Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow Romilly to Bentham. - 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

Romilly to Bentham. - 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.


Romilly to Bentham.

“November 1, 1802.

“Dear Bentham,—

I have received your papers, and I see no objection to any part of them, but their violence, and the very strong expressions that are used in them. On affoiblit tout ce qu’on exagere; and I really think there is exaggeration in what you say of the Duke of Portland. I think it is hardly possible that he could have understood the Act of Parliament as he says he understood it; but yet I do not think that it is a case to talk of a conspiracy formed to assume a legislative power, &c. One would be more anxious, I think, to avoid using too strong expressions in a case in which one is personally concerned than in any other, especially where one is complaining, in the transaction injurious to one’s self, not of that injury, but of an outrage on the public. That the pamphlet is, in point of law, a libel on the duke, and the more a libel for being true, cannot, I think, be doubted.

“You don’t ask my opinion upon the expediency of such a kind of publication; and, without knowing more of what has passed between you and the present ministers, it is impossible to judge of it,—but I should suppose that ministers were a kind of beings whom such a publication was likely to render implacable.—Yours ever.”

This friendly advice Bentham determined to follow, and thus acknowledged it:—

“2d November, 1802.

“Dear Romilly,—

A thousand thanks for your kind anxieties, and the despatch (under circumstances such as yours) and good advice which was the consequence of them. The proof of the conspiracy,—sufficient or insufficient,—is in the part you have not seen: together with a parcel of precedents, or what at least appeared to me such, for the reasons there given. As to the violence, it would cost me nothing but the trouble of correction to give that up: but the question is, whether the substance could or could not be published safely, when purged from the violence. It was not my intention to have published this, but in the case of the flinging away the scabbard. The putting it into your hands at present was a sudden thought. It might have been better if I had not sent one-half till the other half had been in readiness to accompany it: but by a sort of mechanical movement, I put my hand forth to lay hold of you before the Philistines came upon you. The word libel, from your pen, alarms me into a further communication, from which I thought to have saved you. I mean the pamphlet I showed you the first sheets of, and which I thought to have sent to the judges, and some of the ministers, without further castration or deliberation; but now I shall stop the distribution of it till you either tell me whether there are any objectionable passages, (there cannot be many,) or tell me that you have no time to look at it. If so, I must take my chance for seeing the inside of the King’s Bench, for I cannot delay it many days longer, without much prejudice to the object of it. If there are any passages which you think it material to alter or omit, that may be done by reprinting as much as is necessary.—Yours, &c.”

Bentham sent to Sir Thomas Trowbridge at the Admiralty, the following remarks on the Chancellor’s speech on the Navy Bill, and the letter was also printed in the Times of 24th November. 1802:—