JB/036/095/002: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/036/095/002: Difference between revisions

Mctwsf (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
TB Editor (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/036/095/002|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/036/095/002|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<p>So in the case of the  <add>where the proceedings are carried</add> inquisitorial mode</p>
<p><del>So in the case of the  <add>when the proceedings are considered</add> inquisitorial mode</del><lb/></p>
<p>When therefore precipitation in judicature is spoken of, the<lb/>
 
sort of <add>shape in which the supposed</add> undue precipitation presents itself naturally is that<lb/>
<!-- The following paragraph is crossed out --><p>When therefore precipitation in judication is spoken of, the<lb/>sort of <add>shape in which the supposed</add> undue precipitation presents itself naturally is - that<lb/>which has place <del>so</del> in so far as the Judge in pronouncing<lb/>upon the evidence and the arguments had before him, fail of<lb/>occupying in the consideration of the subject so great a length<lb/> of time as is necessary to the securing to the decision he pronounces<lb/>the quality <add>property <add>attribute</add> of rectitude.<lb/></p>
which has place <del>so</del> in so far as the Judge in pronouncing<lb/>
 
upon the evidence and the arguments had before him, fails of<lb/>
<p><del>How a</del> Precipitation in judication thus understood,<lb/>now let us see whether of all unarguable rules it is the most <lb/>dangerous.<lb/></p>Look to English judicature.  <del>Wortm or</del>  Adverse as <add>,</add> <del>it</del> <add><del>this system</del></add><lb/>in so large a part of its extent, <del>in</del> <add>the system is - </add> uncontroveribly adverse<lb/>to the ends of justice <add>, - still, taken as a whole</add> it is perhaps the least <add><del>upon the whole</del></add> so of any as yet <add>any where</add><lb/>established: strange indeed it would be, if it were not<lb/><del>France : there</del> much less so than that of Spain.  Of this system<lb/>the part <add>in most general estimation, & of the  <hi rend="underline">testimonial</hi> branch</add> <del>most <add>generally</add> esteemed and</del> the part <del><gap/></del> least undeservedly <lb/>esteemed is that, in which <del>a Juror per</del> the judicating<lb/>is composed of a professional Judge, with a company of non-<lb/>professional Judges under the name of a Jury: the Jury, <add>in the exercise of their functions,</add> acting<lb/>in so far as disposed, under the guidance of the Judge.  Well<lb/>now - Immediately after the evidence <add>with <del>the</del> <add>such</add> <add>comments <add>as have been made</add> <add>on it</add>, is closed <hi rend="superscript">1</hi> <add>
occupying in the consideration of the subject so great a length<lb/>
 
of time as is necessary to the securing to the decision he pronounces<lb/>
<note>without <add>so much as</add> a moments <lb/>delay taken for reflection, <lb/>comes if at all <lb/>the opinion of the Judge: <lb/>opinion or no opinion <lb/>immediately again, as <lb/>often as not, the decision <lb/>of the Jury.<lb/></note>
the quality <add>property <add>attribute</add> of rectitude.</p>
 
<p><del>How a</del> Precipitation in judicature thus understood,<lb/>
<del>no time for <gap/></del> by</add> <del>sometime</del> can<lb/><del>without <gap/><gap/> <add>every</add> hearing any opinion from</del> <lb/><del>before the Judge opinion of the Judge is pronounced in every case <add>always</add></del> <lb/><del>the opinion <add>decree</add> of the Jury not <gap/> <gap/> for <add>after</add></del><lb/><del>the hearing of that same opinion.</del>  The promptitude thus displayed<lb/>is it in the power of <hi rend="underline">precipitation</hi> to exceed it?  This <add>same</add> promptitude<lb/><add>as given.</add> has it ever, <add>on the part of any person , been</add> the subject of complaint?  No, never.  Where promptitude in <lb/>this<lb/>this degree has place, <lb/>does it ever enter into<lb/><del>the</del> <add>any <del>one</del> man's</add> conception, <del>if</del> that <del>the</del> <add>any</add><lb/><add>such</add> disapprobative appellations<lb/>as <hi rend="superscript">precipitation</hi> is <del>in that account</del> applicable<lb/>to it? No, never.<lb/>If <del>such</del> promptitude in<lb/>such a degree, and in no <del><del>and greater can it exceed</del><lb/>higher degree </del> can it have place <lb/><del>which</del> is <hi rend="underline">precipitation</hi>, preciptitaion so far from being the most dangerous <gap/> a <gap/> <del>Spanish</del> judicature can <gap/>, <del>may</del> <add>might</add> with much more propriety <del>be termed the petty</del> <add>as in the language of the same rhetoric be spoken of as the</add> harbour towards which it is to be wished that its course should <add><del>may</del></add> be deviated.<lb/>
now let us see whether of all unarguable rules it is the most <lb/>
 
dangerous.</p>
 
<p>Look to English judicature.  <del>Written <gap/></del>  Adverse as <del>it</del> <add>this system</add><lb/>
 
in so large a part of its extent, <del>and</del> <add>the system is </add> uncontrovertibly adverse<lb/>
 
to the ends of justice <add>, still, taken as a whole</add> it is perhaps the least <add><del>upon the whole</del></add> so of any as yet <add>any where</add><lb/>
 
