JB/159/014/002: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/159/014/002: Difference between revisions

M Hersey (talk | contribs)
m Protected "JB/159/014/002": 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:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


Punishment x [[unknown]]
<head>Punishment &amp; Restraint &#x2014;Warburton</head><lb/>


 
<p><del><unclear><gap/></unclear> to be restraint to present the former, it is not<lb/>
In every instance, either the whole [[unknown]] from the Law, or the whole [[unknown]] [[unknown]] from the act the law is leveled at [[unknown]] to be the greater. In the first [[unknown]]  [[unknown]] in not the [[unknown]] of a [[unknown]]
the misdemeanour being Warburton or any thing<lb/>
<unclear><gap/></unclear> that can justify <add>warrant</add> the not exploring <add>to the latter</add> it: if<lb/>
greater, it is not his <gap/><add>consideration</add> of that the presentation<lb/>
of the misdemeanour is produced in an another<lb/>
way than from the pain <add>suffering</add> of the other, that<lb/>
can warrant the exploring it.<lb/></del></p>
<p>In every <del><unclear></unclear></del><add>instance</add>, either the whole <add>pain </add> resulting from the<lb/>
Law, <!--+--><note>being the least that<lb/> promises to be sufficient<lb/></note>, or the whole pain resulting from the<lb/>
the law is levelled at <add>appears to be</add> <del>is</del> the greater. In the<lb/>
first case it is not <del>anything can justify the<lb/> exploring<lb/></del> the unintentionality of a part of the pain<lb/>
<del>arising</del><add>resulting</add> from the Law, <add>not anything else</add> that can justify the exploring<lb/>
it: <del>the [law] as a whole</del> in the other case it is not the <sic>involuntariness</sic><lb/>
of the act, nor anything else that can justify the <hi rend="underline">not</hi> exploring it.<lb/> </p>
<p>To bring this home to practise. The Law his<lb/>
Lordship was examining and defending was a<lb/>
Law excluding <add>Church</add> Difficulties from State Offices.<lb/>
The pain resulting from the act the law was<lb/>
levelled at was the <unclear><gap/></unclear><add>which</add> Church <unclear>Dipentere</unclear> might<lb/>
(it was <unclear>respond)</unclear>produce (to conform to common<lb/>
speech we will say) the <hi rend="underline">mischief</hi> they might do<lb/>
over and above what Churchmen <add>could probably</add> <del>might</del> do, if<lb/>
admitted to those offices. The pain resulting from<lb/>
the Law was the pain which <add>such</add> difficulties <del><gap/></del><lb/>
and persons sympathising with them might (it was<lb/>
supposed) ful at the thoughts of them being for every...<lb/></p>


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

Latest revision as of 15:31, 30 October 2023

Click Here To Edit

Punishment & Restraint —Warburton

to be restraint to present the former, it is not
the misdemeanour being Warburton or any thing
that can justify warrant the not exploring to the latter it: if
greater, it is not his consideration of that the presentation
of the misdemeanour is produced in an another
way than from the pain suffering of the other, that
can warrant the exploring it.

In every instance, either the whole pain resulting from the
Law, being the least that
promises to be sufficient
, or the whole pain resulting from the
the law is levelled at appears to be is the greater. In the
first case it is not anything can justify the
exploring
the unintentionality of a part of the pain
arisingresulting from the Law, not anything else that can justify the exploring
it: the [law] as a whole in the other case it is not the involuntariness
of the act, nor anything else that can justify the not exploring it.

To bring this home to practise. The Law his
Lordship was examining and defending was a
Law excluding Church Difficulties from State Offices.
The pain resulting from the act the law was
levelled at was the which Church Dipentere might
(it was respond)produce (to conform to common
speech we will say) the mischief they might do
over and above what Churchmen could probably might do, if
admitted to those offices. The pain resulting from
the Law was the pain which such difficulties
and persons sympathising with them might (it was
supposed) ful at the thoughts of them being for every...



Identifier: | JB/159/014/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 159.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

159

Main Headings

punishment

Folio number

014

Info in main headings field

punishment & restraint - warburton

Image

002

Titles

note / text

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

4

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

f9 / f10 / f11 / f12

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

[[watermarks::l v g propatria [britannia motif]]]

Marginals

Paper Producer

caroline vernon

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

53837

Box Contents

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