JB/116/464/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/116/464/001: Difference between revisions

Lauraterry (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Lauraterry (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 442: Line 442:
favour.<lb/>
favour.<lb/>
<pb/>
<pb/>
 
<head>III. Non-existence proved.</head><lb/>
<head>23.</head><lb/>
<gap/> yet <del><gap/></del> <add>by</add> any<lb/>
<del><gap/></del> <add><unclear>support</unclear> <hi rend="underline"><gap/></hi></add> in the<lb/>
<del><gap/></del> nature of<lb/>
an <gap/><gap/> as<lb/>
evidenced by subsequent<lb/>
experience.<lb/>
<lb/>
<head>24.</head><lb/>
That <hi rend="underline">official precedents</hi><lb/>
will not<lb/>
stand against <hi rend="underline">judicial<lb/>
principles,</hi><lb/>
is proved by the<lb/>
case of <del><hi rend="underline">general</hi></del> <hi rend="underline">General</hi><lb/>
<del><hi rend="underline">warrants</hi></del> <hi rend="underline">Warrants.</hi><lb/>
<lb/>
<head>25.</head><lb/>
<hi rend="superscript"><add>Though</add></hi> In that case, the<lb/>
practice was not<lb/>
<hi rend="underline">pre</hi>condemned, <hi rend="superscript"><add>as here,</add></hi> by<lb/>
<unclear>direct</unclear> <hi rend="underline">adjuducation.</hi><lb/>
<del>as here.</del><lb/>
<lb/>
<head>26.</head><lb/>
The case of the<lb/>
American Colonies<lb/>
applies <add><hi rend="superscript">not</hi></add> <hi rend="underline">here,</hi> because<lb/>
<hi rend="underline">there</hi> the power<lb/>
was not exercised,<lb/>
without<lb/>
1. <hi rend="underline">Consent</hi> to <gap/><lb/>
<hi rend="superscript"><add><gap/><gap/></add></hi> and <hi rend="superscript"><add>be</add></hi> subjected<lb/>
to <gap/><gap/><gap/><lb/>
<gap/><gap/><gap/><gap/><gap/><gap/><gap/><lb/>
2. <hi rend="underline">Irrevocability</hi> of<lb/>
the privileges granted<lb/>
by the <gap/>.<lb/>
<lb/>
<head>27.</head><lb/>
1. <hi rend="underline">Irrevocability,</hi> though<lb/>
distinct from <hi rend="underline">consent,</hi><lb/>
is a condition <hi rend="underline"><gap/><lb/>
<gap/></hi> of without<lb/>
<del>being <gap/></del> <gap/> the<lb/>
consent would not<lb/>
have been given.<lb/>
<lb/>
<head>28</head><lb/>
2. <del><gap/><gap/></del> <add>and therefore</add><lb/>
to the validity of<lb/>
<del>such</del> <hi rend="superscript"><add>any</add></hi> powers, <del><gap/></del> <add>by<lb/>
which such <del><gap/></del><gap/></add><lb/>
<del><gap/><gap/><gap/></del><lb/>
are enforced.<lb/>
<del><hi rend="underline">be <gap/></hi></del><lb/>
<lb/>
<head>29.</head><lb/>
The irrevocability of<lb/>
powers for colonization<lb/>
<unclear>derived</unclear> from<lb/>
the Crown, has been<lb/>
all along recognized<lb/>
by the Crown itself,<lb/>
as well as by the<lb/>
judicial power.<lb/>
<lb/>
<head>30</head><lb/>
<hi rend="underline">Consent,</hi> though <hi rend="underline">not</hi><lb/>
necessary to <unclear>subjection</unclear><lb/>
under an old government,<lb/>
is under a<lb/>
<hi rend="underline">new</hi> one <add><hi rend="superscript">: <gap/></hi></add> in point<lb/>
of <hi rend="underline">utility,</hi>and <gap/><lb/>
in English <hi rend="underline">law.</hi><lb/>
<pb/>
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}

Revision as of 13:39, 22 July 2013

Click Here To Edit

The TRUE BASTILE: shewing the outrages offered to Law, Justice and Humanity by Mr Pitt and his Associates in the foundation and management of the
penal Colony of NEW SOUTH WALES: by Jeremy Bentham , Barrister at Law. (b) Marginal Contents in two Sheets. Sheet I.