<add>established: strange indeed it would be, if it were not</add> <del>France : there</del> much less so than that of Spain.  Of this system<lb/>
 
the part <del>most <add>generally</add> esteemed and</del> <add>in most general estimation, &amp; of the  <hi rend="underline"><unclear>technical</unclear></hi> branch</add> the part <del>most <gap/></del> least undeservedly<lb/>
 
esteemed is that, in which <del>a Juror per</del> the judicatory<lb/>
 
is composed of a professional Judge, with a company of non-professional<lb/>
 
Judges under the name of a Jury: the Jury, <add>in the exercise of their functions,</add> acting<lb/>
 
in so far as disposed, under the guidance of the Judge.  Well<lb/>
 
now Immediately after the evidence <add>with the such comments as have been made on it</add>, is closed<hi rend="superscript">⊞1</hi> <note><hi rend="superscript">⊞1</hi> without <add>so much as</add> a moments<lb/>
 
delay taken for reflection,<lb/>
 
comes if at all<lb/>
 
the opinion of the Judge:<lb/>
 
opinion or no opinion<lb/>
immediately again, as<lb/>
often as not, the decision<lb/>
of the Jury.</note> <add><del>not if <gap/> by</add> sometimes even<lb/><del>without <gap/><gap/> <add>every</add><lb/>
without <gap/> any the hearing any opinion from before the Judge opinion of the Judge is pronounced <add>always</add> in every case <lb/>
the opinion <add>decision</add> of the Jury not <gap/> <gap/> <gap/> for <add>after</add><lb/>
the hearing of that same opinion.</del>  The promptitude thus displayed<lb/>
is it in the power of <hi rend="underline">precipitation</hi> to exceed it?  This <add>same</add> promptitude<lb/>
<add>again</add> has it ever, <add>on the part of any person, been</add> the subject of complaint?  No, never.  When promptitude in<lb/>
this this degree has place,<lb/>
does it ever enter into<lb/>
<del>the</del> <add>any <del>one's</del> man's</add> conception, <del>of</del> that <del>the</del> <add>any</add><lb/>
<add>such</add> disapprobative appellations<lb/>
as <hi rend="underline">precipitation</hi> is <del>
in that account</del> applicable<lb/>
to it? No, never.<lb/>
If <del>such</del> promptitude in<lb/>
such a degree, and in no<lb/>
<del>and nothing can it exceed</del><lb/>
higher degree can it have place <lb/>
<del>which</del> is <hi rend="underline">precipitation</hi>, precipitation<lb/>
so far from being the most dangerous rock on which  <del>Spanish</del> judicature can strike, <del>may</del> <add>might</add> with much more propriety <del>be termed <add>considered</add> the jetty on</del> <add>as in the language of the same rhetoric be spoken of as the harbour towards</add> which it is to be wished that its<lb/>
course should <add><del>were</del></add> be directed.</p>
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 10:52, 9 November 2023

Click Here To Edit

So in the case of the where the proceedings are carried inquisitorial mode

When therefore precipitation in judicature is spoken of, the
sort of shape in which the supposed undue precipitation presents itself naturally is – that
which has place so in so far as the Judge in pronouncing
upon the evidence and the arguments had before him, fails of
occupying in the consideration of the subject so great a length
of time as is necessary to the securing to the decision he pronounces
the quality property <add>attribute of rectitude.

How a Precipitation in judicature thus understood,
now let us see whether of all unarguable rules it is the most
dangerous.

Look to English judicature. Written Adverse as it this system
in so large a part of its extent, and the system is – uncontrovertibly adverse
to the ends of justice , – still, taken as a whole it is perhaps the least upon the whole so of any as yet any where
established: strange indeed it would be, if it were not France : there much less so than that of Spain. Of this system
the part most generally esteemed and in most general estimation, & of the technical branch the part most least undeservedly
esteemed is that, in which a Juror per the judicatory
is composed of a professional Judge, with a company of non-professional
Judges under the name of a Jury: the Jury, in the exercise of their functions, acting
in so far as disposed, under the guidance of the Judge. Well
now – Immediately after the evidence with the such comments as have been made on it, is closed⊞1 ⊞1 without so much as a moments
delay taken for reflection,
comes if at all
the opinion of the Judge:
opinion or no opinion
immediately again, as
often as not, the decision
of the Jury.
not if by sometimes even
without every
without any the hearing any opinion from before the Judge opinion of the Judge is pronounced always in every case
the opinion decision of the Jury not for after
the hearing of that same opinion.
The promptitude thus displayed
is it in the power of precipitation to exceed it? This same promptitude
again has it ever, on the part of any person, been the subject of complaint? No, never. When promptitude in
this this degree has place,
does it ever enter into
the any one's man's conception, of that the any
such disapprobative appellations
as precipitation is in that account applicable
to it? No, never.
If such promptitude in
such a degree, and in no
and nothing can it exceed
higher degree can it have place
which is precipitation, precipitation
so far from being the most dangerous rock on which Spanish judicature can strike, may might with much more propriety be termed considered the jetty on as in the language of the same rhetoric be spoken of as the harbour towards which it is to be wished that its
course should were be directed.


Identifier: | JB/036/095/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 36.

Date_1

1822-08-12

Marginal Summary Numbering

12-15

Box

036

Main Headings

constitutional code

Folio number

095

Info in main headings field

constitut. code

Image

002

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

a11 / b6 / d9 / e5

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

[[watermarks::i&m [fleur de lys] 1818]]

Marginals

jeremy bentham

Paper Producer

arthur wellesley, duke of wellington

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1818

Notes public

ID Number

11019

Box Contents

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