JB/023/064/001

Click Here To Edit

1830. Sept. 22
J.B. to France against Peers Letter II against Peers

or 9
Options generally understood
to be upon the
carpet –
1. Chamber of Peers
2. Senate
3. Neither

or 10
Per J.B., their these –
1 Powers what.
2 Locators who
3 Condition of eligibility
or say Qualification –
what

11
Per J.B., neither.
Sufficient Deputies'
Chamber: this one
ruling or co-ruling
body.
Purely maleficent
any body, ruling in
conjunction with it,
and thereby diminishing
its powers.

12.
Thus, whatsoever be
the powers given to
the Second Chamber

13
Powers proposable J.B.
will mention, the
better to show the
mischievous consequences.
To state qualifications
would not be consistent:
the situation
being proposed to be
abolished.

14
Powers proposable.
1. Share with Deputies'
Chamber in the legislative
authority
2. Share in judicial authority,
as AnglicèH. of
Lords & U.S. Senate.
3. Share in Administrative
authority as in
U.S. Senate.

---page break---

or 15
Locators proposable these.
1. King, as Anglicè Gallicè
& wherever there is a Second
Chamber
2. A body of Electors: as in
U.S. Senate the legislatures
of the several
States.

16.
The Topic – Locators who is too
important to be
passed by.

17
Considered will next be
the reasons adducible
for a Second Chamber.
Suppositions these
1. As to power arrangement
best possible.
2. Additament to legislative
authority
none.
3. Locators, the same
as in the case of the
First Chamber

18
This is the simplest
and least objectionable
state of things.
Maleficial a Second
Chamber howsoever
constituted, even in
this case: more
and more so, as by
additament after additament,
the state
of things is rendered
more and more
complicated.

19.
As to Objections to Second
Chamber, needful none.
Objn. 1. On the advocates
of the 2nd. Chamber
lies the onus probandi
as to the net benefit
from it.
Sole reason for it, its
existence.

---page break---

20
Objection I: Dilatoriness.
Of the first Chamber
the aptitude in every
respect, as above, is incontestably
a postulate:
from its power, that of
the Second Chamber
is pro tanto a deduction.
Result delay, which
so long as it lasts is
a negative; the measure
good, proportionable
the loss.

21
Objection II. Needlessness.
For subject matter of
reply to this, needs must be
imagined. Need 1. Imaginable Time for consideration
& discussion
Reply Answer. By first Chamber
as which much can be
allowed as to as it seems
desirable.

22
To the Second Chamber,
consistently with its general
aptitude, as per
postulate, who has
and Why should it, on
any occasion, be more
competent, to decide
what degree of consideration
and deliberation, than to the 1st.?

22.
Objection III. Perniciousness
by the involuntary
delay.
True more or less is
consumed
1. by each proceeding: and
2 if more than one,
by the intervals
This is involuntary,
as the motion of heart
arteries.

Identifier: | JB/023/064/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 23.
Date_1	1830-09-22	Marginal Summary Numbering	or 9 - or 10, 11-14, or 15, 16-22, 22
Box	023	Main Headings	lord brougham displayed
Folio number	064	Info in main headings field	jb to france against peers
Image	001	Titles
Category	marginal summary sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	e1
Penner	richard doane	Watermarks	j whatman turkey mill 1829
Marginals		Paper Producer	jonathan blenman
Corrections	jeremy bentham	Paper Produced in Year	1829
Notes public		ID Number	7935
Box Contents