Utility and Democracy: The Political Thought of Jeremy Bentham

383 Pages·2006·2.31 MB·English

by  Phillip Schofield

UTILITY AND DEMOCRACY
The Political Thought of Jeremy Bentham
This page intentionally left blank
Utility and Democracy
The Political Thought of
Jeremy Bentham
PHILIP SCHOFIELD
AC
AC
GreatClarendonStreet,OxfordOX26DP
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwidein
Oxford NewYork
Auckland CapeTown DaresSalaam HongKong Karachi
KualaLumpur Madrid Melbourne MexicoCity Nairobi
NewDelhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
Withofficesin
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile CzechRepublic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
SouthKorea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress
intheUKandincertainothercountries
PublishedintheUnitedStates
byOxfordUniversityPressInc.,NewYork
#PhilipSchofield,2006
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
DatabaserightOxfordUniversityPress(maker)
Firstpublished2006
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,
withoutthepriorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,
orasexpresslypermittedbylaw,orundertermsagreedwiththeappropriate
reprographicsrightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproduction
outsidethescopeoftheaboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,
OxfordUniversityPress,attheaddressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisbookinanyotherbindingorcover
andyoumustimposethesameconditiononanyacquirer
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationData
Dataavailable
TypesetbyNewgenImagingSystems(P)Ltd.,Chennai,India
PrintedinGreatBritain
onacid-freepaperby
BiddlesLtd.,King’sLynn,Norfolk
ISBN0–19–820856–1 978–0–19–820856–3
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
Preface
Inwritingthisbook,whichtakesthepoliticalthoughtofJeremyBenthamforits
subject-matter,andapproachesitthroughthedisciplineofthehistorian,Ihave
aimed to present Bentham on his own terms. I have not seen it as my role to
attemptto contributedirectly tocontemporarydebatesaboutthestrengthsand
weaknessesofutilitarianism,orabouttheexplanatorypoweroflegalpositivism,
oraboutwhetherBenthamisbestinterpretedasaliberaloranauthoritarian,and
soforth.Thesearethetasksofthephilosopher,ofthelegaltheorist,andofthat
varietyofhistorianofpoliticalthoughtwhostudiesthepastinordertoshedlight
onthepresent.Nevertheless,providingitisnotthecasethatnooneeverlearns
anything from history, it is possible that the contents of this book may be of
some interest to participants in those debates. If Bentham is invoked by philo-
sophers, legal theorists, historians of political thought, and scholars from other
disciplines suchaspolitical science, economics, andliteraryand culturalstudies
(asheincreasinglyis),thenitmaybeofservicetohaveamoredetailedhistorical
account, and in turn a clearer understanding, of what it was that Bentham
himselfthought,andofthecircumstanceswhichpromptedhimtothinkit.My
ambition has been to provide a more satisfactory narrative of the historical
development of Bentham’s political thought—or at least of some aspects of
Bentham’s political thought—than has hitherto appeared, and thereby to pro-
vide a framework for future research, where that may be appropriate.
Itisthecentralthesisofthisbookthatinoraround1804thenotionofsinister
interest emerged in Bentham’s thought, and had a major impact on his
understandingofthepoliticalprocess.Itisthepresenceofsinisterinterestwhich,
crudely speaking, distinguishes ‘the radical Bentham’ of the nineteenth century
from‘theenlightenmentBentham’oftheeighteenthcentury.Havingsaidthat,I
also contend that, in certain key elements, Bentham’s thought remained
remarkablystable.Thoseelementsincludednotonlytheprincipleofutility,but
also, and more fundamentally, his theory of real and fictitious entities.
Bentham’sphilosophybeganwiththephysicalworld,andthewayinwhichthe
humanmindexperiencedthatworld,andthenrepresenteditindiscourse.When
Benthamhadexplainedthenatureofthephysicalorthereal,hefoundhimselfin
apositiontoexplainthenatureofthemoral.Pleasureandpainwerereal,andif
sentientcreatureswhohadthecapacitytoexperiencepleasureandpaindidnot
exist, nothing would matter.
While this isnot a short book,it suffers froma number of lacunae. The vast
amount of material which Bentham printed and published during his lifetime,
togetherwiththatwhichhasbeenpublishedsince,andthenearimpossibilityof
readingwitheasethegreatmassofhismanuscriptswhichremainuntranscribed,
vi Preface
make it very difficult to study, let alone to integrate into one’s account, more
than a small proportion of his corpus. This book would have benefited, for
example, from a more systematic consideration of Bentham’s general jur-
isprudence;fromamoredetailedaccountofthefoursub-endsoftheprincipleof
utility—abundance, subsistence, security, and equality—and their relationship
tohispolitics;fromamoreextensiveconsiderationofhisreligiousmanuscripts;
fromastudyofthewritingsonPrizeLaw,whichBenthamregardedasonemore
element in the system of misrule; and from a deeper appreciation of his eco-
nomic thought. Considerably more might have been said on specific aspects of
hismaturepoliticalthought,forinstance,onhisanalysisofthedifferentformsof
government, on his insights into the nature of corruption and corruptive
influence, and on his opposition to titles of honour. An extremely pertinent
chapter might have been written on Bentham’s attitude towards the reward of
officials, in particular his preference for remuneration by salary instead of by
fee—a subject to which he devoted an enormous amount of attention
throughouthiscareer.Itismyhopethatitwillbefoundpossibletoincorporate
studies of these topics within the framework which this book provides.
