JB/122/119/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/122/119/001: Difference between revisions

Ohsoldgirl (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
TB Editor (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


<head><add> 17 July 1808</add> <add> + Charge 2 </add> </head><lb/><note>Charge 2<lb/> 2. <gap/> 4. Query 4</note><lb/> <!-- pencil annotation --><note><gap/> <gap/> <lb/> gross impropriety<lb/> of <gap/></note><p>What is possible, indeed, is - that <del> in saying</del> <add> by the words</add> "<hi rend="underline">the Receipt</hi>"<lb/>what M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> Chief Inspector meant was <add> - <hi rend="underline">not</hi> "the receipt" but </add> "<hi rend="underline">a fresh</hi> <lb/>"<hi rend="underline">acknowledgment:</hi>" <hi rend="superscript">[+]1</hi> But, <del> it is only the</del> <add> in this supposition<add> in support of</add></add>  the grossness of <lb/><note>[+]1 <add> viz. </add> the very document, <lb/> which, for the information<lb/> of the Accountant<lb/> it was as necessary <lb/> to distinguish, and which <lb/> by the Accountant had <lb/> in the past, been <lb/> accordingly <del> been </del> so <lb/> carefully <add> and pointedly</add> distinguished <lb/> from it</note><lb/> the impropriety with which, on the other supposition, his <lb/>conduct would be marked, <add> constitutes</add> the only ground: a <lb/>gross and most unaccountable impropriety of <hi rend="underline">expression</hi> is <lb/>the only supposition, by <add> the <unclear>help</unclear> of</add> which the imputation of a <add> still more </add> gross <lb/>impropriety of <hi rend="underline">conduct</hi> can be escaped.<hi rend="underline">|</hi> <hi rend="superscript">[+]2</hi></p> &#x2014;&#x2014; <lb/><!-- pencil annotation --><note>5<lb/>Conduct of the <lb/> Accountant<lb/> under the perplexity <lb/>thus occasioned - <lb/>- truth acknowledgment<lb/> produced <add> sent in </add></note><p><add>As to the Accountant, in </add><lb/> <del> In </del> the perplexity into which by a requisition so <lb/>worded <del> <gap/></del> <add> he </add> was plunged - <del> the which his Accountant </del> <lb/><add> what he </add> did, was - to obtain and produce  <add> i.c. send in + </add><note>+ By Letter dated 24 May 1808</note> - not indeed<lb/> the <unclear>confessedly</unclear> <del> unob p </del> unproducible document which he had <lb/>thus been required to produce, but that which alone<lb/>it was in his power to produce; <add> viz. </add> the document which <lb/>by his unnoticed statement subjoined to the item in question ,<lb/> he had <del> eventually offered to produce</del> <add> already made an eventual offer of producing.</add></p> <note>6<lb/>No <gap/> - <lb/> perplexity unremoved</note> <p> But having so done, done every thing in his power<lb/>and what in his own conception, <del> <gap/> </del> <add> <del> supposed </del> </add> <add> on the supposition that </add> <hi rend="underline">the receipt</hi> issued <lb/>had been sufficient, <del> abut</del> that which is in equal degree <lb/>sufficient for the discharge, his perplexity remains a <lb/><note>15 August 1808.</note><lb/> <add> ground as </add> before: <del> nothing has </del> no communication having <add> in the intervening interval</add> been made <add> <del> <unclear>vouchsafe</unclear></del> </add><lb/>for any such purpose as that of relieving him from it.</p>&#x2014;&#x2014;<lb/> <note>4 continued</note> <p> [+]2 Though the word <hi rend="underline">Receipt</hi> had in the terms of the C <del> <gap/></del><lb/>requisition been employed, yet if the preferred <hi rend="underline">fresh acknowldgment</hi><lb/> had been meant, the indefinite article <hi rend="underline">a</hi>, if <lb/>employed instead of the definite article <hi rend="underline">the,</hi> might effect <lb/> allowance made for impropriety and <gap/> <gap/> <del> accepted</del> <add> understood </add> <lb/>as meant to designate the proposed "<hi rend="underline">fresh acknowledgment</hi>" But<lb/><add>in</add> <!-- text continues in adjacent column -->in the present instance <lb/> the difference in effect <lb/> between <hi rend="underline">a</hi> and <hi rend="underline">the</hi><lb/> is so marked, and so <lb/> little is my critical <lb/> acquaintance with the <lb/> rules of grammar <!-- text continues at right angles --> necessary to the comprehension of it, that it seems difficult to conceive, how from <add>any </add> the most <lb/>illiterate men it could have been the result of ignorance.  By <del> fa</del> any fair <add> and natural </add> construction by <hi rend="underline">the</hi> receipt could not be understood any other<lb/><!-- text continues at right angles --> document, than that which, for the <add> very </add> purpose of distinguishing it, had been already designated<lb/><!-- text continues at right angles -->by the very words <hi rend="underline">the receipt.</hi></p>
<head><add> 17 July 1808</add> <add> + Charge 2 </add> </head><lb/><note>Charge 2<lb/> 2. <gap/> 4. Query 4</note><lb/> <!-- pencil annotation --><note><gap/> <gap/> <lb/> gross impropriety<lb/> of <gap/></note><p>What is possible, indeed, is - that <del> in saying</del> <add> by the words</add> "<hi rend="underline">the Receipt</hi>"<lb/>what M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> Chief Inspector meant was <add> - <hi rend="underline">not</hi> "the receipt" but </add> "<hi rend="underline">a fresh</hi> <lb/>"<hi rend="underline">acknowledgment:</hi>" <hi rend="superscript">[+]1</hi> But, <del> it is only the</del> <add> in this supposition<add> in support of</add></add>  the grossness of <lb/><note>[+]1 <add> viz. </add> the very document, <lb/> which, for the information<lb/> of the Accountant<lb/> it was as necessary <lb/> to distinguish, and which <lb/> by the Accountant had <lb/> in the past, been <lb/> accordingly <del> been </del> so <lb/> carefully <add> and pointedly</add> distinguished <lb/> from it</note><lb/> the impropriety with which, on the other supposition, his <lb/>conduct would be marked, <add> constitutes</add> the only ground: a <lb/>gross and most unaccountable impropriety of <hi rend="underline">expression</hi> is <lb/>the only supposition, by <add> the <unclear>help</unclear> of</add> which the imputation of a <add> still more </add> gross <lb/>impropriety of <hi rend="underline">conduct</hi> can be escaped.<hi rend="underline">|</hi> <hi rend="superscript">[+]2</hi></p>
 
