JB/106/292/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/106/292/001: Difference between revisions

Alock (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Alock (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


<head>1822 June 24</head><lb/><head>Junctiania Proposae</head><lb/><del>would</del> ease the Company of the cares of Government: she would do, for the Company, and continued to do as she has always done, well and to perfection, <hi rend="underline">that</hi> which, for the Company to do for itself, in any tolerable manner, and for any length of time, would be morally impossible. <p>The company being at the expence of the <hi rend="underline">fortifications</hi>, these same fortifications would, on both sides, - and in particular on that which is most material, the Atlantic side - be in the hands of the Company: here, so long as the fortifications remained untouched, would be even against the inhabitants themselves - the inhabitants of the Junctiana territory, a security _ a substantial security for the main source of profit _ the <hi rend="underline">price of transit.</hi> Together with the fortifications, to the company would belong the the function and expence of <del><gap/></del><hi rend="superscript">garrisoning</hi> then. This it might do without <hi rend="superscript">considerable</hi> danger to itself: without <hi rend="superscript">considerable</hi> danger from infrugality and peculation: out of two small garrisons, the number of official situations being determinate, no great pickings could be made.</p><p>But in case of aggression from any distant power, how would the fortifications be to be defended? By <hi rend="underline">land</hi>, <hi rend="superscript">indeed, under a government such as here proposed</hi> the assistance of the inhabitants of the territory might be trusted to as a sufficient defence. But by <hi rend="underline">sea</hi> a source of defence, suited to the nature of that element, would be necessary: and, for this defence, not only the <hi rend="underline">navy</hi> of <hi rend="underline">Washingtonia</hi> on the spot, but the mere <hi rend="underline">name</hi> of it would be sufficient. <del>But</del> Under the assurance that <del>to</del> making war upon <hi rend="underline">Junctiania</hi> <del>they</del> would be making war upon Washingtonia, <hi rend="superscript">of</hi> no such war does there seem any the smallest danger, <del>of their making</del> <hi rend="superscript">at the hands of any other states.</hi> To destroy the communication would be to put an end to <hi rend="superscript"><del>it</del></hi>,<del>their</del> <hi rend="superscript">their</hi> own use of it: to injure it would be to injure themselves, were it in any other view than the putting themselves in possession of it. By putting themselves in <hi rend="underline">possession</hi> of it, they could do themselves no service, any further than they could <hi rend="underline">keep</hi> it. Keep it they might, if a navy alone would suffice to keep it. But this <del>it</del> <hi rend="superscript">they could not do: no such thing could <hi rend="superscript">any one of them</hi></hi> <del>they</del> do; without and army <hi rend="superscript">likewise: - an army</hi> and <hi rend="underline">that</hi> sufficient to maintain itself against the three powers perpetually confederated in <del>the</del> the defence<del>s</del> of the object of a conquest so obviously contenable.</p> J 18. Anglo-American
<head>1822 June 24</head><lb/><head>Junctiania Proposae</head><lb/><del>would</del> ease the Company of the cares of Government: she would do, for the Company, and continued to do as she has always done, well and to perfection, <hi rend="underline">that</hi> which, for the Company to do for itself, in any tolerable manner, and for any length of time, would be morally impossible. <p>The company being at the expence of the <hi rend="underline">fortifications</hi>, these same fortifications would, on both sides, - and in particular on that which is most material, the Atlantic side - be in the hands of the Company: here, so long as the fortifications remained untouched, would be even against the inhabitants themselves - the inhabitants of the Junctiana territory, a security _ a substantial security for the main source of profit _ the <hi rend="underline">price of transit.</hi> Together with the fortifications, to the company would belong the the function and expence of <del><gap/></del><hi rend="superscript">garrisoning</hi> them. This it might do without <hi rend="superscript">considerable</hi> danger to itself: without <hi rend="superscript">considerable</hi> danger from infrugality and peculation: out of two small garrisons, the number of official situations being determinate, no great pickings could be made.</p><p>But in case of aggression from any distant power, how would the fortifications be to be defended? By <hi rend="underline">land</hi>, <hi rend="superscript">indeed, under a government such as here proposed</hi> the assistance of the inhabitants of the territory might be trusted to as a sufficient defence. But by <hi rend="underline">sea</hi> a source of defence, suited to the nature of that element, would be necessary: and, for this defence, not only the <hi rend="underline">navy</hi> of <hi rend="underline">Washingtonia</hi> on the spot, but the mere <hi rend="underline">name</hi> of it would be sufficient. <del>But</del> Under the assurance that <del>to</del> making war upon <hi rend="underline">Junctiania</hi> <del>they</del> would be making war upon Washingtonia, <hi rend="superscript">of</hi> no such war does there seem any the smallest danger, <del>of their making</del> <hi rend="superscript">at the hands of any other states.</hi> To destroy the communication would be to put an end to <hi rend="superscript"><del>it</del></hi>,<del>their</del> <hi rend="superscript">their</hi> own use of it: to injure it would be to injure themselves, were it in any other view than the putting themselves in possession of it. By putting themselves in <hi rend="underline">possession</hi> of it, they could do themselves no service, any further than they could <hi rend="underline">keep</hi> it. Keep it they might, if a navy alone would suffice to keep it. But this <del>it</del> <hi rend="superscript">they could not do: no such thing could <hi rend="superscript">any one of them</hi> <del>they</del> do; without an army <hi rend="superscript">likewise: - an army</hi> and <hi rend="underline">that</hi> sufficient to maintain itself against the three powers perpetually confederated in <del>the</del> the defence<del>s</del> of the object of a conquest so obviously contenable.</p> J 18. Anglo-American
   
