Front Page Titles (by Subject) APPENDICES - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXXI - Miscellaneous Writings
Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXXI - Miscellaneous Writings
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
APPENDICES - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXXI - Miscellaneous Writings 
The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXXI - Miscellaneous Writings, ed. John M. Robson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1989).
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.
The online edition of the Collected Works is published under licence from the copyright holder, The University of Toronto Press. ©2006 The University of Toronto Press. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form or medium without the permission of The University of Toronto Press.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
NOTE ON THE BELGIC CODE102
It is probable, though not clearly apparent on the face of the code, that the words reproché and gewraakt refer to the old rule of the Roman law, by which the evidence of two witnesses is conclusive evidence (plena probatio) in certain cases:103 and the meaning of these phrases probably is, that a witness belonging to any of the classes above enumerated, shall not be considered a witness to that purpose, viz. the purpose of forming a plena probatio, in conjunction with one other witness. If this be the meaning of the apparently exclusionary rule, it tends, pro tanto, to diminish the mischievousness of the monstrous principle of law to which it constitutes an exception.
It seems that the parties themselves cannot be heard in evidence under this code; with this exception, however, that a party may be required to admit or deny his own signature; and several other exceptions closely resembling the juramentum expurgatorium and the juramentum suppletorium of the Roman law, which have already been explained.104
Wills and Deed of Gift
Principal Registry of the Family Division, Somerset House, London, and Archives Départementales de Vaucluse. Mill’s first will, indited on 23 May, 1853, after his marriage two years earlier to Harriet Hardy Taylor, was subject to a codicil entered on 14 February, 1872, some thirteen and a half years after her death in 1858 and nearly a year before his. Meanwhile, on his acquiring French property after her death, he drew up the first of his French wills on 14 February, 1859; he confirmed this and added codicils on 11 January, 1864, and 21 January, 1867; finally on 27 February, 1869, he drew up a “Donation” giving the French property to Helen Taylor, his stepdaughter, who in effect was his sole beneficiary in both England and France.
23 May, 1853
This is the last Will and Testament of me John Stuart Mill of the East India House in the City of London and of Blackheath Park in the County of Kent First I nominate and appoint my dearest Wife Harriet Mill1 her daughter Miss Helen Taylor William Ellis2 of the Marine Indemnity Assurance Office Great Winchester Street in the aforesaid City of London and of Champion Hill in the Parish of Camberwell in the County of Surrey Esquire and William Thomas Thornton3 of the East India House aforesaid and of Marlborough Hill Saint Johns Wood in the County of Middlesex Esquire joint Executrixes and Executors of this my will And I bequeath the sum of fifty pounds to each of them the said Harriet Mill Helen Taylor William Ellis and William Thomas Thornton And as to all the real estate to which at the time of my decease I shall be entitled in possession remainder reversion or expectancy or in or over which I have a disposing power and all the rest and residue of my personal estate and after payment thereout of my debts and funeral and testamentary expenses and the legacies herein before bequeathed I give devise bequeath and appoint the same and every part thereof unto my said wife her heirs executors administrators and assigns for her and their own absolute use and benefit And in the event of my said wife Harriet Mill departing this life in my lifetime I give and bequeath the same and every part thereof unto her daughter the said Helen Taylor her heirs executors administrators and assigns for her and their own absolute use and benefit In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this twenty third day of May one thousand eight hundred and fifty three
Signed and acknowledged by the above named John Stuart Mill as and to be his last Will and Testament in the presence of us present at the same time who at his request in his presence and in the presence of each other have hereunto subscribed our names as witnesses
Robt. S. Gregson Solr. 8 Angel Court Throgmorton St. London
Geo. Wm. Walker his Clerk.
14 February 1872
This is a Codicil to the last Will of me John Stuart Mill of No. 10 Albert Mansions Victoria Street in the City of Westminster Esquire dated the twenty third day of May one thousand eight hundred and fifty three Whereas by my said Will I gave and devised all my real estate and all the residue of my personal estate to my late dearest wife Harriet Mill and in the event of her dying in my lifetime I gave and bequeathed the same unto her daughter Miss Helen Taylor for her absolute use and benefit and I appointed my said late wife the said Helen Taylor William Ellis and William Thomas Thornton to each of whom I bequeathed the sum of fifty pounds Executors thereof And whereas I have made several Codicils to my said Will And whereas since the date of my said will my said dear wife has departed this life and her remains have been interred in a Tomb or Vault in the public Cemetery of the Town of Avignon in France Now I do hereby revoke all the codicils I have ever made to my said will and I also revoke the said appointment of executors in the said will made and also the said legacies to each of such executors thereby given and in case my stepdaughter Miss Helen Taylor shall survive me then and in such case I nominate and appoint her to be the sole Executor or Executrix of my said Will and of any Codicil thereto and devise bequeath and confirm to her her heirs executors administrators and assigns All and singular the real and personal estate of whatsoever nature kind and description I may die seised or possessed of or entitled to for her and their own proper use and benefit absolutely I also nominate and appoint the said Helen Taylor to be my literary Executor or Executrix of my said Will and of any Codicil thereto with full and absolute power and license to her to edit all or any of my literary works and to publish all or any of my manuscripts as she in her sole discretion may think fit And whereas in these days no one is secure against attempts to make money out of his memory by means of pretended biographies I therefore think it necessary to state that I have written a short account of my life which I leave to the absolute charge and controul of my said stepdaughter Miss Helen Taylor to be published or not at her will and discretion4 and in the event of her death in my lifetime to the charge and controul of William Thomas Thornton of No. 23 Queens Gardens Hyde Park Square on condition that he publishes the same within two years of my decease And I hereby declare that all papers and materials available for an account of my life are in the possession of my said stepdaughter and of her only and that no other person has such knowledge of either my literary or private life as would qualify him or her to write my biography In the event of the said Helen Taylor predeceasing me then and in such case I nominate and appoint the said William Thomas Thornton and William Ellis of No. 6 Lancaster Terrace Regents Park in the said County of Middlesex Esquire to be the Executors and Trustees of my said Will and of any Codicil thereto and subject to the said Helen Taylor predeceasing me as aforesaid I make the following bequests and dispositions I bequeath to my stepson Algernon Taylor of Tetsworth in the County of Oxford Esquire the sum of one thousand pounds I bequeath to Elizabeth Taylor Mary Taylor and John Cyprian Taylor5 the two daughters and son of the said Algernon Taylor the respective sums of one thousand pounds each Provided always that in case at my death the said Elizabeth Taylor Mary Taylor and John Cyprian Taylor or any of them shall be under the age of twenty one years then I direct that their respective legacies of one thousand pounds each or the legacies or legacy of such of them as shall be then minors or a minor shall be retained by the said William Thomas Thornton and William Ellis or other the trustees or trustee for the time being of my said will and any codicil thereto Upon trust to pay the same respectively to them her or him when and if they she or he shall attain the age of twenty one years And upon further trust in the meantime to invest the same in any of the modes of investment hereinafter specified and pay the interest dividends and income thereof to their her or his father or guardians or guardian for their her or his benefit and advantage And I declare that the receipt of their said father guardians or guardian as the case may be shall be an effectual discharge for such interest dividends and income and every part thereof Provided always and I hereby further declare that if the said Elizabeth Taylor and Mary Taylor or either of them shall be married at my death or shall marry previously to their or her attaining the said age of twenty one years then and in such case and thereupon I declare that the said William Thomas Thornton and William Ellis and the survivor of them and the executors and administrators of such survivor or other the trustees or trustee for the time being of my said will and any codicil thereto shall hold the said two legacies of one thousand pounds each or the said legacy of such one of them the said Elizabeth Taylor and Mary Taylor as shall be then so married or shall so marry as aforesaid Upon trust to invest the same in the names or name or under the legal control of them or him the said trustees or trustee for the time being in any of the public stocks or funds or Government securities of the United Kingdom or India or upon freehold copyhold leasehold or chattel real securities in England or Wales or in or upon the stocks funds shares debentures mortgages or securities of any Corporation Company or Public Body in the United Kingdom or India in which my estate or any part thereof may be invested at the time of my decease but not in any other mode of investment and may from time to time vary or transpose such stocks funds shares and securities into or for others of any nature hereby authorised at their or his discretion And shall pay the interest dividends and income thereof during the lives or a life of such married legatees or legatee respectively as the case may be to such person or persons as they or she respectively may from time to time notwithstanding coverture appoint by any writing under their or her hands or hand respectively but not by any mode of anticipation and in default of such appointment into their or her hands respectively for their or her sole and separate use respectively independently and exclusive of their or her husbands or husband respectively and their or his debts control and engagements respectively but so that they or she respectively shall not dispose thereof in any mode of anticipation And the receipts in writing of them or her respectively or of such person or persons as they or she respectively shall appoint to receive the said interest dividends and income in manner aforesaid but not in any mode of anticipation shall notwithstanding coverture be effectual discharges for the same And from and after their or her deaths or death respectively shall stand possessed of and interested in the said legacies or legacy respectively or the stocks funds shares and securities representing the said legacies or legacy respectively and the interest dividends and income thereof respectively Upon and for such trusts intents and purposes and in such manner as they or she respectively by their or her last wills or will codicils or codicil or other testamentary writings or writing respectively to be duly executed notwithstanding coverture shall direct or appoint and in default of such direction or appointment and so far as any such direction or appointment if incomplete shall not extend In trust for the person or persons who under the statutes made for the distribution of the estates of intestates would under the decease of them or her the said Elizabeth Taylor and Mary Taylor respectively be entitled to their or her personal estate respectively in case they or she had died possessed of the same respectively intestate and without having been married and to be divided between or amongst the same persons if more than one respectively in the shares in which the same would under the same statutes be divided between or amongst them respectively And I declare that in case the said Elizabeth Taylor Mary Taylor and John Cyprian Taylor or any of them shall not attain the age of twenty one years or in the case of the said Elizabeth Taylor and Mary Taylor or either of them failing to attain such age and without having contracted marriage then and in each such case I direct that the same legacies or legacy as the case may be shall be held upon such and the like trusts for the benefit of the survivors in equal shares or for the survivor if but one as are hereinbefore declared in respect to the legacy of one thousand pounds given to each of them I bequeath to the said William Thomas Thornton and William Ellis their executors administrators and assigns the sum of two thousand five hundred pounds Upon trust to invest the same in any of the securities hereinbefore mentioned with reference to the investments of the said legacies of one thousand pounds each in favour of the said children of the said Algernon Taylor together with the like powers of varying and transposing from time to time such investments or any of them And to pay the interest dividends and income thereof during the life of my sister Mary Elizabeth Colman6 the wife of Charles Colman Esquire to such person or persons as she the said Mary Elizabeth Colman may from time to time notwithstanding coverture appoint by any writing under her hand but not by any mode of anticipation and in default of such appointment into her own hands for her sole and separate use independently and exclusively of the said Charles Colman and of any future husband but so that she shall not dispose thereof in any mode of anticipation and the receipts in writing of the said Mary Elizabeth Colman or of such person or persons as she shall appoint to receive the said dividends interest and income thereof in manner aforesaid but not in any mode of anticipation shall notwithstanding coverture be effectual discharges for the same And from and after the death of the said Mary Elizabeth Colman upon and for such trusts intents and purposes and in such manner as the said Mary Elizabeth Colman shall by her last will or any codicil or testamentary writing to be by her duly executed notwithstanding coverture direct or appoint and in default of such direction or appointment and so far as any such direction or appointment if incomplete shall not extend In trust for the person or persons who under the statutes made for the distribution of the estates of intestates would at the decease of the said Mary Elizabeth Colman be entitled to her personal estate in case she had died possessed of the same intestate and widow and to be divided between or amongst the same persons if more than one in the shares in which the same would under the same statutes be divided between or amongst them I bequeath to Minnie daughter of the said Charles and Mary Elizabeth Colman the sum of one thousand pounds and to Stuart Colman Henry Colman and Archibald Colman sons of the said Charles and Mary Elizabeth Colman the sum of five hundred pounds each Provided always that in case at my death the said Minnie Colman Stuart Colman Henry Colman and Archibald Colman or any of them shall be under the age of twenty one years the said legacies hereinbefore bequeathed to them or the legacies or legacy of such of them as shall then be minors or a minor shall be retained by the said William Thomas Thornton and William Ellis or the executors and trustees for the time being of my said will and any codicil thereto Upon trust to pay the same to them him or her when and if they he or she shall attain the age of twenty one years And upon further trust in the meantime to invest the same respectively in any of the investments hereinbefore specified and pay the interest dividends and income thereof respectively to the said Mary Elizabeth Colman or to such person or persons as she shall notwithstanding coverture direct or appoint for their his or her benefit and advantage and her or her appointees receipts alone shall be sufficient discharges for the same but in case of her death during my lifetime or subsequently without having made any such direction or appointment as last aforesaid then Upon trust to pay such interest dividends and income during the respective minorities of the said Minnie Colman Stuart Colman Henry Colman and Archibald Colman to their respective Guardians and to be applied by them for their respective benefits and the receipts of such guardians shall be sufficient discharges for the same Provided always and I hereby further declare that if the said Minnie Colman shall be married at my death or shall marry previously to her attaining the said age of twenty one years then and in such case and thereupon I declare that the said William Thomas Thornton and William Ellis and the survivor of them and the executors and administrators of such survivor or other the trustees or trustee for the time being of my said will and any codicil thereto shall invest the said legacy of the said Minnie Colman in any of the investments hereinbefore specified with the like powers of varying and transposing the same and any of them and shall stand possessed of and interested in the stocks funds shares and securities and the interest dividends and income thereof Upon and for the same and the like trusts intents and purposes and in the same and the like manner as are hereinbefore declared respecting the said legacies and the funds stocks shares and securities representing such legacies and the interest dividends and income thereof hereinbefore bequeathed in favor of the said Elizabeth Taylor and Mary Taylor in the event of their being married at my death or marrying previously to their attaining the age of twenty one years in the same manner in every respect as if the same trusts were here repeated in totidem verbis mutatis mutandis And I declare that if the said Minnie Colman Stuart Colman Henry Colman and Archibald Colman or any of them shall not attain the age of twenty one years or in the case of the said Minnie Colman failing to attain such age and without having contracted marriage then and in such case the same legacies or legacy as the case may be shall be held upon such or the like trusts for the survivors in equal shares or for the survivor if but one as are hereinbefore declared in respect of the respective legacies given to each of them I bequeath the sum of five hundred pounds to the Governors Treasurers or other proper Officers of the “Royal Society for the prevention of Cruelty to Animals” whose Offices are at No. 105 Jermyn Street Saint James Westminster in the said County of Middlesex for the benefit of that Institution and I declare that the receipt of the Treasurer for the time being of the said Royal Society for the prevention of Cruelty to Animals shall be an effectual discharge for the same legacy which I direct to be paid out of my pure personal estate I bequeath the like sum of five hundred pounds to the Treasurer or other the proper Officers of the “Land Tenure Reform Association” whose Offices are at No. 9 Buckingham Street Strand in the said County of Middlesex for the benefit of that Institution and I declare that the receipt of the Treasurer for the time being of the said “Land Tenure Reform Association” shall be an effectual discharge for the same legacy which I direct to be paid out of my pure personal estate I bequeath to the said William Thomas Thornton and William Ellis their executors administrators and assigns the sum of three thousand pounds in trust for such one of the now existing Universities of Great Britain and Ireland as shall be or at the time of my death shall have been the first in point of time to throw open all its degrees to female students such sum of three thousand pounds to be paid out of my pure personal estate to the Chancellor Governors Trustees or other proper Officers of such University within six calendar months after my decease or as the case may be immediately upon such degrees being thrown open as aforesaid in trust to endow a fellowship to which only females shall be eligible And in like manner I bequeath in favour of such University the further sum of three thousand pounds to be paid out of my pure personal estate in trust to endow therewith two scholarships to be held by female students exclusively And I direct that in the meantime and until the fulfilment of such conditions as aforesaid the said William Thomas Thornton and William Ellis and the survivor of them and the executors and administrators of such survivor or other the trustees or trustee for the time being of my said will and any codicil thereto shall stand possessed of the said two sums of three thousand pounds and three thousand pounds Upon trust to invest the same in any of the stocks funds shares and securities hereinbefore mentioned with the like powers as hereinbefore mentioned of varying and transposing all or any of such investments And shall from time to time accumulate the interest dividends and income thereof in the way of compound interest by investing the same and the resulting income thereof in or upon any such investments as are hereinbefore mentioned all which accumulations shall go in addition to and accretion of and be held upon the same trusts as are hereby declared of and concerning the said sums of three thousand pounds and three thousand pounds Provided always and I hereby declare that in case the aforesaid conditions shall not be fulfilled within the space of twenty years after my death then and in such case I direct that the same legacies of three thousand pounds and three thousand pounds and the accumulations aforesaid shall be applied by the trustees for the time being of my said will and any codicil thereto in whatever way they in their absolute and uncontrolled discretion judge most beneficial to the education of women I bequeath all copyrights I may die possessed of to John Morley7 of Pitfield Down Puttenham near Guildford in the County of Surrey Esquire his executors administrators and assigns Upon trust to apply the proceeds thereof in aid and support of some periodical publication which shall be open to the expression of all opinions and shall have all its articles signed with the name of the writer and subject to the fulfilment of such conditions on the part of any such periodical publication I leave the selection of such publication to the said John Morley and subject to the trust aforesaid I declare that the said John Morley his executors or administrators shall stand possessed of and interested in all such said copyrights and the proceeds thereof In trust for such person or persons as the said John Morley shall by his last will or any codicil or testamentary writing to be by him duly executed give or bequeath the same subject nevertheless to the same trusts as those under which the said John Morley himself held the said copyrights and the proceeds thereof during his lifetime I bequeath to the said William Thomas Thornton and William Ellis the sum of one hundred pounds each I direct that all the legacies hereinbefore bequeathed shall be paid free of all legacy and succession duties and that the duty on the legacies given to the said Society for the prevention of Cruelty to Animals to the said Land Tenure Reform Association and to the said University shall be paid out of my pure personal estate And I hereby direct and declare that all manuscripts letters and copies of letters to and from me which may be in my possession at my death shall belong exclusively to and be at the disposal of my literary executor and should I not before my death have made a selection of such of them as it may be useful or interesting to publish I hereby authorize and request my said literary executor to make such a selection the letters so selected either by myself or by my said literary executor to be published with the aforesaid memoir of my life whenever the said memoir shall be published and all my other letters to be destroyed unless my said literary executor shall desire to retain them or any of them And in case the said Helen Taylor shall die before me or if she shall survive me but die without having nominated by will a successor to her self as my literary executor then I appoint the said William Thomas Thornton to be my literary executor and I direct that the above mentioned memoir of my life and all other manuscripts and writings left by me on which I shall have written the words “For Publication” and signed such words with my name shall be published with all convenient expedition And I declare that the profits if any that may arise from such publication by the said William Thomas Thornton shall go and belong to the said William Thomas Thornton his executors administrators and assigns absolutely for his and their own use and benefit I devise and bequeath all my real estate whatsoever and wheresoever charged in aid of my personal estate with my funeral and testamentary expenses debts and legacies other than charitable legacies and all my residuary personal estate including as well real as personal estate over which I have or shall have at the time of my death a general power of appointment unto and to the use of the said William Thomas Thornton his heirs executors administrators and assigns absolutely And I declare that the trustees or trustee for the time being of my said will and any codicil thereto shall have the fullest powers of apportioning blended trust funds and of determining whether any moneys are to be treated as capital or income and generally of determining all matters as to which any doubt difficulty or question may arise under or in relation to the execution of the trusts of my said will or any codicil thereto And I declare that every determination of the said trustees or trustee in relation to any of the matters aforesaid whether made upon a question formally or actually raised or implied in any of the acts or proceedings of the said trustees or trustee in relation to the premises shall bind all parties interested under my said will and any codicil thereto and shall not be objected to or questioned upon any ground whatsoever And I hereby declare that the receipt of the said trustees or trustee for the time being acting in the execution of the trusts of my said will and any codicil thereto for any moneys payable to them or him by virtue thereof or in the execution of the trusts or powers thereof shall effectually discharge the person or persons paying the same therefrom and from being bound to see to the application or being answerable for the loss or misapplication thereof Provided always and I hereby declare that if the said trustees hereby constituted or either of them shall die in my lifetime or if they or either of them or any trustee or trustees to be appointed as hereinafter provided shall after my death die or go to reside permanently abroad or desire to be discharged or refuse or become incapable to act then and in every such case it shall be lawful for the surviving or continuing trustees or trustee for the time being and for this purpose every refusing or retiring trustee shall if willing to act in the execution of this power be considered a continuing trustee or for the acting executors or executor administrators or administrator of the last surviving or continuing trustee to appoint a new trustee or new trustees in the place of the trustee or trustees so dying or going to reside permanently abroad or desiring to be discharged or refusing or becoming incapable to act as aforesaid and upon every or any such appointment as aforesaid the number of trustees may be augmented or reduced but so that the number thereof be not less than two And upon every such appointment all the moneys stocks funds shares and securities if any then vested in the trustees or trustee for the time being or in the executors or administrators of the last surviving or continuing trustee shall be so assigned and transferred that the same may be vested in the surviving or continuing trustee or trustees jointly with such new trustee or trustees or in such new trustee or trustees solely as the case may require And every trustee appointed as aforesaid may as well before as after the said trust premises if any shall have been so vested act or assist in the execution of the trusts and powers of my said will and any codicil thereto as fully and effectually to all intents and purposes as if I had hereby constituted him a trustee Provided always and I hereby declare that the trustees for the time being of my said will and any codicil thereto shall be respectively chargeable only for such moneys stocks funds shares and securities as they shall respectively actually receive notwithstanding their respectively signing any receipt for the sake of conformity and shall be answerable and accountable only for their own acts receipts neglects and defaults respectively and not for those of each other nor for any banker broker or other person with whom or into whose hands any trust monies or securities may be deposited or come nor for dispensing wholly or partially with the investigation or production of the lessor’s title on lending money on leasehold securities nor for otherwise lending on any security with less than a marketable title nor for the insufficiency or deficiency of any stocks funds shares or securities nor for any other loss unless the same shall happen through their own wilful default respectively And also that the said trustees or trustee for the time being may reimburse themselves and himself or pay and discharge out of the trust premises all expenses incurred in or about the execution of the trusts or powers of my said will and any codicil thereto I devise and bequeath all the estates which at my death shall be vested in me upon any trusts or by way of mortgage and of which I shall at my death have power to dispose by will unto the said William Thomas Thornton and William Ellis their heirs executors and administrators respectively according to the nature thereof respectively upon the trusts and subject to the equity of redemption which at my death shall be subsisting or capable of taking effect therein respectively but the money secured on such mortgages shall be taken as part of my personal estate And whereas I have already made and executed in France a Will disposing of my estate and property situate in that Country now I do hereby confirm such will and do declare that nothing in my said will dated the twenty third of May one thousand eight hundred and fifty three or in this Codicil contained save and except as to the said hereinbefore mentioned manuscripts letters and copies of letters shall affect or be deemed to affect any of the dispositions and contents generally of my said will so made in France as aforesaid it being my express desire and intention that my said will dated the twenty third of May one thousand eight hundred and fifty three and this Codicil shall not extend to embrace or dispose of save as to such manuscripts letters and copies of letters as aforesaid the estate and property disposed of or dealt with in such said will so made by me in France as aforesaid or any property or estate situate and being in France whereof I may die possessed or entitled to Lastly I desire and direct that my mortal remains may be buried in the said tomb of my dear wife in the said Cemetery at Avignon and that the same shall on no account or pretext whatsoever be buried in any other place wheresoever In witness whereof I have set my hand to this Codicil contained in eight sheets of paper this fourteenth day of February one thousand eight hundred and seventy two
Signed and acknowledged by the said John Stuart Mill as and to be a Codicil to his last Will and Testament in the presence of us present at the same time who in his presence at his request and in the presence of each other have hereunto subscribed our names as witnesses the alterations opposite which our initials are placed having been first made
Theophilus Wm. Starkey 8 Angel Court Solicitor Clerk to Mr. R.S. Gregson
Proved at London with a Codicil 5th September 1873 by the Oath of Helen Taylor Spinster the sole Executrix named in the said Codicil to whom Administration was granted.
14 February, 1859
L’an mil huit cent cinquante neuf et le quatorze février.
Par-devant nous Paul Giéra,8 notaire à Avignon, soussigné, et en présence des témoins ci-après nommés également soussignés;
M. John Stuart Mill, rentier, demeurant à Blackheath Park près de Londres.
Lequel étant sain d’esprit, ainsi qu’il en est apparu à nous notaire et témoins, a dicté à nous notaire, qui l’avons écrit desuite de notre main, en présence des dits témoins et tel qu’il nous l’a dicté, le testament dont la teneur suit:
a Sans entendre révoquer le testament que j’ai fait en Angleterre à la date du vingt trois mai mil huit cent cinquante trois, testament que j’entends au contraire maintenir et confirmer; Je lègue et laisse à ma fille adoptive, Hélène Taylor, fille de ma défunte épouse
1° Un pavillon et la terre sur laquelle il est construit, en nature de jardin, labour et vigne de la contenance d’environ vingt neuf ares quatre vingt huit centiares, situé sur le territoire d’Avignon, clos de St-Véran ou de la Folie que j’ai acquis de M. Mouzin suivant acte du dix huit novembre dernier reçu par le dit Me Giéra. Pour le posséder et en jouir dès le jour de mon décès sans être astreinte à en demander délivrance.
2° le terrain que j’ai acquis dans le cimetière St Véran d’Avignon, ainsi que le tombeau que j’y bfais édifierb .
Je désire être inhumé dans ce tombeau.
Je désire que ma fille adoptive et son frère cAlgernon Taylorc y soient également inhumés.
J’entends que dans le cas où ma fille adoptive ne disposerait pas de ces propriétés ou de l’une d’elles, celles ou celle dont elle n’aura pas disposé appartiennent après elle au Conseil Presbytéral de l’Eglise réformée à Avignon, à charge par le dit Conseil de maintenir le tombeau, et de l’entretenir en bon état; ainsi que les plantations que ma fille ou moi y aurons faites.
A cet effet je lègue éventuellement les dits objets au dit Conseil presbytéral.
C’est ma volonté dont je requiers acte.
Ainsi fait et passé à Avignon dans un salon au premier étage de notre maison d’habitation rue Banasterie en présence de Mrs Jean Xavier Louis Duprat, négociant, Jean Etienne Ernest Duprat, négociant, Jean Emmanuel Duprat, employé de la Banque de France, et Jean Xavier Emile Duprat, commis négociant, tous domiciliés et demeurant à Avignon, témoins requis et signés avec le testateur et nous notaire.
Le présent testament et tout le contenu ci-dessus a été lu par nous notaire au testateur en présence des dits témoins qui ont assisté sans désemparer.9
11 January, 1864
L’an mil huit cent soixante quatre et le onze Janvier.
Devant nous Me Jules Giéra, notaire à Avignon soussigné, et en présence des témoins ci-après nommés également soussignés;
Mr John Stuart Mill, propriétaire rentier demeurant et domicilié à Blackheat Parc, près de Londres.
Lequel étant sain d’esprit, ainsi qu’il en est apparu à nous notaire et témoins, a dicté à nous notaire, qui l’avons écrit de suite de notre main, en présence des dits témoins et tel qu’il nous l’a dicté, son testament dont la teneur suit:
Je déclare confirmer dans tout leur contenu les dispositions écrites dans mon testament reçu par Me Paul Giéra notaire à Avignon le quatorze février mil huit cent cinquante neuf et à ces dispositions j’ajoute les suivantes en forme de codicile.
Je lègue et laisse à ma fille adoptive Hélène Taylor, fille de ma défunte épouse
1° un corps de terre en nature de prés situé sur le territoire d’Avignon quartier des Fontaines de la contenance d’environ vingt neuf ares et tel que je l’ai acquis de dame Anne Rozan épouse Martin suivant acte reçu par Me Jules Giéra le douze Septembre mil huit cent soixante deux,
2° un autre corps de terre, partie en nature de pré partie en vigne et jardin situé sur les mêmes territoires et quartier, attenant au précédent, et tel que je l’ai acquis de Mrs Challe frères, Marandon, Perrier et Raymond suivant acte reçu par Me Jules Giéra le quatre Janvier courant,
3° enfin je lui lègue également tous les immeubles que je pourrais acquérir par la suite sur le territoire d’Avignon
pour jouir du tout à dater du jour de mon décès et en disposer à sa volonté.
Tel est ma volonté dont je requiers acte.
Ainsi fait et passé à Avignon en l’étude de nous notaire, en présence de MM. Albert Roche aspirant au notariat, M. Paulain Malosse, élève de notaire, M. Charles Morénas tourneur, Charles Bontour sacristain de la paroisse St Pierre, tous les quatre domiciliés et demeurant à Avignon, témoins requis et signés avec le testateur et nous notaire.
Sur notre interpelation les témoins ont déclaré qu’ils sont majeurs citoyens français qu’ils jouissent de leurs droits civils et qu’ils ne sont ni parents ni alliés au degrés prohibés par la loi soit du testateur soit de la légatrice.
le présent testament et tout le contenu a été lu par nous notaire au testateur en présence des témoins dénommés qui ont assisté sans désemparer.
21 January, 1867
L’an mil huit cent soixante sept et le dvingt-und Janvier.
Devant nous Me Jules Giéra, notaire à Avignon, soussigné, et en présence des témoins ci-après nommés, également soussignés
Mr John Stuart Mill, propriétaire rentier, demeurant et domicilié à Blackheat Parc, près Londres.
lequel, étant sain d’esprit, ainsi qu’il en est apparu à nous notaire et témoins, a dicté à nous notaire, qui l’avons écrit desuite de notre main, en présence des dits témoins et tel qu’il nous l’a dicté, son testament codicile, dont la teneur suit:
Je déclare confirmer dans tout leur contenu les dispositions écrites dans mon testament, reçu par Me Paul Giéra le quatorze février mil huit cent cinquante neuf et dans le codicile de ce testament reçu par Me Jules Giéra le onze janvier mil huit cent soixante quatre
et à ces dispositions j’ajoute les suivantes toujours en forme de codicile.
