Why an Empire Should Let Go
Overseas possessions are a bad bargain even for the power that holds them, and a republic of the rights of man has no title to rule distant peoples who never consented; keeping them betrays both the purse and the principle.
Bentham's case cuts two ways at once. On the ledger, colonies cost more to defend than they return, drag the mother country into wars she would otherwise avoid, and corrupt her own politics with plunder and patronage. On principle, and this is the point aimed straight at his revolutionary readers, a state founded on the rights of man has no business ruling peoples who never consented to it. Written for France's Convention in 1793, held back while Britain and France were at war and unprinted until 1830, the argument found few takers in an age of expanding empires. It now reads as one of the first worked-out cases for decolonisation.
- monopoly
- coercion
- colonialism
- self-determination
- taxation
- justice
Enter a dialogue
- A nation that holds colonies forces their sugar into its own market and thinks it buys cheaper. Why did you call that profit an illusion?
- Isn't the claim that colonies never pay simply false when so many fortunes were plainly built on them?
- A colony is offered a few deputies in a legislature of strangers. You say open domination would be the lesser grievance. Why is such representation worse?
- When a person profits directly from a colonial trade, why should they want their own country to give it up?
- You tell France that if it wants equality, the colonies should send fleets and commissaries to govern France in turn. What is the joke meant to show?