★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<head>1819 <sic>Nov.</sic> 28 +++<lb/>Radicalism not</head> <!-- marginal notes in pencil --> <p>XXI ++ 1 <note><sic>Ulto</sic> 2<hi rend="superscript">o</hi><lb/>1th <gap/> <gap/>? <gap/></note><lb/> (1) 1 <note>§.6 <gap/> <gap/> is <gap/></note></p> <p><note>o9r 1<lb/>III Now to be Experience<lb/><gap/> contrary to the imputation<lb/>1. In United States</note></p> <p><note>In United States<lb/>Democratic rights<lb/>without any counterforce <add>checking</add><lb/>from Monarchy<lb/>or Aristocracy</note></p> <p><note>the case parallel<lb/>Ideas, habit<lb/><del>assoc</del> language,<lb/>association formed<b/>by language, all<lb/>English.<lb/>Yet not in desire<lb/>of equal division<lb/>or any <gap/><lb/><gap/> <gap/> <gap/><lb/><gap/> <gap/><lb/><gap/></note></p> <p>Part III. Defence from experience, in the case of the United States</p> <p>II. So much for the general nature of the case.</p> <p> In <hi rend="underline">experience</hi>, is there any thing to give countenance<lb/>to a supposition thus <sic>shewn</sic> to be a theory so extravagant<lb/><del>add</del> <add>as well as</add> <sic>compleatly</sic> groundless?</p> <p>In experience? On the contrary, <del>all <gap/></del><lb/>from experience all the evidence that the case<lb/>furnishes, is directly in the teeth of the supposition,<lb/>and puts the most decided negative upon it.</p> <p><unclear>2.</unclear> Lost first to the <add>North-American</add> <hi rend="underline">United States</hi> In that vast<lb/>region — a region people with men of English race, bred<lb/>up in English habits — <del>m</del> <add>with</add> minds fraught with ideas,<lb/>associated <del>by the English language</del> with <add>all</add> English ideas by<lb/><add>English language</add> in that vast region <del> we have not indeed a government</del> <add>what is the state of things? If not <!-- continues into margin --> indeed exactly <del>that what<lb/>in <del>England</del> the British Isles it would<lb/>be rendered by democratic<lb/>Ascendency as<lb/>established by radical<lb/>reform, at any rate<lb/> a state of things <del>while</del> which</add><lb/><del>not so</del> to the present<lb/>purpose is not materially<lb/>different from it and<lb/>in particular a state<lb/>of things which, if it had<lb/>been in human nature<lb/>to give birth to any such<lb/>design as that of a <sic>govm<hi rend="superscript">t</hi><lb/><gap/> of the rights of<lb/>property, would have<lb/>been full as likely to<lb/>give birth to such a<lb/>design as <del>would be</del> the condition<lb/><del>which</del> of the <sic>radicalists</sic><lb/><del><gap/> <gap/></del> in the British<lb/>Isles can now be.</add></p> <p><add>Well then, in <del>these</del> those United States, such is the <del>radical</del></add><lb/><del>established in the United States by <gap/></del><lb/><add>state of things in respect of the influence of the people at large in the business<lb/><del>form</del> of government. What then <del><gap/> <gap/></del> is the consequence?</add><lb/><del><gap/> <gap/>-<gap/> what causes or will be seen to</del><lb/><add>Any such subversion of property as the form proposed is accused</add><lb/><del>the same thing by democratic ascendency, by a</del><lb/><add>as being to a certainty productive of? No, nor any the least approach</add><lb/><del>spent system of practical equality not only <gap/></del><lb/><add>to it. Any inferiority in respect of general tranquillity</add><lb/><add>and felicity in other shapes, as compared with the British</add><lb/><del>such a <gap/> of it <gap/> <gap/><gap/> <gap/> had</del><lb/><add>Isles? On the contrary, a great and perfectly <sic>uncontrovertible</sic></add><lb/><del>it be in the nature of democratic ascendency</del><lb/><add>superiority. This we shall see.</add><lb/><del>to prompt men to it.</del></p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{ | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}} | ||
1819 Nov. 28 +++
Radicalism not
XXI ++ 1 Ulto 2o
1th ?
(1) 1 §.6 is
o9r 1
III Now to be Experience
contrary to the imputation
1. In United States
In United States
Democratic rights
without any counterforce checking
from Monarchy
or Aristocracy
the case parallel
Ideas, habit
assoc language,
association formedby language, all
English.
Yet not in desire
of equal division
or any
Part III. Defence from experience, in the case of the United States
II. So much for the general nature of the case.
In experience, is there any thing to give countenance
to a supposition thus shewn to be a theory so extravagant
add as well as compleatly groundless?
In experience? On the contrary, all
from experience all the evidence that the case
furnishes, is directly in the teeth of the supposition,
and puts the most decided negative upon it.
2. Lost first to the North-American United States In that vast
region — a region people with men of English race, bred
up in English habits — m with minds fraught with ideas,
associated by the English language with all English ideas by
English language in that vast region we have not indeed a government what is the state of things? If not indeed exactly that what
in England the British Isles it would
be rendered by democratic
Ascendency as
established by radical
reform, at any rate
a state of things while which
not so to the present
purpose is not materially
different from it and
in particular a state
of things which, if it had
been in human nature
to give birth to any such
design as that of a govmt
of the rights of
property, would have
been full as likely to
give birth to such a
design as would be the condition
which of the <sic>radicalists
in the British
Isles can now be.</add>
Well then, in these those United States, such is the radical
established in the United States by
state of things in respect of the influence of the people at large in the business
form of government. What then is the consequence?
- what causes or will be seen to
Any such subversion of property as the form proposed is accused
the same thing by democratic ascendency, by a
as being to a certainty productive of? No, nor any the least approach
spent system of practical equality not only
to it. Any inferiority in respect of general tranquillity
and felicity in other shapes, as compared with the British
such a of it had
Isles? On the contrary, a great and perfectly uncontrovertible
it be in the nature of democratic ascendency
superiority. This we shall see.
to prompt men to it.
|
Identifier: | JB/137/151/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 137. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
1819-11-28 |
or 1 |
||
|
137 |
radicalism not dangerous |
||
|
151 |
radicalism not |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
c1 / d1 / e2 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
|||
|
46868 |
|||
