JB/106/169/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts

JB/106/169/001: Difference between revisions

Kdownunder (talk | contribs)
m Protected "JB/106/169/001": 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 2: Line 2:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/106/169/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/106/169/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<p><!-- pencil -->7 May 1807</p>
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<p>Maintenance of <add>legislative</add> authority of Parliam<hi rend="superscript">t</hi> &amp; d<hi rend="superscript">o</hi> of uniformity<lb/>
 
the only grounds of defence for the utility of Lords judicature.<lb/>
 
As to prevention of misdecision under jurisprudential law, Lords<lb/>
 
less competent than Lawyer Judges.</p>
<p>At length, <del><gap/></del> causes in some respects similar to those<lb/>
which have concurred in taking out of the King's hands<lb/>
the <add>immediate</add> exercise of these two branches of <add>supreme</add> judicial power, at<lb/>
any rate causes upon the whole still more irresistible<lb/>
have produced the effect of actually taking out of the<lb/>
hands of the House of Lords <add>the immediate exercise of</add> a considerable portion of<lb/>
their <add>more exhaustive</add> branch of <add>superordinate</add> judicial power.</p>
<p>And now <del><gap/></del> in the character of a source of<lb/>
experience, and if a precedent comes the accidental<lb/>
case of the anomaly abovementioned.</p>
<p>Of the exercise of the branch of judicial authority possessed<lb/>
and exercised <add>in an immediate way</add> by the House of Lords, no complaint <del>has</del><lb/>
seems ever to have been made:  for <add>by</add> it no inconvenience<lb/>
seems ever to have been experience.</p>
<p>On <add>From</add> the contrary from the non-exercise of it great inconveniences<lb/>
have <add>has</add> been sustained:  great and just complaints<lb/>
made.</p>
<p>In <add>By</add> the precedent furnished by the ephemeral Courts of<lb/>
supreme judicature an indication <add>example</add> has been shewn of that<lb/>
mode of exercising judicature which is next in <del>power and</del> efficacy to<lb/>
immediate.</p>
<p>Here then we have a pattern, the copying of which with<lb/>
such slight indications as the <add>obvious</add> differences in the nature of the<lb/>
two authorities indicate <add>point out</add>, presents <del>the</del> not only as will be<lb/>
seen the most eligible in point of abstract utility the most eligible,<lb/>
but the most strictly and clearly constitutional <add>of any</add> that the nature<lb/>
of the case <add><unclear>change</unclear></add> admitts of.</p>
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Untranscribed}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 15:40, 25 March 2022

Click Here To Edit

7 May 1807

Maintenance of legislative authority of Parliamt & do of uniformity
the only grounds of defence for the utility of Lords judicature.
As to prevention of misdecision under jurisprudential law, Lords
less competent than Lawyer Judges.

At length, causes in some respects similar to those
which have concurred in taking out of the King's hands
the immediate exercise of these two branches of supreme judicial power, at
any rate causes upon the whole still more irresistible
have produced the effect of actually taking out of the
hands of the House of Lords the immediate exercise of a considerable portion of
their more exhaustive branch of superordinate judicial power.

And now in the character of a source of
experience, and if a precedent comes the accidental
case of the anomaly abovementioned.

Of the exercise of the branch of judicial authority possessed
and exercised in an immediate way by the House of Lords, no complaint has
seems ever to have been made: for by it no inconvenience
seems ever to have been experience.

On From the contrary from the non-exercise of it great inconveniences
have has been sustained: great and just complaints
made.

In By the precedent furnished by the ephemeral Courts of
supreme judicature an indication example has been shewn of that
mode of exercising judicature which is next in power and efficacy to
immediate.

Here then we have a pattern, the copying of which with
such slight indications as the obvious differences in the nature of the
two authorities indicate point out, presents the not only as will be
seen the most eligible in point of abstract utility the most eligible,
but the most strictly and clearly constitutional of any that the nature
of the case change admitts of.


Identifier: | JB/106/169/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 106.

Date_1

1807-05-07

Marginal Summary Numbering

26-30

Box

106

Main Headings

scotch reform

Folio number

169

Info in main headings field

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

e9

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

iping 1804

Marginals

jeremy bentham

Paper Producer

bernardino rivadavia

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1804

Notes public

ID Number

34757

Box Contents

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