JB/116/289/002: 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/116/289/002: Difference between revisions

Robmagin (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Lea Stern (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
<note>VII Escapes</note>
<note>VII Escapes</note>


<p>ought to have been, and thou who could not lawfully be detained<lb/> there- one piece of information would be necessary, which I have<lb/> not been able to find in the Journal of Captain Collins. This<lb/> is- whether to the <hi rend='underline'>Instructions</hi> by which this branch of the<lb/> liberty of the subject <del>was thus subject</del> was thus subjected to<lb/> the will and pleasure of the <unclear>Ceral</unclear> despot, any and what other<lb/> instruction (secret it must evidently have been, if any,) was annexed,<lb/> tending to give direction or in any other way set limits, to the<lb/> exercise of that will and pleasure. If so, what <hi rend='underline'>phasis</hi> (if one<lb/> may so say,) of the will of the despot have as home was turned<lb/> toward this branch of liberty in the instance of the <unclear>Expires</unclear> &amp;<lb/> whether the Governor was commanded to permit their departure<lb/> from the Colony, or was forbidden to permit it, or received<lb/> permission in express words, to forbid it or permit it at his<lb/> discretion, or was left in possession of that liberty by silence?<lb/>Points, these of entire indifference at this time, to the fate of the<lb/> wretches this detained in durance, but of no small movement to<lb/> so many lofty personages, who, if the constitution be thought<lb/> worth preserving, will have to answer for i here at home.&#x2014;</p>
<p>ought to have been, and those who could not lawfully be detained<lb/> there &#x2014; one piece of information would be necessary, which I have<lb/> not been able to find in the Journal of Captain Collins. This<lb/> is &#x2014; whether to the <hi rend='underline'>Instructions</hi> by which this branch of the<lb/> liberty of the subject <del>was thus subject</del> was thus subjected to<lb/> the will and pleasure of the local despot, any and what other<lb/> instruction (secret it must evidently have been, if any,) was annexed,<lb/> tending to give direction or in any other way set limits, to the<lb/> exercise of that will and pleasure. If so, what <hi rend='underline'>phasis</hi> (if one<lb/> may so say,) of the will of the despot here at home was turned<lb/> towards this branch of liberty in the instance of the Expirees?<lb/> whether the Governor was commanded to <sic>permitt</sic> their departure<lb/> from the Colony, or was forbidden to permit it, or received<lb/> permission in express words, to forbid it or permit it at his<lb/> discretion, or was left in possession of that liberty by silence?<lb/> Points, these of entire indifference at this time, to the fate of the<lb/> wretches this detained in durance, but of no small movement to<lb/> so many lofty personages, who, if the constitution be thought<lb/> worth preserving, will have to answer for it here at home. &#x2014;</p>
<p>So far as the account goes, <del>Your Lordship has seen the</del><lb/> instructions, <add><unclear>have hime ban her</unclear></add> such as they were received in August 1792. I will<lb/>now present <del>Your Lordship</del> <add><unclear>the rord</unclear></add> with the execution and effect of them:<lb/> prefacing it with the events of the preceding period of opposite<lb/> instruction, or no-instruction, I am unable to say which.&#x2014;</p>
<p>So far as the account goes, <del>Your Lordship has seen </del> the<lb/> instructions, <add><unclear>have hime been seen</unclear></add> such as they were received in August 1792. I will<lb/> now present <del>Your Lordship</del> <add><unclear>the rord</unclear></add> with the execution and effect of them:<lb/> prefacing it with the events of the preceding period of opposite<lb/> instruction, or no-instruction, I am unable to say which.&#x2014;</p>
<p>In July 1799 when "<hi rend='underline'>little more than two years has elapsed</hi><lb/> "since the departure" of the first expedition "from England several<lb/> <note>Collins p.74</note> "Convicts <sic>alledging</sic> <hi rend='underline'>that their terms were expired</hi> "claimed to be<lb/> "restored to the privilege of freemen". Were the allegations true?<lb/> This was what could not be ascertained-To make sure they were</p>
<p>In July 1799 when "<hi rend='underline'>little more than two years has elapsed</hi><lb/> "since the departure" of the first expedition "from England several<lb/> <note>Collins p.74</note> "Convicts <sic>alledging</sic> <hi rend='underline'>that their terms were expired</hi> "claimed to be<lb/> "restored to the privilege of freemen". Were the allegations true?<lb/> This was what could not be ascertained-To make sure they were</p>



Revision as of 23:49, 15 August 2013

Click Here To Edit

8

VII Escapes

ought to have been, and those who could not lawfully be detained
there — one piece of information would be necessary, which I have
not been able to find in the Journal of Captain Collins. This
is — whether to the Instructions by which this branch of the
liberty of the subject was thus subject was thus subjected to
the will and pleasure of the local despot, any and what other
instruction (secret it must evidently have been, if any,) was annexed,
tending to give direction or in any other way set limits, to the
exercise of that will and pleasure. If so, what phasis (if one
may so say,) of the will of the despot here at home was turned
towards this branch of liberty in the instance of the Expirees?
whether the Governor was commanded to permitt their departure
from the Colony, or was forbidden to permit it, or received
permission in express words, to forbid it or permit it at his
discretion, or was left in possession of that liberty by silence?
Points, these of entire indifference at this time, to the fate of the
wretches this detained in durance, but of no small movement to
so many lofty personages, who, if the constitution be thought
worth preserving, will have to answer for it here at home. —

So far as the account goes, Your Lordship has seen the
instructions, have hime been seen such as they were received in August 1792. I will
now present Your Lordship the rord with the execution and effect of them:
prefacing it with the events of the preceding period of opposite
instruction, or no-instruction, I am unable to say which.—

In July 1799 when "little more than two years has elapsed
"since the departure" of the first expedition "from England several
Collins p.74 "Convicts alledging that their terms were expired "claimed to be
"restored to the privilege of freemen". Were the allegations true?
This was what could not be ascertained-To make sure they were



Identifier: | JB/116/289/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 116.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

116

Main Headings

panopticon versus new south wales

Folio number

289

Info in main headings field

n. s. wales

Image

002

Titles

Category

copy/fair copy sheet

Number of Pages

2

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

d7 f63 / d8 f64

Penner

john herbert koe

Watermarks

[[watermarks::[monogram] 1800]]

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

jeremy bentham

Paper Produced in Year

1800

Notes public

ID Number

37822

Box Contents

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