JB/118/383/001

Click Here To Edit

the Admiralty, while, till several years after,
Mr Bentham was, without any compensation,
subsisting at a very reduced income, the Panopticon
concern was in a given up by
General Bentham, as a matter not worth
thinking about: accordingly as General Bentham
never received nor expected any share in the
profit of the land when it came to be put
into his Brother's hands, so neither would he
think of claiming from his brother, in his lifetime,
any share in the compensation money
in question. At the same time, considering
that of the loss and damage in question, a
very considerable, though never liquidated portion,
was really, as above, sustained by General
Bentham, and the post obit interest he had
in the Contract is apparent upon the face of it,
given, in the wording of this amendment, should
not some mention be made of him in the
amount of loss and damage? But if so,
quere how? After the word "him" shall the
words and his said Brother be inserted? –

But in this case will it not seem rather odd,
that compensation should be granted for one
alone, in a case in where the damage had
two to share in it?

Identifier: | JB/118/383/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 118.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	118	Main Headings	panopticon
Folio number	383	Info in main headings field
Image	001	Titles
Category	copy/fair copy sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering
Penner		Watermarks
Marginals		Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public	tissue paper	ID Number	39437
Box Contents