A
§ 1 Legislative powers
necessary —
§. 2. Legislative powers
to none created —
§. 3. Legislation void
without Parliament.
§. 4. Legislation exercised
- instances —
§. 5 Legislative powers
why not applied for.
§. 6. Tyranny &
Negligence — Expences
Obtained — non expences

§. 7. The Tyrants doom
under the Habeas
Corpus
act.
§. 8.

---page break---
B
(a) Outrages may
seem vague and
declamatory. But
it is one of the two
legal words upon
which the whole
system of Government
is made to turn
in the
Act 267 G. 3 c. 2.
the No .
Act.

of the wrong
terms of reprobation
here employed, the
use would be found itunitly justified
by the forming
of law and fast
demonstrated. If
the present administration
redress the
grievance, the hostility
of the staff may be
softened: if not, it
must be detained &
sharpened, that among
the body of the people
such as may think
Magna Charta ,
the Bill of Rights, of
the Habeas Corpus
Act worth preserving,
may conceive a first
alarm, and give a
constitutional expression
to their feelings.
(b) As a pledge of
responsibility the title
page will bear my
professional description
as well as my name.

---page break---
I. Powers necessity
§. Legislative powers
necessary
Power of making
regulations
is necessary
every where - more
particularly in a
new Colony than in
an Old Government.
p. 7.

2.
Is a power of legislation.
p. 7

3.
In feudal times the
want of it was felt
here. p. 7.

4.
It is more urgent
1. in an infant Colony
p. 7. than in an old
refurbished
stale. p. 7.

5.
2. In a community
composed chiefly
of outcasts, than in
one ordinarily composed.
p. 8.

6
3. In a dependency thus
distant than in the
Eastern, as but half, 1/2
as or the Western, as
but 1/4 the distance.
p. 8.

7.
Founding a Colony
is creating the necessary
assortment
of the powers of
government in it —
No foundation
without it. p. 8

8
Judicial power is
not sufficient. p. 9

9
If the <add><hi rend="underline">actual</add></hi> existence of
such legislative
power be not
necessary, as any
rate the belief of
it is. p. 10

10
No legislative power
was created at the
outset as or has been
since. The only N. S. Wales Act 27.
G. 3. c. 2. creates
nothing but judicial.
p. 10*

---page break---
§. 2. Power of legislative
— its necessity
in this Winter

§. 3. Power of legislation
existed not

have always

in New South Wales





for of
Wales comfortable
power from
Parliament.

J. 5. power of legislation
added text
New South Wales

§ 6. Tyranny and
negligence. Expences
determined; non-expences
exempt.

§ 7. The Tyrant
under the
Habeas Corpus Act.

---page break---
II. Powers _ non-existence.
1 -
Yet the Governor
went on issuing
Ordinances and
the Council Board
or Secretary of State's
offices giving him
with uctions for
issuing Ordinances
as if there had
been powers to
that effect. p. 12.

2.
The exercise of
that power must
have been accompanied
with a
persuasion of the
right.
1. On the part of
the Governor p.12.

3.
2. Or of his superiors
at home: viz.
either
1. of its existence
2. or that it
would be believed
to exist. p. 12.

4.
If they had no
such persuasion
of its existence their conduct was
fraudulent. p. 12*

5
That any such
persuasion was
really entertained
is not probable.
To show this here
follows the best
care that can be
made in support
of any such
right. p. 12*

6.
Admitted that a
right exists to a
certain extent; but
not to the extent
to which it has
been exercised.
p. 13.

---page break---
III Powers Non-existent
proved


7. 1
Burned for
what of


of legislation - persons
and things recieved
and distinguished
for this purpose. p.1.

8. 2
Classes of inhabitant
enumerated, with reference
to their subjection
to Ordinances
Expirees defined. p.13*

9. 3
Classes in regard to
which the right may be admired
— though not
in every instance
compleat and unquestioned —
Classes 1 & 2 compleat.
Class 3 incompleat.
Class 4 questionable
— 5 unquestioned
— 6 unquestioned
p. 14.

