Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:55:30.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bentham and the Development of the British Critique of Colonialism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

PETER J. CAIN
PETER J. CAIN*
Affiliation:
Sheffield Hallam [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines Bentham's contribution to anti-colonial thought in the context of the development of the British radical movement that attacked colonialism on the grounds that it advantaged what Bentham called the ‘Few’ at the expense of the ‘Many’. It shows that Bentham was influenced as much by Josiah Tucker and James Anderson as by Adam Smith. Bentham's early economic critique is examined, and the sharp changes in his arguments after 1800 assessed, in the context of the American and French Revolutions and the effects of British industrialization. The article also highlights the importance of Bentham's writings inspired by the Spanish colonial crisis of the early 1820s. They show developments in his economic analysis and include some very acute discussions of the psychological satisfactions that elites could gain from colonialism. The article ends with a brief comparison between Bentham and later radical thinkers to put his ideas in context.

Type
Research Article
Information
Utilitas , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 1 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For details see Oxford History of the British Empire, ed. P. J. Marshall, 5 vols. (Oxford, 1999), vol. 2: the Eighteenth Century.

2 Stark, W. (ed.), Jeremy Bentham's Economic Writings, 3 vols. (London, 1952–4)Google Scholar; Bowring, J. (ed.), The Works of Jeremy Bentham, 11 vols. (London, 1838–43)Google Scholar; Bentham, Jeremy, Colonies, Commerce and Constitutional Law: Rid Yourself of Ultramaria and Other Writings on Spain and Spanish America, ed. Schofield, P. (Oxford, 1995)Google Scholar. One of the pieces in the latter volume, ‘Observations on the Restrictive and Prohibitory Commercial System’ (1821), was published in Stark, vol. 3, pp. 381–417, but all references herein are to the 1995 edition. Another of his major works on colonies, ‘Emancipate Your Colonies!’ written in 1793 but not published until 1830, is in Bowring, vol. 4, pp. 408–18, but can now be found in Bentham, Jeremy, Rights, Representation, and Reform: Nonsense upon Stilts and Other Writings on the French Revolution, ed. Schofield, P., Pease-Watkin, C. and Blamires, C. (Oxford, 2002)Google Scholar from which all references are taken.

3 The connection between commerce and peace is discussed in Hirschman, A. O., The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism before its Triumph (Princeton, 1977)Google Scholar. See also Tom Paine who, in The Rights of Man described commerce as ‘a pacific system, operating to cordialize mankind by rendering nations, as well as individuals, useful to each other’. The Thomas Paine Reader, ed. Michael Foot and Isaac Kramnick (London, 1987), p. 309.

4 Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Oxford, 1976), p. 493Google Scholar.

5 I am much indebted here to Winch, D., Classical Political Economy and Colonies (London, 1965)Google Scholar, ch. 3. My account differs in its stress on Bentham's place within liberal thinking rather than within classical economics and in paying more attention to Bentham's writings of the 1820s. See also Boralevi, L. Campos, Bentham and the Oppressed (New York, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. pp. 120–41; Winch, D., ‘Bentham on Colonies and Empire’, Utilitas 9 (1997), pp. 147–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Schofield, P., Utility and Democracy: the Political Thought of Jeremy Bentham (Oxford, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch. 8. On Bentham's economics see Hutchison, T. W., ‘Bentham as an Economist’, Economic Journal LXVI (1956)Google Scholar, reprinted in the same author's The Uses and Abuses of Economics: Contentious Essays on History and Method (London, 1994), pp. 27–49.

6 Smith, Wealth of Nations, p. 453.

7 Smith, Wealth of Nations, p. 368.

8 Bloomfield, A. I., ‘Adam Smith and the Theory of International Trade’, Essays on Adam Smith, ed. Skinner, A. S. and Wilson, T. (Oxford, 1975)Google Scholar.

9 Wealth of Nations, p. 372. On the implications of ‘vent for surplus’ see D. P. O'Brien, The Classical Economists (Oxford, 1975), pp. 170–2.

10 Staley, L. E., ‘A Note on Adam Smith's Version of the “Vent for Surplus” Model’, History of Political Economy 5 (1973), pp. 438–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Blecker, R. A., ‘The “Unnatural and Retrograde Order”: Adam Smith's Theories of Trade and Development Reconsidered’, Economica 64 (1997), pp. 527–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Myint, H., ‘Adam Smith's Theory of International Trade in the Perspective of Economic Development’, Economica 44 (1977), pp. 231–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Winch, Classical Political Economy and Colonies, ch. 2. Smith's customs union proposal is in Guttridge, G. H., ‘Adam Smith on the American Revolution: An Unpublished Memorial’, American Historical Review 38 (1932–3), pp. 715–20Google Scholar.

