Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow James Mill to Bentham. - The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 10 (Memoirs Part I and Correspondence)

Return to Title Page for The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 10 (Memoirs Part I and Correspondence)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Subject Area: Law

James Mill to Bentham. - Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 10 (Memoirs Part I and Correspondence) [1843]

Edition used:

The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838-1843). 11 vols. Vol. 10.

Part of: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, 11 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


James Mill to Bentham.

“December 6, 1809.

“Your communication to me of Mr Dumont’s letter, though the intelligence imparted by it was not of the most agreeable sort, found it difficult to add to my anger, which was near its maximum before. Under this oddly generated surmise, I feel gratitude to Mr Koe for his very lucky expression of his desire to read the article in MS. before it was sent off, and the very moment before it was sent off; for it came out of his hands, and was sealed up that very instant under his eye. The contradiction of this—not very measured accusation—would otherwise have rested on my self-serving testimony; for it was not my intention to have troubled Mr K. with the reading of it, as I thought he would so much more easily satisfy himself with it when he could see it in print.

“It is no less satisfactory to me in respect to another of the said wisely conceived surmises, viz. that of the article’s being drawn up under your direction, &c., that you neither saw it, nor heard it,—a circumstance owing entirely to the same cause, viz. a reluctance to encroach with it upon your time, and the reflection that all you might desire to know about it, you would know, with most pleasure, when it should come to be read to you in print.

“Notwithstanding, however, the passage in which I endeavoured, not only to do justice to your merits, but to point you out, in as distinct a manner as I could, to the public, as the only man from whom light was to be got on legislative matters, I own that I, after knowing the dislike which Mr Jeffrey had to praise, studiously made use of your doctrines, at the same time sinking your name; and in more places than one, as I dare say Mr Koe remembers, I had originally named you as the author of what I was saying, and afterwards struck it out. This was done upon the exhortation of Mr Lowe, who said, that from what he knew of Jeffrey,—from what Mr Jeffrey had said to him about what he called my propensity to admire, and in particular to admire you, as also what he said about his own (Jeffrey’s) propensity not to admire, that he would not admit the mention of you in such terms to stand in so many places, and that it would be best to retain it in two or three of the places where I thought it of most importance, and strike it out in the rest, when the probability was, he would not meddle with it. As there appeared to be reason in this, I allowed myself to be governed by it,—and after all this caution, we still see what has come of it.

“To come, however, to a more agreeable subject,—after thanking you, as I most heartily do, for your zeal to exculpate me,—I have this day got to the end of Exclusion.*Impossibility then is all that remains; and I am at the end of the principal stage of my labours, viz. my operations upon your text,—i. e. among your various lections, the making choice of one—the completing of an expression, when, in the hurry of penmanship, it had been left incomplete, &c. Editorial notes, of which we have so often talked, are only thus far advanced, that a variety of rudiments are set down, with references to the places of the work where they should be introduced. But it has often happened to me to find, what I had thought might be added as a note in one place, was given admirably by yourself in another place, and a better place. And in truth, having surveyed the whole, the ground appears to me so completely trod, that I can hardly conceive anything wanting. It is not easy, coming after you, to find anything to pick up behind you. My memory, too, is so overmatched by the vast multiplicity of objects which the work involves, that I am afraid to trust myself in any kind of notes, save suggestions of cases, illustration by instances,—lest what I say should be an idea brought forward in some other part of the work. All this, however, is not intended to operate as an apology or pretext for indolence. Notes there shall be written, and very full ones,—whether these notes shall be printed, is another question. My feet are still lumber—still of no use. They seem slowly bringing themselves back to that state in which use may again be made of them. When they will accomplish that desirable object, it is not yet for me to say.”

On the subject of the article on Bexon, Brougham writes to Mill:—

“Temple, Sunday, 10th Dec., 1909.

. . . “My observations on Bexon can easily keep till we meet. The principal objection is to the pains you have bestowed, or, I think I may say, thrown away, on the exposition of a man’s blunders, who is obscure, and, apparently, only magnified into consideration for the sake of his mistakes. I also object to some attacks on Ellenborough, of which, perhaps, you are not aware. There are certain inverted commas which, in fact, mask quotations from his own words. The praise of Bentham seems to me excessive, and not very consistent with the tone of the former article, though perhaps less extravagant than a passage in your first South American article. The adoption of his neology, I must enter my decided protest against. It is possible you might not be aware that forthcomingness and non-forthcomingness are unknown in all writings on law, except his own; but such words as semi-public you must be convinced are of his mint.

“How a non-feasance can be the object of punishment I do not perceive; unless, perhaps, in the instance of misprison—when, however, the refraining from an act is clearly an act of assistance, and part of the criminal deed being the contribution of a conspirator.”

Mill, on sending some strictures on Bentham, written by a common friend, in a tone of bitterness so severe and unexpected, that he doubted whether he could, with propriety, communicate them, justifies himself by the conviction that their communication would do little harm to the parties, and much good to the public, and to the world—and concludes his letter:—

[* ] In allusion to the Works on Evidence.