★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
m Protected "JB/091/121/001": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) |
Auto approved |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''[{{fullurl:JB/091/121/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | '''[{{fullurl:JB/091/121/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<p><!-- pencil -->26 Dec<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> 1806<lb/> | |||
<!-- pencil --><head>Scotch Reform To L<hi rend="superscript">d</hi> Grenville</head></p> | |||
<p>Translated out of jargon into plain English, the distinction<lb/> | |||
<add>of English law</add> between <del>right</del> possession and right of possession, between<lb/> | |||
right of possession and right of property, is <add>neither more nor less</add> but <add>no other than</add> the distinction<lb/> | |||
between a provisional <del>right</del> set of rights and a definitive right – between<lb/> | |||
a defensible and indefensible one. With the help of<lb/> | |||
jargon, so successful have English lawyers been in the<lb/> | |||
organization of their chaos <add>system of confusion and pillage</add>, that where real property is<lb/> | |||
in question, a judgment <add>really</add> final in effect is almost without<lb/> | |||
example: Judgment in Ejectment is but <add>provisional</add> interlocutory: <del>the<lb/> | |||
final</del> judgement on a Writ of Right, <add>or decree on a Bill for granting possession</add> is the final judgement<lb/> | |||
that corresponds to it.</p> | |||
<p>If in any case, without <del>danger of</del> <add>exposure to</add> punishment, or<lb/> | |||
even to disrepute, it be in the power of the Court below, <del>to<lb/> | |||
frame a decision which shall being</del> by an interlocutory<lb/> | |||
judgement, or a series <add>chain</add> of interlocutory judgements, to produce<lb/> | |||
the effect of a final one, the jurisdiction of the Court above,<lb/> | |||
the House of Lords, is by the <del><gap/></del> prohibition law <add>in question</add> proposed<lb/> | |||
laid at the <add>mercy</add> feet of the Court below: and if <del>my view</del> <add>the view here given</add> of the<lb/> | |||
matter be correct, the cases will in comparison be few and<lb/> | |||
narrow, in which this virtual <add>indirect</add> <unclear>ouster</unclear> would experience any<lb/> | |||
difficulty.</p> | |||
<p>For producing usurpations of this sort – usurpations<lb/> | |||
encreasing in a series without limit <add>to which there is no certain limit</add>, how much less <unclear>astution</unclear><lb/> | |||
and boldness would be necessary to Scotch Judges than what<lb/> | |||
has so often been exemplified by English ones!</p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{ | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} |
26 Decr 1806
Scotch Reform To Ld Grenville
Translated out of jargon into plain English, the distinction
of English law between right possession and right of possession, between
right of possession and right of property, is neither more nor less but no other than the distinction
between a provisional right set of rights and a definitive right – between
a defensible and indefensible one. With the help of
jargon, so successful have English lawyers been in the
organization of their chaos system of confusion and pillage, that where real property is
in question, a judgment really final in effect is almost without
example: Judgment in Ejectment is but provisional interlocutory: the
final judgement on a Writ of Right, or decree on a Bill for granting possession is the final judgement
that corresponds to it.
If in any case, without danger of exposure to punishment, or
even to disrepute, it be in the power of the Court below, to
frame a decision which shall being by an interlocutory
judgement, or a series chain of interlocutory judgements, to produce
the effect of a final one, the jurisdiction of the Court above,
the House of Lords, is by the prohibition law in question proposed
laid at the mercy feet of the Court below: and if my view the view here given of the
matter be correct, the cases will in comparison be few and
narrow, in which this virtual indirect ouster would experience any
difficulty.
For producing usurpations of this sort – usurpations
encreasing in a series without limit to which there is no certain limit, how much less astution
and boldness would be necessary to Scotch Judges than what
has so often been exemplified by English ones!
Identifier: | JB/091/121/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 91. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
1806-12-26 |
8-10 |
||
091 |
scotch reform |
||
121 |
scotch reform to ld grenville |
||
001 |
|||
text sheet |
1 |
||
recto |
c1 / e4 |
||
jeremy bentham |
iping 1804 |
||
bernardino rivadavia |
|||
1804 |
|||
29117 |
|||