JB/149/220/001: 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/149/220/001: Difference between revisions

Kdownunder (talk | contribs)
m Protected "JB/149/220/001": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))
Kdownunder (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/149/220/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/149/220/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<p>3</p>
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<p>With respect of Lunacies, <del>this kind of</del><lb/>
 
business of this description did not occupy<lb/>
 
the time of the Chancellor for more than<lb/>
 
5 or 6 days in the whole year.</p>
<p>Has parliament then at this late<lb/>
period of the session with no more information<lb/>
than what was contained in<lb/>
this Report to adopt a measure of this<lb/>
kind introducing so devious an innovation<lb/>
in the Court of Chancery?  If any one on<lb/>
his side of the house unsanctioned by<lb/>
the minister <add>had</add> ventured to propose such<lb/>
a thing he would have been held up as<lb/>
one of the <del>be</del> most daring and dangerous<lb/>
innovators that ever existed.  He would<lb/>
ask then whether <del>under the</del> they would<lb/>
consent <del>to</del> without investigation – without<lb/>
any thing like a perfect knowledge of the<lb/>
subject to hurry forward in the dark <del>as</del><lb/>
an innovation which might be attended<lb/>
with so many unforeseen consequences<lb/>
merely because it happened to be sanctioned<lb/>
by the minister. – The great object of this<lb/>
innovation appeared to be to enable the<lb/>
house of Lords to bring up the arrear of<lb/>
appeals before them.  The best way to<lb/>
try the efficacy of <del>their</del> the remedy recommended<lb/>
in this Report would be to<lb/>
consider what it would have done if</p>
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Untranscribed}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Ready_For_Review}}

Revision as of 00:28, 17 October 2021

Click Here To Edit

3

With respect of Lunacies, this kind of
business of this description did not occupy
the time of the Chancellor for more than
5 or 6 days in the whole year.

Has parliament then at this late
period of the session with no more information
than what was contained in
this Report to adopt a measure of this
kind introducing so devious an innovation
in the Court of Chancery? If any one on
his side of the house unsanctioned by
the minister had ventured to propose such
a thing he would have been held up as
one of the be most daring and dangerous
innovators that ever existed. He would
ask then whether under the they would
consent to without investigation – without
any thing like a perfect knowledge of the
subject to hurry forward in the dark as
an innovation which might be attended
with so many unforeseen consequences
merely because it happened to be sanctioned
by the minister. – The great object of this
innovation appeared to be to enable the
house of Lords to bring up the arrear of
appeals before them. The best way to
try the efficacy of their the remedy recommended
in this Report would be to
consider what it would have done if


Identifier: | JB/149/220/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 149.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

149

Main Headings

constitutional code

Folio number

220

Info in main headings field

Image

001

Titles

Category

copy/fair copy sheet

Number of Pages

4

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

c3 / / /

Penner

Watermarks

iping 1820

Marginals

Paper Producer

bernardino rivadavia

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1810

Notes public

ID Number

50074

Box Contents

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