All this points to the sobering thought that any study of Bentham is neces-
sarilymoreprovisionalthanthatofmanyotherpastthinkers.A‘definitive’study
ofBentham,oratleastofmorethansomenarrowlydefinedareaofhisthought,
isstillsomewayoff.Thisisduetothelackofareliableandcompleteeditionof
hisworks,thoughthesituationisbeingprogressivelyremediedbytheBentham
Project at University College London. By the time this book is published,
twenty-six volumes will have appeared in the new, authoritative edition of The
Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham, though forty or so more will be needed to
finishthejob.Whenthevastamountofmanuscriptwhichisstillunexploredis
brought to the attention of scholars, much more will be discovered not only
about the historical development of Bentham’s thought, but also about the
philosophicalcontentofthatthought.Forthepresent,Ihavebasedmynarrative
onwhatIconsidertobethemostauthenticsourcesavailable,andhavetriedto
be sensitive to the date at which the material in question was written. This
approachrevealsthecontinuitiesanddiscontinuitiesinBentham’sthought,and
helpstoachievethegoalofpresentinganaccountofwhatBenthamhimselfsaid,
rather than what his editors and interpreters have had him say. I have avoided
´
any reliance on the recensions of Bentham’s works produced by Etienne
Dumont, brilliant though they are, and of outstanding importance in terms of
the diffusion of Bentham’s ideas to a Francophone audience. An exception is
PoliticalTactics,forwhichIhavereliedontheEnglishretranslationofDumont’s
FrenchtranslationofBentham’soriginalEnglishmanuscripts(themselveslostin
the 1810s). In another instance—Analysis of the Influence of Natural Religion
on the Temporal Happiness of Mankind—I have relied on a text published in
Bentham’slifetimebyaneditor(GeorgeGrote)commissionedbyBentham,but
over whose work he did not exercise much control. In short, I have adopted a
Preface vii
hierarchy of preferred sources, choosing to rely, where possible, first on texts
whichhavebeenpublishedinTheCollectedWorksofJeremyBentham;second,on
textswhichBenthamhimselfprintedorpublishedinhislifetime;andthird,on
Bentham’s original manuscripts. Fortunately, things will only get better for the
Bentham scholar as more texts appear in the new, authoritative edition.
A few words need to be said in explanation of Bentham’s working methods,
and the different categories of manuscript into which his papers may be con-
veniently divided, since, at various points in this book, mention is made of the
categoryofmanuscriptfromwhichsomeparticularquotationistaken.Bentham
tended to compose his works on sheets of foolscap (double sheets earlier in his
career,singlesheetslater),ruledwithawidemarginandwithadoublelineatthe
top for the date and heading. Many of these ‘text sheets’ contain numerous
additions (usually interlinear, but sometimes marginal), deletions, and emen-
dations.Bentham’shabitwastowriteasequenceofseveralsheetsoftext,toread
itoverandmakecorrections,andthentowritesummariesofthecontentinthe
margin. The marginal summaries were written in the form of short paragraphs
andnumberedconsecutively.Thesemarginalsummarieswereoftencopiedonto
separate sheets (‘marginal summary sheets’) by one or other of Bentham’s
amanuenses.Themarginalsummarysheets,writtenonsinglesheetsoffoolscap
ruledinto fourcolumns with adouble lineat thetop forthe dateand heading,
also bearoccasional corrections and emendations in Bentham’s hand.Afurther
category of sheets, which Bentham termed rudiment sheets, contain notes,
aphorisms,generalprinciples,andplans,andusuallyconsistofdoublesheetsof
foolscap, each sheet being ruled into four columns.
I joined the Bentham Project in 1984, and in that sense this book has been
overtwentyyearsinthemaking.Inthattime,Ihaveaccumulatedanenormous
intellectualdebttocolleaguesattheProject.Inthefirstplace,Imustexpressmy
deep sense of gratitude to Frederick Rosen and William Twining—for many
yearsGeneralEditorofTheCollectedWorksofJeremyBenthamandChairofthe
BenthamCommittee,respectively.Theirvisionandleadership,theirintellectual
integrity and curiosity, their rigorous standards of scholarship, and their com-
mitment to the ‘Benthamic’ enterprise, have been truly inspirational. Without
theirencouragement,guidance,andsupport,Iwouldprobablybesweepingthe
platforms on Preston Station. I am similarly compelled to acknowledge my
debt to the two other former General Editors of The Collected Works of Jeremy
Bentham,bothgreathistorians:thelateJohnDinwiddy, whointroducedme to
theBenthamProject,andJ.H.Burns,thedoyenofBenthamscholars.Iwantto
thank thecurrentstaff ofthe BenthamProject—CatherineFuller,KateBarber,
MichaelQuinn,CatherinePease-Watkin,DeborahMcVea,IrenaNicoll,Oliver
Harris, and Tony Draper—for being such marvellous friends and colleagues,
and for creating a climate in which collaborative research is able to flourish.
