Front Page Titles (by Subject) SECTION VIII.: KING'S LAW-SERVANTS NOT INFALLIBLE. - The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 4
SECTION VIII.: KING’S LAW-SERVANTS NOT INFALLIBLE. - Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 4 
The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838-1843). 11 vols. Vol. 4.
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.
The text is in the public domain.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
- A View of the Hard-labour Bill; Being an Abstract of a Pamphlet, Intituled, “draught of a Bill, to Punish By Imprisonment and Hard Labour, Certain Offenders; and to Establish Proper Places For Their Reception:” Interspersed With Observations Relative T
- Panopticon; Or, the Inspection-house: Containing the Idea of a New Principle of Construction Applicable to Any Sort of Establishment, In Which Persons of Any Description Are to Be Kept Under Inspection; and In Particular to Penitentiary-houses,
- Letter I.: Idea of the Inspection Principle.
- Letter II.: Plan For a Penitentiary Inspection-house.
- Letter III.: Extent For a Single Building.
- Letter IV.: The Principle Extended to Uncovered Areas.
- Letter V.: Essential Points of the Plan.
- Letter VI.: Advantages of the Plan.
- Letter VII.: Penitentiary-houses—safe Custody.
- Letter VIII.: Uses—penitentiary-houses—reformation.
- Letter IX.: Penitentiary-houses—economy—contract—plan.
- Letter X.: Choice of Trades Should Be Free.
- Letter XI.: Multiplication of Trades Is Not Necessary.
- Letter XII.: Contractor’s Checks.
- Letter XIII.: Means of Extracting Labour.
- Letter XIV.: Provision For Liberated Persons.
- Letter XV.: Prospect of Saving From This Plan.
- Letter XVI.: Houses of Correction.
- Letter XVII.: Prisons For Safe Custody Merely.
- Letter XVIII.: Manufactories.
- Letter XIX.: Mad-houses.
- Letter XX.: Hospitals.
- Letter XXI.: Schools.
- Postscript, Part I. Containing Further Particulars and Alterations Relative to the Plan of Construction Originally Proposed; Principally Adapted to the Purpose of a Panopticon Penitentiary-house. *
- Section I.: Principal Particulars. Principal Particulars Either Settled Or Altered, Since the First Hasty Design, As Described In Letter II. And Imperfectly Represented In Plate I. See Plate II. †
- Section II.: General View of the Whole Edifice. In a General View of the Whole Building, According to Its Present Form, Three Very Different, Though Connected Masses, May Be Distinguished.
- Section III.: Annular Well. Annular Well, Instead of Stories of Intermediate Annular Area.
- Section IV.: Protracted Partitions Omitted. Protracted Partitions Omitted; Or Rather, Taken Into the Cells.
- Section V.: Cells, Double Instead of Single.
- Section VI.: Dead-part.
- Section VII.: Chapel. Chapel Introduced. *
- Section VIII.: Inspection-galleries and Lodge.
- Section IX.: Of the Communications In General.
- Section X.: Communications. Prisoners’ Staircases.
- Section XI.: Communications—inspectors Staircases.
- Section XII.: Staircase For Chapel Visitors, and For the Officers’ Apartments.
- Section XIII.: Cell-galleries.
- Section XIV.: Doors.
- Section XV.: Diametrical Passage.
- Section XVI.: Communications—exit Into the Yards.
- Section XVII.: Exterior Annular Well. ‡
- Section XVIII.: Windows Reaching Low, and Glazed; Instead of High Up, and Open.
- Section XIX.: Materials. Arched Work—much Iron—plaster Floors.
- Section XX.: Outlets, Including Airing-yards.
- Section XXI.: Approach and Fences.
- Section XXII.: Means of Supplying Water.
- Section XXIII.: Of the Mode of Warming the Building.
- Section XXIV.: Of the Economy Observed In the Construction.
- Postscript—part II. Principles and Plan of Management.
- Section I.: Leading Positions.
- Section II.: Management—in What Hands, and On What Terms.
- Section III.: Of Separation As Between the Sexes.
- Section IV.: Of Separation Into Companies and Classes.
- Section V.: Employment.
- Section VI.: Diet.
- Section VII.: Clothing.
- Section VIII.: Bedding.
- Section IX.: Health and Cleanliness.
- Section X.: Of Airing and Exercise.
- Section XI.: Schooling and Sunday Employment.
- Section XII.: Of Ventilation, Shading, and Cooling.
- Section XIII.: Distribution of Time.
- Section XIV.: Of Punishments.
- Section XV.: Mode of Guarding On the Outside.
- Section XVI.: Provision For Liberated Prisoners.
- The Following Note Respecting This Work Was Given By Bentham to Dr. Bowring, 24 Th January 1821.
- Panopticon Versus New South Wales: Or, the Panopticon Penitentiary System, and the Penal Colonization System, Compared.
- A Plea For the Constitution: Shewing the Enormities Committed, to the Oppression of British Subjects, Innocent As Well As Guilty;
- Section I.: Subject Matter—object—plan.
