★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
No edit summary |
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> | <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> end<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 tenure</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 tenure except Copyholds are <del>to</del> be <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 Copyhold<lb/>in operation mentioned as a distinct and additional one is — the extinction<lb/>of all <gap/> feudal rent reliefs thereon (in <sic>Art.</sic> 1 as<lb/>was rents service, reliefs in respect thereof) Are not these what<lb/><add>in the case of other tenure</add> he may by <hi rend="underline">incidents</hi> of tenure? If so, <gap/> the consequence<lb/>Had he said nothing about incidents <gap/> himself as for a<lb/>known <gap/>, with abolishing the tenure the interests would <add>of course</add> have been<lb/>abolished along with it: the tenure gone, the incidents would have<lb/>had no 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 might probably be that it would<lb/>be held not to be abolished: whereas <add>although</add> it would 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>"<unclear>Fee force</unclear> rents" — are there no fee from rents that are<lb/>not attached to Copyholds</p> <p>"Other perpetual rents" are there no other perpetual<lb/>rents than what are attached to Copyholds</p> <p>As to rent <add>if any</add> as are attached to Copyholds either, 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 to incidents not belonging to Copyholds!<lb/>And what tenure is it they belong to if not to Copyhold tenure?</p> | ||
1826. Augt 29
Review of Humphreys.
1o end
Humphreys Code
(8) or ( )? (4 Preliminary Enactments 7
J.B. Observation
Copyholds
Incidents
If the Copyholds sorts of the tenure 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 tenure except Copyholds are to be 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 Copyhold
in operation mentioned as a distinct and additional one is — the extinction
of all feudal rent reliefs thereon (in Art. 1 as
was rents service, reliefs in respect thereof) Are not these what
in the case of other tenure he may by incidents of tenure? If so, the consequence
Had he said nothing about incidents himself as for a
known , with abolishing the tenure the interests would of course have been
abolished along with it: the tenure gone, the incidents would have
had no 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 might probably be that it would
be held not to be abolished: whereas although it would have been along with
the rest if a mention had been made of the rest. There it is, this
in the Matter of Discerning.
"Fee force rents" — are there no fee from rents that are
not attached to Copyholds
"Other perpetual rents" are there no other perpetual
rents than what are attached to Copyholds
As to rent if any as are attached to Copyholds either, as above
they were not had not been mentioned. Are
Are there any that are not attached to Copyholds? What
a jump is this from and without warning, for incidents belonging
to Copyholds to incidents not belonging to Copyholds!
And what tenure 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 |
|||
