[Marginal summary sheet[?]]

[Mainly in copyist’s hand]

14 Jan y 1817

Necessity Cat

3

§ 4. Probity how securable

{16}

A - Yes - difficulties abundant: maintain the result, if there were any need of < > with them - This is not necessary - In such a case the strongest securities than can be ought to be had: - self-regarding interest so long as its form amounts to anything ought therefore in every part of it, to be engaged on the side of the immoral interest -

16

Q. 16 - Teaching then duty for official and predominance regard for universal interest a necessary consequence seems to be that no form of government can be so good as it ought to be and might be, in which any arrangement promising to secure the agreement between personal interest and duty is omitted -

But this agreement how is it affectible?

A It share in universal interest finds not in the breast in question any personal interest opposite to it, it can not but determine disposition i e will at least and for its support for the remainder of universal interest together with the tutilory portions of self regard ng d o. above mentioned saving < > on their part

§.4. Probity how securable

17

Q 18. Good - But in the situation in question by what arrangements can matter be so ordered as that the universal interest with its others as above shall find < > of personal interest to oppose it? -

A. That which in his own conception of it is plainly one of his fewer to effect, a man has not in his own conception any interest in endeavouring to effect. Lodge the power in one man, he sees it in his power to sacrifice universal interest to the adverse portion of his self-regarding d o. to the utmost he will < > lodge it in two, so long as the arrangement < > each will find it necessary to allow the other a share. Keep on this adding to the number of the sharers you will at last to that number in the case in which share in universal interest can not be opposed by personal interest being identical with it

18

Q.18. Of such an arrangement would not universal community or equality of possession be the result? -

A. No - only by special application of the form of the religious sanction be established and preserved: nor thus but in a small

§.4. Probity, how securable

scale: too small for self-defence. Two days together, universal equality could not continue; only by assurance of < > to enjoy can < > of production be produced -

From equalization of share in supreme power no such community or equalization of other possessions would result: the community would be seen to be starving: the equilization, destinction[?]

19

Q.19 - As to this element of aptitude it should seem thus, that the only adequate security is afforded by democracy: and that surprising the others possessed in adequate degree - democracy is the only form best adapted to the attainment of the end -

A - Yes - but this condition never forgot to < > it

20

Q. 20 - It all had a share in the supreme power, only the interest of the majority would thus so far as depends on disposition and endeavour be served not the interest of all

A. But in the interest of the minority sacrificed to d o. of the majority their view versa - No objection to our[?] arrangement that it would not attest[?] impossibilities -

§ 4 Probity, how securable

But interests are so interwoven that the happiness of the majority can not be maximized by any means other than such by which the happiness of all will be maximized -