★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
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/> Registration 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 police 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 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>arms &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 thes head</add> is — "That<lb/> "the subject ——— may have arms for their defence.."<lb/> " ..." But the "<hi rend="underline">subjects</hi>" spoken of are — not <hi rend="underline">all</hi> <lb/> subjects — but only "the subjects, which are Protestants." ..<lb/> 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,</del> <add> excluded altogether as Papists <del><hi rend="superscript">[+2]</hi></del> <add>even at the time of the</add> <del> the <gap/> would be not</del><lb/><add> Bill of Rights and it is believed are still from the facility<lb/>of keeping arms [+2] <note> [+2] and <add><del>if were</del></add> were even a <del>te</del> new Test Act framed for the purpose,</note> the exclusion far from being </add><lb/> <del>repugnant but rather conformable to the spirit</del> <lb/> | <!-- 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/> Registration 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 police 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 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>arms &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 thes head</add> is — "That<lb/> "the subject ——— may have arms for their defence.."<lb/> " ..." But the "<hi rend="underline">subjects</hi>" spoken of are — not <hi rend="underline">all</hi> <lb/> subjects — but only "the subjects, which are Protestants." ..<lb/> 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,</del> <add> excluded altogether as Papists <del><hi rend="superscript">[+2]</hi></del> <add>even at the time of the</add> <del> the <gap/> would be not</del><lb/><add> Bill of Rights and it is believed are still from the facility<lb/>of keeping arms [+2] <note> [+2] and <add><del>if were</del></add> were even a <del>te</del> new Test Act framed for the purpose,</note> the exclusion far from being </add><lb/> <del>repugnant but rather conformable to the spirit</del> <lb/> <add> repugnant, would be perfectly congenial to the Spirit</add> of <del> the <gap/> in</del> the Bill of Rights. The object <lb/> <note>having introduced<lb/> the Act of 12 C.2 <lb/> which gave some powers<lb/> for seizing arms<lb/> <del> in the <gap/> of <lb/> suspect persons</del></note><lb/> in view in the exception is — that the <del>great</del> majority<lb/>of the people with the governance <del>of</del> <add> at </add> their<lb/> head may be secured against the machinations<lb/> of a <del> V faction</del> <add> <gap/> minority</add> prone to <del>mischief</del> <add>plots</add> and insurrection.<lb/> This is the true spirit: <add>of the provision</add> whether this faction <del><gap/></del> <add> is composed</add><lb/> of Jacobites or Jacobins, concerns only the <hi rend="underline">letter</hi>.<lb/> <add> The</add> </p> | ||
+D Cd 7 17
Police Revenue Bill Observations
Arms
8.
Proposed to add a
Registration 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 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 police 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 in the whole, than
for any that may desired be desirable from it to
the Revenue.
9
Such a Duty
no infringement
of the Bill of Rights
which establishes
stronger limitations
of the right of carrying<add> self
arms &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 thes head is — "That
"the subject ——— may have arms for their defence.."
" ..." But the "subjects" 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, excluded altogether as Papists [+2] <add>even at the time of the the would be not
Bill of Rights and it is believed are still from the facility
of keeping arms [+2] <note> [+2] and <add>if were were even a te new Test Act framed for the purpose,</note> the exclusion far from being </add>
repugnant but rather conformable to the spirit
repugnant, would be perfectly congenial to the Spirit of the in the Bill of Rights. The object
having introduced
the Act of 12 C.2
which gave some powers
for seizing arms
in the of
suspect persons
in view in the exception is — that the great majority
of the people with the governance of at their
head may be secured against the machinations
of a V faction minority prone to mischief plots and insurrection.
This is the true spirit: of the provision whether this faction is composed
of Jacobites or Jacobins, concerns only the letter.
The
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 |
|||