★ 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 --> | ||
<del>If the wording of the privilege were</del><lb/><p>In <del>the wording of</del> the <add>above</add> Act relative to the Adjutant<lb/>General and the Comptrollers of Army Accounts<lb/>the wording is so loose as to leave the officers<lb/>in question, each of them (it should seem) separately<lb/>and individually, at liberty to make use of the<lb/>privilege for their personal accommodation, with<lb/>as little difficulty as is experienced by a Member <lb/>of Parliament. If in the instance of the proposed<lb/>new Board the same latitude were established, <lb/>it might deserve consideration perhaps<lb/>whether the old established Boards, <del>some of them</del> <add>of which some</add><lb/><del>of</del> at least <add>will appear</add> of superior importance, viz: <del>the Excise,</del><lb/>the Customs, the Excise, <add>the Stamp Office, and</add> the Tax Office, <del>and<lb/>the Navy Board</del> might not be apt, <add>and</add> not altogether<lb/>without reason, to regard the distribution <note>as affording them <lb/>matter of complaint <lb/>on the score of <lb/>dignity.</note> <lb/>In all these instances,<lb/>it is true, the individuals <del>are, and of</del> <add>as of</add><lb/><del>course must be,</del> <add>course they must be</add> exonerated <add>in some way or other</add> from all <del>charge</del> <add>expense</add> in accounts<lb/>of letters sent or received by them <del>as were</del><lb/>for the public service: but the way in which they<lb/>are exonerated, is by <add>their</add> paying the money, and <del>charging</del> reimbursing<lb/><del>it to the account of</del> <add>themselves by charging the expense to the public under the</add><lb/>head of <hi rend="underline">incidents</hi>: <del>and a payment</del> <add>and it does not seem likely that a payment made</add> under this head<lb/>for a letter really written <add>or received</add> in private account only,<lb/><del>could not</del> <add>should</add> be charged <note>to the public <lb/>as if written or <lb/>received for the <lb/>public service</note><lb/>with <del>a</del> <add>as</add> little <del><gap/></del> <add><gap/></add> as the<lb/>letter itself might be directed and franked. In the<lb/>former <del>case there ma</del> <add>practice</add> a falsehood <del>must be</del> <add>is</add> assisted:<lb/>in the latter no assertion is contained.<lb/></p><pb/> | <del>If the wording of the privilege were</del><lb/><p>In <del>the wording of</del> the <add>above</add> Act relative to the Adjutant<lb/>General and the Comptrollers of Army Accounts<lb/>the wording is so loose as to leave the officers<lb/>in question, each of them (it should seem) separately<lb/>and individually, at liberty to make use of the<lb/>privilege for their personal accommodation, with<lb/>as little difficulty as is experienced by a Member <lb/>of Parliament. If in the instance of the proposed<lb/>new Board the same latitude were established, <lb/>it might deserve consideration perhaps<lb/>whether the old established Boards, <del>some of them</del> <add>of which some</add><lb/><del>of</del> at least <add>will appear</add> of superior importance, viz: <del>the Excise,</del><lb/>the Customs, the Excise, <add>the Stamp Office, and</add> the Tax Office, <del>and<lb/>the Navy Board</del> <note>(not to speak of <lb/>the <del>Na</del> Ordinance, <lb/>the Navy Board, <lb/>the Transport Board<lb/> and other Offices whose <lb/>correspondence is confined <lb/>to a few places)</note><lb/>might not be apt, <add>and</add> not altogether<lb/>without reason, to regard the distribution <note>as affording them <lb/>matter of complaint <lb/>on the score of <lb/>dignity.</note> <lb/>In all these instances,<lb/>it is true, the individuals <del>are, and of</del> <add>as of</add><lb/><del>course must be,</del> <add>course they must be</add> exonerated <add>in some way or other</add> from all <del>charge</del> <add>expense</add> in accounts<lb/>of letters sent or received by them <del>as were</del><lb/>for the public service: but the way in which they<lb/>are exonerated, is by <add>their</add> paying the money, and <del>charging</del> reimbursing<lb/><del>it to the account of</del> <add>themselves by charging the expense to the public under the</add><lb/>head of <hi rend="underline">incidents</hi>: <del>and a payment</del> <add>and it does not seem likely that a payment made</add> under this head<lb/>for a letter really written <add>or received</add> in private account only,<lb/><del>could not</del> <add>should</add> be charged <note>to the public <lb/>as if written or <lb/>received for the <lb/>public service</note><lb/>with <del>a</del> <add>as</add> little <del><gap/></del> <add><gap/></add> as the<lb/>letter itself might be directed and franked. In the<lb/>former <del>case there ma</del> <add>practice</add> a falsehood <del>must be</del> <add>is</add> assisted:<lb/>in the latter no assertion is contained.<lb/></p><pb/> | ||
If the wording of the privilege were
In the wording of the above Act relative to the Adjutant
General and the Comptrollers of Army Accounts
the wording is so loose as to leave the officers
in question, each of them (it should seem) separately
and individually, at liberty to make use of the
privilege for their personal accommodation, with
as little difficulty as is experienced by a Member
of Parliament. If in the instance of the proposed
new Board the same latitude were established,
it might deserve consideration perhaps
whether the old established Boards, some of them of which some
of at least will appear of superior importance, viz: the Excise,
the Customs, the Excise, the Stamp Office, and the Tax Office, and
the Navy Board (not to speak of
the Na Ordinance,
the Navy Board,
the Transport Board
and other Offices whose
correspondence is confined
to a few places)
might not be apt, and not altogether
without reason, to regard the distribution as affording them
matter of complaint
on the score of
dignity.
In all these instances,
it is true, the individuals are, and of as of
course must be, course they must be exonerated in some way or other from all charge expense in accounts
of letters sent or received by them as were
for the public service: but the way in which they
are exonerated, is by their paying the money, and charging reimbursing
it to the account of themselves by charging the expense to the public under the
head of incidents: and a payment and it does not seem likely that a payment made under this head
for a letter really written or received in private account only,
could not should be charged to the public
as if written or
received for the
public service
with a as little as the
letter itself might be directed and franked. In the
former case there ma practice a falsehood must be is assisted:
in the latter no assertion is contained.
---page break---
Identifier: | JB/150/633/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 150. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
111 |
|||
150 |
police bill |
||
633 |
|||
001 |
|||
text sheet |
1 |
||
recto |
d4 / f204 |
||
jeremy bentham |
|||
50854 |
|||