Je lègue et laisse à ma fille adoptive Mlle Hélène Taylor, fille de ma défunte épouse
tous les biens meubles et immeubles que je posséderai en France à mon décès et notamment les immeubles que je possède ou posséderai à Avignon ou sur son territoire, avec tous les objets mobiliers, valeurs industrielles ou deniers comptant qui se trouveront dans mes maisons d’habitation à Avignon au moment de mon décès, sans exception ni réserve, donnant au mot objet mobilier et biens meubles, le sens le plus large que comporte la loi.
pour jouir du tout à dater du jour de mon décès et en disposer à sa volonté.
Ces nouvelles dispositions ne pourront nuire aux dispositions supplémentaires exprimées dans mon testament reçu par Me Paul Giéra.
Telle est ma volonté dont je requiers acte.
Ainsi fait et passé à Avignon en l’étude de nous notaire, en présence de M. Jean Agricol Brouchier Commissaire aux inhumations, M. Jean Antoine Chaspoul, propriétaire rentier, M. Albert Roche, aspirant au notariat, et M. Joseph Céylan sous-sacristain de la paroisse St Pierre, tous les quatre domiciliés et demeurant à Avignon.
Témoins requis et signés avec le testateur et nous notaire.
les dits témoins sur notre interpelation ont chacun dit être majeurs, français, jouissant de leurs droits civils, et non parents ou alliés du testateur et de la légataire.
le présent testament et tout le contenu a été lu par nous notaire au testateur en présence des témoins qui ont assisté sans désemparer.10
27 February, 1869
Stuart Mill à Taylor
L’an mil huit cent soixante eneufe et le vingt sept février.
Devant Me fMichel dit Baulieuf , licencié en droit, notaire à Avignon, en présence des deux témoins ci-après nommés, tous soussignés,
Monsieur John Stuart Mill, rentier, demeurant à Blackheath Park, près de Londres.
Lequel a par les présentes, fait donation entrevifs
A Melle Hélène Taylor, propriétaire rentière, domiciliée à Londres, demeurant actuellement à Avignon, gsa belle filleg ,
Ici présente et acceptant expressément
Des biens dont la désignation suit:
1° Un pavillon et la terre sur laquelle il est construit en nature de jardin, labour et vignes, de la contenance d’environ vingt neuf ares quatre vingt huit centiares, situé sur le territoire d’Avignon, clos de St Véran ou de la folie, confrontant au levant Cade, au midi le chemin de la folie, au couchant les hoirs Boyer, au nord Martin née Rozan ou le donateur.
Le comparant a acquis ledit immeuble de M. Pierre Alexis Mouzin, propriétaire ancien boulanger et Marie Thérèse Drôme, son épouse, demeurant à Avignon, suivant acte du dix huit novembre mil huit cent cinquante huit, Paul Giéra notaire à Avignon, transcrit au bureau des hypothèques d’Avignon le vingt trois du même mois, et a payé le prix de cette vente, suivant quittance reçu par M. Paul Giéra, le quinze février mil huit cent cinquante neuf.
2° Une pièce de terre en nature de pré, situé sur le territoire d’Avignon, quartier des fontaines, de la contenance de vingt neuf ares, limitée au nord par Maradon, le donateur et autres, au midi la terre ci-dessus, au levant Cade, au couchant Martin-Rozan.
Cette terre fut acquise par le donateur de Madme Anne Rozan, épouse de Louis Charles Martin, propriétaire cultivateur, demeurant à Avignon, suivant acte reçu par Me Giéra hnotaire à Avignonh , le douze septembre mil huit cent soixante deux, transcrit au bureau des hypothèques d’Avignon, le vingt quatre septembre même année, vol. 423, no. 67. Le prix fut payé comptant.
3° Une terre partie en nature de pré et partie labourable située sur le territoire d’Avignon, quartier du pont des deux eaux et des fontaines, d’une contenance d’environ soixante dix sept ares trente cinq centiares, y comris une petite parcelle séparée et en dépendant d’environ cinq ares dix centiares. Le plus grand de ces deux corps confronte au levant et au midi Joseph Rozan, au couchant Lubière, au nord une traverse; la petite parcelle confronte au levant et au midi Toussaint Ferrière, au couchant Richard, au nord Lubière. Les bâtiments construits sur ladite terre font aussi partie de la donation.
4° Une parcelle de terre en nature de pré de la contenance de quarante ares dix sept centiares, située sur le territoire d’Avignon, clos des fontaines, faisant du no. 291 de la section H.H. du plan cadastral, et confrontant au levant M. Cléments, au midi le donateur, au couchant Marandon, au nord un chemin d’exploitation.
5° Une pièce de terre en prairie située sur le même territoire, même clos des fontaines, et une langue de terre complantée en saules située au couchant de ladite prairie dont elle est séparée par une distance de quatorze mètres; de la contenance ensemble de trente quatre ares quatre vingt centiares. La prairie confronte au levant Marandon, au midi Martin dit la vierge, au couchant Ferrier ou le donateur, au nord les hoirs Ytier; la langue de terre confronte au couchant un canal d’arrosage, au levant Ferrier.
6° Une terre en nature de pré, située sur le même territoire et quartier, d’une contenance de quarante un ares quatre vingt dix huit centiares, confrontant au levant Raymond, au midi le donateur, au couchant Martin dit la vierge et autres, au nord les hoirs Ytier.
Ces quatre derniers immeubles ont été acquis par le donateur; savoir:
la première, de Etienne Trophine Isidore Marandon, boulanger, demeurant à Avignon;
la deuxième, de MM. Antoine Challe, André Challe, et Valentin Challe, frères, marchands d’huiles et de fromages, demeurant à Avignon;
la troisième, de M. Paul Joseph Marie dit Raymond, propriétaire rentier, demeurant à Avignon;
la quatrième, de M. Jean Pierre Ferrier, propriétaire cultivateur, demeurant sur le territoire d’Avignon, quartier de Courtine;
le tout suivant acte reçu par Me Giéra, i le quatre Janvier mil huit cent soixante quatre, transcrit au bureau des hypothèques d’Avignon, le vingt un janvier, même année, vol. 437, no. 82.
Le prix de la vente relatif aux propriétés aliénées par Challe, Raymond et Ferrier fut quittancé dans l’acte; le prix de la parcelle vendu par Marandon a été payé suivant actes des dix novembre et quatorze décembre mil huit cent soixante quatre et quatorze mars mil huit cent soixante cinq, notaire Me Giéra.
7° enfin les meubles et objets mobiliers décrits et estimés à la somme de deux mille cent quarante cinq francs en un état dressé par les parties à la date de ce jour, lequel devant être enregistré en même temps que ces présentes est demeuré ci-joint, après avoir été certifié véritable par les parties, et que dessus il a été apposé une mention la constatant signée des parties et du notaire, et des témoins.
Les immeubles sont donnés en l’état où ils se trouvent et avec toutes leurs dépendances, sans exception ni réserve, et jsansj garantie tant de la mesure exprimée que du bon état des bâtiments; mais avec garantie de tous troubles, évictions et autres empêchements quelconques, le donateur s’y obligeant expressément.
La donataire aura la propriété des objets donnés, et elle en prendra la jouissance par la perception à son profit des loyers, fermages et revenus, le tout à compter d’aujourd’hui.
Elle se reconnaît en possession des meubles et objets mobiliers donnés.
Monsieur John Stuart Mill, rentier, demeurant à Blackheath Park, près de Londres, d’une part
Et Mademoiselle Hélène Taylor, propriétaire rentière, domiciliée à Londres, demeurant à Avignon, sa belle fille, d’autre part.
Dressent ainsi qu’il suit l’Etat descriptif et estimatif des meubles et objets mobiliers dont M. Mill doit faire donation à Melle Taylor; lequel sera annexé à l’acte de donation.
Fait à Avignon, le vingt sept février mil huit cent soixante neuf.
John Stuart Mill
La donataire acquittera les impôts de toute nature des immeubles donnés, à partir d’aujourd’hui.
Elle supportera les servitudes passives pouvant grêver ces immeubles, sauf à s’en défendre et à profiter de celles actives, s’il en existe, à ses risques et périls, sans que cette stipulation puisse conférer à des tiers plus de droits que ceux qu’ils pourraient avoir en vertu de la loi ou de titres réguliers non prescrits.
Elle entretiendra pour le temps qui reste à courir les baux verbaux ou écrits qui peuvent avoir été consentis par le donateur, de manière à ce que celui ci ne soit point inquiété à cet égard.
M. Mill déclare qu’une partie des terres données est affermie à M. Antoine Bathelemy, aubergiste, demeurant à Avignon, suivant acte reçu par Me Giéra, le vingt un décembre mil huit cent soixante quatre, dont la donataire déclare avoir parfaite connaissance.
M. Mill déclare
Qu’il n’est personnellement dans aucun des cas spécifiés dans les articles 2121 et 2124 du Code Napoléon.
Que les formalités de purge légale ont été remplies sur la vente consentie par Mouzin, ainsi qu’il résulte du dépôt fait au greffe du tribunal d’Avignon, le vingt cinq novembre mil huit cent cinquante neuf, de la notification fait aux personnes désignées par la loi, par exploit de Berlandier huissier, du sept décembre suivant, et de l’insertion au Mémorial de Vaucluse du neuf du même mois, enregistré le quinze, fol. 88, case 1 par Ravoux qui a perçu deux francs vingt centimes.
Que ces mêmes formalités ont été remplies sur les ventes consenties par Marandon, les frères Challe, et Ferrier, ainsi qu’il résulte de pièces déposées aux minutes de Me Giéra, le vingt kseptk septembre mil huit cent soixante cinq.
Qu’il n’y avait pas lieu à purger d’hypothèques légales les terres vendues par dame Martin et par Raymond.
Enfin que tous les immeubles ci-dessus sont entièrement libres d’hypothèques.
Le donateur a remis à la donataire qui le reconnaît:
1° Tous les actes de vente ci-dessus mentionnés, dans lesquels se trouve établie l’origine de la propriété de chacun des immeubles donnés.
2° Tous les titres de propriété plus anciens, ainsi que les pièces de purge légale et les certificats après ltranscription et purgel .
3‘ et le bail consenti à Barthelemy, et plus haut mentionné.
Pour la perception du droit d’enregistrement, les parties évaluent les immeubles donnés à un revenu annuel de mille cinquante francs.
Election de domicile
Pour l’exécution des présentes, les parties font élection de domicile, à Avignon, en l’étude de Me mBaulieum .
Dont acte en minute
Fait et passé à Avignon, en l’étude, en présence de MMrs Jean François Puy, élève de notaire et Charles Morénas, tourneur, tous deux demeurant et domiciliés à Avignon.
Témoins instrumentaires requis.
Et après lecture, les parties ont signé avec les témoins et le notaire.
La lecture du présent acte par le notaire et la signature par les parties ont eu lieu en la présence réelle des deux témoins instrumentaires.11
John Stuart Mill
The Vixen, and Circassia
London and Westminster Review, V & XXVII (Apr. 1837), 196-209. Headed: “Art. VIII. / The Vixen and Circassia. / 1. Voyages aux Indes-Orientales par le Nord de l’Europe, les Provinces du Caucase, la Géorgie, l’Arménie, la Perse, etc., etc., par M. Charles Bélanger [1805-81]. [4 vols.] Paris [: Bertrand], 1836-37 [1834-38]. London, Dulau and Co. [not located]. / 2. A Geographical, Statistical, and Commercial Account of the Russian Ports in the Black Sea, the Sea of Asoph, and the Mouth of the Danube. From the German. With an Appendix, containing the Official Report, lately published, of the European Commerce of that Empire in 1835. [London:] Schloss [and Richardson], Great Russell Street. 1837.” Signed “B.T.” Not listed in Mill’s bibliography. Mill sent a set of the London and Westminster Review to the Foxes of Falmouth, with annotations indicating authorship; the set has not been located, but some attributions are given in Memories of Old Friends, Being Extracts from the Journals and Letters of Caroline Fox, from 1835 to 1871, ed. H.N. Pym, new and rev. ed. (London: Smith, Elder, 1883), pp. 102-4. (The mention of the gift is in Vol. I, p. 158 in the 2nd ed.) In that list, this article is said to be marked “J.S. Mill and C. Buller” (p. 103). It seems likely that Mill wrote the opening paragraphs (perhaps the first four pages), and the conclusion, and collaborated in the rest with Buller, the main author.
the subject of the above works has acquired a very great momentary interest, from the late seizure of a British vessel by the Russians on the coast of Circassia. The capture of the Vixen has been known in this country for two months: but since that period the public has been vainly looking to its ministers for any vindication of the national interests, or any explanation of the apparent wrong done to them. The matter has been frequently urged on the notice of the House of Commons, in the shape of questions and passing remarks.1 It has very lately been brought forward in a more precise shape by Mr. Roebuck, in moving for papers relative to the transaction.2 These papers were refused by Lord Palmerston, on the ground which is now taken by every Secretary for the Foreign Department—that of pending negotiations:3 the silence of the noble Lord was approved by many of those gentlemen, who think it their duty to utter their cuckoo note of agreement in a common absurdity: the required information was refused; and no explanation whatever was given. The admission of such a reason as sufficient to justify the withholding such information is equivalent to depriving the House of Commons of all control over the foreign policy of the country. In former times—in that of the transaction, for instance, respecting Nootka Sound, the naval force of the country was kept on so low a footing as to compel Ministers to have recourse to Parliament on the first prospect of any disturbance of our foreign relations.4 But with a fleet so large as to admit of our carrying on even a war on a moderate scale, a minister may indulge for a long time the natural official aversion to responsibility to Parliament. He may, if he chooses it, involve the nation half-way in a war, or he may let slip irrecoverably the proper opportunity for vindicating the national interests. Parliament has no control over him. While the public feeling is strong on any subject concerning the foreign relations of the country, the Foreign Minister may refuse all information, and consequently disable the public from exercising any control over his measures. When the public interest in the matter has exhausted itself, the Minister has only to inform an indifferent audience of his necessarily final decision of a matter over which the House of Commons has not previously had, and cannot thereafter exercise, any control.
We have not yet learned from Lord Palmerston the ground on which this seizure of British property, this interruption of British commerce, are justified. The Vixen has been seized, and condemned: this we know; but for what offence, and by what authority, and with what right, we know not. We know not whether the Russian Government defends this act on the fact of its being done in the course of a blockade of a hostile country, and the consequent application of those principles of maritime blockade, which this country laboured to establish during the last war, and of which, however we may agree with Mr. Roebuck as to their utter injustice and impolicy,5 the original and most zealous assertors have no right to demand the renunciation from others till they have set the example themselves. If this be the ground assumed, we know not how far it is supported by the facts of the case; whether the blockade had been sufficiently notified; whether it was enforced by sufficient naval means. But we cannot yet make out whether the seizure of the Vixen is not justified on grounds perfectly contrary, and perfectly inconsistent with these: whether Russia does not look on Circassia not as a hostile but a subject country: whether she does not claim to exercise a sovereign right over its trade and internal regulations; and whether the offence of the Vixen is not stated to be the violation of the Russian regulations of police, trade, or quarantine. In this case, we know not how this claim of sovereignty is supported; or how these sanatory, fiscal, or police regulations were notified so publicly as to justify the punishment of foreigners for a violation of them. And on all these matters the public may expect to be enlightened when it shall not care about the matter: when our commercial interests in the Black Sea, and our moral influence on its shores, shall have been annihilated, and it shall please the Russian Government to do us similar wrong with similar impunity in some other part of the world.
We are aware that we have been using language of a kind from which we have always hitherto been averse; and our readers will believe that we have caught the prevailing epidemic of an exaggerated fear of Russia. But this is not the case. Of the Russian power we have as little fear as ever, because we form as low an estimate of it as ever. We believe, as we always have believed, that the political influence of Russia is in many respects detrimental, and most seriously detrimental, to the interests of European freedom and civilization; and that its designs of aggrandisement are of a most extensive and pernicious nature. But we are compelled to assert the impolicy of involving one country in hostilities for the interests of other nations: and, with whatever reluctance we may abandon the interests of any independent people to the power of this barbarous despotism, we must confess that the blood and treasure, and commercial prosperity of Englishmen must not be perilled in the chances of what would be an obstinate and uncertain struggle for continental interests. The Russian designs of aggrandisement still inspire us with little terror, because these extensive designs appear to rest on very inadequate means of execution. We see no reason to believe that Russia could at present inflict the slightest permanent injury on us; or that any acquisition, which she has any chance of making, would materially increase her power of coping with us. We would not rush into the certain evils of war with a country which contributes so large a proportion to our foreign commerce, in order to avert distant and fancied chances of collision.
But the mere regard for our own interests, which induces us to deprecate hostilities resulting from idle fears, or an overstrained alarm for our dignity, prompts us to repel with the utmost vigour and celerity any actual attack on the interests of our countrymen, or any attempt to diminish our national power. We would not enter on a war with Russia to avert some fancied chance of a future attack on our Indian possessions. But an interference with our present commerce is a present evil. The maintenance of the rights of our merchants, and of the security of our commerce, is a matter which we must contend for. An Englishman6 has lost the cargo and hulk of the Vixen: English sailors have been maltreated: our merchants will consequently expect similar treatment, and will therefore be deterred from the trade with Circassia. Our merchants will lose this trade, our manufacturers this market. Here is an injury which we ought to resent, in order to procure reparation to our countrymen who have in this particular instance sustained loss,—in order to give a sense of security to those of our countrymen who are, under present circumstances, likely to be deterred from engaging in a profitable trade.
But we view this matter as an insult; and in that light likely to do us more hurt than we should experience from submitting to the actual injury. It is true that the whole trade of the Black Sea (as far as it is affected by this transaction) would not in twenty years be equivalent to the loss of a two-years’ war with so valuable a commercial connexion as Russia; and if the Court of St. Petersburgh were doggedly bent on merely excluding us from commerce with the Caucasus, it would be a question worthy of our serious consideration, whether it would be worth our while to enforce justice by war. But this act of the Russian Government is but one proof among many of a spirit of insolence and encroachment, which threatens us, if unchecked, with more serious injuries. We know that we are using terms full of danger: and when we think of the follies that nations have committed on the score of national honour, we feel almost inclined to repent of having expressed resentment at a national insult, which a country of the undoubted strength and courage of Great Britain can well afford to let pass. But this is of the class of insults which imply injury; which, in fact, aggravate the mischief of a slight injury by showing the existence of a disposition to inflict more. The Russian Government inflicts this injury because it hates us and because it fancies we cannot help submitting to that, and even worse, at her hands. If we submit to this, the spirit of hostility which is known to actuate the Government—not the people—will soon find an opportunity for some other encroachment or some other vexation of greater magnitude; and it is best in these cases to check the first outbreak of an aggressive spirit even in trifling matters, because the aggressor, after all, is as loth actually to embark in war for a slight object as the nation which is aggrieved. The sum of these, and other similar encroachments, which will follow this if it succeeds, will become serious: the only thing which can prevent a further progress in the series, is the showing Russia, by our conduct in the present instance, that she can only continue at the cost of war. The earlier we do this, the less we lose before we do it. This barbarous and unprincipled despotism cannot comprehend forbearance springing from any motive but fear; and we must show Russia that it has not the hold on us of which it would make so unmerciful a use. But we need not anticipate the evils of war. Russia cannot maintain a six-weeks’ war against England. Mr. Roebuck did not exaggerate when he said that the English would in a very brief period of time sweep the military and commercial marine of Russia off the seas, and compel the Emperor, at the hazard of his crown and his life, to accept our terms.7 He might have added, that two British squadrons, at the Dardanelles and the Sound, might starve the Russian empire.
How long Lord Palmerston will allow, or, rather, will be permitted to allow, this matter to remain suspended on the tardy deliberations of lawyers, and the purposed procrastinations of diplomacy, it is not for us to say. In the mean time, it will be of some service to show what ought to be done; and the work which we have placed at the head of this article throws some light on one of the important questions involved in the affair of the Vixen; namely, the right of Russia to the acknowledgment by other nations of her sovereignty of the Caucasus.
It was about the beginning of the present century that the Czars began to form any steady system of policy for the aggrandisement of their dominions in the mountainous districts between the Black Sea and the Caspian; several of the Circassian tribes, indeed, had become the allies or vassals of Russia about the close of the sixteenth century, but they were neglected or betrayed; and, about the beginning of the last century, most of them embraced the Mahommedan faith. In 1723, Peter the Great,8 anxious to secure for his subjects the navigation of the Caspian Sea, and, as he hoped, a large portion of the trade with India, concluded a treaty with Ismael Bey, the ambassador of Shah Támásp, by which it was stipulated that the Russian Emperor should expel the Afghans, and establish Támásp upon the throne of Persia, in return for which service the Persian prince agreed to cede to his ally the towns of Derbend and Bakú, with the provinces of Daghestan, Shirwán, Ghilán, and Asterabad.9 Two years after, the Court of St. Petersburgh, unscrupulously violating the promises made to Támásp, concluded a partition treaty with the Court of Constantinople, by which the Russians were to obtain all the Caspian Provinces from the country of the Turkomans to the conflux of the Kuŕ and the Araxes.10 The districts thus perfidiously acquired were found to be unprofitable and expensive: they were abandoned at the first summons of Nadir Shah.11 But the projects of establishing empire over the Caucasian and Caspian provinces were renewed when the sovereign of Georgia, in 1783, declared himself a vassal of the Russian empire; and they have been still more steadily prosecuted since Georgia was definitely united to Russia in 1806.12
To estimate justly the peculiar character of this mountain region, it is of more importance to examine its materials physically than geographically: the races that inhabit these districts are of more importance to the inquirer than the structure of their country; and again, the nature of the mountains and rivers is a matter requiring more minute investigation than the circumstances of their position.
Beginning at the western side of the Caucasian provinces, between the Black Sea and the mountain-chain, we find a singularly warlike and unconquered race, the Abassians. Their country is full of defiles, where a few brave men may bid defiance to an host: they have been from remote ages robbers by land and pirates by sea: they have been attacked by every power that ever aimed at establishing supremacy in the Black Sea, but they have never wholly lost their rude independence. Identity of usages and great similarity of language seem to connect them with the Circassians on the northern declivity of the Caucasus; but from the remotest ages of history a singular tradition has prevailed which traces their origin to an Egyptian colony established by Sesostris13 at the mouth of the Phasis. Herodotus declares that the Colchians or Abassians related the circumstance themselves,* and he mentions several coincidences in colour, physical constitution, language and usages; dwelling chiefly on the practice of circumcision, which was common to the two nations.† Whatever may have been their origin, they have been always averse to civilization, and they have gradually retired into their mountain fastnesses before the Georgian race, branches of which have expelled the Abassians from Imeretia and Mingrelia.
On the northern declivity of the Caucasus are found the tribes of the Cherkessians or Circassians, equally remarkable for their ferocity and beauty. Klaproth has informed us that they are divided into five classes, princes, nobles, freedmen of nobles, freedmen of freedmen, and slaves.14 Their form of government is aristocratic, but the wars between the beharichs, or petty princes, render the country almost perpetually a prey to anarchy. Some of the tribes profess Christianity, others Mahommedanism, others jumble the two creeds together, and few pay any regard to the moral principles of either. But Klaproth has not done full justice to their daring and desperate valour, nor does he notice the great value that they set on martial achievements. In fact a prince cannot be confirmed in the privileges of his birth until he has given some signal proof of his heroism. Colonel Rottier, who served several campaigns as a Russian officer in the Caucasian wars, mentions many instances of Cherkessian bravery or temerity. On one occasion a young beharich with three friends resolved to cut through a Russian column:* the daring prince effected a passage, but his three followers were slain.
Rottier adds: “even the women of this warlike nation follow their husbands to the field, not merely to dress wounds, or rouse the courage of the men, but to combat by their side.”15 This certainly tends to prove that the history of the Amazons is not quite fabulous. Most readers are aware that Zonoras relates, that on the field of battle where Pompey conquered the Albanians, cuirasses were found, which could only have belonged to women; and Procopius relates a similar circumstance of a battle between the Romans and the Huns.16 But in more modern times some Cherkessian tribes having been repulsed in an attack on the people of Karatchai, several suits of armour were brought to the prince of that country, taken from the corpses of women who had fallen in the battle. “Each consisted of a helmet, braces, and a cuirass composed of small steel plates. A vest of woollen stuff, of a bright red colour, was attached to the cuirass, and reached about half way down the leg.”* The Circassians regret the abolition of their slave-trade; to them, indeed, a state of slavery is any thing but terrible; the greater part of the population being serfs, have nothing to fear from a change in their condition: the young men are encouraged to offer themselves for sale by the anecdotes they hear of the exalted posts to which their countrymen have attained in Egypt and Turkey; and the girls, prisoners at home, and forced to work, hope that their charms may win them a more prosperous fate in another land. The prohibition of this traffic is consequently felt as a grievance, and it is a principal cause of their intense hatred of the Russian power. Lieutenant Conolly, one of the latest British travellers through these regions, gives a very lively picture of the state of the garrisons sent to control those fierce mountaineers:
The Russians do not yet command free passage through the Caucasus; for they are obliged to be very vigilant against surprise by these Circassian sons of the mist, who still cherish the bitterest hatred against them. In some instances, the Russian posts on the right of the defile were opposed to little stone eyries perched upon the opposite heights; and when any number of the Caucasians were observed descending the great paths on the mountain side, the Russian guards would turn out and be on the alert. Not very long before our arrival we learned that a party of Circassians had, in the sheer spirit of hatred, lain in ambush for a return guard of some sixteen Cossacks, and killed every man.
Such facts seem to argue great weakness on the part of the Russians; but great have been the difficulties they have contended with, in keeping the upper hand over enemies whose haunts are almost inaccessible to any but themselves. Several colonies of these ferocious mountaineers have been captured and transplanted to villages of their own in the plains, where they are guarded, and live as sulkily as wildbeasts; and a general crusade, if I may be allowed the expression, has been talked of for some years past, to sweep such untameable enemies from the mountains, and settle them on the plains in the interior of Russia.†
North and east of the Caucasus, between the river Terek and the Caspian sea, are tribes still more barbarous and more hostile. The principal are the Chetchentzes and the Lesghies, but there are several others. Though they differ in language and in origin, their usages are alike, and the description of one will serve for the rest.
The Lesghies, whose name is formidable even at the gates of Astrachan, inhabit the north of Daghestan, and are all Mohammedans. In the year 684 the Saracens, headed by Mushlimeh, the brother of the Khaliph Walid,17 obtained possession of Georgia, and continued to hold it, in spite of their incessant wars with the mountain tribes, until the year 732. During this interval several nomade tribes came from the sterile plains of central Asia to colonise these fertile valleys. Wandering hordes are still found in Daghestan, who have preserved, in whole or in part, the language of their Saracenic ancestors. Most of the Lesghies also in their appearance, manners, and idiom, exhibit marks of a mixed descent. There have been few descriptions published of this remarkable people: war alone discloses their character, and almost their existence, for it is rarely that the Russians have dared to penetrate their forests and mountains.
In Pompey’s age the Lesghies, called Albanians, from their river Albanus, still known by the name of Al-sú, or The White Water, though repulsed and decimated by the Roman armies, remained unsubdued, and continued to defy the victorious legions. Since that time the mixture of their race with the Saracenic colonists has served to augment their natural vigour, and strengthen their love of independence.
In the year 1741 Nadir Shah invaded Daghestan, to revenge the blood of his brother Ibrahaim Khan,18 who had been slain in an attack of the Lesghies. Colonel Rottier assures us that the memory of this conqueror’s exploits is still preserved in the popular songs of the Caucasus,* —but he never engaged in a more hazardous enterprise. The mountaineers defended themselves with the most desperate bravery, and the rugged nature of the whole country of Daghestan made it almost impossible to subdue them. The bravest troops of the Persian army sunk under the fatigues of this harassing war, and the Lesghies having threatened to put themselves under the protection of Russia, Nadir returned from this expedition with very partial success and very great loss.
Jonas Hanway has preserved a copy of the letter which the Lesghies addressed on this occasion to the Russian general;† it enclosed a summary of their forces, which is sufficiently curious.
Sir John Malcolm* thinks this estimate greatly exaggerated; but it must be received, not as the amount that could actually be brought into the field, but as the census of all the fighting men in the different divisions of Daghestan. A Russian journal estimates the population of the Lesghian provinces at half a million;19 and if this be at all near the truth, we cannot think the number of men stated as fit for service at all out of proportion.
From time immemorial the Lesghies have subsisted on plunder: when they cannot obtain employment from the Sultan, the Shah, or the Tartar Khans at war with Russia, they pour down on the plains of Georgia, as the highlanders of yore into the Lennox.
Issuing in spring from their impregnable fastnesses and mountains covered with snow, they principally infest Karthlinia and the lovely district of Kisiché Búdhi. They select their position near the fords of rivers, or in the woods bordering on defiles, or in the ruins of old monasteries; there they wait for the shepherd and his flock, the merchant’s caravan, or even the single traveller. They often venture to seek their prey in villages, and even in towns: they carry off the inhabitants as prisoners, ransom them, or keep them as slaves. The difficulty of preventing the flight of the latter has induced them to adopt an operation invented by the most ingenious ferocity. They guard them during the first days of their captivity with apparent negligence, and impose on them such severe tasks that a great many attempt to escape. Unacquainted with the localities, the fugitives are easily retaken, and to prevent a renewal of the effort, the Lesghian makes an incision under his captive’s heel, and thrusts chopped horse-hair into the wound. The cut soon cicatrises over this foreign body, and seems completely healed; but the wretch thus punished feels a painful tingling every time that he rests on his heel, and during the rest of his life is forced to walk on tiptoe.†
Though the Lesghies profess to be guided by the Koran, they unscrupulously violate some of its precepts. They are very fond of wine and brandy. During the war of 1812 a division of them, infuriated with liquor, broke through a Russian brigade, and when a fresh regiment came up, the conquered and conquerors were found stretched side by side, the former dead and the latter drunk. Colonel Rottier mentions several examples of their bravery, their ferocity, and their religious enthusiasm; but we have before us more recent information in the shape of an official report on the military operations against the Mussulman mountaineers of the Caucasus, translated from the Russian by the lamented Klaproth for the Asiatic society of Paris.‡ This war, which was scarcely heard of in Europe, began in 1828, and ended in 1832. A brief account of it will better illustrate the condition of the Cherkessians and the Lesghies than any laboured dissertation.
