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