★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- indent --><p> | <!-- indent --><p> | ||
To see the difference take the grand case of<lb/> libels in which lies almost the whole of the <add>protective </add> <unclear>preservative</unclear><lb/> virtue of a Jury. One Jury acquits: another<lb/> Jury convicts in the same case. What <lb/> consent or unanimity among different Juries can<lb/> there be? No man has security: <del>no man can<lb/> have.</del> No man does know no man can know <lb/> what it is to be secure. Two parts <del>of the</del> out<lb/> of three of the people are friends to the liberty<lb/> of the people: but the other third through blindness<lb/> or corruption or scrupulousness would act<lb/> as enemies. What follows? <add>From time</add> Two juries out of<lb/> three <add>would</add> acquit: <add>one</add> but one out of three <add>would</add> convict:<lb/> | To see the difference take the grand case of<lb/> libels in which lies almost the whole of the <add>protective </add> <unclear>preservative</unclear><lb/> virtue of a Jury. One Jury acquits: another<lb/> Jury convicts in the same case. What <lb/> consent or unanimity among different Juries can<lb/> there be? No man has security: <del>no man can<lb/> have.</del> No man does know no man can know <lb/> what it is to be secure. Two parts <del>of the</del> out<lb/> of three of the people are friends to the liberty<lb/> of the people: but the other third through blindness<lb/> or corruption or scrupulousness would act<lb/> as enemies. What follows? <add>From time</add> Two juries out of<lb/> three <add>would</add> acquit: <add>one</add> but one out of three <add>would</add> convict:<lb/> And <del>as</del> a single conviction is enough to ruin<lb/> one: <del>For a</del> A black lot to every two white<lb/> ones! What security. Compared to this, <unclear>decimation</unclear><lb/> would be security indeed! But such is<lb/> the tyranny under which we live, a single prosecution<lb/> <note>conviction is unnecessary; acquittal</note> <del>without</del> though followed by acquittal<lb/> is ruin to an ordinary man. £144 odd<lb/> was what it cost <unclear>Alimon</unclear> the bookseller to be acquitted:<lb/> eighteen times <add>the average <del>of</del> amount of</add> a British subject's annual<lb/> expenditure. | ||
</p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} | ||
To see the difference take the grand case of
libels in which lies almost the whole of the protective preservative
virtue of a Jury. One Jury acquits: another
Jury convicts in the same case. What
consent or unanimity among different Juries can
there be? No man has security: no man can
have. No man does know no man can know
what it is to be secure. Two parts of the out
of three of the people are friends to the liberty
of the people: but the other third through blindness
or corruption or scrupulousness would act
as enemies. What follows? From time Two juries out of
three would acquit: one but one out of three would convict:
And as a single conviction is enough to ruin
one: For a A black lot to every two white
ones! What security. Compared to this, decimation
would be security indeed! But such is
the tyranny under which we live, a single prosecution
conviction is unnecessary; acquittal without though followed by acquittal
is ruin to an ordinary man. £144 odd
was what it cost Alimon the bookseller to be acquitted:
eighteen times the average of amount of a British subject's annual
expenditure.
|
Identifier: | JB/035/086/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 35. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
not numbered |
|||
|
035 |
constitutional code; evidence; procedure code |
||
|
086 |
|||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
d1 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
floyd & co |
||
|
arthur young |
|||
|
10679 |
|||
