★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
19 Mar. 1802<lb/>Difference <gap/><lb/>Official <gap/><lb/>3<lb/><lb/>So again in the case of the Act of Parliament<lb/><note>6<lb/>especially as the<lb/>Act which he<lb/>was annulling<lb/>to please Admi-<lb/>-nistration was<lb/>originally but<lb/>the work of Ad-<lb/>-ministration.</note><lb/> | 19 Mar. 1802<lb/>Difference <gap/><lb/>Official <gap/><lb/>3<lb/><lb/>So again in the case of the Act of Parliament<lb/><note>6<lb/>especially as the<lb/>Act which he<lb/>was annulling<lb/>to please Admi-<lb/>-nistration was<lb/>originally but<lb/>the work of Ad-<lb/>-ministration.</note><lb/>they whose influence — at whose instance was the Act passed?<lb/>Was it not at that of the Minister? Did he mean anything<lb/>more than to get the <gap/> to be made use of as he should<lb/>happen to be in a mind to use it. Did he mean to<lb/><gap/> any thing of obligation? To tie his own hands<lb/>up? Is there any thing in the Act to impose on him<lb/>any such obligation? If there is it is but the mis-<lb/>-take of his iron instrument the draughtsman — a<lb/>mere clerical error — the effect of which can not be<lb/>too effectually corrected by the exercise of such powers<lb/>as remain at his disposal.<lb/><lb/>So again under the <gap/> Act of Parliament<lb/><note>7<lb/>So in the case<lb/>of King and the<lb/>duke - the<lb/>idea of <gap/><lb/>was confounded<lb/>in these words<lb/>with the idea of<lb/>right</note><lb/>in this instance of the King and the Duke of Portland,<lb/>the King and his Duke seeing nobody in office to<lb/>hinder them — seeing every body in office to encourage<lb/>them to break the law — it never enters into their<lb/>conception that there can be any danger in trampling<lb/> the law — scarcely that there can be any thing wrong<lb/>in it. Seeing in the law the result of the combined <add>aggregate</add><lb/>wills of <add>a few</add> men in power they have no conception that<lb/><add>what is</add> the result of the same aggregation of wills should <del>not</del><lb/>on any occasion fact of being equivalent to a law.<lb/><lb/>The Duke undertands that he ought to keep his<lb/><note>8<lb/>The Duke under-<lb/>-stood that is was<lb/>wrong not to pay<lb/>his Taylor; be-<lb/>-cause Lord Keny-<lb/>-on had compelled<lb/>him: but Lord<lb/>Kenyon could not<lb/>compel him to <gap/><lb/>from the <gap/><lb/>against the Penitentiary<lb/>House.</note><lb/>tradesman <add><sic>taylor</sic></add>, at least after having made him want for<lb/>his money for a certain number of years because<lb/>there is a Lord Kenyon whose business it is to make<lb/>him pay his taylor — and <gap/> accordingly has fined<lb/>him to pay his taylor. The <gap/> does not under-<lb/>-stand that <del>there is any law</del> to he ought to pay any obe-<lb/>-dience to the law that required the <gap/> of a natural<lb/>Penitentiary House business it is that <gap/> of the <gap/><lb/>of Lord Kenyon to force him to concurr in the creation of a Penitentiary House<lb/>as to punish him for the ilegal and <gap/> <gap/> he has <gap/> for the purpose of <gap/> <add><gap/></add> a <gap/> for the <gap/> of it. | ||
19 Mar. 1802
Difference
Official
3
So again in the case of the Act of Parliament
6
especially as the
Act which he
was annulling
to please Admi-
-nistration was
originally but
the work of Ad-
-ministration.
they whose influence — at whose instance was the Act passed?
Was it not at that of the Minister? Did he mean anything
more than to get the to be made use of as he should
happen to be in a mind to use it. Did he mean to
any thing of obligation? To tie his own hands
up? Is there any thing in the Act to impose on him
any such obligation? If there is it is but the mis-
-take of his iron instrument the draughtsman — a
mere clerical error — the effect of which can not be
too effectually corrected by the exercise of such powers
as remain at his disposal.
So again under the Act of Parliament
7
So in the case
of King and the
duke - the
idea of
was confounded
in these words
with the idea of
right
in this instance of the King and the Duke of Portland,
the King and his Duke seeing nobody in office to
hinder them — seeing every body in office to encourage
them to break the law — it never enters into their
conception that there can be any danger in trampling
the law — scarcely that there can be any thing wrong
in it. Seeing in the law the result of the combined aggregate
wills of a few men in power they have no conception that
what is the result of the same aggregation of wills should not
on any occasion fact of being equivalent to a law.
The Duke undertands that he ought to keep his
8
The Duke under-
-stood that is was
wrong not to pay
his Taylor; be-
-cause Lord Keny-
-on had compelled
him: but Lord
Kenyon could not
compel him to
from the
against the Penitentiary
House.
tradesman taylor, at least after having made him want for
his money for a certain number of years because
there is a Lord Kenyon whose business it is to make
him pay his taylor — and accordingly has fined
him to pay his taylor. The does not under-
-stand that there is any law to he ought to pay any obe-
-dience to the law that required the of a natural
Penitentiary House business it is that of the
of Lord Kenyon to force him to concurr in the creation of a Penitentiary House
as to punish him for the ilegal and he has for the purpose of a for the of it.
|
Identifier: | JB/121/257/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 121. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
1802-03-19 |
6-8 |
||
|
121 |
Panopticon |
||
|
257 |
Dispensing Despotism Official Anarchy |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
Text sheet |
1 |
||
|
Recto"Recto" is not in the list (recto, verso) of allowed values for the "Rectoverso" property. |
E3 / F2 |
||
|
001 |
|||
