JB/147/325/001: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:15, 25 January 2023

3 April 1810
Sinecures

Now Suppose now for argument sake (and but for
argument sake, for the case has little probability in
it) real practice in a tangible shape, that is
in a punishable shape showing betraying itself in any one of
those offices: – in what cases would the which of the two cases would it be
be <least/del> least to be expected, that the transgression should find an impartial a
purchaser purchasr an avenger in in the person of the Judge by whose nominee it the transgression had
been committed? it should find an impartial avenger? – by whom in the case of the stranger who,
has bought the paid down his money on the comes into the office unconnected
with the Judge by any bit of sympathy? or
in his case if the son or nephew of this same Judge,
who not feeling in himself too much of the Brutus in to trust
to himself with the function in the situation of Judge in his own cause,
would have the last of connection and punishment would of course⊞ ⊞ for we saw in
the case of the King
and .... what was the
man's name whose
who was madman enogh to against
Lord Ellenborough?
how the conflict between principle and sentiment
to his pursuer?

Identifier: \| JB/147/325/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 147.
Date_1	1810-04-03	Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	147	Main Headings	Sinecures
Folio number	325	Info in main headings field	Sinecures &c
Image	001	Titles
Category	Text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	E7
Penner		Watermarks	TH 1806
Marginals		Paper Producer	Andre Morellet
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year	1806
Notes public		ID Number	49550
Box Contents

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 those offices: –  in <del>what cases would the <gap/></del> <add>which of the two cases would it be</add><lb/>
 <del>be <least/del>  <add>least to be expected,</add> that <del>the transgression should find <add>an impartial</add> a<lb/>
-purchaser <add>purchasr an avenger</add>  in</del> <add>in the person of</add> the Judge by whose <gap/> it <add>the transgression</add> had<lb/>
+purchaser <add>purchasr an avenger</add>  in</del> <add>in the person of</add> the Judge by whose nominee it <add>the transgression</add> had<lb/>
 been committed? <add>it should find an impartial avenger? – <del>by whom</del></add> in the case of the stranger who,<lb/>
 has <add><del>bought the <gap/></del></add> paid down his money <del><gap/> on the <gap/></del> <add>comes into the office</add> unconnected<lb/>
 with the Judge by any <unclear>bit</unclear> of sympathy? or<lb/>
 in his case if the son or nephew of this same Judge,<lb/>
-who <del>not</del> feeling <add>in himself</add> too much of the
+who <del>not</del> feeling <add>in himself</add> too much of the <hi rend="underline"><unclear>Brutus</unclear></hi> <del>in</del> to trust<lb/>
-</p>
+to himself <del>with the function</del> <add>in the situation</add> of Judge in his own cause,<lb/>
+<del>would have the last of <gap/> connection and punishment</del> <add>would of course<hi rend="superscript">⊞</hi> <note><hi rend="superscript">⊞</hi> for we saw in<lb/>
+the case of the <hi rend="underline">King<lb/>
+and</hi> .... what was the<lb/>
+man's name <del>whose</del><lb/>
+who was madman
+enogh to <gap/> against<lb/>
+Lord Ellenborough?<lb/>
+how</note> the conflict between principle and sentiment</add><lb/>
+to his <unclear>pursuer</unclear>?</p>
 <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
-{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}}
+{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Ready_For_Review}}

Views

JB/147/325/001: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:15, 25 January 2023

Navigation

Search