★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<head>1828 <sic>Sept.</sic> 18<lb/>Blackstone</head> <!-- in pencil --> <p><note>§.2. <add>Universal</add> Jurisprudence<lb/>Conclusion<lb/>Language alone universal</note></p> <p><note>On the part of Learned<lb/><sic>Gents</sic>, ideas & language not<lb/>being clear: they confound Law<lb/>as it is with L as it | <head>1828 <sic>Sept.</sic> 18<lb/>Blackstone</head> <!-- in pencil --> <p><note>§.2. <add>Universal</add> Jurisprudence<lb/>Conclusion<lb/>Language alone universal</note></p> <p><note>On the part of Learned<lb/><sic>Gents</sic>, ideas & language not<lb/>being clear: they confound Law<lb/>as it is with L as it ought to<lb/>be, particularly with regard<lb/>to Roman Made Law.</note></p> <p>In regard to the learned person, one little observation<lb/>more there is, which in the way of information <del>may</del><lb/>you will find, (we hope) is not altogether without its use.<lb/>It is — that generally speaking they are not altogether<lb/>very clear and distinct <add>decided</add> in their conceptions, nor accordingly <add>thereafter</add><lb/>in their language as in the difference between <del>what</del><lb/>Law as <add>then</add> is and Law as it <add><sic>shd</sic></add> ought to be. when<lb/>speaking of Law as <del>they</del> in the county to parish they<lb/>say it is, they conclude without regarding the matter as<lb/>standing need of proof that it is likewise Law as it<lb/>ought to be: so likewise when speaking of Law, as <add>it was</add> at<lb/>a time ever so long ago past they say it was: saying<lb/>this <add>that</add> they regard themselves as having at the same time<lb/>and thereby said how it ought to be. Such in particular<lb/>is the case in regard to Roman bred Law: which<lb/>takes in the aggregate <del><gap/></del> consists <add>is composed</add> of Statute law<lb/>long since dead or between life and death, invented<lb/>by Roman Sovereigns of States long since <unclear>defeated</unclear>, together<lb/>with talk about it by men of <del>an equiva</del><lb/>a character altogether equivalent. to whom talk, <gap/><lb/>they can <gap/> themselves sovereign, not had from any<lb/>sovereign any authority to make law, men more <gap/><lb/>enough to give the effect of law.</p> <p><note>It is neither Law as it is<lb/.nor as it ought to be — <del>to<lb/>which</del>A sanction of no<lb/>Sovereign body has he attached<lb/>to it.</note></p> <p><del><gap/> this in</del> Now <add>the</add> all this — what does it amount<lb/>to? Neither the one thing nor the other: neither what the law<lb/>is any where nor what the Law ought to be any where, nor<lb/>even what the Law is any where: if by Law be meant<lb/>a web of action which <add>with<a/dd> any thing like security <add>safety</add> a man can<lb/>take for huis guidance. Law, to which in the very word of <gap/><lb/>it is composed, the sanction of the acknowledged Sovereign of<lb/>the country whether residing in a single person or in a body of persons<lb/><!-- continues in the margin and along the edge of the page -->has been attached — this<lb/>and this alone is<lb/>Law as it is: and this<lb/>is every where at last — but too widely distinct and different from what Law ought to be.</p> | ||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}} |
1828 Sept. 18
Blackstone
§.2. Universal Jurisprudence
Conclusion
Language alone universal
On the part of Learned
Gents, ideas & language not
being clear: they confound Law
as it is with L as it ought to
be, particularly with regard
to Roman Made Law.
In regard to the learned person, one little observation
more there is, which in the way of information may
you will find, (we hope) is not altogether without its use.
It is — that generally speaking they are not altogether
very clear and distinct decided in their conceptions, nor accordingly thereafter
in their language as in the difference between what
Law as then is and Law as it shd ought to be. when
speaking of Law as they in the county to parish they
say it is, they conclude without regarding the matter as
standing need of proof that it is likewise Law as it
ought to be: so likewise when speaking of Law, as it was at
a time ever so long ago past they say it was: saying
this that they regard themselves as having at the same time
and thereby said how it ought to be. Such in particular
is the case in regard to Roman bred Law: which
takes in the aggregate consists is composed of Statute law
long since dead or between life and death, invented
by Roman Sovereigns of States long since defeated, together
with talk about it by men of an equiva
a character altogether equivalent. to whom talk,
they can themselves sovereign, not had from any
sovereign any authority to make law, men more
enough to give the effect of law.
It is neither Law as it is<lb/.nor as it ought to be — to
whichA sanction of no
Sovereign body has he attached
to it.
this in Now the all this — what does it amount
to? Neither the one thing nor the other: neither what the law
is any where nor what the Law ought to be any where, nor
even what the Law is any where: if by Law be meant
a web of action which with<a/dd> any thing like security <add>safety a man can
take for huis guidance. Law, to which in the very word of
it is composed, the sanction of the acknowledged Sovereign of
the country whether residing in a single person or in a body of persons
has been attached — this
and this alone is
Law as it is: and this
is every where at last — but too widely distinct and different from what Law ought to be.
Identifier: | JB/031/066/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 31. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
1828-09-18 |
not numbered |
||
031 |
civil code |
||
066 |
blackstone |
||
001 |
|||
text sheet |
1 |
||
recto |
c2 |
||
jeremy bentham |
|||
9752 |
|||