date

[clxiv. 264] 1820 Aug. 22 Emancipation
[clxiv. 264]

1820 Aug. 22

Emancipation Spanish?

Summary?

?.5. Corruptive influence

Means of reducing

6. To the occupant the value of a lucrative office of an office with emolument attached to it is as the emolument directly, and as the exertion and time necessary to the exercise of it without reproach, inversely.

7. Power is of itself so incontestably an object of general desire, that, until it is established that no individual competent to the exercise of the functions of the office will charge himself with them, no emolument ought to be attached to it.

8. The pleasure attached to the exercise of the functions belonging to an office, is the natural reward appertaining /portion of reward attached by nature/ to that office. Where /To an office, in relation to which/ the natural reward is sufficient, no factitious reward ought to be attached. The Natural reward is received and enjoyed, without any expence at the charge of others: factitious reward can not be received in any shape but at the expence of others.

To the function exercised by the delivery of those suffrages by which the office of representative of the people in the supreme assembly is filled the reward naturally attached is sufficient. In no instance to the exercise of this function has any factitious reward been ever annexed.

9. In so far as a liking to the exercise of the function of an office affords presumptive evidence of aptitude in relation to the exercise of those same functions, evidence of such aptitude is afforded by every man who, without factitious reward in any shape is content to charge himself with the obligation attached to it: and if there be two candidates, one of whom is content thus to charge himself gratis, while the other will not unless it has a mass of factitious reward attached to it, and there be no other evidence in favour of either candidate, this presumptive evidence is conclusive.
Similar Items
  • Title: [[clxiv. 265] 1820 Aug. 22 Emancipation]
    Description: [clxiv. 265]

    1820 Aug. 22

    Emancipation Spanish?

    Summary?

    ?.5. Corruptive influence

    Means of reducing

    10. There are two modes of reducing the quantity of factitious reward annexed /found attached/ in the shape of emolument to an office: one is the substracting from the sum of money representative of the emolument: the other is requiring from the functionary for the use of the public a sum of money for a lease of the office determinable either by the end of his life, or at some earlier period. The first may be termed the direct; the other, the indirect mode.

    11. To reduce /For reducing/ to its minimum the quantity of factitious reward, /thus/ in the shape of emolument, thus attached to an office, there is but one mode, which is that by auction - the biddings being the sums which each bidder is content to give for the office so circumstanced.

    12. In relation to the functions of an office, appropriate /all/ aptitude may be reduced to one or other of two modes: appropriate moral aptitude, and appropriate intellectual aptitude

    Of moral aptitude the most conspicuous and important mode or shape is pecuniary trustworthiness. A deficiency of it, manifested by an act of unlawful appropriation is termed peculation, and is proved, by, and in proportion to, the quantity of unallowed pecuniary emolument, which, by the powers or other means attached to the office he contrives to possess himself.

    13 To peculation the most obvious temptation is that which is afforded /applied/ by the lawful possession of money or moneys worth in virtue of the office. For security against it a remedial /an/ arrangement commonly provided is the obligation of finding bondsmen: persons who in the event of such a transgression on the part of the fuctionary, consent to be obliged to make good the deficiency.

    14 A more simple and immediately effectual arrangement in the case of a functionary who in virtue of his office has public money lawfully in his possession /hands/ or power is /consists in/ the reducing to its minimum the quantity of that which he has in his hands, and the time during which he has it in his hands.
  • Title: [[clxiv. 266] 1820. Aug. 22]
    Description: [clxiv. 266]

    1820. Aug. 22

    Emancipation Spanish?

    Summary?

    ?.5. Corruptive influence

    Means of reducing

    15. Every man who in virtue of his office has not the means of maintenance in a manner suitable to the situation in which he is placed by that same /such his/ office will be disposed /inclined/ to committ peculation for the purpose of supplying himself with the means. True: and so will every man who has those means.

    If ever there was a man whose official /functionary who in virtue of his office had the/ means of maintaining himself in a manner suitable to the situation in which he was placed by such his office, it was George the third. In the course of his sixty years reign nine times was this functionary guilty of peculation: ? the proof of it is in those Acts of Parliament under and by virtue of which at the expence of the people whom the peculation plundered the debts were paid by the authority of those who had shared in the plunderage. By Act of Parliament every King of England is the Most Excellent of men: and a title commonly given to that man was that of the best of Kings.

    For attaching vast masses of pecuniary emolument to official situations, which by many individuals possessing no less appropriate aptitude than those by whom the largest mass of factitious reward would be required the common pretence is the securing the functionary against peculation in the case in which it is supposed to be necessitated by the want of a sufficiency of pecuniary emolument attached to it. Thus is peculation committed in the first instance on pretence of preventing peculation which never would have been committed.

    ?H. of C. Debates, 1820
  • Title: [15 May 1804 Evidence Superceded]
    Description: 15 May 1804

    Evidence

    Superceded?

    Forthcomingness

    Ch. Investigatorial Precede[?]

    Engl Law

    In practice a sort of connection may have been observed between the exercise of investigatorial procedure, and the exclusive exercise of the function of examination by the person of the Judge. A few observations explanatory of this connection, and of the causes of it may not be without their use.

    In a penal branch of law, it is the property /among the property/ of a certain class of offences to afford no particular individual, prompted by any natural interest to engage in the prosecution of them. + So far then as an offence of this sort is prosecuted, and no individual is engaged by factitious inducements to take upon him this task /undertake the charges//charge himself with the task/, it sill devolve upon /must be exercised by/ some official person, if by any body. It is not only possible, but usual, and in some respect convenient, that the task of carrying on such prosecution, and including or not including the main function of it - the examination of the evidence /witnessess/, should be performed by an official person appointed for this particular purpose, with an office distinct from that of the Judge. But neither is it without example, nor even unusual, nor in any point of view the least convenient arrangement, that this same function should be added to /consolidated with/ that of the Judge. Accordingly in German jurisprudence criminal procedure is divided into two not very unequal branches: accusatorial, where the operations necessary to the procurement and examination of the evidence is performed by a party, (private, public or both in conjunction) and inquisitorial, where the same operations are carried on by the Judge: in the first case, the defendant is called in Latin [...?] or accusatus; in the other, in German Latin, inquisitus.

    + Dumont