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 citizen proud of their country's empire is told it makes them poorer, not richer; how would you make that case to them?
- Isn't the claim that colonies never pay simply false when so many fortunes were plainly built on them?
- How would you tell a colony a nation holds for gain from one it tells itself it holds for the good of the governed?
- What must a proud imperial nation give up believing about its own greatness before it can let a colony go?
- If a republic founded on the rights of man rules peoples who never consented, has it already betrayed the principle it was built on?
- When a person profits directly from a colonial trade, why should they want their own country to give it up?