- Section II.: Power of Legislation—its Necessity In New South Wales.
- Section III: Legislation—how Far Lawful In New South Wales.
- Section IV.: American, &c. Legislation No Precedent For New South Wales.
- Section V.: Even In America, the Crown Had No Right to Legislate Without Parliament.
- Section VI.: Nullity of Legislation In New South Wales, For Want of an Assembly to Consent.
- Section VII.: Nullity of Governor’s Ordinances. For Want of a Court to Try Offences Against Them.
- Section VIII.: King’s Law-servants Not Infallible.
- Section IX.: Nullity of New South Wales Legislation, Proved By the Granada Case.
- Section X.: Governor’s Illegal Ordinances Exemplified.
- Section XI.: Governor’s Illegal Ordinances Exemplified.
- Section XII.: Expirees Forcibly Detained.
- Section XIII.: Expirees, During Detention, Kept In a State of Bondage.
- Section XIV.: Statutes Transgressed By the Legislation and Government of New South Wales.
- Draught of a Code For the Organization of the Judicial Establishment In France: With Critical Observations On the Draught Proposed By the National Assembly Committee, In the Form of a Perpetual Commentary.
- Bentham’s Draught For the Organization of Judicial Establishments, Compared With That of the National Assembly, With a Commentary On the Same.
- Emancipate Your Colonies! Addressed to the National Convention of France, Anno 1793.
- Jeremy Bentham to His Fellow-citizens of France, On Houses of Peers and Senates.
- Papers Relative to Codification and Public Instruction: Including Correspondence With the Russian Emperor, and Divers Constituted Authorities In the American United States.
- Part I.—: On Codification.
- No. I.: To the President of the United States of America.
- No. II.: James Madison, Then President of the Congress of the American United States, to Jeremy Bentham, London.
- No. III.: Albert Gallatin, Minister Plenipotentiary From the American United States to the Court of London, to Simon Snyder, Governor of Pennsylvania, Introducing a Letter From Jeremy Bentham to the Said Governor.
- No. IV.: Jeremy Bentham, London, to Simon Snyder, Governor of Pennsylvania.
- No. V.: Simon Snyder, Governor of Pennsylvania, to David Meade Randolph, Esq. Williamsburgh, Virginia, On the Subject of the Above Letter of Jeremy Bentham.
- No. VI.: Extract From a Printed Paper, Signed Simon Snyder, Dated Harrisburg, December 5 Th 1816, James Peacock, Printer, Intituled “ Governor’s Message to the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ” Containing Seve
- No. VII.: Circular. — to the Governor of the State of
- No. VIII.: Jeremy Bentham, an Englishman, to the Citizens of the Several American United States.
- No. IX.: Jeremy Bentham to James Madison, Late President of the American United States.
- No. X.: Jeremy Bentham to the Emperor of All the Russias.
- No. XI.: Alexander I. Emperor of All the Russias, to Jeremy Bentham, London—written With His Imperial Majesty’s Own Hand, In Answer to the Above, [no. X.]
- No. XII.: Jeremy Bentham to the Emperor of All the Russias.
- No. XIII.: Prince Adam Czartoriski, of Poland, to Jeremy Bentham, London. *
- No. XIV.: Jeremy Bentham, London, to Prince Adam Czartoriski of Poland.
- Part II.: Public Instruction.
- No. I.: ( Circular. )— Letter From His Excellency Wilson Cary Nicholas, Governor of Virginia, On the Subject of Public Instruction.—addressed (the Copy of Which This Is a Transcript) to His Excellency John Quincy Adams, Minister Plenipotentiary From the U
- No. II.: ( Circular. )— to the Governor of the State of
- No. III.
- No. IV. Notice Concerning Chrestomathia, By the Paris Lancasterian Instruction Society. Report of the British and Foreign School Society to the General Meeting, Dec. 12, 1816.—EXTRACT.
- Codification Proposal, Addressed By Jeremy Bentham to All Nations Professing Liberal Opinions; Or Idea of a Proposed All-comprehensive Body of Law, With an Accompaniment of Reasons, Applying All Along to the Several Proposed Arrangements:
- Part I.—ARGUMENTS.: Positions, With Reasons For Proofs.
- Section 1.: In Every Political State, the Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number Requires, That It Be Provided With an All-comprehensive Body of Law. All-comprehensiveness, Practicable, and Indispensable.
- Section 2.: The Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number Requires, That Such Body of Law Be Throughout Accompanied By Its Rationale: an Indication of the Reasons On Which the Several Arrangements Contained In It Are Grounded. Rationale, Though Unex
- Section 3.: The Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number Requires, That Those Reasons Be Such, Throughout, As Shall Show the Conduciveness of the Several Arrangements to the All-comprehensive and Only Defensible End Thus Expressed. Rationale, Indicat
- Section 4.: The Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number Requires, That, of This Rationale, the Several Parts Be Placed In the Most Immediate Contact With the Several Arrangements to Which They Respectively Apply. Rationale, Interwoven, Not Detached.
