date

1820 March 4 Official Economy or Necessity
1820 March 4

Official Economy or Necessity of Reform

Opulence or <...>

not antiseptic

Another reason for reducing all official emolument to a minimum is

this - that with the quantity of the emolument attached to the Office the quantity of

influence applicable to sinister purpose in general - and in particular to the

purpose of obtaining support in case of malversation encreases.

Of this bad effect from excess emolument the mischief is exemplified

in the most manifest and striking manner in the case of the Monarch in a Monarchy.

The greater the quantity of the mass of good things in all shapes he has at his

disposal, the greater the quantity of evil he is at once disposed and enabled to do

in the course of his endeavours to raise the quantity of his own felicity to the

highest pitch possible

As in that highest stage so in each inferior stage /level/ in the

scale /united scale/ of power and opulence

Thus it is that under the British government /Constitution/ for

example in all the superior Offices, responsibility in the penal sense is a perfect

mockery a mere empty name
Similar Items
  • Title: [1820 March 4. Official Economy or]
    Description: 1820 March 4.

    Official Economy or Necessity of Reform

    Opulence or <...>

    not antiseptic

    If this reasoning be correct in point of practice the rule will

    accordingly be

    If any man will be found who is content to pay money for the

    privilege of performing the functions of it so much the better: and unless for

    special reason to the contrary, let him who will pay most /highest/ for it, have it

    If no man /competent person/ can be found who will pay any thing for it or who will

    serve in it gratis, let him have it who requires the smallest quantity of emolument

    in retribution for the burthen submitted to in respect of the obligation of

    performing the functions of it
  • Title: [1820 March 4 Official Economy or Necessity]
    Description: 1820 March 4

    Official Economy or Necessity of Reform

    Opulence or <...>

    not antiseptic

    Of /From/ this assumption one consequence deduced by him is /the man

    of ,10,000 a year is/ - that because reduction to ,100 a year would to him be

    absolute /utter/ ruin, and reduce him /his mind/ to a state of wretchedness,

    restriction to ,100 a year would in the instance of a man whose expenditure had not

    been used to exceed that sum be productive of a sensation of distress as intense or

    not much less so

    Another is - that because he /Dives/ would not forfeit or risk his

    character /reputation for probity/ for the sake of ,50 a year being half the amount

    of [...?] income, therefore neither would he for ,5,000 a year being half the amount

    of his own income

    In conclusion - in point of theory /speculation/ the plain truth of

    the matter is that in respect of the strength of propensity, desire and endeavour

    there is not much difference between the man in /on/ the highest and the man in the

    lowest degree /level/ in the scale of opulence. But that in so far as any cause of

    difference can be found, it is on the side /part/ of the most opulent that in so far

    as the strength of it is measured by the absolute quantity of the money which, at the

    expence of others a man will endeavour to possess himself of /acquire/, the

    propensity desire and endeavour is likely to be most strenuous - to be less

    effectually repressed by any arrangements that can be devised:

    that therefore in office so far as concerns abstinence from undue profit the chance

    of good behaviour on the part of the Office-bearer is the greater, the less the

    quantity of emolument which he is content to accept as retribution for the burthen

    submitted to in <...> of the obligations <...>charging

    <...> of it
  • Title: [1820 March 4. Official Economy or]
    Description: 1820 March 4.

    Official Economy or Necessity of Reform

    Opulence or <...>

    not antiseptic

    ?. Opulence is no antiseptic

    To him who has lived all his life upon ,100 a year and no more, ,150

    a year is opulence: reduction to ,50 a year is ruin.

    To him who has ,10,000 a year it requires ,5000 a year to produce a

    sensation equal in intensity to that produced in the case of him who has but ,100 a

    year by an accession of ,50 a year

    Thus it is that instead of being /operating as/ a security against

    the propensity to depredation, opulence - means accompanied with the habit of large

    expenditure operates as an incentive the greater the quantity of money which a man

    has been in use to expend, the greater the quantity - meaning always the absolute

    quantity of that which he craves: cupidity concupiscience does not sink but rise with

    opulence

    Yet the common notion /opinion/ - in so far as profession of it is sincere the

    vulgar error it may well be called - is the reverse. The notion is that the man whose

    habitual expenditure has been large, is on that account so long as the means of it

    continue undiminished, not so likely to seek to encrease it by depredation to so

    large amount as the man whose habitual expenditure has been small. This notion whence

    comes it /this notion/? From this - from the natural tendency which in every

    situation man has to measure other men by his own measure: to assume that in a

    different situation - be it higher or lower - a given quantity of money - be it in

    possession, be it in expectancy will produce in the breasts of men the same sensation

    the same in [...?] as in that situation which <...>self occupies.