13 See Bentham's unpublished preface to the second edition of A Defence of Usury in Stark vol. 1, p. 194. See also ‘Colonies and Navy’ (1790?) in Stark, vol. 1, pp. 212–13. For Bentham's youthful criticism of colonial rebellion see Campos-Boralevi, Bentham and the Oppressed, pp. 121–2.

14 Bentham, J., ‘Essay on Universal Peace. Essay IV: A Plan for Universal and Perpetual Peace’ (1786/7), in Everett, C. W., Jeremy Bentham (London, 1969), p. 195Google Scholar. The essay was first published in Bowring, vol. 2. For Tucker, see Semmel, B., The Rise of Free Trade Imperialism: Classical Political Economy the Empire of Free Trade and Imperialism, 1750–1850 (Cambridge, 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch. 2. Anderson is discussed in Mullett, C. F., ‘A Village Aristotle and the Harmony of Interests: James Anderson (1739–1808) of Monks Hill’, Journal of British Studies 8 (1968–9), pp. 94–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Josiah Tucker, The Case for Going to War for the Sake of Trade Considered in a New Light; Being the Fragment of a Greater Work (1763), in Four Tracts on Political and Commercial Subjects (Gloucester, 1776), p. 75.

16 Josiah Tucker, The True Interest of Great Britain Set Forth in Regard to the Colonies; and the Only Means of Living in Peace and Harmony with them (1774), in Four Tracts, pp. 213–15.

17 Tucker, The Case for Going to War, p. 82.

18 Tucker, The True Interest, pp. 202–10.

19 Tucker, The True Interest, pp. 214–16.

20 Tucker, The Case for Going to War, pp. 97–8.

21 Anderson thought that domestic trade exceeded foreign and colonial trade by at least twenty times. Anderson, James, The Interest of Great Britain with Regard to her America Colonies Considered. To which is added an Appendix Containing the Outlines of a Plan for a General Pacification (London, 1782), p. 130Google Scholar.

22 Anderson, The Interest of Great Britain, ch. 4, esp. pp. 94. 96. See also pp. 118, 120–1.

23 Anderson, The Interest of Great Britain, pp. 24–38, 109–10.

24 Anderson, The Interest of Great Britain, pp. 106–9, 110–17.

25 Anderson, The Interest of Great Britain, pp. 127–8.

26 Anderson, The Interest of Great Britain, pp. 133–6.

27 It preceded Kant's famous essay ‘Perpetual Peace’, which was published in 1795. See Kant, I., Political Writings, ed. Reiss, Hans (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 93–130Google Scholar.

28 Bentham, ‘Essay on Universal Peace. Essay III: Of War Considered in Respect of its Causes and Consequences’ (1789), in Bowring, vol. 2, p. 545. See here Conway, S., ‘Bentham on Peace and War, Utilitas 1 (1989), pp. 82–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 ‘A Plan’, pp. 197–8.

30 ‘A Plan’, p. 199.

31 ‘A Plan’, p. 204.

32 ‘A Plan’, pp. 223–4.

33 ‘A Plan’, p. 209.

34 See, for example, the unpublished postscript to The Defence of Usury (1787) and the fragment ‘Colonies and Navy’ (1790) in Stark, vol. 1, pp. 201–7, 211–18.

35 Jeremy Bentham, ‘Emancipate Your Colonies!’ (1793), Rights, Representation, and Reform, pp. 289–315.

36 ‘Emancipate Your Colonies!’, pp. 299–303. Bentham, however, denied Smith's claim that a British monopoly of colonial trade would raise prices and profits, arguing instead that internal competition would prevent that.

37 ‘Emancipate Your Colonies!’, pp. 304–5.

38 Jeremy Bentham, ‘Short View of Economy for the Use of the French but not Unapplicable to the English’ (1789), Rights, Representation, and Reform, pp. 193–203.

39 ‘Emancipate Your Colonies!’, p. 302.

40 ‘Of War, Considered in Respect of its Causes and Consequences’, p. 545.

41 See introduction to Stark vol. 3, p. 30. Malthus produced the first edition of his Essay on the Principles of Population in 1798. On Bentham and Malthusianism see Campos Boralevi, Bentham and the Oppressed, pp. 48–52, 106–8.

