JB/150/646/001: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:01, 20 April 2015

Introductory
Observations
Simplicity — how
far to be compelled

Simplifying In the present instance, as in others, simplifying the foundations of a the system, is an
obvious point of policy: because, the more distinct
parts, the more sources of opposition from different
classes of opponents: so that a every plan every
part of which, if proposed separately, might
have been approved by a large majority, may
be disapproved and rejected, when brought forward
in the lump.

On the other hand considerations are not
wanting, to limit the degree of simplification:
what is brought forward must be sufficient to equal of
she itself to the fulfilling of some one desirable
object, and the benefit value of that object
must be no of itself be an equivalent such, as to be for the
expence.

Identifier: \| JB/150/646/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 150.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering	not numbered
Box	150	Main Headings	police bill
Folio number	646	Info in main headings field
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks
Marginals	jeremy bentham	Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	50867
Box Contents

Revision as of 10:57, 20 April 2015 view source Ohsoldgirl (talk \| contribs) 16,601 edits No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 11:01, 20 April 2015 view source Ohsoldgirl (talk \| contribs) 16,601 edits No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 3:		Line 3:
	<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->		<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->

	<!-- pencil annotations --> <p><note>Introductory<lb/. Observations</note> <lb/> <note>Simplicity — how <lb/> far to be ~~<gap/>~~</note></p> <p. <del> Simplifying</del> <add> In the present instance, as in others, simplifying</add>the foundations of <del>a</del> <add>the</add> system, is an <lb/> obvious point of policy: because, the more distinct <lb/> parts, the more sources of opposition from different<lb/> classes of opponents: so that <add> a</add> <del> every</del> plan every<lb/> part of which, if proposed separately, might <lb/> have been approved by a large majority, may <lb/> be disapproved and rejected, when brought forward<lb/> in the lump.</p> <p> On the other hand considerations are not <lb/> wanting, to limit the degree of simplification:<lb/> what is brought forward must be <del>sufficient to</del> <add> equal of </add> <lb/><del>she</del> itself to the fulfilling of some one desirable<lb/> object, and the <del>benefit</del> value of that object <lb/> must <del> be no</del> of itself be an equivalent <add>such, as to be </add> for the <lb/> <sic>expence</sic>.</p>		<!-- pencil annotations --> <p><note>Introductory<lb/> Observations</note> <lb/> <note>Simplicity — how <lb/> far to be compelled</note></p> <p> <del> Simplifying</del> <add> In the present instance, as in others, simplifying</add> the foundations of <del>a</del> <add>the</add> system, is an <lb/> obvious point of policy: because, the more distinct <lb/> parts, the more sources of opposition from different<lb/> classes of opponents: so that <add> a</add> <del> every</del> plan every<lb/> part of which, if proposed separately, might <lb/> have been approved by a large majority, may <lb/> be disapproved and rejected, when brought forward<lb/> in the lump.</p> <p> On the other hand considerations are not <lb/> wanting, to limit the degree of simplification:<lb/> what is brought forward must be <del>sufficient to</del> <add> equal of </add> <lb/><del>she</del> itself to the fulfilling of some one desirable<lb/> object, and the <del>benefit</del> value of that object <lb/> must <del> be no</del> of itself be an equivalent <add>such, as to be </add> for the <lb/> <sic>expence</sic>.</p>

Views

JB/150/646/001: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:01, 20 April 2015

Navigation

Search