   



Revision as of 23:41, 8 February 2015

Click Here To Edit

1822 June 24
Junctiania Proposae
would ease the Company of the cares of Government: she would do, for the Company, and continued to do as she has always done, well and to perfection, that which, for the Company to do for itself, in any tolerable manner, and for any length of time, would be morally impossible.

The company being at the expence of the fortifications, these same fortifications would, on both sides, - and in particular on that which is most material, the Atlantic side - be in the hands of the Company: here, so long as the fortifications remained untouched, would be even against the inhabitants themselves - the inhabitants of the Junctiana territory, a security _ a substantial security for the main source of profit _ the price of transit. Together with the fortifications, to the company would belong the the function and expence of garrisoning them. This it might do without considerable danger to itself: without considerable danger from infrugality and peculation: out of two small garrisons, the number of official situations being determinate, no great pickings could be made.

But in case of aggression from any distant power, how would the fortifications be to be defended? By land, indeed, under a government such as here proposed the assistance of the inhabitants of the territory might be trusted to as a sufficient defence. But by sea a source of defence, suited to the nature of that element, would be necessary: and, for this defence, not only the navy of Washingtonia on the spot, but the mere name of it would be sufficient. But Under the assurance that to making war upon Junctiania they would be making war upon Washingtonia, of no such war does there seem any the smallest danger, of their making at the hands of any other states. To destroy the communication would be to put an end to it,their their own use of it: to injure it would be to injure themselves, were it in any other view than the putting themselves in possession of it. By putting themselves in possession of it, they could do themselves no service, any further than they could keep it. Keep it they might, if a navy alone would suffice to keep it. But this it they could not do: no such thing could <hi rend="superscript">any one of them they do; without an army likewise: - an army and that sufficient to maintain itself against the three powers perpetually confederated in the the defences of the object of a conquest so obviously contenable.

J 18. Anglo-American




Identifier: | JB/106/292/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 106.

Date_1

1822-06-24

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

106

Main Headings

junctiana proposal

Folio number

292

Info in main headings field

junctiana proposal

Image

001

Titles

Category

copy/fair copy sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

c2 / d28 / e7

Penner

john flowerdew colls

Watermarks

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

jeremy bentham

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

34880

Box Contents

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