In the year 1828 several tribes of Daghestan demanded that the Russian tribunals should be abolished and justice administered by Mohammedan courts. Their discontent was stimulated by Shah Kazi Mollah,20 a native of Húmry, a village in the western territories of the Lesghians: he had the art to persuade his countrymen that he was a prophet destined to restore the purity of Islam, and he soon found himself at the head of 6000 followers, whom he named Múrids or disciples. Being defeated by the Russian general Rosen,21 he sought refuge with the Chetchentzes, the Galgaï, and the Karaboulak; fierce tribes that inhabit the mountainous districts near the sources of the Sunja, the Martan, and the Aksai. His pretensions were accredited by these barbarous hordes, and he taught his disciples that their first duty was the extermination of the Russians. Several villages were destroyed, detachments cut off, and stragglers massacred or enslaved. In 1831 he fought no less than six pitched battles with the imperial troops; and though the Russians assert that he was invariably defeated, we find that his influence and power were greatly strengthened, so that at the beginning of 1832 his authority was not only recognised by the insurgents of Daghestan, but by several tribes in Kabarda, and even in Kuban.
Baron Rosen, with a numerous and well-appointed army, was sent to suppress this dangerous revolt. He entered the country of the Chetchentzes, and stormed their principal village Ghermentchouk. One incident will serve to show the obstinate resistance made by these enthusiastic mountaineers.
After the village had been occupied, a body of about fifty men, conducted by the Mollah Abd-er-rahman, one of the most determined partisans of Kazi Mollah, was cut off from the rest, and surrounded in a large house. These fellows had no hope of safety: but when they were summoned to surrender, they thundered out verses of the Koran, as is their custom when they devote themselves to death. Then working loop-holes through the walls, they opened a well-supported and well-directed fire upon their assailants. Several grenades thrown down the chimney exploded in the interior of the house, but failed to shake their resolution. Orders were at length given to set fire to the place. Eleven of them, half suffocated by the smoke, came out and surrendered; a few others sword in hand threw themselves on our bayonets; but far the greater part perished with Abd-er-rahman chaunting to the last their song of death.*
From the country of the Chetchentzes the Russians next marched into the Lesghian districts. Here they encountered physical obstacles not less formidable than the desperate valour of the warriors previously described. If, indeed, the road to Húmry be a specimen of Caucasian communications, the military occupation of these countries is all but impossible.
The road to Húmry from the territory of the Chetchentzes presents incredible difficulties. It ascends from Karanai to the snowy summit of a lofty mountain, and then descends in a winding direction about four wersts (three miles) over the scarped side of a mountain, along precipices and across rocks: it is only the breadth of an ordinary footpath. It afterwards passes about the same distance over the narrow projections of rocks, where there are no means of going from one to the other but by ladders, with which it is necessary to come provided. Afterwards it joins another road coming from Erpeli, between two walls of perpendicular rock, when it becomes still narrower and more rugged. And finally, in front of the village of Húmry, it is crossed by three walls, the first of which is flanked by towers. The whole side of the mountain is cut into terraces, so judiciously arranged as to afford the means of making the most effective resistance.*
The Lesghians deemed this pass impregnable, and they might easily have made it so; but relying too much on its difficulties, they neglected to guard it, contenting themselves with exclaiming, “the Russians can only come here, as the rain does, by falling from heaven.”22 Favoured by a thick fog, the Russians occupied the mountains in front of Húmry, and after a furious cannonade, carried the village by storm. The final scene is too characteristic of Lesghian valour to be omitted:
After the soldiers had carried the first wall, it was not possible for the garrisons of the towers to escape. Still they refused to surrender; but on the contrary, became more obstinate in their resistance. General Veliaminov opened a heavy cannonade on the ramparts in front of the towers; but as the bandits still kept up their fire, a body of volunteers, from the corps of sappers and miners, stormed the forts, and put the mountaineers who defended them to the sword. Amongst those who fell were Kazi Mollah and his most distinguished partisans: their bodies, pierced with bayonets, were recognised next morning by their countrymen. Night put an end to the conflict, and our advanced guard halted between the third wall and the village. On the morning of the 30th of October, 1832, the Russian troops entered into Húmry.†
To complete this “strange eventful history,”23 we must quote the proclamation issued by the Russian Major-General, to inform the Lesghians of his success:
The justice of God has overtaken Kazi Mollah, the preacher of false doctrines, the enemy of peace. This scoundrel, his principal adherents, and a number of wretches that he had deceived, have been exterminated by the victorious Russian army in the celebrated defiles of Húmry, long believed impregnable.
May this example serve as a warning to all disturbers of the public tranquillity! May they, listening to the voice of penitence, have recourse to the powerful Russian government, and our mighty Emperor, in his gracious condescension, will mercifully grant them pardon. But whoever shall hereafter dare to form rebellious plots shall feel the utmost rigour of the laws. Neither mountains, nor forests, nor ravines, will shelter the traitor. The triumphant Russian troops will penetrate everywhere, and everywhere punish the disobedient. The Galgaï, the Ilczkerians, the Chetchentzes, and others, have experienced this truth! He that hath ears to hear, let him hear and understand!‡
We have lately seen a gentleman just returned from Astrachan, who assures us that Kazi Mollah’s sect is not yet extinct, and that the Lesghies continue to exhibit their former fanaticism and hatred of the Russian rule. They are also as inveterately hostile to the Georgians as ever; and their hatred is returned with interest. The Georgians form ambushes for the Lesghians who traverse their country on the road to Turkey, saying, “These Mussulman dogs constantly assault and pillage us:” on the other hand, the Lesghians make forays into Georgia, declaring, “These Christian dogs formerly hunted us in our mountains, under the pretence of converting us.” Thus all over the world a difference of religion is held to justify turpitude and atrocity.*
South of the Caucasus, Russia possesses Georgia, Imeretia, Mingrelia, and the greater part of Armenia. The Georgians voluntarily submitted to the Russian yoke to escape from the capricious tyranny of the Persians; and though they felt very bitterly the perfidious cruelty displayed to their princes, they continued unswerving in their allegiance until 1812, when a Georgian army, sent against the Aghabziké, was sacrificed by the incapacity or treachery of the Russian general:24 this national wrong, followed by an onerous system of fiscal regulations, provoked a revolt, which was quelled in blood; but its spirit still survives. Georgia is a fertile country, and Tiflis, its capital, is a thriving city; but the inhabitants are governed by foreigners, who look upon the vice-royalty as a punishment rather than an honour. Indeed, it is notorious that a southern government is regarded by the Court of St. Petersburgh as a species of honourable exile.†
From the above details, the reader will be able to form a just conception of the true character of the dominion which it is pretended that Russia possesses over the mountain tribes of the Caucasus. Russia has long endeavoured to render those tribes subject to her, but she is now as far as ever from having succeeded. Still more absurd is it to pretend that Turkey was sovereign to these regions, and ceded them to Russia by the treaty of Adrianople.25 What Turkey never had, she could not part with. The Caucasian tribes were not subject to Turkey, they were subject to no one; they have never been conquered, and dominion over them, how often soever it may have been claimed, has never yet been enforced. It is on the laws of war, therefore, and not on the internal regulations of the Russian empire, that the seizure of the Vixen must, if at all, be defended. Whether British traders can be excluded from Circassia on the plea of a blockade, is a question which remains to be discussed; on the plea of quarantine, revenue, or police, they certainly cannot. Russia cannot legislate for Circassia on any of these points, for Circassia is not Russian.
The Spanish Question
London and Westminster Review, V & XXVII (July 1837), 165-94. Headed: Art. VIII. / Spain. By Henry David Inglis, Esq. [1795-1835], 2 vols. Second Edition. [London:] Whittaker & Co. [1837.] / Sketches in Spain. By Captain Samuel Edward Cook [1787-1856]. [London:] T. & W. Boone . / [Anon.,] Policy of England towards Spain. [London:] Ridgway . / [William Walton (1784-1857),] Reply to the Anglo-Christian Pamphlet, Entitled Policy of England towards Spain. [London:] Hatchard . / [John Richardson (1796-1852),] Movements of the British Legion [(1836), 2nd ed. London: Simpkin, Marshall;] Macrone [; Wilson, 1837]. / The Basque Provinces. By Edward Bell Stephens, 2 vols., unpublished [London: Whittaker, 1837]. / The Andalusian Sketch-Book. [Probably The Andalusian Annual, ed. Michael Burke Honan, 2nd ed.] London. Macrone, 1837. / Sketches of the War for Constitutional Liberty in Spain and Portugal; interspersed with Scenes and Occurrences Abroad and at Home. By Charles Shaw, Esq. [1795-1871], K.C.T.S., and Colonel Portuguese Service, late Brig.-Gen. in the Service of the Queen of Spain, 2 vols., with Portraits of Admiral Napier and General Evans. Colburn: London, 1837. / Shaw’s Memoirs, unpublished. [Issued with the previous work as Personal Memoirs and Correspondence of Colonel Charles Shaw, K.C.T.S., etc., of the Portuguese Service, and Late Brigadier-General, in the British Auxiliary Legion of Spain; comprising A Narrative of the War for Constitutional Liberty in Portugal and Spain, from its Commencement in 1831 to the Dissolution of the British Legion in 1837, 2 vols. (London: Colburn, 1837).] Signed: “T.E.” Listed in Mill’s bibliography as “Part of the article on Spanish affairs in the same number of the same review” as his review of Carlyle’s French Revolution
(MacMinn, p. 49).
buccaneers and slave-dealers were the first to discover that there was a geographical distribution of moralities as well as of animals; they found that common honesty, like its emblem, the common house-dog, degenerated sadly as it approached the line; that piracy and kidnapping flourished in the same temperature as beasts of prey and venomous reptiles. Their charts regulated their morals; every observation to determine their latitude was a lesson in ethics, and the sun’s altitude gave an accurate measure of the height to which it was lawful to extend their violence. Of late years moral geography has been permitted to fall a little into oblivion; the world even seemed disposed to believe that the essence of principle is its universality; that virtue and vice depend neither upon parallels nor meridians; and that Humboldt’s isothermal lines mark temperature only,1 and do not convey the slightest information respecting a nation’s capacity for justice and freedom. Thanks to those eminent philosophers, Mr. Maclean and Mr. Grove Price,2 this spreading delusion is on the point of being dispelled; the philosophical discoveries of the slavers and buccaneers will be worthily supported by our modern Conservatives, ever steady advocates of
These sages and their followers have established, that in all countries north of the fiftieth degree of northern latitude, Popery is an abomination, whose endurance calls loudly to heaven for vengeance, and municipal institutions nuisances that ought to be abated; but when we pass to the south of that mystic line, the horror of Popery changes into a profound respect for his Catholic Majesty, a sincere veneration for that ancient conservative institution, the Inquisition, and a burning zeal that would consign liberal gainsayers to an auto-da-fé.4 Some ascribe this apparent discrepancy to the delight of these gentlemen in abstractions; their zeal is for the church, any church, quocumque modo church; the church, which in their minds is a more abstract idea than even that of a lord mayor without a gold chain and fur robe (which was so puzzling to Martinus Scriblerus),5 seeing that it includes not the notions of religion, creed, or discipline. And this theory derives some confirmation from a recent version of some of these philosophers’ speeches into tolerable rhyme, and plainer reason than these gentlemen ordinarily use:
But this explanation, though it may show why Popery may be a blessing in Spain, and a curse in Ireland, throws no light on the second point, municipal institutions; it leaves us still to guess why west of us all local privileges and local self-government should be swept away, while south of us the fueros of the Biscayans, however useless to themselves or pernicious to the rest of Spain, must be supported even at the hazard of placing the Peninsula beyond the pale of civilization. Our first theory therefore claims the preference,—that Messrs. Maclean and Price (with their followers, the Inglises, Goulburns, Peels, Hardinges, and unchanged* Burdetts), have revived the neglected science of moral geography, to the great edification and advantage of the present and all future generations; that they have given to its principles a strength, a permanence, and an extension not contemplated by the original authors, and that they may therefore claim rather to be its founders than its revivers. Sumite superbiam quaesitam meritis.7
Whatever other reflections may be justly excited by the late debates on Spanish affairs,8 we cannot help congratulating our country on the extraordinary growth of the philanthropic virtues which was exhibited on the Tory benches, and the near prospect of the conversion in particular of some of our military senators to quakerism. The morality of warfare has been discussed with an ethical rigour, and at the same time a sentimental eloquence, which would not have disgraced the classic shades of the Academy. Hear how wisely and philosophically our military Plato, Sir Henry Hardinge, discusses this delicate point of morals:
There was another mode of viewing this subject—namely, as affecting the moral character of this country, which, in his opinion, was a matter of high consideration. It remained a matter of deep consideration for the inhabitants of this Christian country whether his Majesty’s Ministers and that House should allow men, the natives of this country, to become accustomed to shed the blood of their brother men in a quarrel in which they were not interested. It was a matter of deep consideration whether, by such proceedings as those he alluded to, they should train up our countrymen to scenes of bloodshed and murder, which had never been approached in any modern warfare.9
So many of our half-pay officers have exchanged general orders for holy orders that the church militant is no longer a questionable phrase among us, and this piece of sermonizing may probably be designed to announce the gallant officer as a candidate for the mitre. The late Archbishop of Cashel10 began life as a midshipman in the navy, at a time when Lord Gambier had not commenced his efforts to substitute psalms for oaths, and tracts for cards,11 and when the name of temperance societies was unknown to our sailors; yet in his instance the quarterdeck was found to supply as good a system of preparatory education as the universities, and the cockpit sent forth a prelate that would not have disgraced the cloister. Here assuredly is a precedent which will more than justify Sir Henry’s elevation; the camp is as good a school for clerical instruction as a man-of-war, and a dean has informed us, that
To our extract from this probationary sermon we must add the commentary of another eminent moralist, Lord Mahon, especially as he gives us history to aid philosophy, and illustrates “wise saws” by “modern instances”:13
In the debate last evening one principal point under discussion was how far historical precedent could be adduced to justify the present policy of Great Britain. Upon that point he believed scarcely any precedent had been adduced except from the dark ages of our history, when it was not unusual for men to engage in war in the service of foreign powers, without any regard to the interests of their sovereign or country in its issue. At that time soldiers of this character were termed mercenaries, a term which he would not apply to the British Legion in Spain, because he was aware that the spirit of that term had been misunderstood by many persons, and he did not at all mean to insinuate that the persons who formed part of that legion were actuated—as the expression was supposed to imply—by none but mercenary motives. So far from intending any imputation of this kind, he believed that the intentions of those individuals were honourable; and so believing, he would be the last person to cast a stigma upon them in their absence. But he did say this—that looking at the position in which Great Britain was placed, this legion stood in a situation in which British soldiers ought not to stand—a position for which he could only find a parallel in the mercenaries he had alluded to in the darker ages of our history. When we thus revived one of the features in our ancient and less civilized history, we could hardly be surprised to see the laws against witchcraft, and the old penal code, which were scarcely less barbarous, called also into existence. He hoped that in future the progress of our advancing civilization would be marked by humanity, and a respect for human life.14
The abstract moral question, how far the trade of a soldier is consistent with the duties of a man and a Christian, is here very unnecessarily mooted. We have no objection to anything which can possibly be said in denunciation of medicines, if we can first get rid of diseases. We are quite ready to join in the cry of “No prisons,” when the thieves shall all be converted to the faith of “No thieving;” but when the cry comes from the friends and partisans of the thieves, we like it not. War may be stigmatized universally, and we are quite ready to give our vote for its abolition in a universal congress of mankind: but while the enemies of freedom are allowed to levy their vassals, embattle their slaves, and organize their dupes, assuredly the friends of freedom have a right to employ their own thews and sinews to check the onward flow of barbarism and tyranny.15
But Lord Mahon asks for modern precedents; this worthy aspirant to the honours of the Historical Muse can find no parallel to the service of the British Legion, save in the darker periods of our history:—The reign of Queen Elizabeth is not wont to be accounted such, nor are Sir Philip Sidney and Sir Horatio Vere generally reckoned among “mercenaries” and “buccaneers.”16 There are, indeed, some more modern transactions which Lord Mahon may have had in his eye:—It is not very long since Indian savages were taken into British pay to butcher our brethren in America; and history of no very ancient date records, that the emissaries of an English king17 were seen in the soldier-market of every petty German despot, bargaining as coolly as carcase-butchers in a shambles, for Hessians, Hanoverians, Brunswickers, and Saxons, to crush men fighting for privileges dearer and more valuable than the Biscayan fueros, because they were the rights of mankind, and not those of a petty province. If General Evans18 be a mercenary for accepting pay from Queen Isabella, what name must be given to George III, paying blood-money and head-money to margraves and landgraves for the hire of their subjects? We do not like moral maxims which go just so far, and no farther, than suits the interest of the moralizer.
Mr. Walton puts the objection in a much more tangible shape, and with him we readily join issue:
Among men, acts must be estimated not merely by their moral turpitude, but by their effect on society, and what can be more generally mischievous, what better calculated to put everything under the yoke of violence, than to propagate opinions by the sword, and apply to politics, what formerly prevailed in religious matters, the fanatical bloody spirit of forcible proselytism? My gallant countryman knows by experience the miseries of war, and can be really think himself justified in inflicting them on the numerous Spaniards who happen to differ from him on points of internal Spanish policy? What would become of society, if every political enthusiast, not satisfied with oppressing our patience by tedious harangues, should force his foolish fancies on our acceptance by military violence?19
Against such doctrine as this we have not a word to say: whoever excites civil war, whoever rebels against an established government, unless he has so plainly the majority with him that he succeeds almost without a struggle, acts under a terrible responsibility. But we beg to inform Mr. Walton that the Legion went to assist not rebels, but an established government; not to excite but to suppress a civil war. Mr. Walton should preach to his friend Don Carlos. A sermon against thieving should not be addressed to the thief-catcher, but to the thief.*
The doctrine, that the soldiers and officers of the Legion fought in a quarrel in which they were not interested, and in the issue of which “the interests of their sovereign or country” were not involved, is false at both points. Without entering into the niceties of the case, there was not one among them who did not know that he was fighting for free institutions against despotism; for Reformers against Tories, at home and abroad. Such a quarrel is not one in which Englishmen or Irishmen are not “interested.” And as to the indifference of the Spanish contest to “the interests of their sovereign and country,” it was a contest in which both sovereign and country had found sufficient inducements either of interest, or of duty, for binding themselves by treaty to a direct and positive co-operation. It may be meant to assert, though the intention is disclaimed, that the officers and soldiers of the Legion sold their services for pay, without caring for the justice of the cause. Among so large a body this must no doubt be true of no inconsiderable proportion; but so it is of all military bodies; for instance, of those who have entered the British army as officers or soldiers at any period during the last hundred years. The Legion at least knew what they were hired to fight for; but those who enter the British army are hired (we say it not invidiously, but to express what no one will deny, that they enter it from the ordinary motives from which men engage in any other profession,) they are hired, we say, to fight, they know not for what; certainly, in any of our wars since Queen Anne’s time,20 for no good: perhaps to fight against, not for, the cause of free institutions. The good Major Cartwright21 laid down his commission rather than fight against the Americans; how few, in the British army, have shown similar virtue; yet how many, both in the American and in the French war, must have felt that the cause they were in arms against was that which ought to prevail! The Tory moralist, who deems these honourable men, and General Evans and his followers adventurers, must be a very pretty illustration of the doctrine of Helvetius, that our notions of virtue are corollaries from our notions of our own interests.22
But a more complicated question than the morality of the Legion’s conduct is the value of its services. There is no use in disguising our belief that the friends of liberty in Spain and England have been disappointed by the general results of the expedition, and that the successes of our countrymen have neither been so early nor so decisive as had been expected. It was clearly the knowledge of this feeling that animated the supporters of Sir Henry Hardinge’s motion.23 The time chosen for the debate was the moment when temporary failure was likely to produce temporary unpopularity. This point was eloquently urged by Mr. Ward:
He asked them, why was not the policy of the Government with regard to Spain made the subject of complaint during the present session till now? He asked in what material point the line of policy pursued in consequence of the quadruple alliance24 was changed, so as to cause the present motion? (Cheers.) There were precisely the same grounds for the motion. (Cheers.) They had been threatened with it during the whole of the recess—(cheers); they had heard nothing but denunciations of the policy of the Noble Lord (Palmerston) from every organ of the Conservatives. They had been told up to the first day of the session of the expensive mode of intervention, of the neglect of British interests, and of the incapacity of the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. What was the result of all this? It happened that three days before the meeting of Parliament intelligence was received of a victory gained by the combined forces of the Queen of Spain and the British Legion. And so great was the reaction which attended the receipt of this intelligence, and so great was the interest excited in the public mind by the gallantry of our fellow-countrymen in Spain, that the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, feeling that the moment was very unpropitious for such a discussion, quelled some little symptoms of insubordination, and availed himself of the very first opportunity that the forms of the House allowed to express his admiration of the conduct and gallantry of the brave men who had successfully defended Bilbao.25 (Cheers.) The Hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Grove Price)26 and the Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Maclean), of whose devotion to the cause of absolutism there could not be the least doubt, submitted in silence to the course pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. He would ask, what prevented the Hon. and Gallant Officer (Sir H. Hardinge) from bringing forward this motion on that occasion, and what encouraged him to do so now? (Loud cheers.) The simple fact was, that success no longer beamed so decisively on the cause of liberty in the Peninsula. (Great and continued cheering.) This was the first time that he had heard in the British House of Parliament that a fair ground for abandoning an ally was that he was unfortunate. (Loud cheers.) He had heard often the opposite argument used. He had heard the misfortunes of those with whom we were in alliance stated, and never unsuccessfully, as a plea for additional struggles and exertion on our part. (Cheers.) It was reserved for the Hon. and Gallant Officer (Sir H. Hardinge) to reverse this, and to make the want of success a plea for shamefully abandoning the engagements to which we were solemnly bound by treaty.27
But though success has nothing to do with the policy of the quadruple treaty, it is a very important element in the Spanish controversy; for if the British Legion be useless, if its presence in the Peninsula does not very materially promote the Queen’s cause, it is doing incalculable mischief to the cause it was embodied to serve. The Duke of Wellington’s reasoning on this head is conclusive, and his speech, when the question was deliberated in the Lords, points out errors of system, the more to be lamented as they cannot be denied.28
Military criticism by a person at a distance from the scene of operations is equally difficult and ungracious. Before questioning the prudence of the conduct of General Evans, or the wisdom of his operations, we must be acquainted with the circumstances of his position. According to his adversaries, the materials of the British Legion were the worst possible. Mr. Walton, and he is more temperate in his description than the majority of the Carlist writers, says, “that the privates were the lowest and vilest of our urban rabble, refined or still further debased (for I know not which term to choose) by a mixture of Irish peasants. Among them might be here and there scattered a disbanded soldier.”29 The soldiers were certainly undisciplined, and were therefore likely to evince little patience in suffering, and to lose subordination under the smart of disappointment. Did these raw recruits, on their landing, find comfortable quarters, proper rations, and regular pay? On the contrary, all parties confess that they had to endure more privations and misery than those which disorganised the veterans of Wellington in his retreat from Burgos. It is highly creditable to the perseverance and fortitude of General Evans, that under such circumstances he has been able to keep his men together as a military body at all; and in every examination of his conduct, this great difficulty must be allowed to have its full weight. It is also uncertain how far his actions have been controlled by Spanish orders, influenced by Spanish counsels, or misled by Spanish promises of co-operation. But, after having made every fair allowance for the difficulties of the position in which General Evans was placed, the disappointments he experienced, and the frequent failure of the promises on which he relied, we must reluctantly confess that his strategetic skill seems far inferior to his perseverance, fortitude, and spirit. The Duke of Wellington’s criticisms on the movements of the legion appear to be too well founded:
After a certain period,—he believed, as soon as the original money was expended,—the corps was sent down to join the other troops in the neighbourhood of Vittoria. They remained there during the winters of 1835 and 1836, struggling with every possible distress! but a crisis was approaching—it became necessary that Great Britain should take a more active part in the war—that something should be done to produce some effect in a certain place called the Stock Exchange. Accordingly this corps, towards the spring of the year, was brought to Santander and St. Sebastian, and employed in the relief of the blockade which had been maintained for some time by Guibelalde.30 It was then found absolutely necessary to raise this blockade, and the British squadron, under the command of a most active and able officer,31 for whom he (the Duke of Wellington) entertained the highest respect, employed their 68-pounders, and forced in the works of the Carlist line on 6th of May. What was the effect? The blockade was still maintained a little further off, out of the reach of the fire of the British fleet, and there it had remained up to the present time. Excepting this, he defied the noble lord32 to show any single advantage which had been gained of any description from that day to this. The whole distance that the blockade had been removed was one mile. General Evans might have left the Carlists in their original position without any inconvenience whatever being felt by the town, because he (the Duke of Wellington) happened to know that the communication by sea could not have been prevented, even if the whole British fleet had been blockading the places, instead of being stationed there to give facility to the communication. The whole inconvenience felt by the town from the position the Carlists had taken up was, neither more nor less than, that some ladies and gentlemen were prevented taking the waters. He would say further, that his firm belief was, that the connexion between the legion and the fleet had been injurious to the military affairs of the Queen of Spain. That was his decided opinion, from what he knew of the nature of the country, and more particularly from the position which was the strength of Don Carlos. There was one point which military men perfectly understood, and that was, that if great corps were to act together, there must be a communication between them. If there were no communication, then the attempt at co-operation would in all probability lead to such disasters as had occurred at Hernani; and it was to him most surprising that General Evans, who appeared an able man, and deserving of the confidence of his Majesty’s Government, and the Queen of Spain, with the experience he had had, of the difficulty of carrying on communications in that country, should not have felt the danger of his position, and placed himself in communication with the corps with which he was co-operating, instead of being at a distance from his Majesty’s fleet.33
Indeed the best tacticians disapprove of his entire plan of operations, both in conception and execution; they say, “that he had no business to go to Vittoria; being there, he had no business to come back; he had no business in Bilbao, which is a dangerous position for an army; he failed at Fontarabia in his first attack for want of coup d’oeil and promptness,” and his recent success scarcely atones for his error. He appears indeed to have made every attack, and fought every action, till within the last three months, without any object in view except the immediate battle. Hence all his proceedings are desultory, all his actions isolated, his victories unproductive of permanent result, and not unfrequently followed by rout or retreat. This defect appears especially conspicuous in his only positive disaster, at Hernani, which was principally occasioned by the General’s not rightly considering his position; he fought his way with great energy and determination to the heights overlooking Hernani, but when these were attained he seems to have regarded the future as a matter of little import. Major Richardson not unjustly remarks,
Surely the experience of the past, at that very same Hernani, ought to have satisfied the Lieutenant-General that an attempt would be made to turn his flanks and gain his rear the moment a forward movement was made upon the town. This is the Carlist system of warfare; and favoured as they are by the hilly and wooded character of the country, nothing is more easy of accomplishment. It was precisely in this manner they attempted and had very nearly succeeded in turning us during the reconnoissance upon Hernani in 1835.34
The circumstances of the battle have been stated with tolerable accuracy by Lord Alvanley:
On the 1st of March the general had under him a combined force of 13,000 men, besides the aid of 400 British marines and 20 guns. On the 15th they had taken the heights above Hernani: his position was on those heights. On his right his position was very strong, and on his left was the village of Astigarraga, which was not occupied. As he (Lord Alvanley) understood the attack upon Hernani, it was this. It was commenced about nine in the morning; the troops were very much fatigued by the operations of the two or three preceding days. About half past eleven a column of about 4,000 Carlists, who had advanced by forced marches to the action, attacked the rear of General Evans, by the bridge of Astigarraga, of which they took possession. The Carlist force marched steadily forward, and the consequence was that the army under General Evans retired before their pursuers in the greatest disorder. So little, however, were the Carlists aware of the retreat, that it was at first taken to be a ruse de guerre, and had they pursued the flying force with vigour they would have gained a greater victory. When the Carlists were upon the heights, the soldiers under the English general they distinctly saw, like an undisciplined mob, rushing onwards towards the outer works of St. Sebastian. It was but justice, however, to add, that from the general to the lowest officer, every effort was made by them to quell the panic which had seized the troops, but without effect—and every means they could devise was resorted to, in order to retrieve what had been thus just lost. Undoubtedly it might be asked where was the reserve which ought to have been kept? It appeared that no reserve had been made.35
The panic was the simple result of surprise; the Carlists appear to have pushed their battalions across the bridges of the Uramea almost without interruption, and nearly the first intimation of their presence was the impetuous and unexpected attempt to turn the extreme left, where General Chichester’s36 brigade was stationed. But the Carlist reinforcement did not arrive until nine o’clock, there was therefore sufficient time to secure the heights, which are strong and well wooded, by abattis and field-works. General Evans should have remembered that his was the accessary, not the principal army, and he should, therefore, have taken measures to secure and defend the advantages he had gained until he could communicate with the principal army (Espartero’s),37 and ascertained its true position. This communication might have been made in two or three days by sea, and in a less time by land, if General Evans had been sufficiently prudent to establish any secret channels of intelligence. The subsequent conduct of the legion has sufficiently retrieved its character from the imputation of cowardice, to which it was exposed by the panic at Hernani; but even yet we are unable to perceive in the General’s movements any proof of his having formed a fixed and comprehensive plan for his campaign.
Able strategists, acquainted with the country which is the seat of war, are of opinion that the true line of operations by General Evans would have been along the French frontier of St. Sebastian; establishing strong fortified points as he moved, until the communication with Pampeluna was secure. He would thus have cut off the Carlists from their French succours and resources; he would have been able to obtain from France supplies of provisions and the munitions of war for his own men; the enemy would have been forced to attack him in his chosen position, instead of his being compelled to attack them on the ground which they had previously selected as most favourable to their operations. To the employment of the greater part of the Queen’s forces in this quarter there is one apparent objection of some moment,—the road to Madrid would have been left open, and the Carlists would have had an opportunity of making a dash on the capital. But this might have been obviated by having one compact, well-equipped field corps, constantly concentrated near the Ebro, ready to move under a good commander, and meet the Carlists whenever they attempted to make a push in that direction.
