date

25 June 1810 June 1 o or ult
25 June 1810 June 1

o

or ult

Fallacies 1 Posterity chainers

Such laws could not be perpetual unless the state dies, ever perpetual: so is expected so to be? To sure it might not one of these laws be repealed?

L\T dT\ Cole was for making holding for void every Act contrary to Magna Charta: if so, every act would br void that imposed law[?] taxes

Perpetuity seeking Contracts and bouregousies[?] as reprobasted[?] by lawyers.

Of a law the aim of which were to tie up for every the hands of future legislators, a lawyer if any one there were whose purpose happened to be thwarted by it would say it were void.

From every man who to a grain of honesty adds a grain of discernment far for ever /on this occasion as on every other/ be such language.

can are

Applied to the acts of legislature means consisting in the use of such language are too bad to be applied to any the best end: nor in the present instance would the end b served by it.

When a Judge says such or such a law is void, what he means is I will not on my part do any thing towards the execution of it: my decisions my operations afar and notwithstanding the law will be such as they would have been had no such law been made.

But on /by/ the present occasion /case/, there is not room for the /any/ exercise of power by link[?] hands person whose operations are in question is not the Judge, but the Legislator: whether a law repugnant to the letter of any such perteutity seeking law
Similar Items
  • Title: [24 June 1811 June 24 1 ad Juperbriam]
    Description: 24 June 1811 June 24 1

    ad Juperbriam

    Fallacies 2 Ch. 2 Posterity Chainers

    Sole and thus proper, these taken for the security of the [...?] Langdon[?] and those only in question[?]

    On lawyer's slang if lawyer's slang must be said - in the language of mischief - every such engagement is in its nature void.

    What then? is it then that no such incorporation ought to have taken place? or that in the taking place of any such incorporate union no engagements ought to have been entered into? No security for the Minor

    In case of inequality (and always without inequality no such incorporation ever took place or will take place) in case of inequality shall no security be given to the minor kingdom /state/ against the overweening /irresistible/ power actuated by /force of/ the predominant interest by which after the incorporation that which was the major state will not /the probity of the majority of the rulers natures[?] as they will actually be of/ cause[?] to be affected?
  • Title: [16 July 1811 17 V. ad Juperbriam Fallacies]
    Description: 16 July 1811 17 V. ad Juperbriam

    Fallacies Ch. 2. Jepthah's Vow

    7

    2. Coronation Oath

    Ante Outter[?] so far[?][ are [...?] in the name of restriction[?]

    If such were the construction put upon this third clause, that by force and virtue of it, in his endeavours "to maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel and the Protestant reformed religion established by law" the King were /ought/ to hold himself not only at liberty, but bound to pursue his own judgment howsoever contrary to the judgment of those his legitimate advisers, nothing /no construction/ could be more adverse to the most especial and annoxious wish oath[?] which in the hearts if the majority of both Houses, as well as that of the King himself are so well known to have been Pealding[?] /occupying/ the highest place on that very occasion, and place at that very time and this was the maintaining the Protestant reformed religion against all such dangers as that from which it had so narrow an escape.

    Suppose a James the 2\T dT\ or 3\T dT\, or any other King with a Catholic heart mounting at any time the throne. What form of words more favourable to his purpose need he require? Here (says he) and without aid of a Jesuit Privy Counsellor at his elbow) here (says he) are three things all which as far as they can be maintained together, I am sworn to maintain, viz.[?] the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Unfortunately to maintain them all together is impossible. The laws of God, yes: and so accordingly I will: the true profession of the Gospel, yes again: but the Protestant religion reformed as they call it; and which is so unhappily established by law, it is in a state of perpetual repugnancy to them both. Of the Oath then to keep inviolate all three parts is impossible: what then remains possible and at the same time proper and advisable? - to maintain those two parts which together are not only are together double in number, but superior, each, of them in dignity.

    The

    The laws of God! the profession of the Gospel! where is their equal? what shall in competition with them?
  • Title: [July 1810 1810 July 4. ' . 1 3 1]
    Description: July 1810 1810 July 4. '

    . 1 3 1

    o

    or ult

    Fallacies Ins

    Ch | | Posterity chainers

    1

    1. Exposition

    - pleaders device

    The Posteriety-chainer's device or fallacy consists in the finding in some existing law or engagement a pretense for refusing to administer any effectual /the necessary/ remedy to the /any/ abuse or other imperfection that has been pointed out: and the ground on which it argues it /to/ the assumption /assuming/ that the legislature or sovereign power of any past time that at all times[?] and on all occasions or at any rate that on some occasions the legislator or sovereign power of the country acting at any given point of time ought to be considered as having it in his power in regard to any part of parts of the field of legislation at his choice to debar the legislature of all future times or at least for some length of time then to come from the exercise of his poewr: and that, at each future /any given/ point of time, a prohibition to any such effect having been declared, the legislature /sovereign/ of that time ought to consider it as binding on him, and himself divested proportionally, of his /such/ power and that in the event of his attempting so to exercise the power of which he has been this divested

    the subjects of such subsequent sovereign ought to refuse to him their obedience, taking for the rule of that action the will of the dead legislator /departed sovereign/ in preference and opposite to that of the living one adhering to the dead man or set of men in opposition to the living ones. /to those that are in existence./