JB/003/180/001: 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/003/180/001: Difference between revisions

Kdownunder (talk | contribs)
m Protected "JB/003/180/001": 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/003/180/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/003/180/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<p><!-- pencil -->9 Dec<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> 1801<lb/>
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<!-- pencil --><head>Maximum</head></p>
 
<p>4.  "But would such a measure be just? – The<lb/>
 
"Farmer sowed his <del><gap/></del> corn in the confidence<lb/>
 
"that he was to have the largest price he would<lb/>
"get for it:" .....</p>
<p>Observations</p>
<p>The proposition is of the interrogative kind<lb/>
and as such is <del>pretty</del> certainly not assailable<lb/>
by <add>in</add> any regular <add>direct</add> mode of attack, by the imputation<lb/>
of error.  The question when construed<lb/>
into the allegation implied with it must however<lb/>
be construed I should suppose into some<lb/>
such proposition as the following:  viz: that it is<lb/>
inconsistent with justice for the legislature to take<lb/>
any measure the effect of which would be to<lb/>
debar the farmer from any price how<del>soever</del><lb/>
high soever, which he might have obtained <add>have been confident of obtaining</add><lb/>
had it not been the measure:  and that whatever<lb/>
may have been the expectation <del>if any</del> the<lb/>
Farmer (any Farmer) on this score, it would not<lb/>
be consistent with justice for the legisature no legislative<lb/>
measure which should <add>have</add> in any degree the<lb/>
effect of <unclear>disappointing</unclear> it would be reconciliable<lb/>
with the rules <add>principles</add> of justice.</p>
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Untranscribed}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Ready_For_Review}}

Revision as of 03:50, 22 November 2024

Click Here To Edit

9 Decr 1801
Maximum

4. "But would such a measure be just? – The
"Farmer sowed his corn in the confidence
"that he was to have the largest price he would
"get for it:" .....

Observations

The proposition is of the interrogative kind
and as such is pretty certainly not assailable
by in any regular direct mode of attack, by the imputation
of error. The question when construed
into the allegation implied with it must however
be construed I should suppose into some
such proposition as the following: viz: that it is
inconsistent with justice for the legislature to take
any measure the effect of which would be to
debar the farmer from any price howsoever
high soever, which he might have obtained have been confident of obtaining
had it not been the measure: and that whatever
may have been the expectation if any the
Farmer (any Farmer) on this score, it would not
be consistent with justice for the legisature no legislative
measure which should have in any degree the
effect of disappointing it would be reconciliable
with the rules principles of justice.


Identifier: | JB/003/180/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 3.

Date_1

1801-12-09

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

003

Main Headings

manual of political economy

Folio number

180

Info in main headings field

maximum

Image

001

Titles

observations

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

d1

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

1800

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1800

Notes public

ID Number

1590

Box Contents

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