I have left lists of short items in line. Marginal notes in the original text do use figures. I think it's significantly easier to read, with no loss of content. This article is in the public domain, including the legislation of course. Since posting the above, I have also emailed it to a number of people, The following is a summary of points raised in an email conversation.
Nothing is said about days of the week.
Presumably the idea is that since they aren't mentioned, they aren't affected by the Act. This is awkward if something depends on a combination of the date and the day of the week. Where the Act describes future actions as taking place on the same natural day or the same nominal day as before the change, it generally adds for clarity that this is 11 nominal days later, or 11 natural days earlier, than without the calendar change, as the case may be. So the Act is self-contradictory as regards events occurring after that date. Nothing is said about any annual events, such as saints' days, that would normally have been held during September 3-13, 1752.