4 May 1805

Evidence

Introd.

Ch.5 Collateral Incidental

'.2 Limitations

Suppose it, although /howsoever/ necessary, yet /all[?] the same[?]/ greater in value than the good in the endeavour for the removal of which it would /is proposed to/ be produced, and thence in no[?] other words than the evil for the repulsion of which it is proposed to be employed. In this case the result must[?] again be a portion of pure evil: a ballance on the side of evil amounting to the difference in value on the side of evil between the good produced and the evil introduced: between the evil kept out /repelled/ and the evil introduced. Second limitation narrowing still, further the description of the evil to be avoided: the limitation applied by the epithet preponderant: instead of vexation simply, say vexation unnecessary or preponderant: - and so of the rest. /With a view,/ In practice, with a view /as a means/ /for the purpose/ of forming a judgment of the propriety of established practice, the limitation is by no means a matter of indifference. Take it without limitation, the object /end/ an[?] unattainable one: /the evils opposite to it [...?], undemonstrable:/ therefore, with or without limitations, it is not worth thinking about: such is the logic of the system of abuse. Take it without limitation the end is an unattainable one: therefore in speaking of it let us avoid saying /speak of it naked avoiding to say/ any thing about limitations: - such is the policy of the system of abuse.