Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow JEREMY BENTHAM TO THE MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC—RESPECT, - The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 10 (Memoirs Part I and Correspondence)

Return to Title Page for The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 10 (Memoirs Part I and Correspondence)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Subject Area: Law

“JEREMY BENTHAM TO THE MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC—RESPECT, - Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 10 (Memoirs Part I and Correspondence) [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. 10.

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.


“JEREMY BENTHAM TO THE MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC—RESPECT,

“The letter of the 10th instant, by which you notify to me the honour done me by the last National Assembly, in placing me among the small number of foreigners upon whom it was pleased to confer the title of French Citizen, requires that I should acknowledge its reception, and declare whether I consider Frenchmen as among my brethren.

“To a question so marked by frankness, I must frankly reply. If, in recognising the duties attached to so honourable a distinction, I considered myself released from any of these I have contracted towards the country in which I was born, I should give but feeble evidence of my fidelity in the discharge of new engagements. Thus, if unfortunately I were forced to choose between incompatible obligations imposed by the two positions, my sad choice, I must own, must fall on the earlier and stronger claim. Happily, from the point of view whence I have always rejoiced to regard this question—delicate as it is interesting—the incompatibility appears ideal,—purely ideal. It cannot exist in my eyes between the permanent interests of the two nations—whatever be the difference of their local position—whatever the diversity of their laws. And this conviction is no vain compliment to you: it is not the outbreak of a momentary enthusiasm, but the reasoned result of a bold and vigorous investigation.

“The different forms of the two governments present no obstacle to my thoughts. The general good is everywhere the true object of all political action,—of all law. The general will is everywhere, and for every one, the sole external index by which the conformity of the means to the end can be decided. Professions the most opposed are conciliated—nay, they are prescribed by the varieties of position. Passions and prejudices divide men: great principles unite them. Faithful to these—as true as they are simple—I should think myself a weak reasoner and a bad citizen, were I not, though a royalist in London, a republican in Paris. I should deem it a fair consequence of my being a royalist in London, that I should become a republican in Paris. Thus doing, I should alike respect the rights and follow the example of my sovereign, who while an Anglican in England, is a Presbyterian in Scotland, and a Lutheran in Hanover.

“Having given this explanation, I have only a word to add,—one word with reference to the question, whether I consider all Frenchmen as my brethren?—Indeed, I do: every Frenchman is a brother to me; when, indeed, was he otherwise?

“But if anything could weaken the enjoyment which the acquisition of so honourable a title brings with it—it would be the sight of so many unfortunate beings who have to deplore its loss. Because they have ill estimated the movement of the general will, they are crushed with all the weight of its indignation. The marked difference which separates their political opinions from mine, weakens in no respect the sentiments of sorrow which their position inspires. But it is in civil troubles that motives equally pure lead to conduct the most opposed. In my estimate, these victims are too few to be proscribed as a measure of precaution—but too many to be sacrificed as a measure of punishment. It was after having fought to the number of ten thousand that the insurgents of Chatillon were received with kisses of fraternity, and promises of amnesty from their generous conquerors. And these insurgents were the aggressors; but the poor refugees have only committed the offence of not emancipating themselves suddenly from the prejudices of ages—and their imperfections are but the consequence of mistakes as to the advent of an epoch they had not foreseen. If I am not deceived, it would be easy to draw up a declaration—even an oath—by which, without wounding their conscience or their weakness, the Republic might obtain every security in the nature of things obtainable. Such a motion, were I in a position to make it, would I be the first to propose. Even were I certain that there was not one among them that was not the irreconcileable enemy of the established order—not one who, if he dared, would not make me his first personal victim, I would not the less propose such a measure—not the less defend it. For every punishment that is not needed is really a lawless punishment; and in cases of civil war, the end is answered when the minority is subdued: and merely to prove that there is a desire to do mischief without proving the power of doing so, is to prove nothing to the purpose.”

M. Delessert writes to Bentham from Amsterdam, the 30th Nov. 1792:—

(Translation.)