JB/051/225/004

Click Here To Edit

4

Accommodation Appeal retrograde Why try new establishments when the tried ones
promise so much better? What have the Committee
to say against the Consular jurisdiction .
I have looked at it , and from all I
can find concerning it , it sums perfection itself
in comparison of any all the systems that
surround and cramp it . It has too many
Judges by all that are above one : it were easy
to strike off all that are above one . It has no
appeals above it : it were easy to give it appeals .
Duty sensible , in spite of Montesquieu Duty sensible of the importance of uniformity , they yet suffer their uniformity to be deformed by this ireveracnce It has not so much publicity once as were to be wished :
it were easy to give it more . It is in good odour ,
I conceive it should seem with the public : for the Committee,
though not ill-disposed to abrogation will not do not
venture choose to abrogate it . I will venture — why?
because my mode system of procedure is the same
with the procedure system observed there , I will have
none no one of my Courts a Consular Court — why ?
because they are all Consular. In a Consular
Court I see a real Reconciliation-Office without
the name.

Identifier: | JB/051/225/004"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 51.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	051	Main Headings	evidence; procedure code
Folio number	225	Info in main headings field
Image	004	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	4
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	d1 / d2 / d3 / d4
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	[[watermarks::floyd & co [britannia with shield emblem]]]
Marginals		Paper Producer	arthur young
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	16390
Box Contents