Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow SECTION III.: FRUIT OF DEMOCRATIC ASCENDENCY A GOLDEN AGE. - The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 3

Return to Title Page for The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 3

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Economics
Subject Area: Political Theory
Subject Area: Law

SECTION III.: FRUIT OF DEMOCRATIC ASCENDENCY A GOLDEN AGE. - Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 3 [1843]

Edition used:

The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838-1843). 11 vols. Vol. 3.

Part of: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, 11 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


SECTION III.

FRUIT OF DEMOCRATIC ASCENDENCY A GOLDEN AGE.

Such being for five years together the effect of the volunteer system—of the will of the people manifesting itself on the principle of universal suffrage—in a word, of democratic ascendency substituted to a mixture of monarchical and aristocratical ascendency under a foreign monarch, and calling itself Protestant Ascendency because it was by Protestant hands that the tyranny was exercised—such being the nature of the powerful influence exercised by the body of the people on the conduct of the government—what were the results?

Subversion of the rights of property? No such thing. Subversion of the constitution? No such thing. In the constitution of the kingdom of Ireland, a change was indeed effected. But even on the occasion on which it was effected, numerous as were the authorities without the concurrence of which the change neither was nor could have been effected, ample in every case was the applause bestowed upon it. Scarcely in any one was an objection made to it—nor has so much as the shadow of an objection been raised against it since. That one flagrantly bad point removed, all the other points, good and bad together, continued as before.

Such being the institution—democratic ascendency—behold its fruits: tranquillity, harmony, morality, felicity, unexampled. Such as they were—behold another miracle—by the evidence of all parties in one voice, their existence was acknowledged. People’s men triumphed in their golden age, and recorded it. Aristocratic Whigs, even after they had succeeded in destroying it—in substituting to it the iron age—trumpeted it, calling it their own work. So conspicuous was it—so incontestable, that not even could the most zealous monarchialists and Tories forbear confessing its existence.

Abolition of English institutions? No such thing. Good and bad together, English institutions remained as they were.

These indeed are but negative results—the mere absence, of certain results that have been seen presented to view in the character of pure evils (and the first of them—namely subversion of the rights of property—unquestionably such) and all of them as being the certain result of any state of things, under which the great body of the people were left free to give expression to their wishes.

It is with this experience full in view—all of them being at that very time not only in existence, but moreover in a situation which not only enabled them, but engaged them to apply their minds to the observation of everything that passed—that the men to whom we are indebted for the speech from the Throne, scrupled not to represent as eventually certain in Great Britain and Ireland, all those results the complete absence of which was in that instance so conspicuous in Ireland.

Will it be said that this was not democratic ascendency, for that these armed bodies were composed of men serving in the character of privates under the command of officers; and that these officers were many of them, if not most of them, members of the aristocracy—several of them among the highest in the conjunct scale of power, riches, and property, as above observed and acknowledged?

True: of this description were the officers of this army in a certain proportion. But let that proportion have been ever so large;—suppose them all Members, either of the House of Peers, or of the House of Commons: with any the less propriety would the result have been termed democratic ascendency? Not it indeed: and for this simple reason. Over any one of the privates in this army, no one officer had, at any one time, any power other than that which the privates chose all of them to give to him. No king’s commissions—no military law. Nor was it that the officers chose the privates: it was by the privates that they themselves were chosen officers.

All this time it was the people at large—it was the privates, that governed, so far as they chose to govern. As to the members of the aristocracy, including the creatures and instruments of the monarchy, each in the character of member of the democratic association had a voice indeed, but no one had any more.

To prevent evil in any shape, nothing was there in the breast of any one, but the awe he stood in of the rest. Yet, such is the effrontery of some—such the blindness of so many—mere anarchy is still the name that so long has been, and so long will continue to be given, to the only sort of government that is anything better than an established nuisance.

Place and time considered, even had the evil results, the absence of which has been brought to view, actually on this occasion had place, it would not by any means have followed, that in England or Scotland at this time, by the same power as effectually in the hands of all who chose to partake in it as it was then, those evils or any of them would have been produced. Who is there that can be insensible to the magnitude of the body of political experience that has presented itself to view since that time? Who is there that in respect of the extent to which the diffusion of political instruction has had place, can be insensible to the difference between Ireland on the one hand, and England and Scotland on the other?