JB/091/037/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/091/037/001: Difference between revisions

Kdownunder (talk | contribs)
m Protected "JB/091/037/001": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))
BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto approved
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/091/037/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/091/037/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<p><!-- pencil -->1806<lb/>
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<!-- pencil --><head>Scotch Reform</head></p>
 
<p>A preliminary point to be settled, and if settled<lb/>
 
at all, necessarily in the first instance is – <del>where<lb/>
 
the interests</del> two very distinguishable classes of persons<lb/>
being concerned – viz. the lawyers and the suitors –<lb/>
where <del>this the case is such that they happen to class</del> <add>they clash to such a degree as to be</add><lb/>
<del>and are</del> irreconcilable, which is to be preferred, which<lb/>
sacrificed.</p>
<p>To some men the bare question may appear a <gap/><lb/>
<foreign>Salus populi suprema lex</foreign> or that a <gap/> that<lb/>
will admitt <unclear>one</unclear> in a days of dispute?  <unclear>Exists</unclear> there<lb/>
that human being that will have the hardyhood to<lb/>
strike out <hi rend="underline">populi</hi> and put <foreign>jurisconsultorim</foreign> instead of<lb/>
it – exists there the human being that will take upon<lb/>
him openly to propose such an alienation in the character<lb/>
of an amendment?</p>
<p>In words perhaps not, at any rate not in a<lb/>
public assembly:  not in any such assembly as that of<lb/>
either House of Parliament.  But proposed or not<lb/>
to such a degree has the amendment, such as it is, been<lb/>
acted upon, that should it be seen hopeless it can not<lb/>
at any rate be deemed a needless undertaking <add>task</add> to guess<lb/>
as well as can be guessed, what sort of support, in<lb/>
the shape of argument, may be to be found for it.</p>
<p>Needless? in good truth my Lord, either I am much<lb/>
mistaken, or it is with this amendment only, and not<lb/>
<del>other</del> in its original state that the maxim has been taken<lb/>
for the basis of the plan <del>on</del> the subject of which I<lb/>
am venturing to trouble your Lordship with this commentary.</p>
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Untranscribed}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 18:02, 20 October 2023

Click Here To Edit

1806
Scotch Reform

A preliminary point to be settled, and if settled
at all, necessarily in the first instance is – where
the interests
two very distinguishable classes of persons
being concerned – viz. the lawyers and the suitors –
where this the case is such that they happen to class they clash to such a degree as to be
and are irreconcilable, which is to be preferred, which
sacrificed.

To some men the bare question may appear a
Salus populi suprema lex or that a that
will admitt one in a days of dispute? Exists there
that human being that will have the hardyhood to
strike out populi and put jurisconsultorim instead of
it – exists there the human being that will take upon
him openly to propose such an alienation in the character
of an amendment?

In words perhaps not, at any rate not in a
public assembly: not in any such assembly as that of
either House of Parliament. But proposed or not
to such a degree has the amendment, such as it is, been
acted upon, that should it be seen hopeless it can not
at any rate be deemed a needless undertaking task to guess
as well as can be guessed, what sort of support, in
the shape of argument, may be to be found for it.

Needless? in good truth my Lord, either I am much
mistaken, or it is with this amendment only, and not
other in its original state that the maxim has been taken
for the basis of the plan on the subject of which I
am venturing to trouble your Lordship with this commentary.


Identifier: | JB/091/037/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 91.

Date_1

1806

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

091

Main Headings

scotch reform

Folio number

037

Info in main headings field

scotch reform to ld grenville

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

c1

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

29033

Box Contents

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