- Section 5.: The Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number Requires, That For the Function Exercised By the Drawing of the Original Draught of Such a Code, the Competitors He As Many As, Without Reward At the Public Expense, Can Be Obtained: and So, For T
- Section 6.: The Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number Requires—that, For the Drawing of Any Such Draught, No Reward At the Public Expense Be Given. At Additional Expense, Reward None.
- Section 7.: The Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number Requires—that Every Draught, So Given In, Be, From Beginning to End, If Possible, the Work of a Single Hand. Hands Not More Than One.
- Section 8.: The Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number Requires—that Such Original Draught, Being the Work of a Single Hand, Be Known to Be So. Hand, Known to Be But One.
- Section 9.: The Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number Requires, That the Work, Being the Work of a Single Hand, and Known to Be So, It Be Known Whose the Hand Is. Hand, Known Whose It Is.
- Section 10.: The Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number Requires, That, For the Drawing of the Original Draught, All Foreigners Be Admitted Into the Competition: and That, In So Far As Applicable, Unless It Be In All Particulars Taken Together Decid
- Section 11.: On the Part of an Individual, Proposing Himself As Draughtsman For the Original Draught of a Code of Laws, Willingness Or Unwillingness to Interweave In His Draught a Rationale As Above, Is the Most Conclusive Preliminary Test, and That
- Section 12.: On the Part of a Ruler, Willingness Or Unwillingness to See Established an All-comprehensive Code, With Its Rationale As Above, and to Receive Original Draughts From All Hands, Are Among the Most Conclusive Tests of Appropriate Aptitude,
- Part II.—TESTIMONIALS.
- I. England
- II. Geneva
- III.: Spain.
- IV.: Portugal.
- V.: Italy.
- VI.: France.
- VII.: Anglo-american United States.
- VIII.: Greece.
- IX.: South America.
KING’S LAW-SERVANTS NOT INFALLIBLE.
But, (says somebody) do you consider, Sir, by what authority all these acts, thus charged by you with illegality, were done? It is not the minister alone, and his subordinates, that are implicated. This is not mere treasury business. The acts have not only the king’s name and signature to them, but the sanction of the whole council-board, with the opinions of this and that and t’other great dignitary of the law included in it.
My answer is—all this makes little difference. It goes no farther than to show, that, as for a certainty a surprise was put upon parliament, so probably enough a surprise was also put upon the council-board: upon the council-board, including the legal learning and legal authority belonging to it. On putting the dry question of law—“Has not the crown, without special powers from parliament, powers to organize a constitution for a new colony?” the answer, judging from the supposed precedents of the American colonies, may, not very improbably, have been in the affirmative:—especially if given on slight consideration, as it naturally enough might be, in a case where no opposition was apprehended.
But, surprise or no surprise, God be thanked, it is not in the power of the king’s counsellors to inflict upon a single Briton an atom of punishment of their own creation, much less to inflict illegal punishment upon Britons by thousands, and to make ex post facto penal laws by dozens, in repugnancy to so many laws of parliament, including Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights. Let the sanctions lent to the measures be what they may—by whatever pretences—and from whatever names obtained—wholesale oppression was the object of it, wholesale oppression has been the result.
What does appear in point of fact, and from very high authority, is—that in matters of colonial legislation, there has been a time, and even since the accession of his present Majesty—when his Majesty’s law-advisers in this behalf have not been altogether masters of this part of their business: so at least, in the court of King’s Bench, in the famous Granada case—the great and only adjudged case since the foundation of the first colony, that has any bearing upon this point—(Lord Mansfield being spokesman)—was the opinion of the judges. “The inattention of the king’s servants” (speaking of his Majesty’s law-servants) is the circumstance to which, as the sole cause, the dispute then on the carpet is ascribed by that discerning judge. The power of legislation, as exercised in that colony, in the way of taxation, on the 20th of July 1764, by the king alone, without the concurrence of any other authority—either that of parliament here, or that of an assembly of the colony there—exercised on the ground of its being a conquered colony—is there supposed, though but arguendo, to have been in itself indisputable. But, before that day, to wit, on the 7th October 1763, these his Majesty’s careless servants, not knowing, or not minding what they were about, had so managed as to divest him of it: and it was after having so done, that, forgetting what they had done, they picked it up again, and in the name of their royal masters exercised it as above: “inverting,” says Lord Mansfield, “the order in which the instruments should have passed, and been notoriously published, the last act” was, under their management, “contradictory to, and in violation of the first:” and this is the “inattention” spoken of. Here, then, was an occasion on which, according to Lord Mansfield and the rest of the judges in the King’s Bench, his Majesty’s law-servants did not know what they were about: and this occasion was—the same as that now in question—that of the making or mending a constitution for a colony. This was in 1763 and 1764: and, forasmuch as a mistake of this sort was actually made, and by his Majesty’s law-advisers, I think I may venture, from the demonstrated error of that prior time, to infer the possibility of an error on the like subject, on the part of the same description of persons, in 1786 and 1787. The arguments ab auctoritate and ab impossibili being thus cleared away, the other arguments may without much rashness be trusted to their own strength.