But here another and rather a difficult question presents itself; have the Spaniards a good commander? Espartero certainly is not such, or he would never have attacked at Bilbao on the side he did; nor, having gained his battle there, would he have suffered the enemy to rally after their defeat, when a vigorous pursuit would have destroyed them as a military body. Narvaez shewed both talent and energy, but he is in disgrace;38 the rest are men incapable of acting without instruction, which they will not submit to receive. It is not necessary to attribute the failures of Cordova, Sarsfield, and others, to treachery; the experience of the Peninsular war has taught us that Spanish armies make a great figure on paper, and rarely anywhere else. When closely examined, their numbers begin to illustrate the theory of vanishing fractions; their equipments bring to mind the Irish metaphor of being “clothed with nakedness,” and their capacity of motion, described as that of the hare, scarcely equals the tortoise. Things have not altered for the better since the days of Sir John Moore,39 and Spanish emblazonment must be always taken with, what the heralds call, an abatement.
General Evans has now quitted the legion, and in a farewell address has given a summary of its history,40 to which we know of no parallel but that of the celebrated King of France, who,
The strictures of Richardson, Shaw, and Hall, on the conduct of the legion,42 are not half so severe as the implied censures of the commander himself; his enumeration of its services merely recites battles without an object, and victories without a result; the logical blunder of argument in a vicious circle, receives the stratagetic exemplication of movement in a vicious circle; nothing is proved by the one, nothing accomplished by the other. Carlos, we are told, has abandoned Biscay; the Queen’s troops are close upon his track; his ruin, nay, his capture, is certain. Two days elapse, and, lo, Carlos is in Catalonia, the cradle of fanaticism; the British Legion, without officers or organization; Espartero gone to look for the Carlists “round about Estella:” Oraa43 opening a passage for the factious from Barbastro, in obedience to his country’s proverb, “build a silver bridge for thine enemy;” and Baron de Meer taking care, if possible, not to hurt the cause to which he is openly opposed, and secretly attached.44 In fact, the Spanish army, like the British Horse-guards,45 is independent of the reforming government, and hence, every liberal movement is paralysed, and faction allowed to gather its chief strength from the culpable weakness and contemptible cowardice of its adversaries.
Into the disputes between General Evans and his officers we have no wish to enter: whether he has succumbed to the Spanish ministry, and sacrificed the claims of his followers to please the Court of Madrid; whether they have expected too much, and betrayed their disappointment by acts of insubordination, are questions it would not be fair to discuss on ex parte evidence, though there is sufficient variance in the charges made against the discipline of the General, for us to see that some of them, at least, have been coloured by passion and prejudice, and that the character of others might be materially altered by explanation. But this scarcely concerns the public, and has no connection whatever with the object of our article. That object requires that we should here take our leave of General Evans and the Legion, and pass to a subject of greater moment,—the conduct of our own Government with reference to the Spanish contest; the principles of foreign policy properly applicable to the case, and how far the Quadruple Treaty, and the measures which have been taken in execution of it, are in conformity to those sound principles.
An opinion has been advanced, and ably supported, by one of the most distinguished advocates of the popular cause in Parliament, Mr. Roebuck, which condemns altogether any interference of one country in the internal commotions of another; and holds, that England should meddle with other nations only when other nations meddle with her, by impeding her commerce, or plundering the property of her people.46
We cannot subscribe to this doctrine; nor can we help regretting that a man of so much eminence among that section of the popular party in England, with whom alone the friends of freedom throughout Europe can be expected to sympathize, should have published to all Europe an opinion so calculated to alienate that sympathy; or confirm the opinion already so deeply rooted of our selfishness as a nation, by seeming to shew that the only party among us who might have been deemed an exception to that selfishness, is not so; an opinion, moreover, so contrary to the spirit of the present times, which is not less than in the time of the Reformation, a spirit of mutual helpfulness, a sense of common interest, among persons of congenial opinions in all nations.
Nevertheless, all rational friends of popular institutions should be ready, whenever necessary, to express, in their most emphatic terms, their adherence to as much as is true of Mr. Roebuck’s proposition; namely, the condemnation of wars of propagandism. Self-defence justifies much: Revolutionary France, standing at bay against all the despots in Europe, had the amplest justification for invoking, in the name of universal liberty, the aid of every disturbed spirit in Europe, who might respond to the call. But if the despots would have let France alone, France would not have been justified in raising, merely for the promotion of free institutions, a war of opinion against the despots. The attempt to establish freedom by foreign bayonets is a solecism in terms. A government which requires the support of foreign armies cannot be a free government. If a government has not a majority of the people, or at least a majority of those among the people who care for politics, on its side; if those who will fight for it, are not a stronger party than those who will fight against it, then it can only have the name of a popular government; not being able to support itself by the majority, it must support itself by keeping down the majority, it must be a despotism in the name of freedom; like the Directorial Government of France, which decimated its representative bodies, and sent all opposition journalists to Cayenne, in defence of Liberty and the Revolution.47 There is a party of really sincere patriots on the continent of Europe, who look back to the Convention as their model,48 and avowedly seek to govern for the interest of the majority by the agency of a patriotic and energetic minority: but we have no faith in the government of a few, even when they speak in the name of the many, nor do we believe in the stability of representative institutions when the people, who are to be represented by them, do not care sufficiently about them to fight for them. Nobody will long enjoy freedom when it is necessary for another to assert it for him.
We hold it, therefore, as an inviolable principle that an enslaved people should be left to work out their own deliverance. But of this principle it is a necessary part, that if unaided, they shall also be unhindered. If free nations look on inactive, despots must do so too. Non-interference is not a principle at all unless it be adopted as a universal principle. If freedom cannot be established by foreign force, it does not, therefore, follow, that by foreign force it should be allowed to be crushed.
If it were possible, as it will be in time, that the powers of Europe should, by agreement among themselves, adopt a common rule for the regulation of wars of political opinion, as they have already adopted so many for the regulation of their private quarrels, it is easy to see what the purport of the agreement should be. When a struggle breaks out anywhere between the despotic and the democratic principles, the powers should never interfere singly; when they interfere at all, it should be jointly, as a general European police. When the two parties are so unequal in strength that one can easily prevail, and keep the other down, things should be allowed to take their course. If parties are nearly balanced, and general anarchy or protracted civil war, is likely to ensue, the powers should interfere collectively, and force the combatants to lay down their arms and come to a compromise, and should send their own troops against the party that refused to do it. This is no idle speculation: it has been twice done within ten years: once in Greece; and again, in Holland and Belgium. Much contemptuous sarcasm was expended some years ago upon the conference and its several hundred protocols.49 Doubtless these were much more ridiculous than as many pitched battles, but a trifle more humane. We regard those ridiculed protocols as constituting the most important step in European civilization, which has been taken for generations past. They were a sign that with the growth of humanity, and also the interests of commerce and the arts of peace, war, long the sport of despots, had become such an object of fear and detestation to the governments of Europe, both free and despotic, that they would not suffer it to exist in the smallest corner of Europe, if it could be prevented; rather should the jarring interests of constitutional and despotic monarchies, which, in other days, would have admitted of no compromise, be discussed quietly over a table, and adjust themselves by talk, as they best could, that so all might combine and send a kind of European Constabulary to Antwerp to part the combatants, and handcuff the more obstinate fellow of the two, who would not submit and have the cause tried by a sort of European Sessions of the Peace. Is this a small thing, does the reader think, in the history of European civilization? It is simply the first step towards getting rid of war; a beginning towards doing for public wars what was done for private wars when tribunals were established to adjudicate the quarrels from which those wars arose, and a police to execute the decision.
The case of Don Carlos and the Queen of Spain is parallel to that of Greece, and to that of Holland and Belgium; exactly the kind of dispute which might be, and ought to be, put down by European interference. Other prospect of its termination there seems none; neither party, according to all appearances, can hope to subdue the other; neither will hear of any proposition for a peaceful settlement; the exasperation must grow, must become more and more furious, until human beings are changed into savage beasts, all kinds of raging passions being kindled, not only between the actual combatants, but among all persons throughout Spain who find their means of subsistence rendered precarious, and their hopes of a settled government blighted by Carlists or traitors, or Moderates or Exaltados, or whatever persons they happen to consider responsible for the protraction of the struggle. If ever there was a call demanding a similar intervention to that which took place at Antwerp, this does. But intervention of the same sort, and by the same parties, there cannot now be.
For we have been speaking only of what would be desirable if all the powers of Europe could agree that no one of them should interfere singly; that the principle of not interfering, except by common consent, and the joint act of all Europe, should be adopted and enforced by all other nations, against any power which might choose to infringe it. But this principle (we need hardly say) has not been adopted. Russia has interfered in Poland, Austria (a still more unequivocal case) in Modena and the Papal dominions. In these circumstances, England and France had two courses open to them. One was to enforce non-interference, and go to war with Russia, unless she withdrew from Poland; with Austria, unless she withdrew from all parts of Italy, not included in her own possessions. This would have been in itself the most eligible course, most conformable to the principles of sound international moralists; but as it would have implied a European war and its attendant evils, evils far greater than any good which could have been done to Poland or Italy, we think this course was very rightly avoided. Another course remained for adoption: As Austria and Russia had been suffered to interfere, unopposed, in the internal affairs of independent states in the East of Europe, so might England and France assume the power of interfering, to the exclusion of the despotic powers in the West of Europe; and the right to do, singly, whatever might with propriety be done, in Spain and Portugal, by a Congress of all Europe. This course was adopted, and its result was the Quadruple Treaty. The Quadruple Alliance was formed when Don Carlos and Don Miguel were both in Portugal; it was an agreement between the guardians of the young Queens to save them from the machinations of their uncles, and was ratified by the Kings of France and England,50 on the very reasonable ground that the restoration of tranquillity to the Peninsula was necessary to preserve the peace of Europe. The design of the treaty is very clearly expressed in the preamble:
Her Majesty the Queen-Regent of Spain, during the minority of her daughter, Isabella II, Queen of Spain, and his Imperial Majesty the Duke of Braganza, Regent of the kingdoms of Portugal and the Algarves, in the name of Queen Donna Maria II, intimately convinced that the interest of the two Crowns imperiously demand the immediate and vigorous exertion of their mutual efforts for terminating hostilities, which heretofore had for their object the overthrow of her Portuguese Majesty’s throne, and now afford countenance and support to discontented subjects of the kingdom of Spain: their said Majesties, desirous at once to secure the means of restoring peace and internal prosperity to their dominions, and to establish on a reciprocal and solid basis the bonds of future amity between the two states, have agreed to unite their forces, for the purpose of obliging the Infante Don Carlos of Spain, and the Infante Don Miguel of Portugal, to evacuate the territories of the latter kingdom.51
The official answer of the British King, when appealed to, declares the design of the ratifying powers,
The two latter Sovereigns, taking into consideration the interest with which the safety of the Spanish Monarchy must always inspire them, and animated with the most ardent desire for the restoration of peace both to the Peninsula and Europe, and his Britannic Majesty taking into further consideration the special obligations which result from his ancient alliance with Portugal, have consented to act as parties to the said treaty.52
Before the ratification was completed, this treaty produced a decisive effect; Don Miguel abandoned Portugal, and Carlos, surrounded by Don Pedro’s troops, had no means of escape but by seeking refuge on board a British ship of war. He was received without any stipulations on either side, and he at least has had no reason to complain that his confidence was violated. There are circumstances to be explained respecting the residence of Don Carlos in London, which we fear would not bear a very rigid scrutiny. It is not in our power to remove the veil by which they are covered, but there are some grounds for suspicion that the refusal of Carlos to resign his pretensions on assurance of protection and a pension, was encouraged, if not dictated, by some members of an anti-national party in Great Britain. In the meantime the rebellion burst forth in the Northern provinces; it was instigated by the monks, it was supported by the organized bands of smugglers, it was recruited from the neighbouring districts, which abound with idle and discontented peasants, habituated to a wandering life from the continued disorganization of Spain. The folly of Castanon, who published a proclamation,53 abolishing the fueros without any instructions direct or implied from the government, gave the insurgents a pretext for their rebellion, and furnished them with a popular war-cry, a matter of vast importance in a civil war. Carlos secretly escaped from England, passed through France undetected, we are not quite sure that we can say, unsuspected, and appeared in the midst of the insurgents, where his presence gave unity to their desultory operations. This was an unforeseen case; it did not, therefore, come within the letter of the Quadruple Treaty, but it manifestly is included in its spirit. Spain and Portugal are both included in the words of the preamble; Carlos was assuredly more likely to disturb the tranquillity of the Peninsula in Biscay than Portugal, and it must be remembered that, but for the timely protection afforded him by a British vessel, his opportunities of doing mischief would have been brought to an abrupt termination. The additional articles were, in fact, nothing more than an adaptation of the original treaty to altered circumstances; and the new stipulations were strictly limited by the circumstances; no one article has been pointed out which does not of necessity arise from the new position taken by the Pretender. But though many of the conservative orators adhered to the policy of the Quadruple Treaty, which the Duke of Wellington himself had sanctioned during his late brief tenure of office, they insisted that the present ministers had gone beyond their engagements, by permitting the marines to serve on land, and by directing Lord John Hay to take every opportunity of co-operating with the Queen’s forces. If the British naval force did not co-operate with the royalists, what would be the meaning of his “Britannic Majesty acting as a party to the Quadruple Treaty?” The additional article binds us to aid the Queen with military stores and a naval force;54 but how is the naval force to be employed? A blockade without a declaration of war every publicist knows would be clearly illegal. Blockade is a belligerent right that can only be exercised by principals, the attempt to enforce it by auxiliaries is contrary to the law of nations and the law of England. As Carlos has no fleet, assistance by a naval force could not possibly mean that we should attack a non-existent navy; the limits of our obligations must consequently be measured by the mode in which a naval force is usually employed along a line of coast in co-operation with a land force. Now, in every such conjuncture recorded in English history, the employment of marine forces on shore went to a greater extent than the aid given to the Queen’s armies by Lord John Hay.*
The Quadruple Treaty was a well-aimed attempt to put down, in its early stages, a civil war, which threatened, if not so put down, to become that scourge to the Peninsula, and deformity in the sight of Europe, which, in spite of the interference, it has since become. The occasion is now more urgent, and the interference, which has hitherto taken place, not sufficient. What follows? That the Quadruple Treaty was wrong? No: but that something much more decisive, something going the full length of what was done between Holland and Belgium, would now be justifiable; and advisable, if it can be done consistently with the general peace of Europe.
We are ignorant whether such a joint interference, by France and England, as would enable them to put down the civil war, and constitute them judges of the concessions to be made to the insurgent provinces, would be consented to by France; or if consented to, would be possible without provoking a war with the other powers of Europe. That evil would far outweigh the good which, in this instance, would be obtained by hazarding it. We pretend not to decide the question, for we are in ignorance of some of the material circumstances; but we would impress, with all the energy in our power, upon those with whom the decision depends, that an interference, of the kind we have suggested, is the only satisfactory denoûement which seems possible to the present anarchy in the Peninsula, that it should be attempted at the very earliest moment at which it would be practicable, without a civil war: and that anything short of this, however required by the faith of treaties already concluded, is now of proved inefficacy, and is a mere paltering with the difficulties of the case.
Before we close this article, it is perhaps advisable to add a few remarks on the substantial merits of the quarrel to which the civil war owes its origin. For every part of the Spanish question has been made a subject of angry controversy; and most (though, to their credit be it said, not all) of the Tory writers55 and orators, have not been ashamed to contend, that the Spanish liberals are fighting, not for, but against, both liberty and legitimacy; trampling upon the one, as embodied in the fueros of the Basque provinces, and the other, as incarnated in the worthy author of the Durango decree.
The latter point at least is speedily disposed of. Carlos’s pretended right rests upon the Salic law, which had never the force of law in Spain. The Salic law was not the ancient rule of succession, it was first introduced by the Bourbon, Philip V, the great grandfather of Don Carlos. Females could always succeed in Castille, Leon, and Portugal; it was by a marriage with the heiress of Navarre that a King of France obtained a claim to that kingdom,56 and though females were excluded in Arragon, yet it was through a Princess57 that its inheritance passed to the Counts of Catalonia. It was by the right of female succession that the house of Austria reigned in Spain; it was by the same right that the Bourbons themselves occupied the throne. It formed a part of the Partidas,58 or system of constitutional law, which Philip swore to observe on his succession to the throne.
The Salic law could only be established in two ways, by the old forms of the constitution, or by the despotic will of the sovereign. If the advocates of Don Carlos take their stand on the former ground, the answer is, that the forms as well as the substance of the constitution were violated when Philip V established his law of agnation,59 and that, conscious of its invalidity, he did not register it in the form usual with similar acts; while again, if we pass over the Cortes of 178960 as secret and irregular, we have the Cortes of Cadiz in 1812,61 representing the nation and acting in the name of the King, which abolished the decree of Philip, restored the ancient law de Partidas, and re-established the right of female succession to the crown. Finally, the decree of Ferdinand, constituting his daughter his successor,62 was just as regularly sanctioned by a Cortes as Philip’s law of agnation. If, on the other hand, the Sovereign’s will be regarded as despotic in Spain, the question is at an end, for Carlos must confess that Ferdinand had a right to rule the succession as he liked; and this view seems to have been taken by the King’s confessor and his minister Calomarde,63 when, during his dangerous illness at La Granja in 1832, they seduced him to sign a new will, settling the crown on Don Carlos. Ferdinand’s recovery disconcerted their plan, but their effort plainly shows that the partisans of Don Carlos at that time felt that the Salic law was a very weak support to their favourite’s claims. If Carlos appeals to the constitution, the question is decided against him; the will of the Sovereign is against him; and what is of far more importance than either, a majority of the nation is against him.
Greatly as circumstances have changed since 1830, Inglis’s account of Spain in that year contains the most accurate information respecting the state of public opinion in the Peninsula that is yet available to English readers.* The only correction to be made in his estimate of parties is the addition of the Moderates to the Liberals, and the alienation from the Carlists of a portion of the Castilian peasantry. He is a less picturesque writer than Lord Carnarvon,64 but his weakness of colouring is more than compensated by his accuracy of outline; above all, he is impartial, for though a liberal in sentiment, he carried the fear of being warped by prejudice to such an excess, that he not unfrequently seems to have given the weight of his authority to the opposite side. Experience, however, has proved the truth of his statements respecting Spain and Ireland, the two unfortunate countries whose destinies have been the plague of parties and the bane of politicians. An author publicly praised by Lord Aberdeen65 must assuredly be received as a fair witness by the Conservatives, and his evidence is highly valuable on that part of the Spanish question connected with the province, which is the principal seat of war, the peculiar situation of Biscay, and the nature of the fueros, or privileges enjoyed by its inhabitants. Are the fueros valuable in themselves, or are they mere empty flatteries to national pride? Is their preservation consistent with the establishment of constitutional freedom throughout the Peninsula? Are they cherished by the Biscayans themselves? The latter point again resolves itself into the double enquiry, are the fueros popular with all the Biscayans, or only with a part? and what part?
We need not go very deep into history to discover the value of a name as the watchword of party in civil warfare; the possessive pronoun has cost the English nation too large a sum for any doubt to exist respecting its price; the phrase our colonies in America, and our kingdom of Ireland, repeated by every English peasant, as if the mystic pronoun conferred on him some unknown advantage of ownership, has cost us millions of debt, the total loss of one country, and not a little difficulty in the preservation of the other. Now, in some particulars, “our fueros” are just as worthless to the Biscayans, as “our colonies” were to the English peasants; the King of Spain, for instance, is only lord of Biscay, just as the Queen of England is only a Duchess in Lancashire and a Countess in Cheshire. Our palatine counties have suffered the nominal distinction to fall into oblivion, but the Biscayans attach some importance to a difference of title which flatters and fosters the feelings of independence. It was one of the errors of the constitutionalists to disregard these prejudices in favour of forms, childish perhaps, but not injurious, and in their love of conformity, to abolish those playthings which delight children of a larger growth, and serve to keep them from mischief. With the vulgar and the ignorant, exclusive possession of anything greatly enhances its imaginary worth; had the fueros been common to all the provinces of the Peninsula, they would lose the greater part of their fictitious value, and even now the gallant defence made by the citizens of Bilbao proves that, though they have not lost their hold over the minds of the peasants in the interior, they are more justly appreciated by the mercantile classes. But in the present state of the contest, the abolition of the Basque privileges can scarcely be considered as staked on the issue; it is rather desired to extend such of them as are advantageous to all the inhabitants of the Spanish Peninsula. This no doubt will be offensive to the pride of some Biscayans, for the same reason that Catholic Emancipation was odious to the Irish Orangemen; they will no longer be able to triumph in the degradation of their neighbours. From the earliest ages despots have found supporters by using the argument of the affectionate parent—“Take your physic, Tommy, and you shall have the dog to kick;” but liberals presume to think that Tommy might be cured in a better way.
No objection exists to the retention of any fueros which merely gratify hereditary pride; those that are really useful elements of government have been adopted in the Spanish Constitution, but there are some useless to the Biscayans themselves, but prejudicial to the rest of the community, which artful men have succeeded in blending with those that are innocent and advantageous. The provinces have the privilege of importing foreign goods, free of duty, but they are not permitted to transmit them to the rest of Spain; custom-houses are placed upon the frontiers of Castille; and the same system of prevention and of smuggling necessarily result, which are found on the Swiss and Belgian frontiers of France. Mr. Inglis records a circumstance which proves that the Basques are not the only persons interested in the maintenance of this anomaly:
I had been told that on entering Old Castille we should be subjected to a rigorous Custom-house search; but in Spain, such matters always depend upon circumstances. A Colonel in the Spanish service chanced to occupy a seat in the diligence; and no Custom-house officer in Spain dare to put a person holding a military commission to a moment’s inconvenience. The consequence was, that in place of being detained three hours upon the bridge, until every packet should be lowered and opened, the Colonel merely thrust his arm out of the window; and the Custom-house officers, seeing around his wrist the proofs of his military rank, doffed their caps, and stood back; and the diligence passed on.66
The demi-official pamphlet entitled The Policy of England towards Spain, declares that the question of the fueros “resolves itself into the highly unromantic one of a tariff.”67 But though unromantic, it is essentially connected with the commercial prosperity of the country; the anomalies of a double financial system have proved ruinous to the trade of the Basque as well as the Castilian provinces; they have rendered smuggling a regular hereditary profession; they have been the chief cause of the dilapidation of the public finances, and the low estimation of private commerce; but they have been profitable to corrupt officials, to a set of desperadoes long at enmity with law; in fine, to the greater part of those who form the strength of the army of Don Carlos. Their effect on the general prosperity of Biscay is very well described in the pamphlet to which we have alluded:
The Basque Provinces, in short, as a necessary consequence of their privileges, have long been treated, with respect to commerce, as a foreign nation by the rest of Spain. They were forbidden to trade with the Americans—Spanish colonial goods were not allowed to be imported direct to their ports—their vessels were looked upon as foreign, and the Basques, moreover, were placed upon the same footing as foreigners with respect to those productions of Spain which are absolutely necessary to them for their own consumption: while their own productions, being treated as foreign, were subject to enormous duties upon entering Castille.
The consequences of such a state of things may be easily conceived; they are the same as exist in some other countries at this moment. The sea-port towns and the manufacturers are hostile to a system which destroys foreign trade and excludes their productions from a profitable market, while the inland people and those who dwell upon the frontier are violent in support of the system, which necessarily creates the enormous smuggling trade by which they have enriched themselves.
There accordingly exists throughout the exempted provinces every variety of opinion respecting their privileges, some desiring to be altogether assimilated to the rest of Spain, others claiming to be put upon a commercial equality with the neighbouring provinces; while a third, and the most numerous party, not venturing to put forward their real motives against any change of a commercial system which is manifestly injurious to their country, clamour for the absolute maintenance of the privileges, and under the mask of patriotism advocate their right to fill their own pockets by smuggling.68
We should have the same controversy in kind, though not in degree, were our own government to equalize the spirit-duties in England and Ireland; and we saw some examples of it when free trade in silk was under discussion.69 The gains of contraband traffic are always sweeter than those of honest trade; the peasants along the frontiers of Castille have found smuggling lucrative, and they fight for a sovereign who promises to perpetuate it along with the other abuses of the old system; the citizens of Bilbao find the fueros ruinous to their commerce, and therefore they contend for a government that holds out some promise of reformation. This point is ably stated in the pamphlet from which we have quoted:
But if the Basques are fighting for their privileges, what is it that the town of Bilbao has been fighting against? Can we have a greater proof that it is fanaticism, and not fueros that maintains the cause of Don Carlos than the heroic conduct of Bilbao in its different sieges, though this once flourishing and most loyal town may be supposed to have as much interest as any other part of the country in the maintenance of Biscayan privileges? And yet Bilbao has resisted all the forces of Don Carlos, commanded by his best officers and aided by foreign engineers, being an open town without fortifications, and, as a military position, pronounced indefensible. It has held out contrary to all the rules of art, solely by the native valour and resolution of its inhabitants, who, wonderful to relate, have resolved rather to perish amidst the ruins of their houses than yield to the generous champion of their country’s privileges; and is not this single fact enough to sweep away all the nonsense which is talked about privileges and fueros?70
Before the present contest began, Bilbao contained citizens anxious for the regeneration of their country. Mr. Inglis declares,
I heard several of the most respectable inhabitants of Bilbao express openly much dissatisfaction at the political debasement of Spain, and breathe ardent wishes for the diffusion of intellectual and religious light; but they added, what my own knowledge has since fully confirmed, that I should not find in any other part of Spain the same enlightened views as I had found in Biscay.71
From the character of the Biscayan provinces, we naturally turn to the character of the new Spanish government. Is it such as to afford the lovers of freedom good and reasonable grounds for hope, that the success of the Christinos will lead to the permanent establishment of good institutions in the Peninsula? We cannot maintain the affirmative without some great and even disheartening qualifications. Isabella has shewn some of that jealousy towards free institutions which characterizes the policy of Louis Philippe; her Estatuto Real was little better than a mockery; her acceptance of the Constitution was more than reluctant.72 But the great consolation is, that the Queen and the Apostolicals have gone too far in hostility to admit of their differences being reconciled; her safety is so completely identified with the triumph of the constitutionalists, that we see no reason to fear her imitating the treachery of her late husband. Adolphe de Bourgoing, a steady partisan of Don Carlos, describes her as clever and ambitious,* and he mentions some anecdotes of her management of her husband which seem to justify his opinion:
Naturally diffident, Ferdinand VII feared that his Queen would not intermeddle in the affairs of the State. That young Princess did not care to show any desire of taking an active part in politics. A Neapolitan, and remarkable for her tact, she accustomed her husband, by the tenderness of her care, and the constancy of her caresses, to feel uneasy when absent from her side. She at first used to withdraw at the precise moment he received his Ministers, affecting great reserve and a perfect indifference to political affairs; but she took care that her apartment should be in the immediate vicinity of the Council Chamber. She, for a time, permitted the King to remain alone, but soon, complaining that her solitude was wearisome, and that she could not endure his absence, she declared that she could not be so long separated from him. Thenceforth she used to come into the council-chamber, pretending to say some tender things to him, as if she feared that he had been wearied by grave and tedious discussion; when she retired she left the door of his room open, and thus apparently apart, without being really absent, she took an active share in all the ministerial deliberations. Finally, she came and openly took her seat in the council, declaring that she could not endure separation from her well-beloved husband and king. From participating in the deliberations, she finally proceeded to directing them altogether, at least her voice was always potential and decisive.
Mr. Inglis testifies to the influence she thus acquired over the mind of Ferdinand; his affection even burst forth in “a right merry and conceited jest,” and as it is the first and last we have seen recorded of this monarch, we shall extract the anecdote:
I happened to be walking one day in the Balle de Alcala, when the royal carriage drove up to the door of the Cabinet of Natural History, and being close by, I stopped to see the King and Queen. The King stepped from the carriage first; he then lifted from the carriage a large poodle dog, and then the Queen followed, whom, contrary no doubt to royal etiquette, his Majesty did not hand, but lifted and placed on the pavement; and then turning to the crowd who surrounded the carriage, he said to them, “Pesa menos el matrimoni;” which means, matrimony is a lighter burden than the dog,—a very tolerable jeu d’esprit to have come from Ferdinand VII.73
From all that we have been able to learn, the personal character of the Queen does not seem to justify a very high degree of confidence in her sincerity or her firmness. Let us now look to those by whom she is surrounded. The most casual reader of the debates in the Cortes must feel convinced, that there is very little statesmanlike talent in the leading public men of Spain; too many of them remind us of Churchill’s censure of Mossop, they
Arguelles, Galliano, Mendizabel, and Valdez, have, however, shewn a fair share of skill in the business of politics;75 the last especially is an able financier; but still we cannot hide from ourselves, that the Liberals show a want of practical acquirements, which must long expose them to great inconvenience, and perhaps not unfrequently endanger their cause. But before giving full scope to censure, it is only fair to take into account the paucity of individuals, in the subordinate and working departments of the government, untainted by corrupt practices. A country to which we have referred more than once in the course of this article affords sad proof of the difficulties that beset the progress of reformation, when ancient and profitable abuses have made the whole body of inferior functionaries interested in the maintenance of corruption. It is now notorious that intrigues against Lord Grey’s government were formed every day in the Castle of Dublin, that underlings were combined to baffle the designs of their superiors, and that by their machinations Tory rule was perpetuated under a Reform ministry.76 Liberality in political opinion is apt to be connected with exalted views of human nature, and the zealous philanthropist rarely makes the abatements in his estimate of humanity, necessarily required by the effects of misrule and the habits produced by the practice of corruption. The Spanish patriots are not the only Liberals who have suffered from neglecting St. Paul’s advice, “Despise not the day of small things.”77
Our chief ground for hope, however, is in the Spanish people: Captain Cook, who had better opportunities of estimating the real nature of public opinion than most travellers have enjoyed, declares,
The Queen’s party comprises, almost without exception, every man of talent or information in Spain. Nearly all the nobility, all the military men of rank and station, and nearly all the others; every man and woman in the country who is at par, and all above it. In fact, almost every one who can read or write; no inconsiderable number even of the clergy and amongst the constituted bodies. In short, all the mind of Spain is arrayed in favour of the present government, not because it was the will or interest of the late King to change the succession, but because it is the real law of the country, and that it is a question of good or bad government. . . . So widely spread was the feeling in favour of the change of system (in 1833), that of a most extended acquaintance I had through the country in every station of life, from the highest downwards, of every profession and calling, I should be puzzled now to point out a single male or female who was a Carlist.78
We have a striking verification of this testimony from Don Carlos himself; he has found that Absolutism is no longer, even in Biscay, a good gathering cry, and he has attempted to revive his waning popularity by the promise of a Constitution!
