★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
No edit summary |
Auto approved |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''[{{fullurl:JB/147/309/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | '''[{{fullurl:JB/147/309/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<p><!-- pencil -->28 Feb. 1810<lb/> | |||
<!-- pencil --><head>Sinecures</head></p> | |||
<p>Of those 24 articles enclosed in N<hi rend="superscript">o</hi> 74 there being<lb/> | |||
six <del><add>in</add> which the</del> in each of which an intimation is thus<lb/> | |||
given that the Office <del>six</del> is "executed in person" as<lb/> | |||
well as "by Deputy", what one should naturally have<lb/> | |||
expected is – to see this six articles placed <add>standing</add> –<lb/> | |||
not in N<hi rend="superscript">o</hi> 74 bearing for its title Offices executed<lb/> | |||
by Deputy – <del>but in N<hi rend="superscript">o</hi> 7</del> i.e. as any one would<lb/> | |||
suppose by Deputy and no otherwise – but in N<hi rend="superscript">o</hi> 73<lb/> | |||
which (<add>for its title</add> bears as we have seen) <add>the words</add> "<hi rend="underline">Sinecures</hi> or <hi rend="underline">Offices</hi><lb/> | |||
"wholly or chiefly executed by <hi rend="underline">Deputy</hi>".</p> | |||
<p>Another doubt and another question which naturally enough<lb/> | |||
presents itself on a comparison made between the two N<hi rend="superscript">os</hi>.</p> | |||
<p>The word "<hi rend="underline">Sinecures</hi> which stands part of the<lb/> | |||
title to N<hi rend="superscript">o</hi> 73, how happens it that it has no<lb/> | |||
place in N<hi rend="superscript">o</hi> 74? <del>this is</del></p> | |||
<p>The two <add>masses of information</add> <del>papers</del> <add>statements forming the two N<hi rend="underline">os</hi> of the Appendix</add> were they sent in by the same<lb/> | |||
person? This, considering the want of clearness in<lb/> | |||
respect of <add>the state of</add> the relation between their respective contents<lb/> | |||
as exhibited <add>presented</add> by their respective titles can hardly <add>seems difficult<lb/> | |||
to believe</add> be supposed: and be this as it may, why are they<lb/> | |||
thus kept separate?</p> | |||
<p>Were they <add>the two statements</add> sent in by two different hands?<lb/> | |||
<add>Again</add> Still the question recurrs, why – seem a separation<lb/> | |||
is made – why is it not <del><gap/></del> made in such a manner<lb/> | |||
as to be a source of light instead of a source of darkness?<lb/> | |||
Sinecures – Offices wholly executed by Deputy – Offices<lb/> | |||
chiefly executed by Deputy – Why if the distinctions<lb/> | |||
<del><gap/></del> discovered <add>designated</add> by those three titles really have existence,<lb/> | |||
why are they not presented as existing, by ranging <del>the<lb/> | |||
offices in question</del> <add>respectively</add> under those three heads the Offices which<lb/> | |||
are respectively in the several predicaments respectively expressed by those three heads?</p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{ | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} | ||
28 Feb. 1810
Sinecures
Of those 24 articles enclosed in No 74 there being
six in which the in each of which an intimation is thus
given that the Office six is "executed in person" as
well as "by Deputy", what one should naturally have
expected is – to see this six articles placed standing –
not in No 74 bearing for its title Offices executed
by Deputy – but in No 7 i.e. as any one would
suppose by Deputy and no otherwise – but in No 73
which (for its title bears as we have seen) the words "Sinecures or Offices
"wholly or chiefly executed by Deputy".
Another doubt and another question which naturally enough
presents itself on a comparison made between the two Nos.
The word "Sinecures which stands part of the
title to No 73, how happens it that it has no
place in No 74? this is
The two masses of information papers statements forming the two Nos of the Appendix were they sent in by the same
person? This, considering the want of clearness in
respect of the state of the relation between their respective contents
as exhibited presented by their respective titles can hardly seems difficult
to believe be supposed: and be this as it may, why are they
thus kept separate?
Were they the two statements sent in by two different hands?
Again Still the question recurrs, why – seem a separation
is made – why is it not made in such a manner
as to be a source of light instead of a source of darkness?
Sinecures – Offices wholly executed by Deputy – Offices
chiefly executed by Deputy – Why if the distinctions
discovered designated by those three titles really have existence,
why are they not presented as existing, by ranging the
offices in question respectively under those three heads the Offices which
are respectively in the several predicaments respectively expressed by those three heads?
|
Identifier: | JB/147/309/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 147. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
1810-02-28 |
|||
|
147 |
Sinecures |
||
|
309 |
Sinecures |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
Text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
C3 / E9 |
||
|
49534 |
|||
