★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
<!-- The rest of this page has been crossed out. --> | <!-- The rest of this page has been crossed out. --> | ||
<p>In Parliamentary language we often hear speak <del>about</del> <lb/>of what is called the principle of the bill: the principle of this<lb/>bill was <del>the</del> in fact this principle of asceticism. <add>Yet</add> On most accounts<lb/>to <del>To</del> to promote the happiness of the people is acknowledged<lb/>to be the duty of the rulers: <note>under this head, the least<lb/>that can be done one <sic>shoud</sic><lb/>think is, <add>the</add> not to snatch it<lb/>out of their hands.<lb/>This duty one should think <lb/>must <add>would</add> at least include the<lb/>negative duty of not disturbing<lb/>that happiness, of<lb/>not snatching it out of their<lb/>hands<lb/></note> [this includes <add>at least</add> the not disturbing<lb/>it: the not snatching <add>wresting</add> it out of their hands:]<lb/>and <add>but</add> if happiness is not made of amusement, of what<lb/>else <add>other stuff</add> is it made? That amusement which is innocent<lb/>every six days in the week <del>m</del> should change its nature<lb/>every seventh and become mischievous every seventh,<lb/>is a <del>fact that</del> <add>proposition somewhat singular: <del>yet</del> but which</add> must have been taken for granted<lb/>as it could not have been proved.<lb/></p><p>There are two ways of doing mischief in a state<lb/>whether by the hands of <add>subjects, or by the hands of </add>government: The one is to inflict <add>bring in</add><lb/>pain, the other is to [take away <add>prevent or short out</add> pleasure: There are no<lb/>other ways, and the mischief may be equally great in<lb/>both cases according to the value of the pain or pleasure<lb/>If the one be censurable, why <add>how</add> the other should be commendable,<lb/>seems difficult to say <add>imagine</add> .<lb/> | |||
<p>In Parliamentary language we often hear speak <del>about</del> <lb/>of what is called the principle of the bill: the principle of this<lb/>bill was <del>the</del> in fact this principle of asceticism. <add>Yet</add> On most accounts<lb/>to <del>To</del> to promote the happiness of the people is acknowledged<lb/>to be the duty of the rulers: <note>under this head, the least<lb/>that can be done one <sic>shoud</sic><lb/>think is, <add>the</add> not to snatch it<lb/>out of their hands.<lb/>This duty one should think <lb/>must <add>would</add> at least include the<lb/>negative duty of not disturbing<lb/>that happiness, of<lb/>not snatching it out of their<lb/>hands<lb/></note> [this includes <add>at least</add> the not disturbing<lb/>it: the not snatching <add>wresting</add> it out of their hands:]<lb/>and <add>but</add> if happiness is not made of amusement, of what<lb/>else <add>other stuff</add> is it made? That amusement which is innocent<lb/>every six days in the week <del>m</del> should change its nature<lb/>every seventh and become mischievous every seventh,<lb/>is a <del>fact that</del> <add>proposition somewhat singular: <del>yet</del> but which</add> must have been taken for granted<lb/>as it could not have been proved.<lb/></p><p>There are two ways of doing mischief in a state<lb/>whether by the hands of <add>subjects, or by the hands of </add>government: The one is to inflict <add>bring in</add><lb/>pain, the other is to [take away <add>prevent or | |||
</p> | </p> | ||
| Line 62: | Line 61: | ||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{ | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} | ||
16
Indirect Legislation
§ 4 Diverting
In Parliamentary language we often hear speak about
of what is called the principle of the bill: the principle of this
bill was the in fact this principle of asceticism. Yet On most accounts
to To to promote the happiness of the people is acknowledged
to be the duty of the rulers: under this head, the least
that can be done one shoud
think is, the not to snatch it
out of their hands.
This duty one should think
must would at least include the
negative duty of not disturbing
that happiness, of
not snatching it out of their
hands
[this includes at least the not disturbing
it: the not snatching wresting it out of their hands:]
and but if happiness is not made of amusement, of what
else other stuff is it made? That amusement which is innocent
every six days in the week m should change its nature
every seventh and become mischievous every seventh,
is a fact that proposition somewhat singular: yet but which must have been taken for granted
as it could not have been proved.
There are two ways of doing mischief in a state
whether by the hands of subjects, or by the hands of government: The one is to inflict bring in
pain, the other is to [take away prevent or short out pleasure: There are no
other ways, and the mischief may be equally great in
both cases according to the value of the pain or pleasure
If the one be censurable, why how the other should be commendable,
seems difficult to say imagine .
is tyranny, in the effects
how opposite soever be the
disposition
But it is easier to suffer
from idle build on hollow notions , than to
search them to the bottom;
to follow the bent of prejudice
than to correct it.
---page break---
|
Identifier: | JB/087/065/004"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 87. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
not numbered |
|||
|
087 |
indirect legislation |
||
|
065 |
indirect legislation |
||
|
004 |
|||
|
text sheet |
4 |
||
|
recto |
f13 / f14 / f15 / f16 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::gr [crown motif] [britannia with shield motif]]] |
||
|
27590 |
|||