They are a pleasure to work with, and have supported me unstintingly in the
preparation of this book. Past members of the Project, including the late
viii Preface
Janet Semple, Stephen Conway, Jane Desmarais, Marilyn Morris, Cyprian
Blamires,JonathanHarris,ColinTyler,AlanPitt,andLukeO’Sullivan,haveall
contributed,albeitunwittingly,tothisbook,ashavethestudentswho,overthe
years, have taken our MA/LLM course on Jeremy Bentham and the Utilitarian
Tradition.
I have profited from the writings, lectures, papers, and conversation of the
worldwide community of Bentham scholars, which includes David Lieberman,
Stephen Engelmann, James Crimmins, Douglas Long, Gerald Postema, Hugo
Bedau,RossHarrison,PaulKelly,OrenBenDor,MarcoGuidi,Emmanuellede
Champs, Gunhild Hoogensen, and Alison Dube. I need to make a special
mention of Donald Jackson, whose unpublished paper on sinister interest
pointed me in the right direction. I also wish to thank the growing coterie of
Japanese scholars with an interest in Bentham and utilitarianism—and in par-
ticular Yoshio Nagai, Michihiro Otonashi, Naobumi Hijikata, Daisuke Arie,
andYasunoriFukagai—forgivingmeseveralopportunitiestopresentmywork
to Japanese audiences.
Iwishtoexpressmythankstothreehistorianswhohavebeenresponsiblefor
nurturingmyinterestineighteenth-centuryBritain:W.H.Snow,myteacherat
ChorleyGrammarSchoolandRunshawSixthFormCollege;FrankO’Gorman,
whose special topic I was privileged to attend at the University of Manchester;
and the late I. R. Christie, who supervised my Ph.D at University College
London.
IamverygratefultomycolleaguesintheFacultyofLaws,UniversityCollege
London,forsograciouslywelcomingahistorianintotheirmidst.Iwouldliketo
make especial mention of Andrew Lewis, Stephen Guest, and Jeffrey Jowell, all
of whom have been strong supporters of the Bentham edition and of the
scholarship which it represents. Thanks are also due to Jonathan Wolff, the
current Chair of the Bentham Committee, for all his support and good advice.
The staff of University College London Library, particularly Gill Furlong and
Susan Stead, have been tremendously helpful, responding efficiently and with
good humourtoanever-endingseries ofrequestsforaccessto manuscriptsand
rare books, and facilitating the editorial work of the Bentham Project to which
this book owes so much.
An earlier version of Chapter 3 appeared as ‘Jeremy Bentham’s ‘‘Nonsense
uponStilts’’’,inUtilitas,15(2003),1–26,andanearlierversionofChapter4as
‘JeremyBentham,theFrenchRevolutionandPoliticalRadicalism’,inHistoryof
EuropeanIdeas,30(2004),381–401.EchoesofChapters1and2willbefound
in‘JeremyBentham,thePrincipleofUtility,andLegalPositivism’,inM.D.A.
Freeman(ed.), CurrentLegalProblems2003:Volume56(Oxford,2004),1–39;
ofChapter9in‘JeremyBentham:LegislatoroftheWorld’,inM.D.AFreeman
(ed.), Current Legal Problems 1998: Volume 51. Legal Theory at the End of the
Millennium (Oxford, 1998), 115–47; and still more distant echoes of Chapter
11 in ‘The Constitutional Code of Jeremy Bentham’, The King’s College Law
Preface ix
Journal,2(1991–2),40–62,andin‘BenthamontheIdentificationofInterests’,
Utilitas, 8 (1996), 223–34.
I would like to thank the following repositories for permission to quote
from manuscripts in their possession: University College London Library; the
British Library; the British Library of Political and Economic Science; the
Bodleian Library, University of Oxford; the National Library of Ireland;
University College Dublin Library; the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript
Library, Yale University; Cornell University Library; and the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library.
Finally,Ishouldthankmylong-sufferingfamily—mywifeKathryn,andour
daughtersRebeccaandAbigail—forenduringconstanttalkaboutMrBentham.
Becky and Abbie find it difficult to understand what is so interesting about ‘a
man in a box’, and wonder why their father is unable to find a better job (for
instance, sweeping Preston Station). I am dedicating this book to them, and to
my mother, for all her love and support.
Philip Schofield
UniversityCollegeLondon
29September2005