A bill of rights and the separation of powers have widely been accepted as two basic safeguards of constitutional liberty.1 Bentham, however, denounces both notions as nonsense. His criticism of the discourse of entrenched and inalienable rights is well-known and has been fully discussed.2 In contrast, his discussion of the principle of the separation of powers has not been as fully treated as it deserves. The conventional view is that Bentham in his constitutional design rejects the separation of powers and advocates instead the principle of the dependence of the governors on the governed and a supreme, omni-competent, and unicameral legislature.3 However, this view of Bentham’s position is imprecise and incomplete for at least two reasons. First, the phrase ‘the separation of powers’ was ambiguous. Bentham accepts the separation of powers in some forms and rejects it in others. Second, Bentham’s rejection of the separation of powers in certain forms is conditional, not outright: he admits that it might be useful and necessary in real politics.4