Schofield argues that “neither methodological legal positivism nor substantive legal positivism […] can be attributed to Bentham.” One issue on which I feel unsure, but incline to disagree with him, is whether his arguments are sufficient to warrant his conclusion that “Bentham was not a legal positivist in the senses in which Hart understood that notion.” The argument that I would like to take issue with is Schofield’s proposition that the 20th-century distinction between fact and value is “an essential element and crucial underlying assumption of contemporary Hartian legal positivism”, and that Bentham, as a naturalist rejecting such distinction, is not a legal positivist.