates<lb/> | |||
of these same subordinates, the Members of the House of Lords?<lb/> | |||
Insanity <del>not indecorum</del> would be cordially imputed to the author<lb/> | |||
of any such proposition, not indecorum to the proposition<lb/> | |||
itself</p> | |||
<note>It would not only be<lb/> | |||
indecorous: but it<lb/> | |||
would be useless: <del>for</del><lb/> | |||
being by situation<lb/> | |||
impeccable, they are<lb/> | |||
of course <del>by the</del><lb/> | |||
in virtue of that same<lb/> | |||
situation unpunishable<lb/> | |||
Not but that in a<lb/> | |||
certain way they are<lb/> | |||
punishable: to wit <unclear>the</unclear><lb/> | |||
impertinence <unclear>by</unclear> accusation<lb/> | |||
preferred <unclear>by</unclear> the House of<lb/> | |||
Commons to the House of<lb/> | |||
Lords. But this <unclear>exception</unclear><lb/> | |||
to impeccability<lb/> | |||
is but nominal: for<lb/> | |||
<unclear>concerning</unclear> the accusation<lb/> | |||
there is but one day, <del>and</del><lb/> | |||
in the year: and that<lb/> | |||
is that of the <unclear>Great Ealands</unclear></note> | |||
<p>This by so simple an assumption all dissenters <unclear>are remain<lb/> | |||
wrong because</unclear> — right, and every thing is as it should be<lb/> | |||
— They <gap/> <gap/> <gap/> corrupt any body <unclear>intent on</unclear><lb/> | |||
doing wrong or knowing any thing about the <unclear>author</unclear>.</p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{ | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} | ||
1825 Nov. 14
Constitutional Code
1o
Ch. XII. Judiciary collectively
§.16. Partiality obviated
Information.
Reported?
As to the question are you or are you not in the
relative situation in question — it to the question the objection
of its being a question calling for a self-accusing answer
does not apply to it: for in the being in any such situation
there is no blame. In this way no objection applies but
that by which the indecorum is brought to view: and
this would of itself would be pronounced abundantly sufficient
If in the case of any one a Judge of the subordinate
grade to put any such question would be indecorous,
be put put to any such high functionaries as the
in Westminster Hall superordinates or to Court
of King's Bench or any of those other superiors in Westminster
Hall would be still more shockingly and revoltingly
indecorous.
If so what would it be if put to the superordinates
of these same subordinates, the Members of the House of Lords?
Insanity not indecorum would be cordially imputed to the author
of any such proposition, not indecorum to the proposition
itself
It would not only be
indecorous: but it
would be useless: for
being by situation
impeccable, they are
of course by the
in virtue of that same
situation unpunishable
Not but that in a
certain way they are
punishable: to wit the
impertinence by accusation
preferred by the House of
Commons to the House of
Lords. But this exception
to impeccability
is but nominal: for
concerning the accusation
there is but one day, and
in the year: and that
is that of the Great Ealands
This by so simple an assumption all dissenters are remain
wrong because — right, and every thing is as it should be
— They corrupt any body intent on
doing wrong or knowing any thing about the author.
|
Identifier: | JB/042/371/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 42. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
1825-11-14 |
|||
|
042 |
constitutional code |
||
|
371 |
constitutional code |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
|||
|
jeremy bentham |
|||
|
[[notes_public::"superseded?" [note in jb's hand]]] |
13294 |
||
