★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
06-Jul-2012: under construction by Diane Folan. Please do not amend. | |||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
<lb/> | <lb/> | ||
by conquest or not obtained by conquest , what the | by conquest or not obtained by conquest , what the | ||
<lb/> | |||
answer of these two great lawyers would have been would | |||
<lb/> | |||
<add>be</add> an enquiry <gap/> fruitless and useless . The answer | |||
<lb/> | |||
actually given by <del>authors</del> other great lawyers speaking | |||
<lb/> | |||
judicially in the Grenada case . I mean Lord <gap/> | |||
<lb/> | |||
and his Colleagues <del><gap/></del> on the King's (<gap/> might certainly | |||
<lb/> | |||
afford some ground of presumption as to | |||
<lb/> | |||
what might have been the opinion of great lawyers | |||
<lb/> | |||
at the still <add>former</add> earlier period . In 17<del>6</del>74 <gap/> | |||
<lb/> | |||
field and his Colleagues had not been able to extend | |||
<lb/> | |||
- their <del>virtues</del> <add>views</add> further than to the case of <gap/><!-- 'Calvon' ? --> in the | |||
<lb/> | |||
beginning of the reign of James the first : these had <unclear>neither</unclear> looked | |||
<lb/> | |||
further <add>backwards</add> back to the S<hi rend='superscript'>t</hi> Alban's case <add>in about 1588</add> , nor forward <add>onwards</add> to the principles | |||
<lb/> | |||
established <del>by the</del> in 1688 by the Bill of Rights . Why ? <add>[+]</add> <add><gap/></add><!-- addition in pencil --> | |||
<lb/></p> | <lb/></p> | ||
06-Jul-2012: under construction by Diane Folan. Please do not amend.
The passage above quoted in labours' case so much
of it as was reconcileable to common humanity and
common sense is the authority that appears to have
been taken as the groundwork of the given by
these two great lawyers in 1722 : taking the matter I mean as to one if the
as they two proposition continued on it viz: the
first given to the King , 'right , in the case of
a Colony obtained by conquest , as Jamaica the
Colony in question was so far and so far only as concerned
the stocks and shares : as to the other part , [a] it had
for its evident foundation the at that time
undisputed exercise of that right .
What wa Hast this right on the part of the King come in
question before them in both its devisions - viz: no
will in relation to all colonies of all sorts , whether obtained
by conquest or not obtained by conquest , what the
answer of these two great lawyers would have been would
be an enquiry fruitless and useless . The answer
actually given by authors other great lawyers speaking
judicially in the Grenada case . I mean Lord
and his Colleagues on the King's ( might certainly
afford some ground of presumption as to
what might have been the opinion of great lawyers
at the still former earlier period . In 17674
field and his Colleagues had not been able to extend
- their virtues views further than to the case of in the
beginning of the reign of James the first : these had neither looked
further backwards back to the St Alban's case in about 1588 , nor forward onwards to the principles
established by the in 1688 by the Bill of Rights . Why ? [+]
|
Identifier: | JB/116/144/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 116. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
1802-07-24 |
|||
|
116 |
panopticon versus new south wales |
||
|
144 |
n. s. wales |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
e1 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
|||
|
37677 |
|||