<p>&#x2014;&#x2014; <lb/><!-- pencil annotation --><note>5<lb/>Conduct of the <lb/> Accountant<lb/> under the perplexity <lb/>thus occasioned - <lb/>- truth acknowledgment<lb/> produced <add> sent in </add></note><lb/> <add>As to the Accountant, in </add><lb/> <del> In </del> the perplexity into which by a requisition so <lb/>worded <del> <gap/></del> <add> he </add> was plunged - <del> the which his Accountant </del> <lb/><add> what he </add> did, was - to obtain and produce  <add> i.c. send in + </add><note>+ By Letter dated 24 May 1808</note> - not indeed<lb/> the <unclear>confessedly</unclear> <del> unob p </del> unproducible document which he had <lb/>thus been required to produce, but that which alone<lb/>it was in his power to produce; <add> viz. </add> the document which <lb/>by his unnoticed statement subjoined to the item in question ,<lb/> he had <del> eventually offered to produce</del> <add> already made an eventual offer of producing.</add></p> <note>6<lb/>No <gap/> - <lb/> perplexity unremoved</note> <p> But having so done, done every thing in his power<lb/>and what in his own conception, <del> <gap/> </del> <add> <del> supposed </del> </add> <add> on the supposition that </add> <hi rend="underline">the receipt</hi> issued <lb/>had been sufficient, <del> abut</del> that which is in equal degree <lb/>sufficient for the discharge, his perplexity remains a <lb/><note>15 August 1808.</note><lb/> <add> ground as </add> before: <del> nothing has </del> no communication having <add> in the intervening interval</add> been made <add> <del> <unclear>vouchsafe</unclear></del> </add><lb/>for any such purpose as that of relieving him from it.</p>&#x2014;&#x2014;<lb/> <note>4 continued</note> </p>
 