We have no fear, therefore, of the success of the Carlists; our fear is of a prolonged civil war, growing disorganization in the country, and such a dispersion of all the elements of peaceful society as shall render a stable government for many years to come an impossility in the Peninsula. It is to prevent these evils, that we invoke the early interference of England and France, for a peaceful termination of the struggle.
General Shaw’s Memoirs have reached us as this article was going through the press. Restricted as we are in space and in time, it is impossible to bestow on them more than a few cursory observations. His letters, published as they were written, may be taken as the testimony of a witness favourable to General Evans; and their evidence fully confirms our opinion that though a gallant soldier, the commander of the British Legion is deficient in foresight, in energy, and in prudence; that, in short, he wants the qualities necessary to ensure a successful campaign—a far different thing from a successful battle. He left England without having appreciated the difficulties of the position he was to occupy. Like our Ministers in the late war, he seems to have placed implicit confidence in Spanish boasts; and if he escaped such a calamity as the retreat to Corunna, it must be attributed rather to the stupidity of the Carlists than to the merits of the Christinos or their auxiliaries. Accustomed to have “great means at their command,”79 engineering in a small way was not much to the taste of the British officers, and they neglected what Don Pedro80 used to call “substitutions,” which, however despicable in the eyes of a martinet, must ever be of importance in desultory warfare. Notwithstanding the “voluminous staff”81 appointed by the Commander-in-Chief, there was from the beginning a confusion and want of system which would have been ruinous, if the Legionaries had not proved themselves superior in character and conduct to the regular British troops in the retreat from Burgos. One instance of the dangerous unsteadiness at head-quarters must be noticed:
While at Velorado a circumstance occurred which gave me a great deal of uneasiness, and which was the cause, perhaps, more than any other circumstance, of interfering with discipline, because it hurt that respect for the “dignity of office,” without which no subordination can exist. On the 25th of November I got an official letter from the Adjutant-General, finishing, “Sergeant-Major Dwyer, 4th Regiment, having been promoted to the rank of acting Adjutant and Ensign in the 7th Regiment, you will please to order him into head-quarters, and to report himself at this office with as little delay as possible.” On getting this letter I instantly sent for Dwyer to my quarters, ordered him, to his astonishment, to cut off his stripes as sergeant-major, then took him by the hand and wished him joy, and regretted that I could not ask him to dine with me, as he must start for Briviesca immediately.—He was of course proud and gratified, and away he went. His situation in the 4th Regiment was immediately filled up; and, two days afterwards, he came into my quarters weeping, to say he was sent back to his regiment as a sergeant, and that he was ashamed to show his face among his old comrades after such a disgrace. He seemed, as far as I had been able to judge, a good soldier; and, to prove that I had nothing to do with this, I read to him his official appointment, and advised him to take his disappointment, as I had done about the generalship, and all would be right. But, no; I saw his spirit was broken.*
The best criticism on the proceedings of the Legion and its commander is a prophecy; it is contained in a letter from Colonel W. Napier, the fearless author of the History of the Peninsular War,82 addressed to General Shaw’s brother, and dated Bath, 28th September, 1835:
What you say of Evans’s situation does not surprise me. I have always looked to Spanish hospitals as the ultimate bivouac of his auxiliaries. While Evans remains in towns near the sea coast, and the enemy will face him in the field, I have little doubt that he will get the best of this squabble as soon as his men are disciplined. He is bold and prompt; though I do not much approve of his ensconcing himself in Bilbao, which I told him before he went, he would find a bad position. He should rather keep to St. Sebastian, and move to the French frontier, from whence he can, if he has money, get his supplies cheaply and securely, and yet operate upon the rear of the Carlists; for instance, I would rather have made a forced march from St. Sebastian by Mondragon upon Durango, and so have fallen from the high ground upon the rear of the Carlists, than have moved out of Bilbao to meet them from the low ground. I suppose, however, his men are still too much of a mob to try such a march. What he will do when he has to take the field permanently I cannot conceive.
Ten thousand men are an army; an army to move must have mules and convoys; will the Spaniards, who cannot pay their own men, pay his? Then will come the disputes and jealousies of his Spanish generals. Nous verrons!
I remain, dear Sir, etc.
We have no wish, even if we had time, to enter into all the details of mismanagement described by General Shaw; the besetting sin of the expedition was an obstinate adherence to British regulation, which the peculiar nature of the Spanish service rendered wholly inapplicable. Money, munitions of war, means of transport, were not to be had when the moment arrived that rendered them all necessary; while general orders, issued as if in mockery, prescribed the most minute regulations respecting food and sleep, when each man had nothing but his length of damp earth or handsomely cut stone for his bed, and the heartiest curses of the commissariat for his supper. In short, too many officers went out as if they were only going “to play at soldiery,” and when they discovered the difference between mimic display and stern realities, they were found wanting in the qualities of manly endurance which their position so peremptorily required.
Questions before the Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Government
“Third Report from the Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Government, etc.; together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendix (20 May, 1867), PP, 1867, XII, 443-660. The Report covers the Committee’s meetings on 5, 6, 26, and 28 March; 1, 4, 8, 11, and 30 April; and 2 and 6 May. Mill attended all the sessions, with the exception of the initial deliberations on 28 February, which were not reported.
28 March, 1867
[John Locke2put forward in his questions the position that, as he had been arguing for a decade, the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of London should be extended throughout the whole metropolis.]
775. Supposing that what the honourable Member for Southwark has proposed, namely, to have but one municipality for the whole metropolis, were thought to impose too much upon one body, and that instead of that every one of the Parliamentary districts of London were made a municipality by itself, there being also a general body which represented the City fairly, as well as each of those municipal bodies, and which might take the place of the Metropolitan Board of Works, would not that remove all difficulties?—That would be my own opinion; I think that such an enormous Corporation as that suggested by the honourable Member for Southwark, would be unworkable, and difficulties would arise from the localities not being attended to, whereas if the municipalities were scattered about, each would attend to its own local wants, and then there might be some such plan as is suggested by the honourable Member of forming a board, in which all would have confidence.
[In response to Locke, the witness said that there might be ten mayors with one Lord Mayor.]
777. Supposing that each of those municipalities, the City included, had the control of the numbering and the naming of the streets, and all matters of that extremely local character, and that matters which were regarded as concerning the metropolis generally were put in the hands of a representative body, so constituted that every one of the municipalities, the City including, should be duly and fairly represented in it, do you think that all the powers of the Board of Works should be transferred to this body; and that, in fact, the Board of Works might in some measure be considered as merging in it; would such an arrangement meet your views, and do you think that it would be acceptable to the City?—I have no means of ascertaining what would be acceptable to them; but I think if you had municipalities in the way suggested by the honourable Member, the work of any great board would be very little; indeed, I think it would resolve itself, principally, perhaps, into the entertainments and matters of that sort, and you might very well leave that where it is; but such a board as is suggested, with representation by municipalities in a sort of federal council, might work.
778. You do not think that there are any circumstances sufficiently common to the whole metropolis to be properly transferred to that central body, except the duty of giving entertainments?—In my own opinion I think not. I think most of those things which the Metropolitan Board of Works execute would be better done generally by the Corporation of London and those other municipalities. Supposing there were a municipality for Westminster, for instance, they could attend to all the matters there, and I almost think myself, although of course it is merely my private opinion, that for any great undertakings you might come to Parliament on each occasion.
[The Chairman, Acton Smee Ayrton, M.P. for the Tower Hamlets, asked a number of questions about the inconvenience of different jurisdictions over thoroughfares, specifically instancing the problems connected with a great fall of snow (such as had occurred the previous Christmas).]
796. Do you not think that, on the supposition which I have referred to, it would still be necessary to have some central body which was bound to look after the interest of the whole metropolis, and which should have the power of compelling those municipalities to do their duty in any such cases as clearing the streets, supposing they neglected or omitted to do it?—I certainly think it would be an advantage to have some authority to compel those who neglected their duties to perform them.
[Appearing on behalf of the Corporation of the City of London, Scott responded to the Chair with a number of statistics concerning the policing of the City ofLondon. In particular Scott challenged the way in which the number of inhabitants of the City was calculated.]
835. In making a comparative estimate per head of the City police and the general police of the metropolis you contended with great reason that the population of the City ought not to be counted merely as a population which sleep there and are reckoned in the census, but that the day population should be taken into account; but is it not carrying that argument rather too far when you contend that those frequenting the City besides being added to the population of the City should be subtracted from the population of the remainder of the metropolis, because although they may frequent the City, still they live and pass the greater part of their time in some other district; and consequently do you not think that they ought to be counted both as the population of the City and also as the population of the metropolis generally?—I have considered, after a great deal of thought upon the subject, that first a portion of them ought to be added to the City (not the whole of them), that the City population should then be added to that of the Metropolis; and that then you should deduct from the whole those who will be absent in another place. They cannot be in both places at once.
836. They could not be in two places at once; but they could be in the City during a part of their time and elsewhere during another part, and therefore they count, I take it, as part of the population of the other districts as well as of the City for police purposes?—They are included in the census tables in the metropolis, because the census is there taken at the maximum, whereas, the census is always taken in the City at the extreme minimum. It is very difficult, indeed, to ascertain what would be the right proportion so as to contrast them. All I contend now, is, that Sir Richard Mayne has gone to the extreme of testing it unfairly as regards the City of London, because he has not made any allowance for the day population, and has made no allowance for any frequenters whatever.4
837. I do not object to that argument, but only to what seems to be carrying it, perhaps, rather beyond its fair limits?—[The inhabitants of the City, wishing better protection, choose to pay a higher price for a more efficient police. Mayne’s figures are absurd: according to them,] every adult person in the City, male and female, must have been in prison over three times during their natural lives; [and each inhabitant must have been guilty of a grave crime, such as wounding with intent, shooting, stabbing, and garotting, once a year. Proper counting of actual and transient inhabitants destroys these conclusions.]
[The Chair established the witness’s identity, and Mill began the substantive questions.]
915. You are a vestryman of St. James’?—I am; I became so very soon after the passing of the Metropolis Local Management Act.6
916. You have therefore considerable knowledge of the administration of other parts of the metropolis as well as of the City?—I am a member of the Court of Common Council, and I have been so for seven or eight years. I have had the opportunity, certainly, of becoming well acquainted with the working of the municipal system in the City and the working of the vestry system outside the City.
917. Have you formed any opinion as to the merits of those systems, and the amendments of which they might be susceptible?—I have formed an opinion; and the opinion taken as a whole is, that the vestry system, especially taken in connection with the Metropolitan Board, is a failure. I have come to the conclusion that no trust property in the country is managed more economically or better than the trust property which is managed by the Corporation, as trustees; and not only is it managed faithfully and well and economically, but I think that it is managed with great intelligence and efficiency. I am quite clear that that is the case in contrast with many trusts with which I am acquainted, and I believe it to be so taken as a whole.
[After an intervention concerning the responsibilities of corporations as trustees, Mill resumed his line of questioning.]
919. As you have begun a statement regarding the City, will you continue that subject, and state your opinions fully upon the City administration, before proceeding to that of the vestries?—[Medwin argued from his own experience that the Corporation in this respect was much better than the vestries because the quality of its members was much higher: they gave more time to the business, had more confidence in one another, and had higher intelligence and social position. Further, its composition had improved over the past thirty or forty years. In response to other questions, he indicated the benefits that might result from the sale of trust properties. The questioning then turned to the way in which a central body might be chosen. Medwin was in favour of annual elections, a principle to which Lord John Manners objected, on the grounds that major works requiring many years to complete should be overseen by experienced members.]
964. Do you not think that a large majority of the members of the central board, unless they had given great dissatisfaction to their constituents, would be almost certain to be re-elected, so that in all probability no actual interruption of the works in progress would take place by its transfer from the hands of those who have acquired some knowledge of it, to those who are entirely inexperienced?—I would answer that question by saying that in the large works which we have in hand in the City, such as the construction of the Holborn Valley Viaduct, and the SmithfieldMeat Market, the members are returned frequently year after year to the same committee, and we find the advantage of doing it.
[After further questions by others on the Committee about the period of service and the likely quality of Members, Mill returned to the comparison of the Corporation with the vestries.]
973. I think I understand you to state that, in your opinion, the members of the Corporation of the City of London have, in their character for intelligence, improved very much of late years.?—Very much.
974. Do you think the same has been the case with regard to the members of vestries?—I think there has been a deterioration, and practically we have found a difficulty every year in getting a candidate in St. James’s, Westminster. He is hunted for, and he gives his consent through being entreated, in fact solicited, as a personal favour, to become a candidate, and then he seldom comes in many cases.
975. Then do you think it is more and more difficult to induce the most desirable class of men to become vestrymen?—I do.
976. How do you account for the increasing difficulty in that respect?—I think that if the difficulty has been gradually increasing during the last 10 years, it is fair to assume that it will go on for the next 10 years.
977. Can you give the Committee any idea of what are the causes of this increasing reluctance to become members of vestries?—No, excepting that the major part of the works of an important character, and which give dignity and character to the bodies who execute them, do not fall into the hands of the vestries for execution, but the works which give a little honour are taken from them and done by the Metropolitan Board of Works.
978. Do you think the office of vestryman is considered an office of much less importance than it used to be?—I think so.
979. And you think that that objection would not exist in the case of municipalities?—I think so.
980. Particularly if the functions of the central body were of the very restricted character which you seem to anticipate?—Yes.
981. Do you not think that there are other things besides the main drainage which would properly come under the jurisdiction of the central body, for instance, a matter which has excited a good deal of discussion, and is now before Parliament, namely, the regulation of the traffic of the metropolis;7 do you not think that regulations for that purpose might advantageously be made by such a central body as you are proposing?—It might, but the position and necessities of one borough so differ from the position and necessities of another borough, that if you legislate for the borough of Westminster, you would enact regulations whichwould be extremely inconvenient for the borough of the Tower Hamlets, or for the borough of Greenwich; and therefore though a central board might be entrusted with those things, I do not think that in such matters a necessity arises for one board or against separate jurisdictions.
982. On the other hand, do you not think there is a great advantage in having those regulations, as far as convenience admits, uniform, in order that people may know what regulations they have to observe, and may not have to commit to memory a great many different systems of regulations?—That would be a great advantage, no doubt.
983. You have made some general remarks upon the administration by vestries, but I do not think you have made any full statement on the subject; will you state in a few words what you consider to be the defects of the present system, which you would wish to remedy by substituting municipalities for vestries?—I think that in vestries there is wanting the bond of pecuniary results and interests which bind many committees and bodies of men together, and under which they work effectually; there are other societies which are brought together by a desire to do good, and in those a feeling of philanthropy is the bond, but I know of no bond of that kind, or of any other sufficient kind operating upon the minds of vestrymen, so as to secure the intelligence of a parish or district, and that love for the work which I see evinced elsewhere.
984. Then in the Corporation of London, I suppose you think that the desire to keep up the credit of the Corporation is the bond of union which you desiderate in the other cases?—I do.
985. And you do not think that that desire exists in the case of vestries?—I do not.
986. But you think that it would exist in the case of municipalities?—I do.
987. You think that there would be a general feeling for the honour and credit of the municipality which does not exist with regard to a parish or vestry?—That is my opinion. I think they would have greater power. A municipality would not exist long without either obtaining by Act of Parliament, or from other sources, some opportunity for their members to come together occasionally for social purposes, for conversaziones, or for lectures. Something of that sort would grow out of every municipality, and would constitute a bond of union and an inducement of an interested character to bring people into the new corporations, which do not exist now or in the case of the vestries.
988. You think the vestries are not sufficiently large or important bodies to excite that feeling?—They are not, and important works are denied to them.
[A varied series of questions led to comparison with municipal arrangements on the Continent.]
1127. Do you know that in Paris the municipality is entirely nominated by the Crown?—I have understood that it is a representative of the Crown, and not of the people.
Sir John Thwaites8
[The questioning of Thwaites having covered many issues, Mill set out on a path of his own.]
1387. You stated, did you not, that there was considerable difficulty in inducing owners of property to take such an interest in the proceedings of the Board as to be willing to serve as members of it?—With regard to the Metropolitan Board of Works, that was not my statement.
1388. Perhaps you will be so good as to say what your statement was?—My statement had reference to the district boards and vestries.
1389. You stated, I believe, that they were not willing to become members of district boards and vestries; but do you think they would be unwilling to give votes for district boards or vestries, or for the Metropolitan Board of Works, if votes were assigned to them in their character of owners; do you think that if there were a provision that owners of property, as well as occupiers, should have votes in virtue of their property, they would be unwilling to give votes, whether by voting papers, or otherwise?—Then they would vote as residents and as owners of property also.
1390. They might be owners of property in one district, and residents in another, and in that case perhaps there would be no absurdity of their having votes for both; is there not at present a Bill before Parliament, promoted by the Board of Works, under which a metropolitan improvement rate would be raised, half of which would fall upon the owners?9 —That is so.
1391. Do you not think that, if a rate can be levied by the Board, a portion of which has to be paid by owners, it would be just that the owners, as such, should have a voice in a choice of the body which imposes those rates?—I have gone to the full length already of admitting that it would be a great advantage to the district, and to us, if owners would take their proper share in the government of the metropolis.
1392. Do you not think that, if rates were imposed upon them as owners, that would give them a motive to interest themselves more in local business?—Then it is a very strong argument in favour of the Bill which we have introduced, that it will create activity in a direction where it has been very sluggish.
1393. Is there any way which you could suggest by which owners of property, as such, might be represented upon the Metropolitan Board of Works?—I confess having given the subject very earnest attention, that I can point out to the Committee no machinery by which such persons can be specially represented as owners of property.
1394. Is not that a considerable objection to the present mode of choosing the Board of Works, namely, by delegation from the vestries; because if the Board of Works were chosen directly by the ratepayers, there would be no difficulty, I apprehend, in enabling the owners of property, as well as the occupiers, to give votes in the election of the Board of Works; whereas there is a difficulty, undoubtedly, in introducing a representation of the owners of property, when the members of the Board of Works are elected by the vestries, who are themselves elected by the occupiers only?—No doubt; unless the owners of property would exercise their influence, which they can exercise if they have the disposition, by electing a different class of persons from those who are at present on the vestries and district boards, which would accomplish their object indirectly, I admit.
1395. In that case, the influence which any individual’s vote would have might be extremely small in proportion to the degree in which his interest as an owner might be at stake; because he might be a very large owner, and still he would only have a vote as a single occupier?—That would be so.
1396. Is any inconvenience experienced in the proceedings of the Board of Works from the insufficient number of the Board?—I think not.
1397. Do you think that there is no special reason for any increase of the number, except that which might arise from the new districts?—An increased representation of 8 or 10 members would not affect the principle which I hold to be important in an executive and deliberative body, viz., that you should not get beyond a certain number, otherwise you would not get through your business. The members of our Board, when they meet, meet for the purpose of the dispatch of business, and we have so much to attend to that we have not much time for talking.
1398. Do you think that the present number of the Board of Works, or something like it, hits the correct medium between a number which is insufficient for the business and a number which is so great as to cause a loss of time in mere discussion?—Yes; I mean that as regards the question of whether you should have five or six representatives of property, if I rightly understand the term, or owners of property, or representatives of owners of property, added to our Board, I should not have the slightest objection whatever. All we want is respectable, and intelligent, and honourable men in the discharge of their duty.
[The history of conflict over improvements between the Crown and the Board of Works was discussed, and Thwaites agreed that the Crown might, because of its large property in the metropolis, be represented on the Board.]
1406. Do you not think that the interest of the owners of property in a locality is more closely and more permanently connected with the interests of the locality than the interest of the mere occupiers?—No doubt they have a permanent stake, and an interest beyond that of a mere occupier who may be a yearly tenant.
1407. Is it not the case that many improvements are often desirable in a locality, the advantage of which will not be likely to be reaped within the average terms for which occupiers may hold their occupation, but which will be advantageous ultimately to the owner?—Yes.
1408. In that case is it not important that owners should be represented upon any body which has the power of making those improvements; and are not improvements very often delayed because they depend upon the occupiers, and the occupiers have not a sufficiently long interest in their occupation to render it worth their while to incur any expense for those improvements?—No doubt if you could induce that class of persons to take an active part in the local government of the metropolis, great good would result from it.
[It was asserted that there was some disinclination of owners to serve on district boards, but Thwaites indicated that the problem did not exist in the case of the Board of Works.]
1412. The owners of compounded property, I apprehend, on the contrary very often do serve upon the vestries and district boards, do they not?—I believe that in some vestries they are very numerous.
1413. And it is understood that they are not that portion of the vestries and district boards, whose influence is exercised to the greatest public advantage?—No doubt.
[Considerable discussion arose over the representation of owners on the Board, especially concerning the difficulty of identifying various classes of owners.]
1432. Would not the Parliamentary Register show who are the freeholders, and who are the leaseholders, or the owners of property in a certain district, above a certain value, to which value it might perhaps be expedient to restrict the right of voting?—There would be no difficulty in ascertaining the number of freeholders, which would be very large; but the difficulty is in ascertaining the beneficial leaseholders who have great interest in metropolitan property, and adapting the machinery to give them a representative.
[The questioning dwelt on the overcrowded housing conditions of the poor, and the powers of the Commissioners of Sewers, guided by the advice of the Medical Officer who made inspections. Letherby’s observation was that following the Sanitary Act of 1866,11conditions had much improved, and he believed that in the City of London there were no houses in which sleeping lodgers covered the floors.]
1607. Are you speaking of common lodging-houses, or of others?—The common lodging-houses of the City of London are different from those outsidethe City. The common lodging-house outside the City of London is occupied by tramps for the night, and is under the supervision of the police, but a common lodging-house within the City, is also a place in which the rooms are let at 3s. 6d. per week or less; and so advantageous has been this supervision and control by reason of the provisions of the City Sewers Act, that it was made the subject of a clause in the Sanitary Act of 1866.12
1608. So that a very large number of houses occupied by the poorer classes have been placed under your control, and have been inspected by you?—Yes.
[Discussion of the most equitable way of taxing services such as road cleaning and sewers turned to a comparison of costs in poor areas and in affluent ones such as St. George’s, Hanover Square.]
1822. There would be also a much smaller length of street in the highly-rated districts, would there not?—I think not. You will find that in the highly-rated districts the houses are very close together indeed; and the streets in those districts bear a very large proportion to the whole area. In the case of the City of London, in a square mile there are nearly 50 miles of thoroughfares, and probably something like 25 per cent. of the whole area is street. I think in St. George’s, Hanover-square, you would find a very great length of street in relation to the whole area; and those streets are of a very important nature, as regards the whole public, and not only as regards that locality.
John Francis Bontems14
[The witness asserted that many of the difficulties of vestry government, as illustrated in Islington, would be avoided in larger municipalities.]
1892. Do you find that inconveniences arise from the small extent of the districts under the present vestry administration?—Yes; in speaking of the advantages which I anticipate from the proposed municipalities, I shall refer to that point.
William Corrie (recalled)
[Corrie cited the Acts and parliamentary amendments that tended to show that, since the establishment of the Metropolitan Board of Works, the jurisdiction of the City of London was separate and distinct from that of the Board, sewers being an exception.]
1974. Has it ever been maintained of the Metropolis Board of Works that they have the power in question under Acts of Parliament previous to this one?15 —They know that they have not the power, as the honourable Member for Bath says; they would say, “Our sewers ceased at Holborn Bars, and therefore we thought it very desirable to have this power.”16
1975. It is an undisputed point, is it not, that the Metropolitan Board of Works had no power within Holborn Bars previously to this Act which did not give them any such powers?—Precisely; that is how it is. I have not troubled the Committee with the names of private Acts of Parliament, in which the same sort of things have been done, because they are very often inserted by promoters at the request of different parties, and perhaps there is no great authority in them; but this is a case in which the question was distinctly raised and discussed before Committees of the two Houses of Parliament, and no attempt was made by the Board of Works to go to either House to try to reverse the decision of the Committee.
[The witness continued to assert that the separation of jurisdictions was proper.]
1990. I presume that you mean that those local improvements which are for the interest of the inhabitants of the City, and which concern them only, should be exclusively made by the City authorities; you do not mean that improvements of a larger character, which extend to other districts of the metropolis, as well as to the City, should be made exclusively by the City, or by the local authorities of those other districts; and that there should be no general body whatever empowered to make such improvements?—My opinion is this: I think first of all that these local improvements ought to be in the hands of the local authorities; I cannot imagine any great case in which the parties must not come to the Legislature upon that subject; and I think that the proper time to determine who is to do the work would be, when they come before the Legislature. It would not do to entrust any local authority with the power of raising sums of money as was proposed, and is proposed this year by the Metropolitan Board of Works and all the metropolis, I believe, are protesting against that power being given to them.
1991. But assuming that it would not be proper to have any of those great improvements made without obtaining the authority of the Legislature for making them, that authority, if given, must be given to some executive body or other; and do you not think that when the improvement is one which regards the whole metropolis, the body that is entrusted with executing it, ought to be one that has authority over the metropolis throughout?—[On the supposition that a proposal was made to Parliament to make a great street running east and west through the City,] if I might humbly suggest what the proper course would be, I should say that it would be to appoint some persons from both districts, to appoint some from the City, and some from outside, and to let them execute the work; I do not think for such works as that any central body is necessary.
1992. Would you have a special body constituted for the whole metropolis, for the express purpose of that particular improvement?—Suppose it ran from Westminster through the City, and supposing Westminster were then a municipality, I would let the Corporation of Westminster and the Corporation of London execute that work jointly, and that would then be, I think, a very good body for doing it; but I do not see that the inhabitants of Woolwich or of Hampstead would be wanted at all to assist in such a matter.
1993. Do you not think that a great line of communication of this sort, to use your example, would be materially for the advantage, not only of the particular districts through which it might pass, but of all the districts which would be enabled to communicate with one another through it? Do you not think that, for instance, a great street passing through the City, and through Westminster, would be of great use to the Kensington and Chelsea districts, and also to the Finsbury and Tower Hamlets districts?—Then, I say again, let the Legislature determine what parties are interested, and let those parties be represented.
[The case of the Thames Embankment being instanced, Corrie argued that it was an exception, and maintained again his position about the propriety of the current arrangements.]
2000. Would you not think it very desirable that there should be some authority charged with the express duty of planning and originating the improvements which may be necessary in a great town like the metropolis?—My idea upon that is this; you will always find projectors; it would not be the Board of Works, or the City of London, or the central authority, it would be some clever projector who would come and lay this plan before them, and then it would be carried out afterwards.
2001. No doubt all proposals for improvements originate with some individual or other, but would you think it desirable to leave the whole business of suggesting the improvement, and of getting together the people who are to bring such improvements before the Legislature entirely to individuals?—I do not see the necessity, but, however, I do not wish to combat that suggestion; but I wish to say, that I feel very confident that the Metropolitan Board of Works ought not to be that authority; I think they ought to be elected for the express purpose, and also elected directly by the ratepayers.
[In particular, Corrie asserted, the localities most concerned in improvements could be outvoted on the Board by representatives of distant districts.]
2008. Do you think that, in the case of such an improvement as that which you mentioned of a street passing through the City and through Westminster, but which would benefit other parts of the metropolis and not only those two districts, it would be just to expect that the City and Westminster should, or do you think they would voluntarily, consent to defray the expense of this work by rates borne wholly by themselves and not paid by other parts of the metropolis?—I think if it were shown, as is suggested by the question, that other parts of the metropolis were interested, they would in some way or other have to contribute towards it: and the Legislature would then determine how far those other districts were to be represented according to the contributions which they might make.
2009. The Legislature might fix a maximum of rates which it should be allowable to levy on the metropolis generally, or on any of its parts; but as they could not fix the exact sum, I apprehend they must confide to some authority or other the power of levying the rate; and, as they would probably not be willing to vest in the representatives of the City and of Westminster the power of levying rates on other parts of the metropolis, would it not be necessary that they should appoint some special authority representing the whole metropolis for that purpose?—I intended to say, I think, that it would be a good plan if this were done; but I do not think it is necessary that you should keep up this central authority, for perhaps once or twice in the course of a century an improvement of this sort being made, because it is kept up at great expense. However, I do not express my opinion at all upon that subject.
[Further questioning dwelt on the specific powers of the Board.]
2020. Upon your construction of the Act17 the local authorities of the different districts can make those improvements with the consent of the Metropolitan Board of Works, but the Metropolitan Board of Works cannot itself make them?—The Metropolitan Board of Works cannot itself make them. They have no power to do so.
Thomas John Bedford18
[Mill initiated the questioning of Bedford.]
2077. Are you an Officer of the Corporation?—I am a Commissioner of Sewers. It has been stated that the right of pre-emption operated in the City of London as a bar in carrying out our local improvements under the Act of Parliament;19I say, in reply, as a member of the Commission, that we never found anything of the kind, and never had the point raised. It never operated to the slightest extent against our carrying out our full powers. Our powers are almost unlimited, and we had a decision in the Court of Chancery last year which confirmed that view. We have very large powers, and we exercise them very fully. Nothing stops us but want offunds. I may say that, at the present moment, we have laid down and commenced lines in the City of London, which will cost to carry out between £800,000 and £900,000. No right of pre-emption ever stops us for one single day.
2078. I understand the right of pre-emption to consist merely in the obligation which the City of London is under, to give the owner of the land the first offer of buying back any portion of that land which is not wanted by them for their improvements?—Quite so.
2079. But if they refuse to buy it back, then it is open to the public in the same manner as if no right of pre-emption had ever existed?—Quite so.
[Tite intervened with questions about specific cases, concerning which the witness denied there had been any hindrance.]
2085. The City is not bound to sell land to the original owner of it at his own price, but only at the same price which they can obtain for it from others?—A fair market price.
[Discussion turned to taxation, which the witness said had reached beyond its proper maximum in much of the City, and argued that the burden should be equalized.]
2095. Is there any other subject connected with the general question of the government of the metropolis to which you wish to direct the attention of the Committee?—I may say that the Metropolitan Board of Works is exceedingly unpopular in my neighbourhood. I do not know that they deserve it; but it is because all the increased taxation springs from them.
2096. So that you consider that a great portion of the City of London is generally over-taxed, and therefore they dislike any authority over them which imposes more taxes?—Quite so. With regard to the local government of the metropolis, having given some little attention to the matter, I may say that I should generally approve of municipalities for the Parliamentary boroughs, and that some body emanating from them for special objects might be appointed where the matters in hand affected the whole metropolis. That seems to be the popular opinion out of doors wherever I go.
