date

[xxxvi. 172] 1822 July 24 Constitut
[xxxvi. 172]

1822 July 24

Constitut. Code Rationale

Supreme Operative?

Supreme Constitutive

in people

Enmity between high and

low is not reciprocal

The worst that could happen to the ruling and influential few from power if vested in the hands of the many that is to say /say rather/ of all themselves the ruling few included - is to see themselves, brought down to the level of /an equality/ the many in all things wealth excepted: in respect of power, to the having no more than an equal chance for power in respect of factitious honor to be without it /divested/, the many being at the same time unpossessed of it

While the triumvirate of the wealthy the powerful and the factitiously dignified reigns injustice to the prejudice of the greatest number reigns in every part of the field of government: injustice to /for/ the benefit of the /these/ few at the expence and to the burthening of the many. Suppose that portion of the aggregate mass of power which they are capable of holding - suppose the Constitutive power - in the hands of the many /greatest number/, what in respect of justice and injustice would be the consequence? Not the reverse of the present state of things: not injustice to the benefit of the many at the expence of the few, but justice to all alike

Take England for example. By the factitous expence imposed /purposed/ on justice /judicial proceedings/ nine tenths of the population to say the least are excluded from the benefit of justice as well in the character /situation/ of defendants as in that of plaintiffs. a line is thus drawn between the wealthy and the non-wealthy: wealthy all those who are capable of demanding the assistance of the judicial office; or resisting the demand when made at their charge by others: the non-wealthy all those who are incapable all those whose situation is below the line of separation are /lie/ at the mercy of all those whose situation is above it. Now suppose this factitious burthen compleatly removed, what would be the consequence? that the wealthy would be at the mercy of the non-wealthy? No: only that they /these few/ would cease to see the many lying absolutely at their mercy: and that both /in so much that the two/ parties would have to contend upon terms less unequal than at present. I say less unequal - for as to absolute equality this is what the very nature of the case absolutely forbids. For it is upon evidence that the fate of every cause depends, and evidence is not in every case to be had altogether without expence: and to the necessary amount of this expence, even when all factitious expence is struck off, no determinate limits can be assigned.
Similar Items
  • Title: [[xxxvi. 171] 1822 July 24 Constitut]
    Description: [xxxvi. 171]

    1822 July 24

    Constitut. Code Rationale

    Supreme Constitutive in people

    Supreme Operative?

    Enmity between high and low

    is not reciprocal

    Every where it has been seen with the single exception of a well /an aptly/ organized

    Representative Democracy, the ruling and influential few are enemies of /to/ the subject

    many: enemies in mind as well as in act, and by the very nature of man until the

    government whatever it be has given way to a Representative Democracy unchangeable

    /perpetual and implacable/ enemies.

    Not so the subject many to the ruling and influential few the enmity is not reciprocal:

    it is all of it on one side. on that one side only.

    The subject many are every where both oppressing and plundering the subject many. The

    subject many have neither the expectation nor the desire of oppressing or plundering the

    rich /wealthy/. Oppress them they could not without plundering them without plundering

    them of all they have: for without any factitious power, that is to say official power

    their, their wealth can not but protect them - protect them most effectually against

    oppression in every shape

    Plunder the wealthy few: the subject many could not by any general resumption or /and

    new/ division of property, for by any such attempt every thing valuable and all property

    in it would be destroyed: that of the poorest as well as that of the most wealthy.

    As little could they in the way of taxation: taking this or that part instead of the

    whole. For between wealthy and not wealth there being no line of separation actual or

    practicable, the less rich could not be taxed without the taxing of the more rich

    likewise.

    In the Anglo-American United States the class who with relation to the purpose in

    question are without property - that is to say without property sufficient for their

    maintenance, have for upwards of forty years by means of the right of electing the

    possessors of the Supreme Operative power had the property of the wealthy within the

    compass of their legal power: in what instance has any infringement of property been

    ever made?
  • Title: [[lxxxiv. 27] 1821 Decr 6 Codification]
    Description: [lxxxiv. 27]

    1821 Decr 6

    Codification Proposal

    ?.5. Draughtman Single

    Aristocrat and Lawyers interest

    Relation between the Aristocrat's sinister interest and the Lawyer's sinister interest

    It is the lawyers interest that the number of such lawsuits such as afford lawyers profit should be at a maximum /as many as possible/: and that the most profitable be the most numerous: it is the same time his interest /and/ that of those that afford no lawyers profit the number be a minimum /be as few as possible/, the result of them to the lawyers being burthen without compensation /uncompensated/.

    Thus [?] [...?] is [?] The lawyers interest. The wealthy Aristocrat's interest is much diveded. In every case in which he is in the right and has an Aristocrat for his adversary it is his interest that the sum of expence on his part, vexation on his part and delay be as small as possible. But if he be in the wrong and has an Aristocrat for his adversary, much more if he has a man much [...?] in pecuniary circumstances for his adversary, it is his interest that on the adversarys side the expence be as great as possible: that so the adversary may be disabled or deterred from resistance.

    Upon the whole the sinister interest of the opulent Aristocrat coincides in this part of the field with that of the lawyer: for as to the evil that may result to himself from the factitious expence vexation and delay, a man's /the natural/ confidence in his own good fortune represents it to him as a rare casualty: which as towards all those, the [...?] of whose circumstances would disable or deter them from resisting him, he beholds, in the aggregate of that mass of [...?] an instrument of power by which he is enabled /constituted/ to tyrannise over all who are so circumstanced, be the multitude of them ever so great.
  • Title: [[clx. 281] 1822 July 20 Constitut]
    Description: [clx. 281]

    1822 July 20

    Constitut. Code Rationale

    Securities

    6 Factitious honor excluded

    ?. Evils

    Evil 12 Evil by the spectacle of injustice.

    It has been seen in how many points of view the disposition thus made of the matter of good in this shape presents to view the picture of injustice 1. Burthen without compensation imposed on the members of the community at large. 2 Burthen imposed in a more particular manner on the renderers of meritorious service to whom benefit in this same shape is justly due. 3 Burthen by injustice to Age Addition made without necessity or use to the influence and effect of those several causes of inequality /by useless and avoidable addition to unavoidable inequalities/ without which government and its benefits could not have place. The sense /example/ of injustice through produced by the joint influence of all these causes, is in itself a thing distinct from all of them. It presents to view the ruling few of the community in the character of /as/ the authors of injustice. Bad is that government where injustice having place /reigning/ discontent is produced by it /has place in consequence/: still worse that place, injustice reigning, no discontent is raised /excited/ by it.

    By the spectacle of established injustice in any one shape injustice in every other shape is promoted. By habit those at whose expence it is committed are lulled into acquiescence under it: on the other hand by the spectacle of this acquiescence, the authors of the baleful habit are encouraged to persevere in it.