<p> [+]2 Though the word <hi rend="underline">Receipt</hi> had in the terms of the C <del> <gap/></del><lb/>requisition been employed, yet if the preferred <hi rend="underline">fresh acknowldgment</hi><lb/> had been meant, the indefinite article <hi rend="underline">a</hi>, if <lb/>employed instead of the definite article <hi rend="underline">the,</hi> might effect <lb/> allowance made for impropriety and <gap/> <gap/> <del> accepted</del> <add> understood </add> <lb/>as meant to designate the proposed "<hi rend="underline">fresh acknowledgment</hi>" But<lb/><add>in</add> <!-- text continues in adjacent column -->in the present instance <lb/> the difference in effect <lb/> between <hi rend="underline">a</hi> and <hi rend="underline">the</hi><lb/> is so marked, and so <lb/> little is my critical <lb/> acquaintance with the <lb/> rules of grammar <!-- text continues at right angles --> necessary to the comprehension of it, that it seems difficult to conceive, how from <add>any </add> the most <lb/>illiterate men it could have been the result of ignorance.  By <del> fa</del> any fair <add> and natural </add> construction by <hi rend="underline">the</hi> receipt could not be understood any other<lb/><!-- text continues at right angles --> document, than that which, for the <add> very </add> purpose of distinguishing it, had been already designated<lb/><!-- text continues at right angles -->by the very words <hi rend="underline">the receipt.</hi></p>




<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}

Revision as of 15:27, 10 October 2013

'Click Here To Edit

17 July 1808 + Charge 2
Charge 2
2. 4. Query 4


gross impropriety
of

What is possible, indeed, is - that in saying by the words "the Receipt"
what Mr Chief Inspector meant was - not "the receipt" but "a fresh
"acknowledgment:" [+]1 But, it is only the in this supposition<add> in support of</add> the grossness of
[+]1 viz. the very document,
which, for the information
of the Accountant
it was as necessary
to distinguish, and which
by the Accountant had
in the past, been
accordingly been so
carefully and pointedly distinguished
from it

the impropriety with which, on the other supposition, his
conduct would be marked, constitutes the only ground: a
gross and most unaccountable impropriety of expression is
the only supposition, by the help of which the imputation of a still more gross
impropriety of conduct can be escaped.| [+]2

——
5
Conduct of the
Accountant
under the perplexity
thus occasioned -
- truth acknowledgment
produced sent in

As to the Accountant, in
In the perplexity into which by a requisition so
worded he was plunged - the which his Accountant
what he did, was - to obtain and produce i.c. send in + + By Letter dated 24 May 1808 - not indeed
the confessedly unob p unproducible document which he had
thus been required to produce, but that which alone
it was in his power to produce; viz. the document which
by his unnoticed statement subjoined to the item in question ,
he had eventually offered to produce already made an eventual offer of producing.

6
No -
perplexity unremoved

But having so done, done every thing in his power
and what in his own conception, supposed on the supposition that the receipt issued
had been sufficient, abut that which is in equal degree
sufficient for the discharge, his perplexity remains a
15 August 1808.
ground as before: nothing has no communication having in the intervening interval been made vouchsafe
for any such purpose as that of relieving him from it.

——
4 continued

[+]2 Though the word Receipt had in the terms of the C
requisition been employed, yet if the preferred fresh acknowldgment
had been meant, the indefinite article a, if
employed instead of the definite article the, might effect
allowance made for impropriety and accepted understood
as meant to designate the proposed "fresh acknowledgment" But
in in the present instance
the difference in effect
between a and the
is so marked, and so
little is my critical
acquaintance with the
rules of grammar necessary to the comprehension of it, that it seems difficult to conceive, how from any the most
illiterate men it could have been the result of ignorance. By fa any fair and natural construction by the receipt could not be understood any other
document, than that which, for the very purpose of distinguishing it, had been already designated
by the very words the receipt.



Identifier: | JB/122/119/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 122.

Date_1

1808-07-17

Marginal Summary Numbering

4-6

Box

122

Main Headings

Panopticon

Folio number

119

Info in main headings field

Charge 2

Image

001

Titles

Category

Text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

Recto"Recto" is not in the list (recto, verso) of allowed values for the "Rectoverso" property.

Page Numbering

E4

Penner

Watermarks

Marginals

Jeremy Bentham

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

See note 3 to letter 1986, vol. 7

ID Number

001

Box Contents

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