[Bedford argued for direct representation on municipal bodies, asserting that larger ones would attract better candidates than at present in the vestries.]
2121. Do you think that the extent of the suggested municipalities, as compared with the extent of the districts under the district boards, would have much to do with the result which you anticipate?—I should think so.
Benjamin Scott (recalled)
[Once more Mill began the questioning.]
2154. You gave the Committee on a former occasion a great deal of information upon the subject of the local administration of the City;20 but you have turned your attention, I believe, to the more general question of improving the local administration of the metropolis; will you kindly put the Committee in possession of your opinions upon that subject?—I shall be very happy to do so; but previously to doing it, I was requested to put in two documents, which I had not with me, on a former occasion; the first is a list of the improvements and public works conducted by the Corporation, of which Mr. Corrie in his evidence gave a very insufficient account. The account includes all public works and improvements from the date of the building of Blackfriars Bridge.
[Scott outlined the history and general state of improvements planned by the City Corporation, and mentioned other documents that he could supply.]
2160. Have you another paper to put in?—[The witness handed in a paper concerning the new street from Blackfriars to the Mansion House.]
[It was established that business failure was a disqualification for membership in the City Corporation and courts of the livery companies.]
2170. Will you kindly enter into the general subject of the municipal government of the metropolis?—[Having given much thought to the matter for some thirty-seven years, Scott asserted that the only satisfactory government of the metropolis would result from enfranchising all the districts’ municipal institutions. Originally the City expanded by the addition of “Out Wards,” but parliament became jealous of the City and tried, vainly, to prevent its further expansion. The result was that the areas that grew up around the City did not have the municipal institutions that they needed and that were found in much less significant municipalities through the kingdom.]
[The history of Southwark was discussed as a specific instance.]
2203. In what particular form would you give municipal government to the metropolis?—I am disposed to think that it is too large to create one corporation out of. Parliament seems already to have settled that principle in dividing Manchester and Salford into two municipalities.
[Scott affirmed that the size of the proposed metropolitan municipality would not be a genuine threat to parliament.]
2205. You do not think there would be any difficulty in keeping such a body within its proposed functions, namely, those of local government only?—[There would be no true difficulty; the instinct of the people was for good government, and the “trading class” generally represented on municipal bodies wanted only “peace, quiet, and order” for themselves and for the protection of trade. The main practical problem lay in the proper division of the whole into districts: ten would be best, with the parliamentary and municipal boundaries coinciding. It would also be convenient to extend the rural boundaries of the metropolis to] take in the collection of the coal duty, and then the coal duty would be expended in the district taxed, and the parties who pay the duty would be represented.
2206. Does not the coal duty extend to such a very great distance from the metropolis proper, that the effect would be to introduce so large a population as would interfere with the purposes of the municipality?—It extends for a radius of several miles further in most places. The coal duty boundary, according to a Return placed before the House of Commons, extends from 13 or 14 miles to 16 miles from Charing-cross, whereas the proposed limits of Mr. Beal’s Bill extend from about 9 to 12 miles, I think, from Charing-cross. There would be an addition of a good deal of geographical territory, but very little would have to be added as regards population and rateable value.
2207. Do you think that, to make the district from which the funds were derived co-extensive with the authority that would dispose of those funds, would be an advantage which would overcome any disadvantage there might be in including a rural population?—[Yes: one advantage is that the police boundary is coterminous with the coal duty boundary. It would be very inconvenient to introduce another anomaly when trying to reduce them.]
2209. Do you think it important that the divisions of the metropolis should be the same for all kinds of public business?—As far as possible. I think that if any alteration is made, an attempt should be made to introduce something like uniformity of administration, and uniformity of boundary.
2210. What are your opinions as to the manner in which those municipal bodies should be constituted and elected?—I think, generally, that the principle which exists in the provinces, and in the City of London, and which has been tested for very many centuries, should be applied to London. If the vestry system is better than the municipal system, then Manchester and Birmingham should have a central board appointed by the vestries, and the municipal system should be superseded. But I apprehend, no doubt, that at present Parliament is satisfied with municipal administration, as it exists in the large towns; and I conceive that there can be no valid reason offered why it should not be introduced into the metropolis.
[Questioning turned to the placing and extent of control in officers, particularly over the police.]
2235. You say that you would have a court of quarter sessions in each municipality; would you have the administration of justice conducted by stipendiary magistrates, or by the ordinary magistrates of the municipality?—I prefer, personally, the elective system, and, I think, that it works well; but the stipendiary system is working well in the provinces, and I think that is a matter of detail and not a matter of principle.
[Jones not being a very responsive witness, establishment of his credentials as a vestryman took several questions.]
2267. Your district is included in the Strand Union, I presume?—Yes.
2268. So that it does not exercise the ordinary power of a vestry?—We elect officers to the district board.
[Jones’s grievance centred on the government’s refusal to pay its proper share of rates for Somerset House, which occupied about half of his parish in the Strand. In his view, a larger municipality would be better able to establish equitable taxation.]
2270. What do you propose with a view to give you this greater authority?—I think that if we had had an organised authority for the district, such as the City of London have, we should have had a power at once to be attended to, but the several parishes just going up very feebly, each of them by itself, are very little noticed.
2271. Do you think that a municipality would be more listened to by the Government and by Parliament?—I do think that a municipality, as being a larger power, would be more listened to by the Government and by Parliament than a parish, and naturally enough.
2272. Have you any other suggestions to make to the Committee?—Then I think that it is also very unreasonable that a resident in London, and a man holding a moderate position in the world, and who is able to understand things, should be dictated to, and be told to pay so much towards a county rate in which he has no voice whatever; I, as one of the parish, have to do with the making of the poor rate, but in the case of the county rate, without any communication, we are bidden by some central authority over which we have no control, to add so many pounds to our rate book, to provide for a county rate. Now I think that that is a position in which citizens of this metropolis ought not to be; we ought to be under no such subservience as that any power should be able to tell us how much to give without our having any voice in the matter.
2273. Do you think that the whole metropolis should be itself a county, and should vote its own county rate?—I claim the power of appointing those men who have the power of dictating county rates to me. I claim the power also of having a voice in the management of those men who claim a police rate from me; and, I think it a reasonable claim, that every citizen ought to have the power of asking by what right they put those burdens upon us, and that they should also account to us as to whether those things are wisely expended which we have contributed as part of the rates. That is what I should like to know in the first instance. I sent up some months ago to know at the police office how many men were supplied to my parish. We pay in my parish, which is a very small-one, some 280l. a year; and I wanted to know how many men it furnished for our district; but the police had no orders to give any answer; I consider that that was rather an inferior kind of answer to what I ought to receive, and therefore, I consider that all tradespeople who are resident in Westminster ought to be able to ask with authority how the money taken from us is disposed of, and so hearing that this matter was before you, I came.
[In response to the Chair, Jones said larger municipalities would provide evidence as to which candidates were fit for parliament.]
2275. I understand you to say that you think properly constituted local bodies are a useful training school for Members of Parliament?—That is right: and thatmen would be understood for what they are worth if they passed before us in different gradations of duty.
2276. This is, in your opinion, one of the particular advantages of properly constituted local government, which you consider that the vestry government is not?—Just so. I think it is very feeble.
2277. Is it your opinion that the vestry does not bring forward persons and make them known to the public, who would be useful to the public in capacities of a more elevated kind; but that municipal government does do so?—Entirely. I think it is all part of a general system.
[Mayne objected strenuously to the imputation by Scott that Mayne had, by omitting murder, distorted the evidence of crime in the metropolitan district as compared to the City of London;22he explained that he had omitted it because murder was not generally a crime the police could prevent, and handed in a paper dealing with murder.]
2310. There is no personal imputation against you conveyed in those words of Mr. Scott; he only objects to the principle upon which you proceed?—I am the person who has done what he says is unfair.
2311. There is no imputation upon your intention, or upon your honesty at all. An objection is taken to the principle, which is stated to be unfair in its operation?—I am sure that no such imputation could properly have been made; but the words of that passage seem to bear the meaning, that I omitted the class which was against me, in order to make my comparison unfair as against the City.
Mill at the Political Economy Club
Political Economy Club, VI (London: Macmillan, 1921), gives information about the history of the Club, with the topics proposed and the members present for the discussions. The following list gives the topics Mill proposed, with the dates of the meetings. He of course frequently attended discussions initiated by others.
What would be the effect produced upon Wages, if the rich should adopt the practice of expending a large portion of their income on menial servants and retainers, and a smaller portion in the purchase of Commodities?
What is the most convenient definition of the word Demand?
According to what principle is the benefit of the Trade between two nations shared between those two nations?
To what extent has any country the power of making another independent country pay a portion of its Taxes?
Is not the exportation of British Capital a cause, and almost a necessary condition, of its continued increase at home?
Is Political Economy a Science à priori, or what is commonly called a science of facts?
Was Ricardo correct in stating that “the same rule which regulates the relative value of Commodities in one country, does not regulate the relative value of the Commodities exchanged between two or more countries”?1
Under what conditions, and to what extent, ought Governments to exercise a directing or regulating power over the operations of Private industry; and in connection with it?
Is the Rent of Mines governed by similar principles with the Rent of Land?
What are the circumstances which regulate the Prices of the different kinds of Agricultural produce relatively to one another?
What measures can be adopted to avert, as far as possible, the dangerous consequences of the Irish Poor Law proposed by the present Government?
Under what circumstances is it desirable to maintain a Surplus revenue for the purpose of paying off a National Debt?
What are the essential differences between Bank Notes and other forms of credit?
Would it not be highly conducive to the economical and moral improvement of the Labouring Classes that the workmen should be, as far as possible, associated in the Profits of Industrial undertakings, and what means can be devised of giving a greater degree of extension to this principle?
What is the most equitable mode of assessing an Income Tax?
What are the most desirable changes to be made in our system of Taxation?
Does the progress of Wealth and Industry, under the present social institutions of Europe, tend to an increasing agglomeration of capital in large masses, or to the dispersion of such masses?
Would not the most eligible mode of relieving the Handloom Weavers from their habitually depressed condition, be their formation into Home colonies, combining agriculture with their present employment?
Does a business in which the Returns are slow, employ with equal capital as much labour, and add as much to the produce of the country, as a business in which the Returns are quick?
Is the purchase of commodities produced by Labour equivalent in its effect on Wages, and on the Labour market, to the Direct purchase of Labour?
What are the necessary conditions of a just Income Tax?
Is Direct preferable to Indirect taxation?
Is the claim made on behalf of the Irish Tenantry to hold their farms in perpetuity at a rent fixed by valuation, admissible in any shape, or under any conditions?
What are the nature and extent of the relief which the present generation obtains at the expense of posterity, by raising the supplies necessary for War expenditure, by means of Loans instead of by means of Taxation?
Does the purchase of Commodities for Unproductive consumption contribute to the employment of Labour, in the same degree as the expenditure of an equal sum in direct payment of Wages to unproductive Labourers?
Is it incumbent on the Bank of England to restrict its discounts, on the Setting in of a Drain of Gold, without reference to the causes in which that Drain originates?
By what laws are Retail Prices and Profits determined?
Under what circumstances would a fall in the exchangeable value of Gold, as a consequence of the recent discoveries, justify any alteration in the Standard so as to affect existing Contracts?
What is the value of Moral Education to Economical Improvement; and conversely, what are the bearings of Economical Prosperity on Moral Excellence?
What is the best definition of Productive and Unproductive Labour, and of Productive and Unproductive Consumption?
Is the word Capital most properly used to designate certain kinds of Wealth, namely, Food, Implements, and Materials; or should it rather be applied to all Wealth, of whatever kind, which is, or is intended by its owner to be, applied to the purpose of Reproduction?
Does the high rate of Interest in America and in new Colonies indicate a corresponding high rate of profits? and if so, What are the causes of that high rate?
in this list, following the page and line numbers, the reading of the copy-text is given first, and then the amended reading in square brackets, with an explanation if required. If there is no explanation, it may be assumed that there is an obvious typographical error, or else that the change is made for sense or for consistency within the item. Typographical errors in versions other than the copy-text are ignored. “SC” signifies Somerville College, Oxford.
7.8-9 editor . . . author [Editor . . . Author]
7.10 MSS. [manuscripts]
7.12 inmately [intimately]
8.25 ugred [urged]
14.22 themeslves [themselves]
22.6 cross-examination. [cross-examination.”]
23.30 things [thing]
25.35 temperance [temperate] [as in Source]
49.4 lord [Lord]
60.19 it. [it?]
67.4 occasien [occasion]
84.20 mistated [mis-stated]
134.9 etc. [etc.] [as in Source]
134.10 être [être]
134.14 contenu, etc. [contenu. . . .] [etc. signals the omission of the remainder of the passage]
148.23 section 6 [section 5] [as in fact]
172.2 facts [parts] [as in Source]
202.1 resisting [resisting] [emphasis reversed in this ed.]
204.4 time [Time] [for consistency]
205.15 rises [arises] [as in Source]
206.27 locality, what [locality. What] [as in Source]
207.3 magnitude [Magnitude] [as in Source]
207.16 position [positions] [as in Source]
207.32 In [For] [as in Source]
223.5 association [association.] [as in Source]
231.1 Dread [dread]
240.3 shewn [shown] [as elsewhere in paragraph]
243.23 with an idea [with an Idea]
253.1 foreseen [foreseen,]
264.23 parasetical [parasitical]
265.10 peucidanifolia [peucedanifolia]
266.2 siugle [single]
268.16 rarieties [varieties]
269.29 north-eastern [south-eastern] [corrected by JSM in later article]
271.3 Maiden [Marden] [corrected by JSM in later article]
271.6 rocks [roots] [corrected by JSM in later article]
271.9 Woodbatch [Woodhatch] [corrected by JSM in later article]
271.29 Wenham [Wonham] [corrected by JSM in later article]
272.42 Godbroke [Gadbroke] [corrected by JSM in later article]
273.33 Wenham [Wonham] [corrected by JSM in later article]
285.21-2 not all [not at all]
294.30 Sender [Sonder] [printer’s error?]
299.34 γ. spicata] [F. spicata] [corrected by JSM in SC copy]
300.14 comesa [comosa] [corrected by JSM in SC copy]
300.23 north [south] [corrected by JSM in SC copy]
301.3 Lychnites [Lychnitis] [corrected by JSM in SC copy]
301.7 concisely [copiously] [corrected by JSM in SC copy]
301.9 Lychnites [Lychnitis] [corrected by JSM in SC copy]
301.11 digitalis [segetalis] [corrected by JSM in SC copy]
302.7 Rhine [Rhone] [corrected by JSM in SC copy]
304.6 where [when] [corrected by JSM in SC copy]
304.8 enumerated [enumerate] [corrected by JSM in SC copy]
304.34 mountainous [monotonous] [corrected by JSM in SC copy]
305.23 March; [March,]
307.33 Mauresa [Manresa] [corrected by JSM in SC copy]
309.8 decidely [decidedly]
309.38 find in [find on] [corrected by JSM in SC copy]
310.25 S. hispanica [G. hispanica] [corrected by JSM in SC copy]
310.33-4 find, . . . course, [find; . . . course]
311.14 Lychnites [Lychnitis] [corrected by JSM in SC copy]
311.17 Siderites [Sederitis] [corrected by JSM in SC copy]
311.35 No. IV [No. V] [as in fact]
314.15 crassa [cracca] [corrected by JSM in SC copy]
317.3 that is [that it is]
318.19 liked [like]
318.24 S. sylvaticum [G. sylvaticum] [corrected by JSM in SC copy]
323.17 non-medica [non-medical]
330.30 respresenting [representing]
334.18 Society to [Society for]
334.21 manscripts [manuscripts]
345.2 Indes Orientales [Indes-Orientales]
345.3 Georgie, l’Armenie, la [Géorgie, l’Arménie, et la]
345.3 Belanger [Bélanger]
353.38 66,200 [66,200’] [restyled in this ed.]
359.2 H.D. Inglis [Henry David Inglis]
359.3 J. Cook [Samuel Edward Cook] [as in fact]
359.9 E.B. Stephens [Edward Bell Stephens]
360.18 quocunque [quocumque]
366n.7 contemparories [contemporaries
369.17 Giubelalde [Guibelalde]
375.10 that the [that with the]
375.11 peace, long [peace, war, long]
375.34 Moderate [Moderates]
376.27 Spain [England] [as in fact]
382.9 Orangemen, [Orangemen:]
382.19 imparting [importing]
384.10 confimed [confirmed]
387.35 broken.* [broken.”*] [restyled in this ed.]
391.19-20 count; I take it [count, I take it]
393.21 gives [give]
399.7-8 the many [them any]
404.20 provinces; [provinces,]
Index of Persons, and Works Cited, with Variants and Notes
like most nineteenth-century authors, Mill is cavalier in his approach to sources, sometimes identifying them with insufficient care, and occasionally quoting them inaccurately. This Appendix is intended to help correct these deficiencies, and to serve as an index of names and titles (which are consequently omitted in the Index proper). Included here also are (at the end of the appendix and listed alphabetically by country) references to parliamentary documents and to statute laws. The material otherwise is arranged in alphabetical order, with an entry for each person or work reviewed, quoted, or referred to in the text proper and in Appendices A-E (the page numbers in the appendices are given in italic type). Anonymous articles in newspapers are entered in order of date under the title of the particular newspaper. References to mythical and fictional characters are excluded. The following abbreviations are used: ADB (Allgemeine deutsche Biographie), DBF, (Dictionnaire de biographie française), DBI (Deutscher Biographischer Index), DNB (Dictionary of National Biography), EB (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed.), EUI (Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada); GDU (Larousse, Grand dictionnaire universel du XIXe siècle), GE (Grande encyclopédie), JMP (Judd, Members of Parliament), MEB (Boase, Modern English Biography), PD (Parliamentary Debates), PP (Parliamentary Papers), SC (JSM’s library, Somerville College, Oxford), WWBMP (Who’s Who of British Members of Parliament), WWG (Who Was Who in the Greek World), WWR (Who Was Who in the Roman World).
The entries take the following form:
1. Identification of persons: birth and death dates are followed by a standard biographical source; if no source isated, available details are given in a note.
2. Identification of works: author, title, etc. in the usual bibliographic form.
3. Notes (if required) giving information about JSM’s use of the source, indication if the work is in his library, Somerville College, Oxford, and any other relevant information.
4. Lists of the pages where works are reviewed, quoted, and referred to.
5. In the case of quotations, a list of substantive variants between Mill’s text and his source, in this form: Page and line reference to the present text. Reading in the present text] Reading in the source (page reference in the source).
The list of substantive variants also attempts to place quoted passages in their contexts by giving the beginnings and endings of sentences. The original wording is supplied where Mill has omitted two sentences or less; only the length of other omissions is given. There being uncertainty about the actual Classical texts used by Mill, the Loeb editions are usually cited.
Abbott, Charles (Baron Tenterden) (1762-1832; DNB). Speech in the Debate on the Bill of Pains and Penalties (1 Sept., 1820; Lords), PD, n.s. Vol. 2, cols. 1183-4.
referred to: 81
Abbott, Thomas Kingsmill (1829-1913).
note: see Who Was Who, 1897-1916, ed. J.D. Comrie (London: Black, 1920).
referred to: 156
— Sight and Touch: An Attempt to Disprove the Received (or Berkeleian) Theory of Vision. London: Longman, et al., 1864.
referred to: 156
Abd-er-rahman (d. 1832).
note: the reference is in a quotation from Klaproth.
Aberdeen, Lord. See George Gordon.
Ahmed Khan (the Ousmai) (fl. 1741). Referred to: 353
Ahmed Khan (of Shunketén) (fl. 1741). Referred to: 353
Alison, Archibald (1757-1839; DNB). Essays on the Nature and Principles of Taste. Edinburgh: Bell and Bradfute; London: Robinson, 1790.
note: in SC.
referred to: 222-3
Alison, Archibald (1792-1867; DNB). “The Spanish Contest,” Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, XLI (May 1837), 573-99.
Alvanley, Lord. See William Arden.
The Andalusian Annual. Ed. Michael Burke Honan. 2nd ed. London: Macrone, 1837.
note: called in the text the Andalusian Sketchbook.
Anne (of England) (1665-1714; DNB). Referred to: 304, 367
Anon.A Geographical, Statistical and Commercial Account of the Russian Ports of the Black Sea, the Sea of Asoph and the Danube: Also an Official Report of the European Commerce of Russian in 1835. From the German. London: Schloss, and Richardson, 1837.
Anon. “Notes of a Day’s Botanizing about Tring, Herts, June 29, 1855,” Phytologist, n.s. I (Sept. 1855), 105-8.
referred to: 267
Anon.The Policy of England towards Spain, Considered Chiefly with Reference to “A Review of the Social and Political State of the Basque Provinces, and a Few Remarks on Recent Events in Spain, &c., by an English Nobleman.” London: Ridgway, 1837.
note: the English nobleman is identified in this work as Lord Carnarvon. The anonymous author is referred to at 364 by Walton, who is replying to him, as “my gallant countryman.”
quoted:382, 383, 383-4
382.34 “resolves] [paragraph] The question, then, stripped of its history and its poetry, and analysed with reference to the bearings upon it of public opinion in the Basque provinces, resolves (24)
383.5 “The] [no paragraph] The (22)
Arden, William (Lord Alvanley) (1789-1849). Speech on Spain—Lord John Hay’s Despatches (21 Apr., 1837; Lords), in Morning Chronicle, 22 Apr., 1837, 1.
note: see Cockayne’s Complete Peerage. The exact source of JSM’s quotation has not been located, but the report in the Morning Chronicle has similarities; also reported in PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 38, cols. 125-31.
Argüelles, Agustin (1776-1844). Referred to: 385
Aristotle (384-322 ; WWG). Referred to: 97, 103
— The Metaphysics (Greek and English). Trans. Hugh Tredennick. 2 vols. London: Heinemann; New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1933.
referred to: 103
— Physics (Greek and English). Trans. Philip H. Wicksteed and Francis M. Cornford. 2 vols. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929.
note: the reference is in a quotation from James Mill’s Fragment, q.v.
referred to: 227
— Posterior Analytics. In Posterior Analytics, Topica (Greek and English). Trans. Hugh Tredennick and E.S. Forster. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960, 24-261.
referred to: 103
Arnott, George Arnott Walker (1799-1868: DNB). Referred to: 317
Ayrton, Acton Smee (1816-86; DNB). Referred to: 390
Babington, Charles Cardale (1808-95; DNB). Manual of British Botany, Containing the Flowering Plants and Ferns Arranged According to the Natural Orders. London: Van Voorst, 1843.
note: 5th ed. (London, 1862) formerly in SC.
referred to: 284
Bacon, Francis (1561-1626; DNB). Maxims of the Law (1630). In Works. Ed. James Spedding, et al. 14 vols. London: Longman, et al., 1857-74, VII, 308-87.
note: the quotation is in a quotation from Phillipps, q.v. for the collation.
Bailey, Samuel (1791-1870; DNB). Referred to: 156
— A Letter to a Philosopher, in Reply to Some Recent Attempts to Vindicate Berkeley’s Theory of Vision, and in Further Elucidation of Its Unsoundness. London: Ridgway, 1843.
referred to: 156
— A Review of Berkeley’s Theory of Vision, Designed to Show the Unsoundness of That Celebrated Speculation. London: Ridgway, 1842.
referred to: 156
Bain, Alexander (1818-1903; DNB). Referred to: 102, 103
— The Emotions and the Will (1859). 2nd ed. London: Longmans, Green, 1865.
referred to: 102, 138, 140-1, 155, 160, 178, 192, 251
— Mental and Moral Science. A Compendium of Psychology and Ethics. 2 vols. London: Longmans, Green, 1868.
— Notes to James Mill’s Analysis.
referred to: 102, 103, 109, 111, 115, 116, 122, 138, 153, 155, 157, 158, 159, 160, 205, 214, 217, 218, 250, 251
— The Senses and the Intellect (1855). 2nd ed. London: Longmans, Green, 1864.
note: in SC is the 3rd ed. (London: Longmans, et al., 1868).
referred to: 102, 122, 139, 140, 153, 164, 172, 192
172.18 “A] The superiority we soon find to connect itself with the changes due to our movements: a (381)
Bedford, John Thomas (1812-1900; MEB). Questioned: 401-2
Beethoven, Ludwig van (1770-1827; EB). Referred to: 222
Bélanger, Charles (1805-81; DBF). Voyage aux Indes-Orientales par le nord de l’Europe, les provinces du Caucase, la Géorgie, l’Arménie et la Perse, suivi de détails topographiques, statistiques et autres sur le Pégou, les Iles de Java, de Maurice et de Bourbon, sur le Cap de Bonne-Espérance et Sainte-Hélène, pendant les années 1825, 1826, 1827, 1828 et 1829. 4 vols. Paris: Bertrand, 1834-38.
note: George Bell and Co. (Glasgow and London) owned the Vixen.
Bentham, George (1800-84; DNB). Catalogue des plantes indigènes des Pyrénées et du Bas Languedoc, avec des notes et observations sur les espèces nouvelles ou peu connues; précédé d’une notice sur un voyage botanique fait dans les Pyrénées pendant l’été de 1825. Paris: Huzard, 1826.
referred to: 317
Bentham, Jeremy (1748-1832; DNB). Referred to: 3-92 passim
— “Bentham on Humphrey’s Property Code,” Westminster Review. VI (Oct. 1826), 446-507.
referred to: 9
— Plan of Parliamentary Reform, in the Form of a Catechism: with an Introduction, Showing the Necessity of Radical, and the Inadequacy of Moderate Reform (1817). In Works. Ed. John Bowring. 11 vols. Edinburgh: Tait; London: Simpkin, Marshall; Dublin: Cumming, 1843, III, 433-557.
note: the quotation (of the term “sinister interests”) is indirect.
— Principles of International Law (1786-89). In Works, II, 535-71.
referred to: 11
— Principles of Judicial Procedure (1837). In Works, II, 1-188.
referred to: 21
— A Protest against Law-Taxes, Showing the Peculiar Mischievousness of All Such Impositions as Add to the Expense of Appeal to Justice (1795). In Works, II, 573-83.
referred to: 50
— Rationale of Judicial Evidence Specially Applied to English Practice. Ed. J.S. Mill. 5 vols. London: Hunt and Clarke, 1827.
note: in SC. In Works, VI-VII.
referred to: 3-92 passim
28.21 “any] [paragraph] Taking this, for argument’s sake, as a complete list of primum mobiles (and I am inclined to think it would not be found to be very far from a complete one), any (III, 287)
28.23 impossible:”] impossible: the existence of any such motion or any given body upon or near any part of the earth’s surface, for and during any given space of time, an impossible fact. (III, 287)
— Traité des preuves judiciaires, Ouvrage extrait des manuscrits de M. Jérémie Bentham, jurisconsulte anglais. Ed. Pierre Etienne Louis Dumont. 2 vols. Paris: Bossange, 1823.
referred to: 3, 13, 51, 57
— A Treatise on Judicial Evidence, Extracted from the Manuscripts of Jeremy Bentham Esq. by M. Dumont. Translated into English. London: Baldwin, Cradock and Joy, 1825.
quoted: 13-14, 17, 60
referred to: 3, 14-15, 57
Berkeley, George (1685-1753; DNB). Referred to: 156
— An Essay towards a New Theory of Vision (1709). In Works. 3 vols. London: Priestley, 1820, I, 225-316.
referred to: 156, 163
Bernard, Jean Frédéric (d. 1752). Recueil de voyages au nord, contenant divers mémoires très utiles au commerce et à la navigation. 10 vols. Amsterdam: Bernard, 1715-38.
note: the passage is in “Relation de la Colchide, ou Mingrellie, par le P. Archange Lamberti,” VII, 136-302.
352.2-5 “Each . . . leg.”] [translated from:] C’étoient des casques, des cuirasses, et des brassars faits de plusieurs petites lastres de fer, couchées les unes sur les autres: celles de la cuirasse et des brassars r’entroient les unes sur les autres et obeïssoient ainsi aisément aux mouvemens du corps. A la cuirasse étoit attachée une espece de cotte qui leur alloit jusqu’à mi-jambe, d’une étoffe de laine semblable à notre serge, mais d’un rouge si vif, qu’on l’eut prise pour de très-belle escarlotte. (VII, 180-1)
Bertoloni, Antonio.Flora italica, sistens plantas in Italia et in insulis circumstantibus sponte nascentes. 10 vols. Bologna: Masi, 1833-54.
referred to: 299
Best, William Draper (Baron Wynford) (1767-1845; DNB). Referred to: 81
note: the reference at 361 is in a quotation.
referred to: 77, 361
— Apocrypha: Susanna. Referred to: 293
note: the quotation is indirect.
63.12-13 Whence comes it that any one loves darkness better than light, except it be that his deeds are evil?] And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. (3:19)
note: the quotation is indirect.
9.25-6 signs of the times,] O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? (16:3)
note: the quotation is indirect; attributed in the text to St. Paul.
386.10-11 Despise not the day of small things.] For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole earth. (4:10)
Blackburne, Francis (1705-87; DNB). Referred to: 20
— The Confessional; or, A Full and Free Inquiry into the Right, Utility, Edification and Success of Establishing Systematical Confessions of Faith and Doctrine in Protestant Churches. London: Bladon, 1766.
referred to: 20
Boissier, Pierre Edmond (1810-85; GE). Voyage botanique dans le midi de l’Espagne pendant l’année 1837. 2 vols. Paris: Gide, 1839, 1845.
referred to: 290, 315
Bontems, John Francis.
note: member of Common Council, Corporation of London.
The Book of Common Prayer.
note: the reference is to the Thirty-Nine Articles.
referred to: 20
Bourgoing, Adolphe de.
note: a steady partisan of Don Carlos.
— L’Espagne; souvenirs de 1823 et de 1833. Paris: Dufart, 1834.
Braganza, Duke of. See Pedro IV.
