★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
Auto loaded |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<!-- pencil annotations --> <p. +D C<hi rend="superscript">d</hi> 7 <note>17</note> <lb/>Police Revenue Bill <note>Observations</note></p> <note>Arms<lb/>8.<lb/> Proposed to add a<lb/> Magistrates duty<lb/>on the Occupier</note> <p>Over and above the duty on these articles in the <lb/> hands of the Manufacturer and the Dealer, it is <lb/> proposed to <del> <gap/. <gap/> </del> <add> subject them not to a licence duty <add> or a licence</add>, but to</add> a periodical <hi rend="underline">registration</hi> duty <lb/> in the hands of the occupier: the duty to be a very<lb/> low one, and established rather for the <gap/> purpose<lb/> of knowing in what hands the articles in <Lb/> question are lodged, and what the quantity of them<lb/> in the kingdom <add> from time to time</add> amounts be in the whole, than <lb/> for any <gap/> that may <del>desired</del><add> be desirable</add> from it to<lb/>the Revenue.</p> <note>9<lb/. Such a Duty<lb/> no infringement<lb/> of the Bill of Rights<lb/> which establishes<lb/> stronger limitations<lb/> of the right of <del>carrying</del><add> self<lb/> <del>arm &c</del> <add> defence</note> <p> In this there is nothing inconsistent in the smallest<lb/> degree with either the letter or the spirit of the<lb/> Bill of Rights. <del> <gap/></del> What it <add> the <del>that article</del> </add> <del> says <gap/> <gap/></del><lb/> (<del>art 7</del> ( .W. & M. Sep.2.e.2 ff.art.7) <add> says on their head</add> is — "That<lb/> "the subject ——— may have arms for their defence.."<lb/> " ..." But the "<hi rend="underline">subject</hi>" spoken of are — not <hi rend="underline">all</hi> <lb/> subjects — but only "the subjects, which are Protestants." .. If therefore <hi rend="superscript">[+]</hi> <note>[+] instead of being simply subjected to a registration duty <del><gap/> <gap/> <add> <gap/> </del> common with all other keepers of arms, as proposed</note> the democratical malcontents<lb/> were to be <del>not only <add>merely</add> </del> subjected to <add> the control of a </add> licence<lb/> (which is not proposed) <del>but</del> <add> or even (which is still further from being</add> <del> were excluded from the</del> <lb/><add>proposed)</add> <del> facility of keeping arms, <add> excluded altogether as Papists <hi rend="superscript">[+]</hi> <note> [+] and <add><del>if were</del> <add> were even</add> a <del>te</del> new test Act framed for the purpose,</note> <add>even at the time of the</add> <del> the <gap/> would be not</del><lb/> </add> | |||
<p. +D Cd 7 17
Police Revenue Bill Observations
Arms
8.
Proposed to add a
Magistrates duty
on the Occupier
Over and above the duty on these articles in the
hands of the Manufacturer and the Dealer, it is
proposed to <gap/. subject them not to a licence duty <add> or a licence, but to</add> a periodical registration duty
in the hands of the occupier: the duty to be a very
low one, and established rather for the purpose
of knowing in what hands the articles in
question are lodged, and what the quantity of them
in the kingdom from time to time amounts be in the whole, than
for any that may desired be desirable from it to
the Revenue.
9<lb/. Such a Duty
no infringement
of the Bill of Rights
which establishes
stronger limitations
of the right of carrying<add> self
arm &c <add> defence
In this there is nothing inconsistent in the smallest
degree with either the letter or the spirit of the
Bill of Rights. What it the that article says
(art 7 ( .W. & M. Sep.2.e.2 ff.art.7) says on their head is — "That
"the subject ——— may have arms for their defence.."
" ..." But the "subject" spoken of are — not all
subjects — but only "the subjects, which are Protestants." .. If therefore [+] [+] instead of being simply subjected to a registration duty <add> common with all other keepers of arms, as proposed the democratical malcontents
were to be not only merely subjected to the control of a licence
(which is not proposed) but or even (which is still further from being were excluded from the
proposed) facility of keeping arms, <add> excluded altogether as Papists [+] <note> [+] and <add>if were were even a te new test Act framed for the purpose,</note> even at the time of the the would be not
</add>
|
Identifier: | JB/150/739/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 150. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
8-9 |
|||
|
150 |
police bill |
||
|
739 |
police revenue bill |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
d7 / f17 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
|||
|
50960 |
|||