42 ‘Defence of a Maximum’ (1801) in Stark vol. 3, pp. 299–302.

43 Jeremy Bentham, ‘Method and Leading Features of an Institute of Political Economy (including Finance) Considered not only as a Science but as an Art’ (1801–4) in Stark, vol. 3, pp. 352–4; ‘The True Alarm’ (1801), in Stark, vol. 3, p. 142.

44 ‘Institute of Political Economy’, p. 355.

45 On Wakefield see Winch, Classical Political Economy, chs. 6 and 7; Semmel, The Rise of Free Trade Imperialism, chs. 4 and 5.

46 See the typed MS ‘Colonisation Society’, 5 August 1831 [008–150/1] in University College Bentham Project Archives. Emphasis is from the original.

47 Schofield, Utility and Democracy, p. 218.

48 Schofield notes that Bentham had in 1830 changed his mind about whether colonies were a stimulus to trade. Utility and Democracy, p. 220, note 69.

49 Stark vol. 1, pp. 91–4. For a detailed discussion see Kelly, P. J., Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice (Oxford, 1990)Google Scholar.

50 Hutchison,‘Bentham as an Economist’, pp. 38–41.

51 Jeremy Bentham, ‘Observations on the Restrictive and Prohibitory Commercial System’ (1821), in Colonies, Commerce and Constitutional Law, pp. 353–70. See also ‘Rid Yourself of Ultramaria’ (1822), in Colonies, Commerce and Commercial Law, pp. 120, 146.

52 ‘Houses of Peers and Senates’ (1830), Bowring, vol. 4, p. 436 and note.

53 ‘Emancipate your Colonies!’, pp. 291–5, 305–8.

54 See the memorandum ‘Colonisation Society’ [008–186/7] dated 13 August 1831, in the Bentham archive at University College London, pp. 42–3.

55 ‘Institute of Political Economy’, pp. 355–7.

56 ‘Defence of a Maximum’, p. 302.

57 ‘Rid Yourself of Ultramaria’, pp. 126–7.

58 For analysis of the background here see Muthu, S., Enlightenment against Empire (Princeton, 2008)Google Scholar.

59 ‘Emancipate Your Colonies!’, pp. 310–11, 314.

60 ‘Institute of Political Economy’, p. 356.

61 Pitts, J., A Turn to Empire: the Rise of Imperial Liberalism in Britain and France (Princeton, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch. 4.

62 For background see Harling, P., The Waning of ‘Old Corruption’: the Politics of Economical Reform in Britain, 1779–1846 (Oxford, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Bentham, Jeremy, Official Aptitudes Maximised, Expence Minimised, ed. Schofield, P. (Oxford, 1993)Google Scholar.

63 Smith, Wealth of Nations, p. 493.

64 Jeremy Bentham, ‘Rid Yourself of Ultramaria’, p. 136.

65 Tucker, The Case for Going to War, pp. 83–96.

66 Tucker, The True Interest, p. 198.

67 Anderson, The Interest of Great Britain, pp. 100–05.

68 Bentham, ‘A Plan’, p. 196.

69 ‘Short View of Economy for the Use of the French’, pp. 199–200.

70 ‘Emancipate Your Colonies !’, p. 309.

71 ‘Short View of Economy for the Use of the French’, p. 201.

72 ‘A Plan ’, p. 212.

73 ‘Summary of a Work Intituled Emancipate Your Colonies’ (1820), in Colonies, Commerce and Constitutional Law, note a, pp. 340–2. For similar sentiments earlier, see ‘An Essay on Perpetual Peace’, p. 209. See also Conway, ‘Bentham on Peace and War’, p. 88.

74 Jeremy Bentham, ‘Codification Proposal to All Nations Professing Liberal Opinions’ (1822) in Bowring vol. 4, note to p. 558. See also Dinwiddy, J., Bentham (Oxford, 1989), p. 87Google Scholar.

75 ‘Rid Yourself of Ultramaria’, pp. 34–7.

76 ‘Summary of a Work’, pp. 288–97; ‘Rid Yourself of Ultramaria’, pp. 85–6.

77 ‘Emancipation Spanish’ (1820), in Colonies, Commerce and Constitutional Law, p. 258.

78 ‘Rid Yourself of Ultramaria’, pp. 25–6, 32–3, 75. He also pointed out that if the colonies resisted then the costs, and the available patronage, would be much increased. (pp. 52–65).

