★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
Auto upload |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<head>1826. <sic>Aug<hi rend="superscript">t</hi></sic> 29<lb/>Review of Humphreys.</head> <!-- some in pencil --> <p><note>1<hi rend="superscript">o</hi> and<lb/>Humphreys Code</note><lb/> (8) or ( )? (4 <note>Preliminary Enactments 7<lb/>J.B. Observation<lb/>Copyholds<lb/>Incidents</note></p> <p>If the <del>Copyholds</del> <add>sorts of the <gap/></add> in question are to be abolished, why must<lb/><del>separate</del> mention of incidents to those in the guise of a separate<lb/>object capable of existing without them</p> <p>In <sic>Arts.</sic> 1. all <gap/> except Copyholds are <del>to</del> <add><foreign>ipso facto</foreign></add> utterly <hi rend="underline">abolished</hi>.<lb/>As to the Copyholds in <sic>Art.</sic> 2 they are to be <hi rend="underline">enfranchised</hi>.</p> <p>But in addition to the <del>abolition</del> enfranchisement of the Copyholds<lb/>in operation mentioned in a distinct and additional one is — the extinction<lb/>of all <gap/> feudal rent relief thereon (in <sic>Art.</sic> 1 as<lb?>was null service, reliefs in respect thereof) Are not these what<lb/><add>in the case of other <gap/></add> he may be <hi rend="underline">incidents</hi> of power? If so, <gap/> the commission<lb/>Had he said nothing about incidents <gap/> himself as for a<lb/>known <gap/>, with abolishing the <gap/> the <gap/> would <add>of course</add> have been<lb/>abolished along with it: the <gap/> gives, the incidents and <gap/><lb/>had in ground to stand upon. Now suppose that in looking over<lb/>the list of incidents to Copyhold <gap/> any one were to be found<lb/>which it were intended should be extinguished. Of the omission of<lb/>it in the list here gives the effect probably to this it would<lb/>be held not to be abolished: whereas <add>although</add> it could have been along with<lb/>the rest if a mention had been made of the rest. There it is, this<lb/><gap/> in the Matter of Discerning.</p> <p>"To Force rents" — are they as free from suit that are<lb/>not attached to Copyholds</p> "Other perpetual rents" are there no other perpetual<lb/>rents than what are attached to Copyholds</p> <p>As to suit <add>if any</add> as are attached to Copyholds <gap/>, as above<lb/>they were not <add>had not been</add> mentioned. <del>are</del></p> <p>Are there any that are not attached to Copyholds? what<lb?>a jump is this <del>from</del> and without warning, for incidents belonging<lb/>to Copyholds or incidents not belonging to Copyholds!<lb/>And who knows is it, they belong to if not to Copyhold tenure?</p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{ | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}} | ||
1826. Augt 29
Review of Humphreys.
1o and
Humphreys Code
(8) or ( )? (4 Preliminary Enactments 7
J.B. Observation
Copyholds
Incidents
If the Copyholds sorts of the in question are to be abolished, why must
separate mention of incidents to those in the guise of a separate
object capable of existing without them
In Arts. 1. all except Copyholds are to ipso facto utterly abolished.
As to the Copyholds in Art. 2 they are to be enfranchised.
But in addition to the abolition enfranchisement of the Copyholds
in operation mentioned in a distinct and additional one is — the extinction
of all feudal rent relief thereon (in Art. 1 as<lb?>was null service, reliefs in respect thereof) Are not these what
in the case of other he may be incidents of power? If so, the commission
Had he said nothing about incidents himself as for a
known , with abolishing the the would of course have been
abolished along with it: the gives, the incidents and
had in ground to stand upon. Now suppose that in looking over
the list of incidents to Copyhold any one were to be found
which it were intended should be extinguished. Of the omission of
it in the list here gives the effect probably to this it would
be held not to be abolished: whereas although it could have been along with
the rest if a mention had been made of the rest. There it is, this
in the Matter of Discerning.
"To Force rents" — are they as free from suit that are
not attached to Copyholds
"Other perpetual rents" are there no other perpetual
rents than what are attached to Copyholds
As to suit if any as are attached to Copyholds , as above
they were not had not been mentioned. are
Are there any that are not attached to Copyholds? what<lb?>a jump is this from and without warning, for incidents belonging
to Copyholds or incidents not belonging to Copyholds!
And who knows is it, they belong to if not to Copyhold tenure?
|
Identifier: | JB/078/170/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 78. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
1826-08-29 |
|||
|
078 |
Review of Humphreys |
||
|
170 |
Review of Humphreys |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
Text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
[[page_numbering::C8 or [ ] ? / E4]] |
||
|
J WHATMAN TURKEY MILL 1824 |
|||
|
Jonathan Blenman |
|||
|
1824 |
|||
|
25261 |
|||