10. 4
Classes in regard
to which it is denied
Classes 7, 8, 9, 10 - p. 15.

11 5
Things, over which
the Governor would
have a power, and
by that means an
influence over persons.
p. 15.

12. 6
But this influence
is not legislative
power. — p. 15

13 7
All general Ordinances
Ordinances in omnes are
void - notwithstanding
the influence. p. 15

14 8
Assumed, a that whatever
power could be
given by the Crown
to make these Ordinances
legal,
was given. p. 16

---page break---
III. Powers non-existence
proved.

15 9
On what grounds
if any, could the
existence of any
such general power
have been supposed?
The answer must
be mere conjecture.
p. 16.

16 10
Was it this? that
American Colonies
were founded without
powers from
Parliament?
The fact is admitted.
p. 16

17 11
Even in the instance
of Georgia, founded
so late as in the
6th of G. 2. Ao 1740.
p. 17.

18 12
But the practice
may be considered
as being relinquished
and virtually recognized
to be illegal
in 1774 by the Quebec
Act. p. 18.

19. 13
But No more than seven years
after the Georgia
Act the legislative
power exercised in
the Colonies was, so
far as is went to
restrain the right
of departure from
thence thought to
stand in need of
confirmation here,
by 13 G. 2. c. 4. Ao 1740
p. 19

19 (a) 14 13(a)
1. This clause was
understood to be requisite
not merely
to save the power
in question from
being taken away
by other clauses in
this same Act.
p. 19*
2. It was not
necessary if the American
Acts in
question were binding
upon America.
p. 19**

---page break---
III. Non-existence proved
20 15 14
This same application
of legislative power
is among the powers
exercised in New
South Wales and is
necessary to prevent
the depopulation of
it. p. 20

15
Such power is repugnant
to the
principles of the
Constitution.

16.
The practice began
under James 1<hi rend="underline">st</hi>

17.
The exclusive right
of Parliament to
legislative power
was not the
so well settled as since.

18
The want of power
in the King to
Ordinances
on pain of imprisonment
was established
so early as Tempore Elizabeth
as per
in case,
called case.

19.
At the time of the
first Charter no
distinction could
have been taken on the
ground of distance
to take the case out
of can these
being neither principle
for it nor
precedent.

20.
How the right
remained unquestioned
because nobody
had sufficient
interest to question
it.

21
If If, without the King could
not legislate over
Englishmen in
England, neither
could he elsewhere.

22.
No such sight can
be evoked by
from the consent of
a part only of his
subjects and that
the objects of his
favour.

---page break---
III. Non-existence proved.
23.
yet by any
support in the
nature of
an as
evidenced by subsequent
experience.

24.
That official precedents
will not
stand against judicial
principles,

is proved by the
case of general General
warrants Warrants.

25.
Though In that case, the
practice was not
precondemned, as here, by
direct adjuducation.
as here.

26.
The case of the
American Colonies
applies not here, because
there the power
was not exercised,
without
1. Consent to
and be subjected
to

2. Irrevocability of
the privileges granted
by the .

27.
1. Irrevocability, though
distinct from consent,
is a condition
of without
being the
consent would not
have been given.

28
2. and therefore
to the validity of
such any powers, by
which such


are enforced.
be

29.
The irrevocability of
powers for colonization
derived from
the Crown, has been
all along recognized
by the Crown itself,
as well as by the
judicial power.

30
Consent, though not
necessary to subjection
under an old government,
is under a
new one : in point
of utility,and
in English law.

---page break---


Identifier: | JB/116/464/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 116.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

1-10, 1-6, 1-13, 13a, 14-37, 37a, 38-42

Box

116

Main Headings

panopticon versus new south wales

Folio number

464

Info in main headings field

the true bastile: shewing the outrages offered to law, justice and humanity by mr pitt and his associates in the foundation and management of the penal colony of new south wales

Image

001

Titles

Category

marginal summary sheet

Number of Pages

2

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

Penner

john herbert koe

Watermarks

1798 am

Marginals

Paper Producer

frances wright

Corrections

jeremy bentham

Paper Produced in Year

1798

Notes public

ID Number

37997

Box Contents

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