79 ‘Emancipation Spanish’, p. 227. Compare Tom Paine's claim that ‘taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes’ (Rights of Man, p. 226).

80 ‘Rid Yourself of Ultramaria’, p. 37.

81 ‘Rid Yourself of Ultramaria’, pp. 38–40.

82 ‘Emancipation Spanish’, pp. 228, 231.

83 ‘Emancipation Spanish’, pp. 226–8, 231–2.

84 ‘Observations’, p. 367.

85 See, for example, Wealth of Nations, pp. 462, 655.

86 M. Olsen, The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities (New Haven, 1982).

87 ‘Observations’, pp. 370–1.

88 ‘Observations’, pp. 371–2. Compare Smith's view that ‘people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment or diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick’ (Wealth of Nations, p. 145).

89 ‘Observations’, p. 375.

90 ‘Observations’, p. 378.

91 ‘Rid yourself of Ultramaria’, pp. 135–7.

92 ‘Emancipation Spanish’, pp. 232–7.

93 ‘Emancipation Spanish’, pp. 237–46.

94 ‘Emancipation Spanish’, p. 244.

95 ‘Observations’, p. 367.

96 ‘Observations’, pp. 373–4. Bentham thought that the agricultural interest, especially the landlords, in England formed one such group: ‘Observations’, pp. 375–6. See also his analysis of the weakness of public creditors in ‘Rid Yourself of Ultramaria’, p. 46.

97 ‘Summary of a Work’, p. 291.

98 ‘Rid Yourself of Ultramaria’, p. 52. Emphasis is in the original.

99 I am aware that Bentham usually talks of ‘fictions’ in a more restricted sense than this but given the general tenor of his writings I think it legitimate to use the word in this setting. On ‘fictions’ see R. Harrison, Bentham (London, 1983).

100 ‘Rid Yourself of Ultramaria’, pp. 41, 49–51: ‘Summary of a Work’, pp. 297, 336–8.

101 For a robust defence of Say's Law see Mill, James, Selected Economic Writings, ed. Winch, D. (Edinburgh, 1966), pp. 150, 318–19Google Scholar. See also Hutchison, ‘James Mill and Ricardian Economics’, in The Uses and Abuses of Economics, ch. 3; and, more generally, Black, R. D. Collinson, ‘Bentham and the Political Economists of the Nineteenth Century’, Bentham Newsletter 11 (1988), pp. 24–37Google Scholar.

102 Mill, James, ‘Colony’ in Essays (London, 1828), pp. 7–13Google Scholar.

103 Cobden, R., ‘A Letter to Henry Ashworth’ (1862), in Political Writings, 2 vols. (Bristol, 1995), vol. 2, pp. 17–18Google Scholar; Cain, P. J., ‘Capitalism, War and Internationalism in the Thought of Richard Cobden’, British Journal of International Studies 5 (1979), pp. 241–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104 Hobson, J. A., ‘Free Trade and Foreign Policy’, Contemporary Review 74 (1898)Google Scholar. See also Cain, P. J., Hobson and Imperialism: Radicalism, New Liberalism and Finance, 1887–1938 (Oxford, 2002), esp. pp. 67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 Mill, ‘Colony’, pp. 31–3.

106 Taylor, M., ‘Imperium et Libertas? Rethinking the Radical Critique of Imperialism during the Nineteenth Century’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 19 (1991), pp. 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 Cain, P. J., ‘Gladstone, Radicalism and the Liberal Attack on Disraelian “Imperialism”’, Victorian Visions of Global Order: Empire and International Relations in Nineteenth-Century Political Thought, ed. Bell, D. (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 215–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

108 See Greg, W. R., ‘Foreign Policy of Great Britain: Imperial or Economic?’, Nineteenth Century 4 (1878), pp. 393–407Google Scholar.

109 Hobson, J. A., Imperialism: a Study (London, 1988; first edn. 1902), pt. IIGoogle Scholar; Cain, Hobson and Imperialism, chs. 3 and 4.

110 Cain, Hobson and Imperialism, pp. 118–22.

111 Pitts, A Turn to Empire, ch. 5.

112 Moore, R. J., Liberalism and Indian Politics, 1872–1922 (London, 1966)Google Scholar.

113 I should like to thank Philip Schofield for reading an earlier draft and making many useful suggestions. Constructive comments were also made on versions of this essay presented at the University of Geneva in 2006 and the British Studies seminar at the University of Texas at Austin in 2009.