JB/137/347/001: 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/137/347/001: Difference between revisions

Ohsoldgirl (talk | contribs)
m Protected "JB/137/347/001": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))
Ohsoldgirl (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


<head>1820 <sic>Jan.</sic> 12<lb/>Radical Reform Bill</head> <!-- marginal notes in pencil --> <p>15 &sect; <gap/> 9<lb/><note> III Experience<lb/>II Ireland</note><lb/>(2) (1) 1 <note>J.B.'s<lb/>J.B. Conclusion</note></p> <p>or 8 or 1<lb/>Misconception was<lb/>not possible</note></p> <p><note><add>J.B.'s</add> Democratic ascendency<lb/><unclear>never</unclear> explained<lb/>in an <sic>Introd.</sic>. 1 Reform<lb/>Catechism 2. <gap/><lb/>In forms of government<lb/> no change; in the representation<lb/> none in principle<lb/>compared with<lb/>primeval state.  Prorogations,<lb/><del>could</del> Privileges the<lb/><gap/></note>.</p> <p>There all not now I hope be much room for<lb/> misconception.</p> <p>What I mean by democratic ascendency has <add>now</add><lb/> been explained <del>been and</del> <sic>A<hi rend="superscript">o</hi></sic> 1817 in the Introduction<lb/>to my Parliamentary reform Catechism, and again<lb/>in the present pages: the ascendency of the people as<lb/>it would be operated by radical reform, as here and<lb/>there explained: the forms of government remaining<lb/>without change: <del> the <gap/> <gap/></del> no change proposed other<lb/>than in the state of the representation of the people in the<lb/>Common House: the Monarch with the same prerogatives:<lb/> the Lords with the same privileges.</p> <p./<note>and, when compared<lb/>with the primeval state<lb/> of the <del>government</del> <add>representation</add>, even<lb/>this change a change<lb/> in details only, and<lb/>not in principle.</note></p> <!-- marginal note in pencil --> <p><note> or 9 or 2<lb/>Of proposed <del><gap/></del> <add>operation</add><lb/><del>th</del> <add>for</add> outing the change<lb/> misconception impossible: &#x2014; the same<lb/>as recommended by<lb/>Pitt in 1782 while<lb/>carrying on in <gap/><lb/>by <gap/ in<lb/>1794 quoting Pitt</note></p> <p>The means <add>operation</add> by which if it depended upon<lb/>me the change would be produced have also been<lb/>explained, and beyond all danger it is hoped, of<lb/>misconception: the same that was approved and recommended<lb/>by the late M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> Pitt <add>in the British House of Commons</add> a little before he became<lb/><del>Minister of <gap/></del> recommended for Great Britain<lb/>at the very time when they were carrying on<lb/>in and for Ireland: the same that were again recommended<lb/> by M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> now Earl Grey also in the House<lb/>of Commons, he referring at the same time to the<lb/>recommendation <del>of</del> <add>given by</add> M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> Pitt as above</p> <!-- marginal note in pencil --> <p><note>or10 or 3<lb/>If J.B. no more a seditionist or <gap/>,<lb/> then so <hi rend="underline">they</hi></note></p> <p>If I am a seditionist and a republican, <del>I am</del><lb/> as a seditionist I am the same sort of <add>republican or </add> seditionist<lb/><del.as other</del> now as M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> Pitt and M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> Grey were then.</p><!-- marginal note in pencil --> <p><note>or 11 or 4<lb/>Not that they prove it<lb/>right, but they save it<lb/>from consistent refusal<lb/>from which <gap/> I <gap/></note></p>             
<head>1820 <sic>Jan.</sic> 12<lb/>Radical Reform Bill</head> <!-- marginal notes in pencil --> <p>15 &sect; <gap/> 9<lb/><note> III Experience<lb/>II Ireland</note><lb/>(2) (1) 1 <note>J.B.'s<lb/>J.B. Conclusion</note></p> <p><note>or 8 or 1<lb/>Misconception now<lb/>not possible</note></p> <p><note><add>J.B.'s</add> Democratic ascendency<lb/>here explained<lb/>1. in <sic>Introd.</sic>.to Reform<lb/>Catechism 2. here<lb/>In forms of government<lb/> no change; in the representation<lb/> none in principle<lb/>compared with<lb/>primeval state.  Prorogations,<lb/><del>could</del> Privileges the<lb/>same.</note>.</p> <p>There will not now I hope be much room for<lb/> misconception.</p> <p>What I mean by democratic ascendency has <add>was</add><lb/> been explained <del>here and</del> <sic>A<hi rend="superscript">o</hi></sic> 1817 in the Introduction<lb/>to my Parliamentary Reform Catechism, and again<lb/>in the present pages: the ascendency of the people as<lb/>it would be effected by radical reform, as here and<lb/>there explained: the forms of government remaining<lb/>without change: <del> the <gap/> <gap/></del> no change proposed other<lb/>than in the state of the representation of the people in the<lb/>Common House: the Monarch with the same prerogatives:<lb/> the Lords with the same privileges.</p> <p><note>and, when compared<lb/>with the primeval state<lb/> of the <del>government</del> <add>representation</add>, even<lb/>this change a change<lb/> in details only, and<lb/>not in principle.</note></p> <!-- marginal note in pencil --> <p><note> or 9 or 2<lb/>Of proposed <del><gap/></del> <add>operation</add><lb/><del>th</del> <add>for</add> putting the change<lb/> misconception impossible: &#x2014;<lb/> the same<lb/>as recommended by<lb/>Pitt in 1782 while<lb/>carrying on in Ireland<lb/>by Grey in<lb/>1794 quoting Pitt</note></p> <p>The means <add>operation</add> by which if it depended upon<lb/>me the change would be produced have also been<lb/>explained, and beyond all danger it is hoped, of<lb/>misconception: the same that was approved and recommended<lb/>by the late M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> Pitt <add>in the British House of Commons</add> a little before he became<lb/><del>Minister of <gap/></del> recommended for Great Britain<lb/>at the very time when they were carrying on<lb/>in and for Ireland: the same that were again recommended<lb/> by M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> now Earl Grey also in the House<lb/>of Commons, he referring at the same time to the<lb/>recommendation <del>of</del> <add>given by</add> M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> Pitt as above</p> <!-- marginal note in pencil --> <p><note>or 10 or 3<lb/>If J.B. no more a<lb/> seditionist or republican,<lb/> then so <hi rend="underline">they</hi></note></p> <p>If I am a seditionist and a republican, <del>I am</del><lb/> as a seditionist I am the same sort of <add>republican or </add> seditionist<lb/><del>as other</del> now as M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> Pitt and M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> Grey were then.</p><!-- marginal note in pencil --> <p><note>or 11 or 4<lb/>Not that they prove it<lb/>right, but they save it<lb/>from consistent refusal<lb/>from which <gap/> I <gap/></note></p>             