Brewer, James Alexander (1818-86). A New Flora of the Neighbourhood of Reigate, Surrey, Containing the Flowering Plants and Ferns of the District, with Their Localities, Times of Flowering, etc. And a List of the Mosses. London: Pamplin, 1856.
note: in SC.
referred to: 274-5
275.11-12 “in damp . . . Dorking,”] Damp . . . Dorking. (19)
275.20 “damp] Damp (123)
Brewster, David (1781-1868; DNB). “The Sight and How to See,” North British Review, XXVI (Nov. 1856), 145-84.
referred to: 156
British and Foreign Medical Review. Review of Carpenter’s Principles of General and Comparative Physiology, VII (Jan. 1839), 168-85.
referred to: 324
Brodrick, Charles (Archbishop of Cashel) (1761-1822). Referred to: 362
Brown, Thomas (1778-1820; DNB). Referred to: 96, 98
— Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind (1820). 19th ed. Edinburgh: Black; London: Longman, 1851.
note: the reference at 237 is in a quotation from James Mill’s Fragment, q.v.
quoted: 96-7, 99
referred to: 98, 113, 237
Buller, Francis (1746-1800; DNB). An Introduction to the Law Relative to Trials at Nisi Prius. London: Bathurst, 1772.
Burdett, Francis (1770-1844; DNB). Speech to a Deputation of the Electors of Westminster, in The Times, 6 May, 1837, 6.
note: the quotation is indirect.
362n.4 unchanged] His course had always been the same; his conduct had been unchanged. (6)
Burke, Edmund (1729-97; DNB). Referred to: 106
— Reflections on the Revolution in France, and on the Proceedings in Certain Societies in London Relative to That Event. In a Letter Intended to Have Been Sent to a Gentleman in Paris (1790). In The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke. 8 vols. London: Dodsley (Vols. I-III), Rivington (Vols. IV-VIII), 1792-1827, III, 19-321.
106.9 a delightful vision.] [paragraph] It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then the dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. (110)
Calomarde, Francisco Tadeo (1773-1842; EUI). Referred to: 380
Candolle, Augustin Pyrame de.Prodromus systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis, sive enumeratio contracta ordinum generum specierumque plantarum huc usque cognitarum, juxta methodi naturalis normas digesta. 19 vols. Paris: Treuttel and Würtz, 1824-38 (Vols. I-VII); Fortin, Masson, 1844-45 (Vol. VIII); Masson, 1846-72 (Vols. IX-XIX).
referred to: 260, 281, 292, 303
Cardaillac, Jean Jacques Séverin de (1766-1845; DBF). Etudes élémentaires de philosophie. 2 vols. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1830.
note: the quotation, in translation, is taken from Hamilton’s Lectures, q.v. for the collation.
Carlile, Richard (1790-1843; DNB). Referred to: 54
Carlos Maria Isidro de Bourbon, Don (1788-1855; EB).
note: the reference at 365n-6n is in a quotation from the Standard; that at 369 is in a quotation from Wellesley; that at 376 is in a quotation from the “Quadruple Treaty.”
referred to:359-88 passim
— “Royal Decree” (20 June, 1835), The Times, 2 July, 1835, 6.
note: quoted in English; also quoted in Walton, 153, q.v.
Carnarvon, Lord. See Henry Herbert.
Caroline (of England) (1768-1821; DNB). Referred to: 81
Carpenter, Lant (1780-1840; DNB). Referred to: 324
Carpenter, William Benjamin (1813-85; DNB). Principles of General and Comparative Physiology, Intended as an Introduction to the Study of Human Physiology, and as a Guide to the Philosophical Pursuit of Natural History (1839). 2nd ed. London: Churchill, 1841.
— Principles of Human Physiology (1842). 6th ed. Ed. Henry Power. London: Churchill, 1864.
referred to: 106
Cartwright, John (1740-1824; DNB). Referred to: 367
Cashel, Archbishop of. See Charles Brodrick.
Castanon y Lorenzana, Federico (1770-1836; EB). Referred to: 377
Cavanilles, Antonio José.Icones et descriptiones plantarum, quae aut sponte in Hispania crescunt. 6 vols. Madrid: Royal Printer, 1791-1801.
referred to: 290
Cavendish, Henry (1731-1810; DNB). Referred to: 96
— “Experiments on Air, Read Jan. 15, 1784,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, LXXIV (1784), Pt. I, 119-53.
referred to: 96
Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de (1547-1616; EB). The History and Adventures of the Renowned Don Quixote (in English, 1612). Trans. Tobias Smollett. 6th ed. 4 vols. London: Rivington, et al., 1792.
note: in SC.
note: founded 1860.
referred to: 103
Charles Edward Louis Philip Casimir (the Young Pretender) (1720-88; DNB).
note: the reference is in a quotation from the Standard.
Chichester, Charles (1795-1847; DNB). Referred to: 371
note: Carlile’s shopman; had his pocket picked by Elizabeth Harpur.
referred to: 54
Chudleigh, Elizabeth (Countess of Bristol) (1720-88; DNB). Referred to: 40n
Churchill, Charles (1731-64; DNB). The Rosciad. London: Flexney, 1761.
385.25-6 To particles affix emphatic state, / While principles . . . wait.] With studied impropriety of speech, / He soars beyond the hackney critic’s reach; / To epithets allots emphatic state, / Whilst principles . . . wait: / In ways first trodden by himself excels, / And stands alone in indeclinables; / Conjunction, preposition, adverb, join / To stamp new vigour on the nervous line; / In monosyllables his thunders rowl, / He, she, it, and, we, ye, they fight the soul. (20-1; 519-28)
Churchill, John (Duke of Marlborough) (1650-1722; DNB). Referred to: 304
Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 ; WWR). Referred to: 168
Cobbett, William (1762-1835; DNB). Referred to: 49
—, and John Bright, eds. The Parliamentary History of England, from the Norman Conquest, in 1066, to the Year 1803. 36 vols. London: Bagshaw, Longmans, 1806-20.
referred to:346, 361
Cockburn, Henry Thomas (Lord Cockburn) (1779-1854; DNB). “Office of the Public Prosecutor,” Edinburgh Review, XLII (Aug. 1825), 401-9.
referred to: 49
Coke, Edward (1552-1634; DNB). The First Part of the Institutes of the Lawes of England; or, A Commentarie upon Littleton. London: Society of Stationers, 1628.
note: the quotation (repeated) is indirect.
quoted: 42, 43
referred to: 82
Cole, Henry (1808-82; DNB). Referred to: 259
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor (1772-1834; DNB). “On the Principles of Sound Criticism Concerning the Fine Arts, Deduced from Those Which Animate and Guide the True Artist in Productions of His Works.” In Joseph Cottle, Early Recollections; Chiefly Relating to the Late Samuel Taylor Coleridge, during His Long Residence in Bristol. 2 vols. London: Longman, et al., 1837, II, 201-40.
referred to: 223
— Second Lay Sermon [“Blessed are ye that sow beside all waters”] (1817). 2nd ed. In On the Constitution of Church and State, and Lay Sermons. London: Pickering, 1839, 303-430.
note: in SC. The quotation is indirect.
note: JSM’s nephew.
referred to:331, 332
Colman, Charles Frederick.
note: JSM’s brother-in-law.
referred to:331, 332
note: JSM’s nephew.
referred to:331, 332
Colman, Mary Elizabeth (née Mill) (1822-1913).
note: JSM’s sister.
referred to:331, 332
Colman, Marion (“Minnie”).
note: JSM’s niece.
referred to:331, 332
note: JSM’s nephew.
referred to:331, 332
Comyns, John (d. 1740; DNB). A Digest of the Laws of England (1762-67). Ed. Anthony Hammond. 5th ed. 8 vols. London: Butterworth, et al., 1822.
note: this ed. used in Bowring’s ed. of Bentham’s Works.
referred to: 24
Conolly, Arthur (1807-42). Journey to the North of India, Overland from England, through Russia, Persia, and Affghaunistaun. 2 vols. London: Bentley, 1834.
Consolidated Treaty Series. See Clive Parry.
Cook, Samuel Edward (later Widdrington) (1787-1856; MEB). Sketches in Spain during the Years 1829, 30, 31, & 32; Containing Notices of Some Districts Very Little Known; of the Manners of the People, Government, Recent Changes, Commerce, Fine Arts, and Natural History. 2 vols. London: Boone, 1834.
note: incorrectly identified in heading as J. Cook; title-page incorrectly reads S.S. Cook.
386.15 “The Queen’s party comprises, almost without exception, every] The party who support the Queen are not a mere faction, but it comprises every (I, 330)
Copernicus, Nicolaus (1473-1543; EB). De revolutionibus orbium coelestium libri VI. Nuremberg: Petreium, 1543.
referred to: 164-5
Corrie, William (1806-81; MEB). Questioned: 389-90, 398-401
Curtis, William (1746-99; DNB). Flora Londinensis; or, Plates and Descriptions of Such Plants as Grow Wild in the Environs of London. 2 vols. London: Curtis and White, 1775-98.
referred to: 278
Dallas, Robert (1756-1824; DNB). Referred to: 81
Darwin, Erasmus (1731-1802; DNB). Referred to: 98
— Zoonomia; or, The Laws of Organic Life (1794-96). 3rd ed. 4 vols. London: Johnson, 1801.
note: in SC.
referred to: 98
De Meer, Ramon (Baron) (b. 1787). Referred to: 372
Denman, Thomas (1779-1854; DNB). Referred to: 7, 59, 60
— “Law of Evidence: Criminal Procedure: Publicity,” Edinburgh Review, XL (Mar. 1824), 169-207.
quoted: 51-2, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67
referred to: 7, 57-62
51.30 Take] [no paragraph] Take (176)
52.11 pursuer [qu. prisoner?] if] pursuer if (177)
59.22 odious: but] odious: But (186)
60.33 “a conclusive] [paragraph] Most people perhaps will think this answer a conclusive (184)
61.33-4 “might . . . with . . . reasonings:”] [paragraph] M. Dumont’s remonstrance might . . . by . . . reasonings, directed against the chapter we have just transcribed, no one of the positions of which could perhaps endure a strict examination; but we shall be contented with the single and very obvious remark, that the author evidently presumes the guilt from the accusation. (184-5)
61.36-7 “single . . . accusation:”] [see preceding entry]
65.3 yet not entirely . . . on] We think, however, that all such communications ought to be sacred; and we should also propose to disqualify married persons as witnesses, for or against each other, yet not entirely on (178-9)
65.5-7 applies; . . . for] applies; for (179)
66.30-1 “the . . . charge”] And the . . . charge, for the purpose of obtaining that result, is warmly preferred to it. (187)
67.23 “a middle] Between the opposite methods of compulsive interrogation, and an indiscriminate injunction of silence, common sense suggests a middle (191)
Desfontaines, René Louiche (1750-1833). Catalogus plantarum Horti Regii Parisiensis, cum annotationibus de plantis novis aut minus cognitus. 3rd ed. Paris: Chaudé, 1829.
referred to: 300
Dionysius of Halicarnassus (fl. 30-8 ; WWR). The Roman Antiquities (Greek and English). Trans. Earnest Cary. 7 vols. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1937-63.
referred to: 44
Dumont, Pierre Etienne Louis (1759-1829; DBF).
note: see also Jeremey Bentham, Traité and Treatise.
referred to: 3
note: the reference is in a quotation from Shaw.
referred to:387, 387n
Egerton, Francis (previously Leveson-Gower, later Earl of Ellesmere) (1800-57; DNB), trans. Faust: a Drama, by Goethe, and Schiller’s Song of the Bell. London: Murray, 1823.
note: published under the name Francis Leveson-Gower.
Eldon, Lord. See John Scott.
Elizabeth I (of England) (1533-1603; DNB). Referred to: 364
Ellenborough, Lord. See Edward Law.
Ellis, William (1800-81). Referred to: 327-36 passim
Espartero, Baldomero (1792-1879; EB). Referred to: 371, 372
Evans, George de Lacy (1787-1890; DNB).
note: the reference at 366n is in a quotation from the Standard; the second at 369 is in a quotation. from Wellesley; the first at 370 is in a quotation from Richardson; the second at 370 is in a quotation from Arden, that at 388 is in a quotation from Napier.
referred to:364-88 passim
— Farewell Speech to the Army, Morning Chronicle, 17 June, 1837, 3.
Ferdinand VII (of Spain) (1784-1833; EB).
note: husband of Maria Christina; father of Isabella II; brother of Don Carlos. The references at 384-5 are in a quotation from de Bourgoing, the second at 385 is in a quotation from Inglis, that at 386 is in a quotation from Cook.
referred to:380, 384, 384-5, 385, 386
Finch, Heneage (Earl of Aylesford) (1647?-1719; DNB). Referred to: 58
Findlater, Andrew (1810-85; DNB). Referred to: 103
— Notes to James Mill’s Analysis.
referred to: 103, 133
Foster, John (Baron Oriel) (1740-1828; DNB). Referred to: 49
Fox, Caroline (1819-71; DNB). Referred to: 257, 345
— Memories of Old Friends, Being Extracts from the Journals and Letters of Caroline Fox, from 1835 to 1871. Ed. H.N. Pym. 2nd ed. 2 vols. London: Smith, Elder, 1882.
quoted: 257, 345
note: not allowed to appear as a witness in the Earl of Warwick’s trial.
referred to: 56
Gaerber, Johann Gustav. “Nachrichten von denen an der westlichen Seite der Caspischen See zwischen Astrachan und dem Flusse Kur befindlichen Völkern und Landschaften, und von derselben Zustande in dem Jahre 1728.” In Sammlung russischer Geschichte. Ed. Gerhard Friedrich Müller. 9 vols. St. Petersburg: Kayserl. Academie der Wissenschaften, 1732-64, IV, 1-147.
note: see Rottiers.
Galiano, António Alcalá (1789-1865).
note: appears in the text as Galliano. See EUI under Alcalá.
Galilei, Galileo (1565-1642; EB). Dialogo . . . sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo tolemaico, e copernicano. Florence: Landini, 1632.
referred to: 164-5
— Sidereus nuncius. Venice: Baglionum, 1610.
referred to: 164-5
Galliano. See Galiano.
Galvani, Luigi (1737-98; EB). “De viribis electricitatis in motu musculari commentarius,” De Bononiensi Scientiarum et Artium Instituto atque Academia Commentarii (1791), VII, 363-418.
referred to: 28
Gambier, James (Baron) (1756-1833; DNB). Referred to: 363
Gay, John (1699-1745; DNB). Referred to: 98
— Dissertation Concerning the Fundamental Principle and Immediate Criterion ofVirtue, as Also the Obligation to, and Approbation of It. With Some Account of the Origin of the Passions and Affections. Prefixed to William King (1650-1729), Essay on the Origin of Evil. Cambridge: Thurlbourn, 1731.
referred to: 355, 356, 357
George III (of England) (1738-1820; DNB). Referred to: 364
Giéra, Paul (1816-61; EB). Referred to: 337, 338, 339, 340
Gilbert, Geoffrey.The Law of Evidence (1717). 2nd ed. London: Owen, 1760.
quoted: 41, 83
referred to: 7n
41.28 nobody . . . verdict, who had . . . contrary:] [paragraph] But this Rule of giving Verdicts in Evidence on the same Point, is to be taken with great Restriction; for no Body . . . Verdict that had . . . contrary; and therefore if a Termor for Years had recover’d against B. the Reversioner might give such Verdict in Evidence, for B. has no Prejudice, because he hath the Liberty to Cross-examine the Witnesses, and to attaint the Jury, and ’tis fit the Reversioner should make use of the Verdict, and have Benefit by it, since he had been dispossess’d by the Verdict, if it had gone against the Termor, and therefore he may offer it in Evidence; so if there were Tenant for Life, the Reversion in Fee, and B. brings his Action in Ejectment against the Tenant for Life, and a Verdict is given against the Plaintiff, it seems that the Reversioner might have given this in Evidence against B. because he would have been prejudiced in Case B. had recovered, for his Reversion would have been turned to a naked Right in him. (34-5)
83.3-4 “a diagram” . . . “for the demonstration of right”] [paragraph] And first of Records: These are the Memorials of the Legislature, and of the King’s Courts of Justice, and are authentick beyond all Manner of Contradiction: They are (if a Man may be permitted a Simile from another Science) the proper Diagrams for the Demonstration of Right, and they do constantly preserve the Memory of the Matter that it is ever permanent and obvious to the View, and to be seen at any Time in all the Certainty of Demonstration, in as much as the Record, as is observed elsewhere, can never be proved* [footnote: *More notorious.] per notiora, for Demonstration is only appealing to a Man’s own Conceptions, which can never be done with more Conviction than where you draw the Consequence, from what is already† [footnote.†Granted.] concessum, and consequently, there can be no greater Demonstration in a Court of Justice, than to appeal to its own Transactions. (7)
Gladstone, William Ewart (1809-98; DNB). Referred to: 168
Godwin, William (1756-1836; DNB). Things As They Are; or, The Adventures of Caleb Williams (1794). 4th ed. 3 vols. London: Simpkin and Marshall, 1816.
note: in SC.
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von (1749-1832; EB). Faust (1808, 1833).
note: as the reference is to the translation by Egerton (q.v.), no edition is cited.
Gordon, George Hamilton (Earl of Aberdeen) (1784-1860; DNB). Referred to: 381
Goulburn, Henry (1784-1856). Referred to: 361
Gregson, Robert S.
note: JSM’s solicitor; not otherwise identified.
referred to:328, 337
Grenier, Charles (1808-75; DBF), and Dominique Alexandre Godron (1807-80; DBF). Flore de France, ou Description des plantes qui croissent naturellement en France et en Corse. 3 vols. Paris: Baillière, 1848-56.
referred to: 284, 286, 294, 299, 300, 303, 304, 305, 313
Grey, Charles (Earl) (1764-1845; DNB).
note: the reference is to his administration.
Grey, William de (1st Baron Walsingham) (1719-81; DNB).
note: the quotation is in a quotation from Phillipps, taken from Howell, State Trials.
Grote, George (1794-1871; DNB). Referred to: 100, 103
— “John Stuart Mill on the Philosophy of Sir Wm. Hamilton,” Westminster and Foreign Quarterly Review, LXXXV (Jan. 1866), 1-39.
referred to: 100
— Notes to James Mill’s Analysis.
referred to: 103
Guibelalde, Bartolomé (fl. 1837).
note: the reference is in a quotation from Wellesley.
Gussone, Giovanni.Florae siculae synopsis exhibens plantas vasculares in Sicilia insulisque adjacentibus huc usque detectas. Secundum systema Linneanum dispositas. 2 vols. Naples: Tramater, 1842-43.
referred to: 295, 297, 302
Hall, Herbert Byng (1805-83; MEB). Spain; and the Seat of War in Spain. London: Colburn, 1837.
Hamilton, William (1788-1856; DNB). Referred to: 117, 150
— “Dissertations on Reid.” In The Works of Thomas Reid. Ed. William Hamilton. Edinburgh: Maclachlan and Stewart; London: Longman, et al., 1846, 910-17.
referred to: 121, 155
— Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic. Ed. Henry Longueville Mansel and John Veitch. 4 vols. Edinburgh and London: Blackwood, 1859-60.
note: the quotation is of Hamilton’s rendering of Cardaillac’s Etudes, q.v.
referred to: 117, 118
193.30 attain.] attain. [footnote omitted] (II, 250)
193.41 setting out] departing (II, 251)
194.11 explained. . . .] explained.”α [footnote indicator missing in 1st ed., but footnote—here omitted—to Cardaillac. There is no ellipsis in Hamilton’s text, but he was omitting a passage from Cardaillac, as Mill indicates by his marks of ellipsis] (II, 252)
194.15 thought.] thought. [footnote omitted] (II, 252)
195.3 consciousness. . . .] consciousness.” [footnote to Cardaillac omitted; no gap in Hamilton, whose own words follow, but Mill is indicating an omission from Cardaillac, quotation from whom recommences in the next paragraph] (II, 254)
195.8 effect, which] effect, and which (II, 254)
195.26 occupied by] occupied with (II, 255)
195.42 acting.] acting. [footnote omitted] (II, 256)
196.43 habit.”] habit.” [footnote omitted] (II, 258)
note: of Reigate; not otherwise identified.
referred to: 270
Hanway, Jonas (1712-86; DNB). An Historical Account of the British Trade over the Caspian Sea: with the Author’s Journal of Travels from England through Russia into Persia; and back through Russia, Germany and Holland. To Which Are Added, The Revolutions of Persia during the Present Century, with the Particular History of the Great Usurper Nadir Kouli (1753). 2nd ed. 2 vols. London: Osborne, et al., 1754.
note: this would appear to be the ed. cited. Vol. II, from which the quotation comes, is entitled: TheRevolutions of Persia: Containing the Reign of Shah Sultan Hussein; the Invasion of the Afghans and the Reigns of Sultan Mir Maghmud and His Successor Sultan Ashreff; with the History of the Celebrated Usurper Nadir Kouli, from His Birth in 1687, ’till His Death in 1747; and Some Particulars of the Unfortunate Reign of His Successor Adil Shah.
353.27 Horda] tribee [footnote:] eHorda. (II, 411)
353.28 Beg] lordf [footnote:] fBeg. (II, 411)
353.23 Karack or Karacarta] Carackg [footnote:] gThese I presume are the Caracaita, who distressed Nadir’s army so much. (II, 411)
353.33-4 In the . . . 2,500] [entered on one line, with total 3,000] (II, 411)
353.35 In Gedat . . . 1,000] [entered on one line, with total 6,000] (II, 411)
353.37 66,200] 66,200h] [footnote:] hThis number seems greatly to exceed what these people have been generally thought able to bring into the field, tho’ the several divisions of them may have easily created mistakes as to their strength. (II, 411)
Hardinge, Henry (Viscount) (1785-1856; DNB).
note: the reference at 368 is in a quotation from Ward.
referred to:362, 368
— Speech on the Affairs of Spain (17 Apr., 1837; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 37, cols. 1329-33.
note: also reported in Morning Chronicle, 18 Apr., 1837, 2, from which the quotation appears to have been taken. The reference at 368 is in a quotation from Ward.
referred to:367, 368
Hardwicke, Lord. See Philip Yorke.
Harrison, Samuel Bealey (1802-67; MEB). Evidence: Forming a Title of the Code of Legal Proceedings, According to the Plan Proposed by Crofton Uniacke, Esq. London: Butterworth, 1825.
quoted: 75, 76, 86
referred to: 7n
76.17-30 “By accounting . . . tolls . . . [paragraph] By paying tithes . . . tithes. [paragraph] Where . . . rector . . . [paragraph] In . . . title . . . end. [paragraph] In an action of ejectment . . . expired.”] 16. By accounting . . . tolls . . . [paragraph] 17. By paying tithes . . . tithes. [paragraph] 18. By receiving tithes, a clergyman precludes himself from disputing the fact of his being the parson, in an action against him for non-residence. [paragraph] 19. Where . . . rector . . . [paragraph] 20. In . . . title . . . end. [paragraph] 21. By submitting to a distress for rent, stated in the notice of distress to be due from the defendant as tenant to the distrainer, a defendant in an action of use and occupation, admits the tenancy, and is precluded from disputing the title of the plaintiff. [paragraph] 22. In actions of ejectment . . . expired. (9-10)
Hartley, David (1705-57; DNB). Referred to: 98, 99, 102
— Observations on Man, His Frame, His Duty, and His Expectations. 2 pts. Bath: Leake and Frederick; London: Hitch and Austen, 1749.
note: in SC.
referred to: 98, 99, 101-2, 118, 121-2, 139, 244-5
Hay, John (Lord) (1793-1851; DNB).
note: the reference at 369 is in a quotation from Wellesley.
referred to:369, 378
Haywood, William (1821-94; DNB). Questioned: 398
Heineccius, Johann Gottlieb (1681-1741; ADB). Elementa juris civilis, secundum ordinem institutionum et pandectarum (1727). In Operum ad universam juris prudentiam. 8 vols. Geneva: Cramer Heirs and Philibert Bros., 1744-49, V, 1-812.
note: in SC.
referred to: 92
Helvétius, Claude Adrien (1715-71; GDU). De l’esprit. Paris: Durand, 1758.
Henri IV (of France) (1553-1610; GDU). Referred to: 372
Heraclius II (of Georgia) (d. 1798; EB). Referred to: 349
Herbert, Henry John George (Earl of Carnarvon) (1800-49; DNB). Portugal and Gallicia, with a Review of the Social and Political State of the Basque Provinces: and a Few Remarks on Recent Events in Spain. 2 vols. London: Murray, 1836.
Herodotus (ca. 484-420 ; WWG). Herodotus (Greek and English). Trans. A.D. Godley. 4 vols. London: Heinemann; New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1926-30.
note: this ed. used for ease of reference. Two Greek and Latin eds. (Glasgow: Foulis, 1761; and Edinburgh: Laing, 1806) formerly in SC.
Hobbes, Thomas (1588-1679; DNB). Referred to: 97, 129, 134, 150
— “Computation or Logic” (in Latin, 1655). Part I of Elements of Philosophy: The First Section, Concerning Body. In The English Works of Thomas Hobbes: Ed. William Molesworth. 11 vols. London: Bohn, 1839-45, I, 1-90.
referred to: 137, 181
— Leviathan; or, The Matter, Form, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil (1651). In Works, III.
referred to: 129, 129-30, 133
Holman, Henry Martin. “Additions to Luxford’s Reigate Flora,” Phytologist, I (Sept. 1841), 51-4.
referred to: 268n, 271
Holme-Sumner, George (1760-1838; JMP). Speech on Commitments by Magistrates (2 Mar., 1824; Commons), PD, n.s. Vol. X, cols. 646-7.
referred to: 48
— Speech on Commitments and Convictions (27 May, 1824; Commons), PD, n.s. Vol. XI, col. 908.
referred to: 48
Holroyd, George Sowley (1758-1831; DNB). Referred to: 81
Holt, John (1642-1710; DNB). Referred to: 58
Homer (ca. 700 ; WWG). The Iliad (Greek and English). Trans. Augustus Taber Murray. 2 vols. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1924.
note: formerly in SC was Iliad and Odyssey (Greek), 2 vols. (Oxford, 1800).
referred to: 132
— The Odyssey (Greek and English). Trans. Augustus Taber Murray. 2 vols. London: Heinemann; New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1919.
note: formerly in SC was Iliad and Odyssey (Greek), 2 vols. (Oxford, 1800).
referred to: 132
Hooker, William Jackson (1785-1865; DNB). Referred to: 280
— British Flora; Comprising the Phaenogamous, or Flowering Plants, and the Ferns (1830). 6th ed. London: Longman, et al., 1850.
referred to: 280
Horace (Quintus Horatius Flaccus) (65-8 ; WWR). Odes. In Odes and Epodes (Latin and English). Trans. C.E. Bennett. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964, 1-347.
362.5-6 Sumite . . . meritis.] Sume . . . meritis et mihi Delphica / lauro cinge volens, Melpomene, comam. (278; III, xxx, 14-16)
Howell, Thomas Bayley (1768-1815; DNB), and Thomas Jones Howell (d. 1858; DNB), eds. A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanours from the Earliest Period to the Year 1783, with Notes and Illustrations: Compiled by T.B. Howell, Esq., F.R.S., F.S.A., and Continued from the Year 1783 to the Present Time by Thomas Jones Howell, Esq. 34 vols. London: Longman, et al., 1809-28.
referred to: 40n, 49, 58
Humboldt, Friedrich Wilhelm Heinrich Alexander, Freiherr von (1769-1859; ADB). Referred to: 360
Hume, David (1711-76; DNB). Referred to: 98
— An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. In Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects (with this title, 1758). New ed. 2 vols. London: Cadell; Edinburgh: Bell and Bradfute, and Duncan, 1793, II, 17-183.
note: in SC. The reference is to Section X, “Of Miracles,” II, 124-47.
referred to: 31
— An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751). In Essays and Treatises, II, 222-376.
note: the reference is in a quotation from James Mill’s Fragment, q.v.
referred to: 237
Humphreys, James (d. 1830; DNB). Referred to: 9, 9n
— Observations on the Actual State of the English Laws of Real Property, with the Outlines of a Code. London: Murray, 1826.
referred to: 9, 9n
Hutcheson, Francis (1694-1746; DNB). “An Inquiry Concerning the Original of Our Ideas of Virtue or Moral Good.” In An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue; in Two Treatises. London: printed Darby, 1725, 99-276.
note: the reference is in a quotation from James Mill’s Fragment, q.v.
referred to: 237
Ibrahim Khan. See Muhammad Ibrahim Khan.
Inglis, Henry David (1795-1835; DNB). Referred to: 361, 381
— Rambles in the Footsteps of Don Quixote. London: Whittaker, 1837.
note: selections first published in Englishman’s Magazine as “Recent Rambles in the Footsteps of Don Quixote,” Nos 1-4 (Apr., May, June, and Aug., 1831). The DNB mistakenly attributes the articles to the New Monthly Magazine.
— Spain. 2nd ed. 2 vols. London: Whittaker, 1837.
note: 1st ed. entitled Spain in 1830 (1831), q.v. The “new chapter” referred to is the “Introduction” to the 2nd ed., dated March 1837, but not signed; it is not by Inglis, who died in 1835, though he had projected a chapter “On the Present State and Prospects of the Peninsula” (xiii).
quoted:382, 384, 385
382.26 matters] matter [sic] (I, 45)
384.7 I] [no paragraph] I (I, 20)
— Spain in 1830. 2 vols. London: Whittaker, 1831.
note: see the preceding entry.
referred to:380, 381
Irvine, Alexander (1793-1873; DNB). Referred to: 266
— “Address to the Contributors, etc.,” Phytologist, n.s. IV (Jan. 1860), 1-10.
note: the reference is to Irvine’s citation of John Sim, q.v.
referred to: 283
— British Botany. London: Phytologist, 1856-58.
note: issued in consecutively numbered fascicles with issues of the Phytologist.
referred to: 266, 267
— “Calamintha Nepeta, Clairv.,” Phytologist, n.s. II (June 1857), 131-2.
referred to: 282
— The Illustrated Handbook of the British Plants. London: Nelson, 1858.
referred to: 280
— Introduction to the Science of Botany. 5 pts. London: Nelson, 1858.
note: continuously paginated.
referred to: 280
Isabella (of Castile) (1451-1504; EB). Referred to: 305
Isabella II (of Spain) (1830-1904; EB).
note: the reference at 366n is in a quotation from the Standard; that at 367 is in a quotation from Ward; that at 369 is in a quotation from Wellesley; that at 376 is in a quotation from the “Quadruple Treaty”; that at 386 is in a quotation from Cook.
referred to:360-88 passim
Ismael Beg (d. ca. 1740).
note: appears as Ismael Bey in text.
