This paragraph in the chapter on the division of offenses is supposed to provide evidence that intuitive moral judgment can err on the side of lenity in judging an act with a remote mischief as consequence, and thus substantiate the claim made in Chapter 2 (paragraph 17). Yet there appears in this discussion about prudence naught that bears on the question about remote mischiefs. Nonetheless, as with its mate in paragraph 17 of Chapter 2, I have enabled the cross reference, because it is there in Bentham's text.