Search Results

Here, I re‐examine the sources of John Stuart Mill's feminist sympathies. After looking closely at two oft‐touted candidates—Jeremy Bentham and Harriet Taylor Mill—I conclude that neither played the role attributed to them by some modern feminists. A third and heretofore unsuspected thinker—namely his own father, James Mill—proves to be a much more plausible and probable source of the younger Mill's feminist views.

This introductory chapter begins by setting out the purposes of this book: first, to illustrate the extent, depth, and nature of Bentham's concern with religion — from his Oxford days of first doubts, to the middle years of quiet unbelief, and, finally, the zealous atheism and secularism of later life when he pondered the vision of a world without religion. Secondly, it provides an interpretation of his utilitarian philosophy in which his religious views are located as an integral concern: on the one hand, intimately associated with the metaphysical, epistemological, and psychological principles which gave shape to his system as a whole and, on the other hand, central to the development of his entirely secular view of society. It then discusses the chronology of Bentham's views on religion and the manner in which they came to be published. An overview of the subsequent chapters is presented.

This chapter addresses the question of how we are to understand Bentham's critique of religion. The answer is that it only makes sense when viewed against the larger canvas of his aspiration to make his secular social science serve the needs of the Utilitarian society of the future. Taken together, Bentham's views on religion constitute a substantial part of the negative side of his plans for the construction of an entirely secular and rigorously Utilitarian society.

In this chapter, I show how James Mill reworks and recycles the argument of a classic text—viz. Plato's Republic—and uses Plato's theory of justice and just punishment to legitimize Bentham's plans for penal reform. Pace Michel Foucault, who views Bentham as the thoroughly modern doyen of the `surveillance society’, I argue that much modern political theory has classical roots and that we should therefore be wary of post‐modern genealogists’ claims about discursive continuities between discrete epistemes or systems of thought.

This introductory chapter discusses the coverage of the book, which focuses on English philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham's failed attempt to build a prison called panopticon. It examines unexplored manuscripts that tell the story of Bentham's prolonged negotiations with the government and why the panopticon was never built. The book deals with the panopticon as an event in penal and political history. It also analyses some of the criticism of Bentham's obsession with building the panopticon and being involved in its day-to-day operations as an administrator.

This chapter discusses the family and personal background of Jeremy Bentham and the origins of the panopticon. Bentham was born in London, England in 1748 and was the eldest son of Alicia and Jeremiah. His five brothers and sisters died in early childhood and only Samuel survived. When his mother died, his father married a widow whose own son Charles Abbot would play an important role in the story of the panopticon. In 1776, he wrote a successful book titled A Fragment on Government and during this time Bentham was always engaged in ambitious and wide-ranging speculations on the foundations of government and punishment. In 1830 The Rationale of Punishment was published, which explains his motivation for building the panopticon. Safeguarding the interests of the criminal was the main preoccupation of Bentham's panopticon scheme.

This book is a study of British political ideas in the early 19th century. It deals specifically with the British involvement in the struggle for Greek independence roughly between 1821 and 1827. The ideas are examined, such as the evolution of constitutional thought from Montesquieu, the emergence of liberalism as a political ideology against a background of Whig and radical political ideas, and the response in Britain to movements towards national independence in the Mediterranean basin. Some of the characters that appear here, like Jeremy Bentham and Lord Byron, will be familiar, though they will not be presented in familiar ways. Others, like Edward Blaquiere and Leicester Stanhope, will be virtually unknown, and their importance to this study will surprise some readers. Still other members of the dramatis personae, like John Bowring, Joseph Hume, and John Cam Hobhouse, will be well known to historians of 19th-century for reform movements.

This chapter considers three major themes of the ‘Observations’: Jeremy Bentham's thesis that the acceptance of popular sovereignty should lead to a transformation of the theory and practice of constitutional government; his use of the greatest happiness principle to resolve problems arising from the exclusion of the Turkish community from citizenship; and his novel and important contribution to constitutional theory in the doctrine of ‘latent negatives’. The chapter also explores the relationship between the ‘Observations’ and Bentham's better-known work on constitutional government, the Constitutional Code. Finally, it discusses the allegation that the constitution of Epidaurus was a mere ‘façade’ created by Greece to impress Europeans as to the capacity of the Greeks to operate a Western, centralised government. This allegation raises not only the question of the point of Bentham's commentary but also the general issue of the relationship of constitutional theory to practice.

Between 1797 and 1818, petitions to British parliament favouring extended or universal male suffrage were rejected either because they were printed or because of the language in which they were written. Trials for sedition, discussions in parliament, comments in newspapers, and responses to petitions relied on the notion of vulgarity to argue against the concept of extended or universal male suffrage. One of Jeremy Bentham's favourite targets for attack was the legal fictions of common law, whereas James Mill's target in the The History of British India was the fiction of the economic and cultural riches of India. Mill often condemned European travellers in India and East India Company officials for exaggerating India's wealth. But Mill's attack on the fiction of Indian wealth was rooted in a definite economic doctrine. He took a strict economic view of imperialism in India. Mill demonstrated that India was of no economic benefit to Britain, and also pointed out the inconveniences of government at a distance as well as the corrupt patronage involved in governing colonies.

This chapter examines the issues related to the Panopticon Bill of 1794. Jeremy Bentham spent five months—from October 1793 to February 1794—drafting the Panopticon Bill. There were three possible panopticon statutes that existed in the spring of 1794, which includes the draft act that was eventually enacted and Bentham's own two bills. The original panopticon bill and Bentham's commentaries on it provide valuable information about Bentham's ideas on bureaucracy and an extraordinary prescient discussion on the problems of the administration of welfare. The chapter suggests that Bentham's principles and his practice in the panopticon bill appear irreconcilable, and that his long hidden draft legislation adds another problem to the question about the place of the panopticon in his thought.

This chapter discusses the challenges faced by Jeremy Bentham in acquiring the Salisbury estate in Millbank, England, for his panopticon prison project. The Treasury was very difficult in the negotiating process and when the land was purchased in November 1799, it lay idle. When Prime Minister resigned fifteen months later no final decision on the panopticon had yet been taken and Bentham had to wait for another two years just to be told by Henry Addington's administration that they were unwilling to find the necessary funds for the project. To show his contempt and objections, Bentham wrote Picture of the Treasury, to which the Parliament turned a deaf ear.

This chapter discusses the first phase of Jeremy Bentham's attempts to build the panopticon. The political arena in which Bentham fought for his panopticon was dominated by Prime Minister William Pitt and his allies, which included Henry Dundas, Evan Nepean, and George Rose. In December 1786, Bentham first sent his panopticon ‘Letters’ to London but failed to receive a positive response. He was then able to send it again to the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer in August 1790 with the help of Lord Landsdowne. The start of Bentham's campaign for the panopticon started in the summer of 1793 when Pitt indicated his approval and asked Bentham to go ahead with his arrangements.

This chapter discusses the final failure of Jeremy Bentham's proposed construction of the panopticon prison. In 1803, Prime Minister Henry Addington refused to fund the building of the panopticon and ten years later, as Home Secretary and Viscount Sidmouth, he finally rejected the scheme. The rejection of the panopticon during 1810 to 1813 was an important turning point in the development of penal ideology and architecture. The chapter explains the reasons why the panopticon failed, how the media and the political nation responded to it, and what reasons were adduced for its rejection. It also tells the story of Bentham's final battles with the politicians and civil servants.