JB/147/071/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts

JB/147/071/001: Difference between revisions

Keithompson (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Keithompson (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 26: Line 26:
rate and that in <gap/> grant and in<lb/>
rate and that in <gap/> grant and in<lb/>
<gap/> was the date if it?</p>
<gap/> was the date if it?</p>
<p>The difference is not altogether an <gap/><lb/>
<gap/>.  If so it be that the interest comprised be M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi><lb/>
Percival was conveyed to him by the same grant as <lb/>
that by which it <add>the <gap/></add> was conveyed is his elder brother<lb/>
in that case.  The solicitation by which it was procured<lb/>
or time was not <add>to a certainty</add> his own but that of his <add>late</add> father the<lb/>
Earl of Egmont at that the First Lord of the Admiralty<lb/>
But if this<add>it</add> were not the <add>by that grant that</add> grant by which it was conveyed<lb/>
to have it must have been by some grant<lb/>
of posterior date and in that case the solicitation by<lb/>
by which it was <unclear>increased</unclear> for him may have been <add>that of</add> has<lb/>
fr<gap/> that <gap/>elder brother,  or <add>least of all</add> in a word his own.</p>




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

Revision as of 08:56, 14 August 2020

Click Here To Edit

of this date therefore the meaning of it has any
can not but be one erroneous one.

By what supposition then shall the correction of theerror be
endeavoured at to be corrected?

Month and year being right the day (shall we
say?) is wrong: it ought to have been the 30th.

On this supposition the life of Mr Percival
was included in the grant along with that of Lord
Arden, but to this supposition the words of his Lordships
Return in above quoted seem to apply at least an
implied negative.

as it upon the year that the error attention
shall if so then for any thing that appears the
given of the month and of the days of the
month may be correct.

First upon the supposition the interest possessed
by Mr Percival must have been his grant of a
rate and that in grant and in
was the date if it?

The difference is not altogether an
. If so it be that the interest comprised be Mr
Percival was conveyed to him by the same grant as
that by which it the was conveyed is his elder brother
in that case. The solicitation by which it was procured
or time was not to a certainty his own but that of his late father the
Earl of Egmont at that the First Lord of the Admiralty
But if thisit were not the by that grant that grant by which it was conveyed
to have it must have been by some grant
of posterior date and in that case the solicitation by
by which it was increased for him may have been that of has
fr that elder brother, or least of all in a word his own.



Identifier: | JB/147/071/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 147.

Date_1

1810-04-01

Marginal Summary Numbering

3

Box

147

Main Headings

Sinecures

Folio number

071

Info in main headings field

Sinecures &c

Image

001

Titles

Category

Text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

C3 / E3

Penner

Watermarks

TH 1806

Marginals

Jeremy Bentham

Paper Producer

Andre Morellet

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1806

Notes public

ID Number

49296

Box Contents

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