<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Ready_For_Review}}

Revision as of 12:05, 28 April 2020

Click Here To Edit

1820 Jan. 12
Radical Reform Bill

15 § 9
III Experience
II Ireland

(2) (1) 1 J.B.'s
J.B. Conclusion

or 8 or 1
Misconception now
not possible

J.B.'s Democratic ascendency
here explained
1. in Introd..to Reform
Catechism 2. here
In forms of government
no change; in the representation
none in principle
compared with
primeval state. Prorogations,
could Privileges the
same.
.

There will not now I hope be much room for
misconception.

What I mean by democratic ascendency has was
been explained here and Ao 1817 in the Introduction
to my Parliamentary Reform Catechism, and again
in the present pages: the ascendency of the people as
it would be effected by radical reform, as here and
there explained: the forms of government remaining
without change: the no change proposed other
than in the state of the representation of the people in the
Common House: the Monarch with the same prerogatives:
the Lords with the same privileges.

and, when compared
with the primeval state
of the government representation, even
this change a change
in details only, and
not in principle.

or 9 or 2
Of proposed operation
th for putting the change
misconception impossible: —
the same
as recommended by
Pitt in 1782 while
carrying on in Ireland
by Grey in
1794 quoting Pitt

The means operation by which if it depended upon
me the change would be produced have also been
explained, and beyond all danger it is hoped, of
misconception: the same that was approved and recommended
by the late Mr Pitt in the British House of Commons a little before he became
Minister of recommended for Great Britain
at the very time when they were carrying on
in and for Ireland: the same that were again recommended
by Mr now Earl Grey also in the House
of Commons, he referring at the same time to the
recommendation of given by Mr Pitt as above

or 10 or 3
If J.B. no more a
seditionist or republican,
then so they

If I am a seditionist and a republican, I am
as a seditionist I am the same sort of republican or seditionist
as other now as Mr Pitt and Mr Grey were then.

or 11 or 4
Not that they prove it
right, but they save it
from consistent refusal
from which I




Identifier: | JB/137/347/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 137.

Date_1

1820-01-12

Marginal Summary Numbering

or 8 or 1 - or 11 or 4

Box

137

Main Headings

radicalism not dangerous

Folio number

347

Info in main headings field

radical reform bill

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

c2 / c1 / d9 / e1

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

[[watermarks::[prince of wales feathers] i&m 1816]]

Marginals

jeremy bentham

Paper Producer

arthur wellesley, duke of wellington

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1816

Notes public

ID Number

47064

Box Contents

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