JB/081/135/001

Click Here To Edit

1829 May 10 +
Petitions

9
Dispatch Court
(3 §. Benefits

11
Commissioners decision
either the same as that
Equity Judges would
have been or different
If the same evil none
good pure If different
probability of conformity
to greatest happiness principle —
in favour of
Commissioner's decision.

[Before the a close is put to the chapter of benefits and
burthens one topic remains clamours to be brought to view.] One consideration
more. Under the here proposed judicature the decision of the
Commissioner of Dispatch will either be to the same effect as that of
the Equity Judge would have been, or to a different effect. If
to the same effect then by the supposition in the opinion of that
same Equity Judge and all other lawyers whose opinions
agree with his, evil on the ground of misdecision there will be none,
good, on the ground of saving of delay vexation and expence, vast
and uncontestable. If on the other hand the decision of the
Commissioner of dispatch will be different from that which would
have been the decision of the Equity Judge, the notion under
which it will have been pronounced — is that the decision
pronounced by the Commissioner is more and in a greater degree
promotive of the aggregate of public happiness than would have been the decision
pronounced by the Judge. Now then which is it that presents
the greatest probability of being in the higher degree promotive of the aggregate
of public happiness — the decision pronounced by the Commissioner
or the decision pronounced by the Judge? Answer: the decision pronounced
by the Commissioner. Why the decision pronounced by the Commissioner? Answer. For this reason. By the supposition
the Commissioner which in framing his decree will be looking all along
to the greatest happiness principles. Not so the Equity Judge.
The principle he will be looking to and guided by will be
that which has already been designated by the sheep-and-goose
including the blind- principle and the custom following
principle.

12
Suppose even a net
loss by Commissioners
decision — the amount of this loss will
not be the whole of the
losing party's suffering
but the difference between
that & the what would
have been the winning
party's suffering if
the decision had been
by Equity Judge

But suppose that after being/having been thus occupied in the contemplation
of the greatest happiness principle the course taken by
the Commissioner has been such that a net loss in the article
of happiness has been the result of it: if the loss made
will what will have been the amount? Not the whole of the
suffering experienced by the losing party, but the difference between
that and that which would have been the suffering of the winning
party had he, instead of being the winner, been the loser: a
loss which may have been to any degree minute or even on the negative
side. For disappointment on one side or other — disappointment,
and
and thus pain of disappointment
there can not but be. This by
the supposition: for if to
say that the loss would not be a
disappointment to a man
is as much as to say
that to win is what he
has no expectation of: in which case continuance of the suit with its expence would be in effect without a cause unless the motive were to oppress the other side by the
burthen of the expence

[+] vowed to wit through
the medium of the non-disappointment
principle

Identifier: | JB/081/135/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 81.
Date_1	1829-05-10	Marginal Summary Numbering	11-12
Box	081	Main Headings	dispatch court bill
Folio number	135	Info in main headings field	petitions
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	d9 / e3
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	b&m 1829
Marginals	george bentham	Paper Producer	arthur moore; richard doane
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year	1829
Notes public		ID Number	25922
Box Contents