JB/117/322/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/117/322/001: Difference between revisions

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


''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<p>April 1811</p>
 
<note>Reasons</note>
 
<p>7. By the constriction put upon the restraining Act<lb/>
in question by the judicial authorities the restriction<lb/>
has been confined to trades known and exercised at<lb/>
the time of passing the Statute: all other trades and<lb/>
occupations have thereby so far as concerns the statute<lb/>
been declared free. It [has] therefore been the result<lb/>
of accident and not of reason that these later <add>posterior/more modern</add> trades<lb/>
have been deprived of the <add>this supposed</add> benefit if such it<lb/>
be of the monopoly that still continues to have<lb/>
place in the case of the anterior and more<lb/>
<sic>antient</sic> trades.</p>
<p>On the principle of the Statute&#x2014;the only principle<lb/>
on which <del>it can be justified</del> any attempt at justifying<lb/>
it can be made, if it <add>the effect of</add> the monopoly in<lb/>
question be <add>beneficent</add> a benefit to the trade to which it applies<lb/>
it is an <del>injury</del> <add>injustice</add> to any trade to deprive it<lb/>
of this benefit, and the <gap/> <del>equally</del> <add>equal the proportion in which</add> the benefit<lb/>
applies to the several existing trades, <sic>antient</sic> and<lb/>
modern and <sic>antient</sic>, the less this injustice. Of<lb/>
the existing law coupled with the forced <add>judicial</add> constriction put<lb/>
upon it the effect is to accumulate <add>the supposed inconvenience</add> inexperienced<lb/>
labour upon the modern trades. In the case of the Convict<lb/>
part of the population, by adding to the mass of<lb/>
inexperienced labour, <add>and thence to the supposed inconvenience</add> which presses already<lb/>
upon the free and unrestricted trades. Under the proposed<lb/>
law this supposed inconvenience would if it be an inconvenience<lb/>
be <hi rend="underline"><foreign>pro tanto</foreign></hi> done<lb/>
away. The greater<lb/>
the number of convicts<lb/>
<del>that spread over the</del><lb/>
that diffused themselves<lb/>
though the mass of<lb/>
the restricted trades<lb/>
the less the number of<lb/>
them that <add>on the <gap/> in question</add> contributed<lb/>
to overload the unrestricted<lb/>
trades.</p>


<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}

Revision as of 17:08, 22 March 2016

Click Here To Edit

April 1811

Reasons

7. By the constriction put upon the restraining Act
in question by the judicial authorities the restriction
has been confined to trades known and exercised at
the time of passing the Statute: all other trades and
occupations have thereby so far as concerns the statute
been declared free. It [has] therefore been the result
of accident and not of reason that these later posterior/more modern trades
have been deprived of the this supposed benefit if such it
be of the monopoly that still continues to have
place in the case of the anterior and more
antient trades.

On the principle of the Statute—the only principle
on which it can be justified any attempt at justifying
it can be made, if it the effect of the monopoly in
question be beneficent a benefit to the trade to which it applies
it is an injury injustice to any trade to deprive it
of this benefit, and the equally equal the proportion in which the benefit
applies to the several existing trades, antient and
modern and antient, the less this injustice. Of
the existing law coupled with the forced judicial constriction put
upon it the effect is to accumulate the supposed inconvenience inexperienced
labour upon the modern trades. In the case of the Convict
part of the population, by adding to the mass of
inexperienced labour, and thence to the supposed inconvenience which presses already
upon the free and unrestricted trades. Under the proposed
law this supposed inconvenience would if it be an inconvenience
be pro tanto done
away. The greater
the number of convicts
that spread over the
that diffused themselves
though the mass of
the restricted trades
the less the number of
them that on the in question contributed
to overload the unrestricted
trades.



Identifier: | JB/117/322/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 117.

Date_1

1811-04

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

117

Main Headings

panopticon versus new south wales

Folio number

322

Info in main headings field

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

d3 / f3

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

th 1806

Marginals

Paper Producer

andre morellet

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1806

Notes public

ID Number

38939

Box Contents

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