Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:00:31.960Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

JEREMY BENTHAM AND DANIEL O'CONNELL: THEIR CORRESPONDENCE AND RADICAL ALLIANCE, 1828–1831

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 1997

JAMES E. CRIMMINS
JAMES E. CRIMMINS
Affiliation:
Huron College, The University of Western Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

O'Connell's relationship with Jeremy Bentham is the subject of frequent comment. However, the nature of this relationship has never been adequately documented, largely because the principal documentary evidence – their correspondence – remains uncollected. As a result, there exists a lacuna in the literature relating to O'Connell's involvement with British radicalism. This essay reconstructs the nature of his political alliance with Bentham from the evidence provided by their correspondence, from 1828 to 1831. It begins with O'Connell's plausible professions of discipleship and their shared optimism about the radical reform agenda, through to Bentham's concerted efforts to bind O'Connell to the British radical movement, and ending in the disillusionment and division that arose from O'Connell's insistence on giving priority to Irish reforms and Bentham's deep suspicion of catholicism. The whole is illustrative of Bentham's efforts in his later years to implement his policies through the agency of presumed ‘disciples’.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , June 1997 , pp. 359 - 387
Copyright
© 1997 Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

Versions of this paper were presented at the Bentham Seminar, University College London, 9 March 1994, and at The Fourth Conference of the International Society for Utilitarian Studies, Chuo University, Tokyo, 26–28 August 1994. I am indebted to Fred Rosen, J. H. Burns, Maurice O'Connell and Gary Owens for their helpful comments and suggestions for improvements, and to Mark Bailey for assistance with the initial research. Funding for the research was provided by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.