★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
m Protected "JB/141/005/002": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''[{{fullurl:JB/141/005/002|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | '''[{{fullurl:JB/141/005/002|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<p><head>Note</head></p> | |||
<p>* In order to render the distinction between those<lb/> | |||
several objects as clear as I can make it, I will<lb/> | |||
illustrate it by an example as familiar and popular<lb/> | |||
as I can think of.</p> | |||
<p>In 1779 a Jury gave £4000 damages against<lb/> | |||
the Earl of Halifax for the false imprisonment of<lb/> | |||
John Wilkes Esq<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> on suspicion of being the author<lb/> | |||
of a State libel. <del>The</del> I am asked then what not<lb/> | |||
of an act it was the Jury did when by giving this<lb/> | |||
verdict they appointed the sum of money in question<lb/> | |||
to be paid by one person to another:<hi rend="superscript">†</hi> <note>† whether it was an act of pure hostility of vengeance, of constraint, of antipathy, of self-defence &c.</note> I answer not<lb/> | |||
an act of pure <del>hosit</del> hostility, for it was on account<lb/> | |||
of Mr Wilkes: not an act of compulsion – the sum<lb/> | |||
being once paid nothing further was required of him,<lb/> | |||
nor of self defence for that implies that there is some<lb/> | |||
person who is actually using his endeavour to do mischief<lb/> | |||
to the party defending himself.</p> | |||
<p>Was it an act of vengeance an act of restraint<lb/> | |||
an act of prevention or act of compensation an<lb/> | |||
act of self-preservation</p> | |||
<p>I answer that it might have been all these acts<lb/> | |||
together or either of them separately according to the intention<lb/> | |||
of the Jurymen.</p> | |||
<p>If any of the Jurymen being irritated against Lord<lb/> | |||
Halifax whether on a public <add>or private</add> account intended to<lb/> | |||
produce pain in him and nothing further it was an<lb/> | |||
act of <hi rend="underline">vengeance</hi> and so on that account an act<lb/> | |||
of punishment.</p> | |||
<p>If any <del>of</del> Juryman felt a prejudice against<lb/> | |||
Lord Halifax on account of his being a Peer or<lb/> | |||
Minister or because he was an Irishman or Scotchman<lb/> | |||
&c it was on the part <add>of that Juryman</add> an act of <hi rend="underline">antipathy</hi></p> | |||
<p>If any Juryman did it in the view of restraining<lb/> | |||
Lord Halifax, or any one who might occupy that<lb/> | |||
noblemans place in future, from doing acts of a sort<lb/> | |||
for which such damages were given & <add>so</add> of preventing<lb/> | |||
such mischief, it was an act of <hi rend="underline">prevention</hi>; and in so<lb/> | |||
far as the <del>pain suffe</del> evil inflicted on Lord Halifax was<lb/> | |||
necessary for this purpose, an act of punishment.</p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{ | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Ready_For_Review}} |
Note
* In order to render the distinction between those
several objects as clear as I can make it, I will
illustrate it by an example as familiar and popular
as I can think of.
In 1779 a Jury gave £4000 damages against
the Earl of Halifax for the false imprisonment of
John Wilkes Esqr on suspicion of being the author
of a State libel. The I am asked then what not
of an act it was the Jury did when by giving this
verdict they appointed the sum of money in question
to be paid by one person to another:† † whether it was an act of pure hostility of vengeance, of constraint, of antipathy, of self-defence &c. I answer not
an act of pure hosit hostility, for it was on account
of Mr Wilkes: not an act of compulsion – the sum
being once paid nothing further was required of him,
nor of self defence for that implies that there is some
person who is actually using his endeavour to do mischief
to the party defending himself.
Was it an act of vengeance an act of restraint
an act of prevention or act of compensation an
act of self-preservation
I answer that it might have been all these acts
together or either of them separately according to the intention
of the Jurymen.
If any of the Jurymen being irritated against Lord
Halifax whether on a public or private account intended to
produce pain in him and nothing further it was an
act of vengeance and so on that account an act
of punishment.
If any of Juryman felt a prejudice against
Lord Halifax on account of his being a Peer or
Minister or because he was an Irishman or Scotchman
&c it was on the part of that Juryman an act of antipathy
If any Juryman did it in the view of restraining
Lord Halifax, or any one who might occupy that
noblemans place in future, from doing acts of a sort
for which such damages were given & so of preventing
such mischief, it was an act of prevention; and in so
far as the pain suffe evil inflicted on Lord Halifax was
necessary for this purpose, an act of punishment.
Identifier: | JB/141/005/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 141. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
141 |
rationale of punishment |
||
005 |
|||
002 |
|||
copy/fair copy sheet |
2 |
||
recto |
f10 / f4 |
||
richard smith |
[[watermarks::[britannia with shield emblem]]] |
||
48222 |
|||