★ 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 --> | ||
<p> + 2 Inserenda <note>109</note></p> <note>Observations<lb/> IV. Regulations<lb/> § 30<lb/> S2 continued<lb/> <del> Marking Metals</del> </note> <p>But in the instance of iron <del> a mark</del> three several marks<lb/> were [by 23.G.c.29. §.13] required to be made <add> by the authority of the Commissioners of the Customs</add> in the <lb/> length of every bar imported from the Colonies, and this<lb/> to no other purpose than <del>either</del> the <del> serving the importation<lb/> of it</del> ascertaining <add>either</add> <del> the point of</del> its <add> having been </add> <del>being</del> imported<lb/> <hi rend="underline">from</hi> <add> one of </add> the Colonies in contradistinction to any other <lb/> place, or <del> that of ascertaining</del> its having been imported<lb/> <hi rend="underline">into | |||
</hi> the Port of London in contradistinction to other <lb/> British ports. <del> The ascertaining the proof of</del> <add> The difference between <del>the</del> </add> an <lb/> articles <add> having and </add> not having been stolen seems a point of <lb/>rather more importance <add> and rather better worth the trouble of ascertaining </add> than either of these two.<lb/> <del>points. The clause in which the stamp </del> But if, <lb/> <del> the iron</del> in the instance of iron, <del> the har</del> of all metals<lb/> the hardest, the most difficult to stamp, and the <lb/> most apt to lose by mere lapse of time any stamp<lb/> that has been impressed upon it, the trouble of stamping<lb/> each piece three times over is a trouble not <lb/> too great to be grudged, <del> much less</del> for the effecting of<lb/> the proposed purpose, much less can it be so in the <lb/> instance of any other metal. The clause by which <lb/>the operation of stamping was thus prescribed, was repealed<lb/> <del>(it may <gap/> <gap/> be observed)</del> <del>is</del> <add> it is true</add> written about seven<lb/> years after it was <sic>past</sic> (viz: by 30.G.2.c.16.§.4) <lb/> But that <del>then</del> it was not <add> any such <del><gap/></del> consideration as that of </add> the trouble of the operation<lb/> that <del>pr</del> gave birth to the repeal, appears from the <lb/> words of the <sic>bil</sic> itself: it was not <del>th</del> because it had <lb/> <del> too trouble</del> ever been too troublesome, but because it<lb/> would "for the future be unnecessary" - the object of which <lb/> it was intended to <add> help</add> accomplish, viz: the <del><gap/> to</del> <add> <unclear>confining</unclear></add> the <lb/> <del>Port of London</del> importation of the article to the Port<lb/> of London being <del> in that</del> by the preceding clauses in <lb/> that same Statute given up.</p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} |
+ 2 Inserenda 109
Observations
IV. Regulations
§ 30
S2 continued
Marking Metals
But in the instance of iron a mark three several marks
were [by 23.G.c.29. §.13] required to be made by the authority of the Commissioners of the Customs in the
length of every bar imported from the Colonies, and this
to no other purpose than either the serving the importation
of it ascertaining either the point of its having been being imported
from one of the Colonies in contradistinction to any other
place, or that of ascertaining its having been imported
into
the Port of London in contradistinction to other
British ports. The ascertaining the proof of The difference between the an
articles having and not having been stolen seems a point of
rather more importance and rather better worth the trouble of ascertaining than either of these two.
points. The clause in which the stamp But if,
the iron in the instance of iron, the har of all metals
the hardest, the most difficult to stamp, and the
most apt to lose by mere lapse of time any stamp
that has been impressed upon it, the trouble of stamping
each piece three times over is a trouble not
too great to be grudged, much less for the effecting of
the proposed purpose, much less can it be so in the
instance of any other metal. The clause by which
the operation of stamping was thus prescribed, was repealed
(it may be observed) is it is true written about seven
years after it was past (viz: by 30.G.2.c.16.§.4)
But that then it was not any such consideration as that of the trouble of the operation
that pr gave birth to the repeal, appears from the
words of the bil itself: it was not th because it had
too trouble ever been too troublesome, but because it
would "for the future be unnecessary" - the object of which
it was intended to help accomplish, viz: the to confining the
Port of London importation of the article to the Port
of London being in that by the preceding clauses in
that same Statute given up.
Identifier: | JB/150/533/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 150. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
82 continued |
|||
150 |
police bill |
||
533 |
|||
001 |
|||
text sheet |
1 |
||
recto |
d2 / f109 |
||
jeremy bentham |
|||
50754 |
|||