date

1818 Sept. 26 Parl Reform Bill
1818 Sept. 26

Parl Reform Bill

VII Discard

Reasons 3 o

'.2 Electors Who

Universality

9

21 But by no possible or imaginable means could any such arrangement be carried into effect. Neither with the existence of government in any shape, nor with the existence of the human species for any length of time /sevendays together/ would it be compatible. 1. In respect of money &c /the matter of wealth/ as above, present equality effected for the moment /any one day/ would be incompatible with security for all future ones /moments/ /days/: by misconduct or accident or death, if /if on the first day/ any one member lost his portion, the next day equality could not have place, unless for the giving him a new share a fresh division were made. 2. In respect of power, absolute equality is /would not only be/ a contradiction incompatible with government, but the assertion of its existence would involve a contradiction in terms: if in every hand there were an equal share of power, there would be none at all in any hand: 3. in the instance of each member esteem and respect at the hands of other depends in a great degree /principally/ on his own conduct: and howsoever /although/ by certain arrangements + capable of being encreased and lessened by government, neither of the above effects can except in a limited degree be produced by the operation of any such cause.

These /The/ necessary deductions from absolute equality prescribed by The above exceptions /considerations/ excepted the conduct /interest/ of any determinate and separate portion of a community is adverse to the /[...?] of/ interest of the entire community, in so far as the effect or tendency of it is to lodge in its own hands any portion of the above objects of universal desire, in a quantity /proportion/ greater than that of the number of the members of the included body to the number of the Members of the entire body.

+ Post
Similar Items
  • Title: [1818 Sept. 26 Parl. Reform Bill]
    Description: 1818 Sept. 26

    Parl. Reform Bill

    + VII Discard

    Reasons 3 o

    '.2 Electors Who

    Universality

    10 8

    19. The objects on the possession of which, in so far as depends upon the nature of the government the welfare of men, the greatest happiness of the greatest number - depends, may be included under the following denominations /heads/ following: to wit 1. Money, including the matter of subsistence, and the matter of wealth in all its other shapes. 2. power. 3. esteem and respect, to wit in the instances of each member of the community esteem and respect at the hands of others: these three, each of them being considered with reference to the time present /present day/ whatever it may be: 4. security to wit for all the future days in respect of the above three several possessions: {these objects being as above the instruments or efficient causes of happiness considered with relation to the present life, are of course[?] each of them the objects of general and almost universal desire.}

    20 To the end that the greatest happiness might be secured /enjoyed/ by every member of the community without distinction that which, if it were possible, would be desirable, is - that of these several instruments as efficient causes of happiness an equal quantity should at all times be lodged in the hands of every member of the community; in other words that in respect of present money, present power, present esteem and respect and security for all three, an absolute equality should at all times have place.
  • Title: [1821 May 24. Codification Offer]
    Description: 1821 May 24.

    Codification Offer

    '.3. Reasons what

    He leaves it to a Member of an English Parliament at the very moment of pocketing money /in vast sum/ for services which he stands bound to render gratis, to protest that money is of no /not of any/ value in his eyes /to him/ and that /nor his/ self-preference has no /any/ place in his breast: and to be eager to stand to be shot at for the hope of destroying the life of any man who should /any man dare/ ascribe to him a system /principle/ of conduct without the prevalence of which the species could not for a twelve month together have continued in existence, to be eager to expose his own life to destruction rather than not take an equal chance for destroying that of the object of his /the/ vengeance - of the rage kindled by that offence.

    Note (a)

    It follows that to find a sufficient reason for forbearing to render the distribution of property at all times conformable to the strictest /absolute/ equality unless it be for reasons referable to Constitutional law it will be necessary to correct the distribution that would be required by this particular end of law were it the only one by a reference to some other end. This other end may accordingly be seen in the end to which in the list of particular end the precedence has been allotted, as above. But to show in detail the conditions of the requisite limitation would lead us too far from the design of the present pages.

    The case is - that if to practicable equality absolute equality were to be substituted, the effect would be that instead of every ones /individuals/ having an equal share in the aggregate subject matter of property, no individual would have any share at all.
  • Title: [26 April 1805 Evidence Note]
    Description: 26 April 1805

    Evidence

    Note

    Ch 1. Ends

    ' 3. Procedure Branches

    Particular Ends

    Note (a)

    Instead of non-penal, it has been common hitherto to say civil: but in /from/ a work that aims at being understood, all locutions incompatible with that object just be discarded. Besides non-penal, the epithet civil as applied to law, is also just for non-military, non-ecclesiastical, and non-constitutional. In all these instances its signification, though disguised under a positive form /in its aspect positive/, is in effect but negative. In addition to these four negative significations, it has moreover one positive one: viz: that in which it is just to signify Roman: law that was in force among the antient[?] Romans, or any[?] one[?] modern law that was grounded or grafted upon that antient[?] law. By having been applied to so many uses, it is become altogether unfit for any: if that be true the best course therefore that can be taken with it is to discard it altogether. It seems indeed not very easy to say what use it was ever /was/ fit for: for civis means citizen member of a political community: civil law will therefore mean that sort of law in /with/ which the members of a political community have a concern: but what is the sort of law in which no member of a political community has a concern?