Jeanne (of France and Navarre) (1273-1305; GDU).
note: Queen of Navarre, married Philip IV of France in 1284.
Jeffreys, George (Baron Jeffreys of Wem) (1648-89; DNB). Referred to: 58
Jerome, St. (ca. 340-420 ; EB).
note: the reference is to the ruined hermitage on Monserrat named after St. Jerome.
referred to: 309
Joanne, Adolphe Laurent (1823-81; GE). Itinéraire descriptif et historique des Pyrénées de l’Océan à la Méditerranée. Paris: Hachette, .
note: a watchmaker, and a vestryman of the Strand district.
Kazi Mollah. See Gazi Muhammad.
King, Thomas (1802-39). The Substance of a Lecture Designed as an Introduction to the Study of Anatomy Considered as the Science of Organization; and Delivered at the Reopening of the School, Founded by the Late Joseph Brookes. October 1st, 1833. London: Longman, et al., 1834.
Kingston, Duchess of. See Elizabeth Chudleigh.
Klaproth, Heinrich Julius von (1783-1835). Tableau historique, géographique,ethnographique et politique du Caucase et des provinces limitrophes entre la Russie et la Perse. Paris: Ponthieu, 1827.
— Travels in the Caucasus and Georgia, Performed in the Years 1807 and 1808, by Command of the Russian Government. Trans. F. Shoberl. London: Colburn, 1814.
— See also “Rapport officiel sur les opérations de guerre contre les montagnards Musulmans du Caucase.”
note: the reference at 355 is in a quotation from Klaproth; that at 361 is in quoted verse.
referred to:354, 355, 361
Kunth, Carl Sigismund (1788-1850; ADB). Enumeratio plantarum omnium hucusque cognitarum, secundum familias naturales disposita, adjectis characteribus, differentiis et synonymis. 5 vols. in 6. Stuttgart and Tübingen: Cotta, 1833-50.
referred to: 292
Lafayette, Marie Jean Paul Roch Yves Gilbert du Motier, marquis de (1757-1834; GDU). Referred to: 174
Lamb, William (Lord Melbourne) (1779-1848; DNB).
note: the reference is in a quotation from Wellesley.
Laromiguière, Pierre (1756-1837; GDU). Referred to: 134
— Leçons de philosophie sur les principes de l’intelligence ou sur les causes et sur les origines des idées (1815-18). 7th ed. 2 vols. Paris: Hachette, 1858.
134.9 etc.] etc. (I, 307)
134.9 est] est (I, 307)
134.11 voudrais] voudrai (I, 307)
134.12 existe. Le] existe: je veux dire, d’un côté, que l’idée de Dieu et celle d’existence sont inséparables; de l’autre, que l’idée de Virgile et celle de poete se réunissent en une seule et même idée. Le (I, 307)
134.12 est] est (I, 307)
134.14 contenu,”] contenu, du tout à une ou à plusieurs de ses qualités, à un ou à plusieurs de ses points de vue [footnote omitted]; en disant l’être est, etc., on n’explique donc pas un mot par ce même mot, une idée par cette même idée. (I, 307)
Lavergne, Louis Gabriel Léonce Guilhaud de (1809-80; GDU). Economie rurale de la France depuis 1789 (1860). 2nd ed. Paris: Guillaumin, 1861.
referred to: 293
Law, Edward (1st Baron Ellenborough) (1750-1818; DNB).
note: the reference at 82 is in a quotation from Phillipps.
referred to: 49, 82
Lawrence, Soulden (1751-1814; DNB).
note: the quotation is in a quotation from Phillipps, q.v. for the collation.
Leclerc, Jean (1657-1736; EB). Ars critica in qua ad studia linguarum latinae, graecae et hebraicae munitur. London: Clavel, Childe, and Bell, 1698.
referred to: 24
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm von (1646-1716; ADB).
note: JSM uses the spelling Leibnitz.
referred to: 129
— Dissertatio de stilo philosophico Nizolii (1670). In Opera philosophica. Ed. Johann Eduard Erdmann. 2 pts. Berlin: Eichler, 1840, Pt. I, 55-71.
129.7 “plus quam nominalis.”] Ex hac jam regula Nominales deduxerunt, omnia in rerum natura explicari posse, etsi universalibus et formalitatibus realibus prorsus careatur; qua sententia nihil verius, nihil nostri temporis philosopho dignius, usque adeo, ut credam ipsum Occamum non fuisse Nominaliorem, quam nunc est Thomas Hobbes, qui, ut verum fatear, mihi plusquam nominalis videtur. (I, 69)
Letherby, Henry (1806-76; DNB). Questioned: 397-8
Locke, John (1632-1704: DNB). Referred to: 97
— An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). In Works. New ed. 10 vols. London: Tegg, et al., 1823, I-III, 176.
referred to: 32, 124, 144-5, 159, 161, 212
25.30 “All] First, all (III, 52)
25.35 temperance] temperate (III, 52) [treated as a typographical error in this ed.]
— Letter to Thomas Molyneux, 26 Apr., 1695. In Works, IX, 354-7.
referred to: 159
Locke, John (1805-80; WWBMP). Referred to: 389
Louis Philippe (of France) (1773-1850; GDU). Referred to: 376, 378n, 384
Luxford, George (1807-54; DNB). “Botanical Notes,” Phytologist, I (Aug. 1841), 43-4.
referred to: 264
— Editor’s Note, Phytologist, I (Sept. 1841), 62.
note: the note is appended to a communication from Edward Newman, reporting the same station for Lilium Martagon in Surrey in 1826. JSM is apparently referring to Irvine, but actually to the Phytologist, edited by Luxford before Irvine.
referred to: 280
— A Flora of the Neighbourhood of Reigate, Surrey, Containing the Flowering Plants and Ferns. London: Van Voorst; Reigate: Allingham, 1838.
referred to: 268-9, 270, 271
Macaulay, Thomas Babington (1800-59; DNB). Referred to: 101
— “Bentham’s Defence of Mill: Utilitarian System of Philosophy,” Edinburgh Review, XLIX (June 1829), 273-99.
referred to: 101
— Critical and Historical Essays, Contributed to the Edinburgh Review. 3 vols. London: Longman, et al., 1843.
referred to: 101
— “Mill’s Essay on Government: Utilitarian Logic and Politics,” Edinburgh Review, XLIX (Mar. 1829), 159-89.
referred to: 101
— “Utilitarian Theory of Government, and the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle,’ ” Edinburgh Review, L (Oct. 1829), 99-125.
referred to: 101
McCosh, James (1811-94; DNB). An Examination of Mr. J.S. Mill’s Philosophy, Being a Defence of Fundamental Truth. London: Macmillan, 1866.
referred to: 155
Mackintosh, James (1765-1832; DNB). Dissertation on the Progress of Ethical Philosophy, Chiefly during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Edinburgh: n.p., 1830.
note: offprinted from the 7th ed. of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (complete version, 1842), I, 290-429, where it appeared as “Dissertation Second, Exhibiting a General View of the Progress of Ethical Philosophy, Chiefly during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.”
referred to: 226, 233
238.12-13 “operation of conscience.” . . . “defeated.”] It has never perhaps been observed, that an operation of the conscience precedes all acts deliberate enough to be in the highest sense voluntary, and does so as much when it is defeated as when it prevails. (181)
Maclean, Donald (1800-74; WWBMP).
note: the reference is in a speech by Ward.
referred to:360, 361, 365n, 368
— Speech on the Affairs of Spain (18 Apr., 1837; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 37, cols. 1394-1411.
referred to:360, 362, 365n, 378n
Mahon, Lord. See Philip Henry Stanhope.
Malcolm, John (1769-1833; DNB). The History of Persia, from the Most Early Period to the Present Time: Containing an Account of the Religion, Government, Usages, and Character of the Inhabitants of That Kingdom. 2 vols. London: Murray, 1815.
Mansel, Henry Longueville (1820-71; DNB). The Philosophy of the Conditioned: Comprising Some Remarks on Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy and on Mr. J.S. Mill’s Examination of That Philosophy. London and New York: Strachan, 1866.
referred to: 155
Maria II (of Portugal) (1819-53; EB).
note: one of the references is in a quotation from the Quadruple Treaty.
Maria Christina de Bourbon (of Spain) (1806-78; EB).
note: Queen Regent during the minority of her daughter, Isabella II. The reference at 376 is in a quotation from the Quadruple Treaty; the reference at 384-5 is in a quotation from de Bourgoing; the first at 385 is in a quotation from Inglis.
referred to:376, 378, 384, 384-5, 385
Marie Antoinette (of France) (1755-93; GDU). Referred to: 106
Maslama (d. 739 ).
note: brother of Caliph Walid I. Appears in the text as Mushlimah.
Mayne, Richard (1796-1868; DNB).
Medical Gazette. Review of Carpenter’s Principles of General and Comparative Physiology, 2 Feb., 1839, 675-8.
referred to: 324
note: a bootmaker, and a vestryman of St. James’s parish.
Melbourne, Lord. See William Lamb.
Mendeléeff, Dimitri Ivanovich (1834-1907; EB). Referred to: 96
Mendizabel, Juan Alvarez (1790-1853; EUI). Referred to: 385
Miguel, Maria Evarist (1802-66; EB).
note: the first reference at 376 is in a quotation from the Quardruple Treaty.
referred to:376, 377
Mill, Harriet Taylor (née Hardy) (1808-58). Referred to: 327, 328, 336
Mill, James (1773-1836; DNB). Referred to: 93-253 passim
— Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind (1829). New ed. with notes illustrative and critical by Alexander Bain, Andrew Findlater, and George Grote. Edited with additional notes by John Stuart Mill. 2 vols. London: Longmans, et al., 1869.
note: in SC. The quotations at 130-1 and 170 are indirect; the second at 201 is summary.
quoted: 111, 124, 130, 130-1, 133, 136, 138, 140, 142, 146, 148, 149, 154, 156, 163, 164, 170, 171-2, 172, 176, 186, 191, 201, 204, 216, 228, 231, 252
111.17 “obscure”] The idea of figure which rises, is, of course, more obscure than that of extension; because, figures being innumerable, the general idea is exceedingly complex, and hence, of necessity, obscure. (I, 94)
124.10 “put . . . discretion;”] There is another species of complex ideas which, though derived also from the senses, are put . . . discretion, as the ideas of a centaur, a mountain of gold, of comfort, of meanness; all that class of ideas in short which Mr. Locke has called mixed modes. (I, 137-8)
124.11 “those . . . arbitrarily,”] Ideas, of the third class, those . . . arbitrarily are innumerable; because the combinations capable of being formed of the numerous elements which compose them, exceed computation. (I, 140)
124.11-13 “the . . . combination.”] [paragraph] As the combinations are formed arbitrarily, or in other words, as the . . . combination, it very often happens, that one man includes something more or something less than another man in the combination to which they both give the same name. (I, 141)
130.16 “the] It is, that the (I, 165)
133.15-16 “are . . . thing,”] Thus, “rational animal” is precisely the same class as “man;” and they are . . . thing; the one a simple, or single-worded name; the other a complex, or double-worded, name. (I, 171)
133.16-17 “to . . . term,”] When they are used for any other purpose than to . . . term, they are useless, and are denominated identical propositions. (I, 171)
133.17 “such propositions are] Such propositions therefore are (I, 171)
136.16 “the . . . us:”] But the two sides of an algebraic equation are of necessity two marks or two names for the same thing; of which the one on the right-hand side is more distinct, at least to the present purpose of the inquirer, than the one on the left-hand side; and the whole purpose of an algebraic investigation, which is a mere series of changes of names, is to obtain, at last, a distinct name, a name the . . . us, on the right-hand side of the equation. (I, 190)
136.22 “twice . . . angle.”] I arrive at this conclusion, as it is called, by a process of reasoning: that is to say, I find out a name “twice . . . angle,” which much more distinctly points out to me a certain quantity, than my first name, “amount of the three angles of a triangle;” and the process by which I arrive at this name is a successive change of names, and nothing more; as any one may prove to himself by merely observing the steps of the demonstration. (I, 191)
138.1 “Anciently,”] “A number of men anciently in England had wives in common.” (I, 199)
142.22-3 “men . . . names,”] It is thus obvious, and certain, that men . . . names. (I, 260)
142.30-2 “it . . . and of individual qualities . . . discourse.”] But as the limits of the human memory did not enable men to retain beyond a very limited number of names; and even if it had, as it . . . and of individual qualities, . . . discourse, it was necessary to have contrivances of abridgment; that is, to employ names which marked equally a number of individuals, with all their separate properties; and enabled us to speak of multitudes at once. (I, 260)
146.9 idea . . . when] idea. [two-paragraph omission] [paragraph] Thus, when (I, 264-5)
148.24-8 There . . . one primarily . . . secondary. . . . white horse . . . primarily . . . secondarily.] There . . . one, primarily . . . secondary. . . . white horse . . . primarily . . . secondarily. (I, 33n-4n)
149.17-19 “that in which there is no reference to anything preceding, that in which there is a reference to something preceding, and that in which reference is made to the will of one of the Persons.”] The Indicative is used when no reference is made to any thing which precedes: the Subjunctive, when a reference is made to something which precedes; and the Optative, and Imperative, when the reference is to the state of the will of the speaker or the person spoken of. (I, 155)
154.3 “will not be doubted”] Now these two, 1, the idea of the thing, 2, the idea of my having seen it, combined, make up, it will not be doubted, the whole of that state of consciousness which we call Memory. (I, 329)
154.13-15 “the idea of my present self, . . . and the idea of my past self, . . . self:”] Now in this last-mentioned part of the compound, it is easy to perceive two important elements; the idea of my present self, . . . and the idea of my past self, . . . self. (I, 330)
156.8 “All men admit.”] All men admit, that this, one of the most remarkable of all cases of belief, is wholly resolvable into association. (I, 345)
156.20-1 antecedent,” . . . “no . . . dispute”] antecedent, is no . . . dispute. (I, 352)
163.14-15 “we . . . believing”] The sound is heard; the association takes place; we . . . believing that the sound proceeds from a certain place, though we know, that is, immediately recognize, that it proceeds from another. (I, 370)
163.18-19 “in . . . believe . . . none:”] In . . . believe . . . none: though we may be sailing rapidly before the wind, she making hardly any progress against it. (I, 371)
163.19 “we believe] We believe (I, 371)
164.2-3 “dread . . . belief,” “we] That dread . . . belief, we (I, 372)
171.31-2 “A . . . different.”] A . . . different; and being felt to be different, and known to be different, are not two things, but one and the same thing. (I, 334)
171.34-5 “The . . . idea. . . . The] Besides, the . . . idea; of course, the associations are generically different. The (I, 335)
172.29-31 “the . . . association.”] I have a sensation; I have an idea; if these two are distinguishable in the having, it is likely that the . . . association; just as when I have two distinguishable sensations, one, for example, of red, and another of black, the copies of them, when brought up by association, are distinguishable. (I, 334-5)
172.34-6 “the . . . seeing and hearing:” . . . “not. . . . But” . . . “myself] The self which is at the antecedent end of the associated train, in the case of sensation, is the . . . seeing or hearing; the self at the antecedent end of the associated train, in the case of ideas, is not. . . . But myself (I, 336)
186.4 when] When (II, 21)
186.5 this other thing] the other (II, 21)
191.19-20 “the . . . thoughts” . . . “that . . . Effect.”] Supposing the . . . thoughts to have . . . effect, trains would still have that variety which we experience. (II, 67)
201.12 “the name of sound and] The second [silence], is the name of the thing, and (II, 103)
201.20 “Nothing”] Nothing is a name of all possible objects, including their non-existence. (II, 105)
204.7-8 “which . . . successiveness,” . . . “we] In the process which is marked by the relatives prior and posterior, part is noted, part connoted, and the part which is noted, is the part which it is difficult to make a separate object of attention,—the part which . . . successiveness, for which we (II, 81)
216.16 “idea . . . another,”] The remainder is the association with this idea . . . another, which are to fill up the intermediate time, and terminate with his finger placed in the flame of the candle. (II, 198)
216.22 “which . . . time”] [see preceding entry]
218.22-3 “without] Secondly, that there is no conception, that is, idea, without (II, 210)
228.4 “times . . . excitement”] This happens most readily in times . . . excitement; that is, when public opinion holds out a great reward; and when the object rather is, to ward off some great calamity, than to obtain an accession of good. (II, 274)
231.24 “not] The case is perfectly analogous to that of the love of posthumous praise, the dread of posthumous blame, and is a still more important principle of action, as it has reference, not (II, 299)
252.25 “the strong] Intention is the strong (II, 399)
252.27-9 “that . . . effect;” “the . . . intention.”] If it be asserted that [a Promise] is not only the declaration of an Intention, but the declaration that . . . effect; what is this but the declaration of another intention; the . . . intention? (II, 398)
252.29-30 “this . . . first:”] But this . . . first. (II, 398)
— Elements of Political Economy. London: Baldwin, et al., 1821.
note: 2nd ed. rev., 1824; 3rd ed. rev., 1826.
referred to: 100
— A Fragment on Mackintosh: Being Strictures on Some Passages in the Dissertation by Sir James Mackintosh, Prefixed to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. London: Baldwin and Cradock, 1835.
note: the 2nd ed. (London: Longmans, et al., 1870) is in SC.
quoted: 227, 233-7, 237-8, 238-9
referred to: 240
227.12 agents] agent (389)
233.37 classification . . . the] classification which, before talking of moral rules, Sir James ought to have well understood; the (249)
234.15 having been thus] having thus been (250)
234.39-40 and so on. . . . In] on. [ellipsis indicates 4 1/2-page omission] In (252-6)
234.47 knows . . . that] knows, even Sir James knew, that (257)
235.5-6 generated. . . . [paragraph] When] generated. The meaning of this, however, needs to be a little opened, since in heads like that of Sir James, strange work is apt to be made of it. [paragraph] When (257)
235.15-16 another. . . . [paragraph] Since] another. Habits of moral acting are habits of obedience to the principle of utility, and are so far from being liable to be prevented or hurt, as poor Sir James would have it, by bringing utility, as he phrases it, “into contact with action,” that they can be formed by no other means. [paragraph] On the formation of moral habits, reference being had to the confusion in the ideas of Sir James, another word may be necessary. Since (258)
238.22-3 other. . . . [paragraph] . . . Nothing] other. And this is what Sir James calls the contact of the conscience and the will. This too, is that precedence of conscience, which he says is a discovery of his own. [paragraph] Bless the memory of Sir James! Was he ignorant that this is included in the very definition of a voluntary act? Nothing (377)
— The History of British India. 3 vols. London: Baldwin, et al., 1817 .
note: the 3rd ed., 6 vols. (London: Baldwin, et al., 1826) is in SC.
referred to: 50, 99
— Miscellaneous writings. Referred to: 99-100
Mill, John Stuart.Autobiography. London: Longmans, et al., 1873. In CW, I, 1-290.
note: the 2nd ed. (London: Longmans, et al., 1873) is in SC.
referred to:329, 334
— “Bailey on Berkeley’s Theory of Vision,” Westminster Review, XXXVIII (Oct. 1842), 318-36, and XXXIX (May 1843), 491-4. In CW, XI, 245-69.
referred to: 156
— “Botany of Spain. A Few Days’ Botanizing in the North-Eastern Provinces of Spain, in April and May, 1860. No. I. Catalonia,” Phytologist, n.s. V (Aug. 1861), 225-36.
note: printed at 289-99 above.
referred to: 305
— “Botany of Spain. A Few Days’ Botanizing in the North-Eastern Provinces of Spain, in April and May, 1860. No. IV. Monserrat,” Phytologist, n.s. V (Dec. 1861), 356-62.
note: printed at 307-11 above.
referred to: 307
— “Botany of Spain. A Few Days’ Botanizing in the North-Eastern Provinces of Spain, in April and May, 1860. No. V. Spanish Pyrenees; Andorra,” Phytologist, n.s. VI (Feb. 1862), 35-45.
note: printed at 311-20 above.
referred to: 307, 311
— An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy. London: Longman, et al., 1865. CW, IX.
note: in SC.
referred to: 169-70
117.32 In] [no paragraph] In (282)
— “Isatis Tinctoria,” Phytologist, I (June 1841), 30.
note: printed at 258 above.
referred to: 259
— “Notes on Plants Growing in the Neighbourhood of Guildford, Surrey,” Phytologist, I (Aug. 1841), 40-1.
note: printed at 258-60 above.
referred to: 261
— “Notes on the Species of Oenanthe,” Phytologist, II (Feb. 1845), 48-9.
note: printed at 265-6 above.
referred to: 266
— “Plants Growing Wild in the District of Luxford’s Reigate Flora,” Phytologist, n.s. I (June 1856), 337-43.
note: printed at 268-74 above.
referred to: 274
— A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive. 2 vols. London: Parker, 1843. CW, VII-VIII.
note: 1st to 4th and 6th eds. are in SC.
referred to: 151, 175, 177
— Utilitarianism (1861). In CW, X, 203-59.
referred to: 241-2
Mitford, John Freeman (Baron Redesdale) (1748-1830; DNB). Considerations Suggested by the Report Made to His Majesty under a Commission, Authorising the Commissioners to Make Certain Improvements Respecting the Court of Chancery. London: Hatchard, 1826.
note: the reference is inferred.
Molyneux, Thomas (1661-1733; DNB).
note: JSM uses the spelling Molineux.
referred to: 159
Moore, John (1761-1809; DNB). Referred to: 372
note: the reference is in a quotation from the Standard.
note: the reference is in a quotation from the Standard.
Morley, John (Viscount Morley of Blackburn) (1838-1923; DNB). Referred to: 334
Mossop, Henry (1729?-74?; DNB). Referred to: 385
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus (1756-91; EB). Referred to: 222
Muhammad Ibrahim Khan (d. 1738). Referred to: 353
Murray, James Erskine.A Summer in the Pyrenees (1837). 2nd ed. 2 vols. London: Macrone, 1837.
note: the 1st ed. was unavailable for reference.
referred to: 317
Mushlimeh. See Maslama.
Nadir Quli Beg (1687-1747; EB).
note: known as Nadir Shah.
referred to:349, 353
Napier, William Francis Patrick (1785-1860; DNB). History of the War in the Peninsula and in the South of France, from the Year 1807 to the Year 1814. 6 vols. London: Murray, 1828-40.
— Letter to [T. George] Shaw, 28 Sept., 1835. In Shaw, Personal Memoirs, q.v.
388.5 and the] and that the (II, 460)
Narvaez, Ramon Maria (1800-68; EB). Referred to: 371
Nero, Claudius Caesar (37-68 ; WWR). Referred to: 305
Nevil, Edward (Baron) (d. 1705). Referred to: 56
Newman, Edward (1801-79; DNB). A History of British Ferns. London: Van Voorst, 1840.
note: an 1844 ed. is in SC.
referred to: 264
— “A History of the British Lycopodia and Allied Genera,” Phytologist, I (June—Nov. 1841), 1-7, 17-20, 33-6, 49-51, 65-7, 81-6.
referred to: 264, 266
Newton, Isaac (1642-1727; DNB). Optics; or, A Treatise of the Reflections, Inflections and Colours of Light. In Opera quae exstant omnia. Ed. Samuel Horsley. 5 vols. London: Nichols, 1779-85, IV.
note: the reference is in a quotation from James Mill’s Fragment, q.v. This ed. used for ease of reference. The so-called “Jesuits’ Edition” (Geneva: Barillot, 1739-42) is in SC.
referred to: 239
— Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica (1687). In Opera, II-III.
referred to: 95, 96
Nicholas I (of Russia) (1796-1855; EB).
note: the reference at 356 is in a quotation from Klaproth quoting a proclamation by Major-General Volkhovski.
referred to:348, 356
Opie, Iona and Peter, eds. The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951.
372.13-14 With . . . again.] The King of France went up the hill / With forty thousand men; / The King of France came down the hill, / And ne’er went up again. (176)
Oráa y Lecumberri, Marcelino (1788-1851). Referred to: 372
Paley, William (1743-1805; DNB). Referred to: 19
— The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy (1785). 15th ed. 2 vols. London: Faulder, 1804.
note: in SC. The reference at 59 is in a quotation from Denman.
referred to: 19, 59
19.23 as, where] as, [paragraph] I. Where no one is deceived; which is the case in parables, fables, novels, jests, tales to create mirth, ludicrous embellishments of a story, where the declared design of the speaker is not to inform, but to divert; compliments in the subscription of a letter, a servant’s denying his master, a prisoner’s pleading not guilty, an advocate asserting the justice, or his belief of justice, of his client’s cause. In such instances no confidence is destroyed, because none was reposed; no promise to speak the truth is violated, because none was given, or understood to be given. [paragraph] 2. Where (207-8)
Palmerston, Lord. See Henry John Temple.
Parker, Thomas (Earl of Macclesfield) (1666?-1732; DNB). Referred to: 69
Parry, Clive, ed. The Consolidated Treaty Series. 231 vols. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications, 1969.
note: this ed. used for ease of reference to miscellaneous treaties.
referred to:349, 358
Pascal, Blaise (1623-62; GDU). Referred to: 134
— De l’esprit géométrique (1658). In Appendix to Vol. II of Laromiguière, Leçons de philosophie, q.v., 467-91.
note:Oeuvres, 5 vols. (Paris: Lefèvre, 1819) in SC.
referred to: 134
Pedro IV (of Portugal, and Pedro I of Brazil) (Duke of Braganza) (1798-1834; EUI).
note: the reference at 376 is in a quotation from the Quadruple Treaty.
referred to:376, 377, 387
Peel, Robert (1788-1850; DNB). Referred to: 8, 9, 45, 57, 361, 367
— Speech on the Address in Answer to the King’s Speech (31 Jan., 1837; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 36, cols. 50-6.
note: the reference is in a quotation from Ward.
Pericles (d. 429 ; WWG). Referred to: 110
Persoon, Christiaan Henrik.Synopsis plantarum, seu enchiridium botanicum, complectens enumerationem systematicam specierum hucusque cognitarum. 2 vols. Paris: Cramer (Vol. I), and Treuttel and Würtz (Vol. II); Tubingen: Cotta, 1805-07.
referred to: 292, 302
Peter I (of Russia) (1672-1725; EB).
note: known as Peter the Great.
Petronilla (of Aragon) (1137-64; EB). Referred to: 379
Philip IV (of France) (1268-1314; GDU). Referred to: 379
Philip V (of Spain) (1683-1746; EB). Referred to: 379, 380
Phillipps (or Philipps), Samuel March (1780-1862; DNB). A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1814). 6th ed. 2 vols. London: Butterworth; Dublin; Cooke, 1824.
note: the quotation at 88 is indirect.
quoted: 22, 40, 41, 42, 44-5, 53, 56, 68, 68-9, 70, 74, 78, 79, 79n, 80, 81-2, 82, 83, 86, 87, 88
referred to: 7n, 39, 40, 42, 45, 49, 51, 54, 55, 73, 89
22.3 “If] [paragraph] If (I, 256)
40.1 “that . . . suit in] The objections, then, against the admissibility of such evidence seems to be, first, that the parties are not the same in the civil suit, as in the criminal case; and, secondly, that . . . suit on (I, 319)
40.24 “ ‘of . . . question, nor] But neither the judgment of a concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction is evidence of . . . question, though within their jurisdiction, nor (I, 304)
41.9 “had] [paragraph] The general rule is, that a verdict cannot be evidence for either party, in an action against one who was a stranger to the former proceeding, who had (I, 309)
41.28 “ ‘nobody . . . contrary:’ ”] And Ch. B. Gilbert lays it down, “that nobody . . . contrary.” (I, 309)
42.21-2 “that . . . litigation:”] Here it may be observed, the party, against whom the judgment was pronounced, had an opportunity of discharging themselves by proving the liability on a third parish; and this not having been done, and the court of quarter sessions having confirmed the order of removal, the last settlement is adjudged to be in the appellant parish; and this point being once determined, the judgment must be final, that . . . litigation.4 [footnote:] 4By Holt, C.J. in R. v. Rislip, Salk. 524. 2 Bott, 705. (I, 312)
44.34-45.3 “a decree of . . . law.”] [paragraph] A decree in . . . law.1 [footnote:] 1See ante, ch. 2. s. 1. (I, 340-1).
53.14-16 “a person . . . as a subscribing . . . instrument;”] A person . . . as subscribing . . . instrument, [footnote omitted] although his evidence is to be received with all the jealousy necessarily attaching to a witness, who upon his oath asserts to be false, what he has by his solemn act attested as true. [footnote omitted] (I, 39)
56.17-22 “In . . . case,” . . . “one . . . discharge.”] In . . . case, above cited, one . . . discharge4 [footnote:] 4See infra p. 33. on substitution of punishment for burning in the hand. (I, 32)
68.17 “where it seems,” . . . “to] [paragraph] One other exception appears to have been made in the case of an action for a malicious prosecution, where it seems to (I, 66)
68.33 “ ‘For] Lord Holt C.J. admitted in evidence the oath of the defendant’s wife (who was the only person present at the time of the supposed felony, and who, as the report says, could not herself be a witness) to prove the felony committed; “for (I, 66)
70.13-14 “The . . . chancery,” . . . invariably] But the . . . Chancery invariably (I, 421)
74.2-3 “acknowledgment upon record;” . . . “the] And as it is an acknowledgment on record, the (I, 175)
74.36 “The present] Mr. Justice Lawrence on that occasion said, “Van Dyck and Co., the persons on whose risk the goods were shipped, are in this difficulty; the present (I, 84)
75.8-12 “a letter . . . was held . . . good evidence [meaning . . . evidence] of . . . was . . . prove . . . made:”] A letter . . . was in this case, held . . . good evidence of . . . was . . . prove, . . . made. (I, 97n)
75.9-11 “where . . . of, the Master of the Rolls refused to admit] “Except in one or the other of these ways,” said the Master of the Rolls in Fairlie v. Hastings3, [footnote:] 310 Ves. 128. [text:] “I do not see how they can be evidence against the principal:” and therefore in that case, (where . . . of,) he refused to admit (I, 95)
75.24 “made] [paragraph] It must be remembered, that the cases, in which the declarations of an agent have been admitted against the principal, are exceptions to that general rule, which requires evidence to be given upon oath: and the exception is confined to such statements as are made (I, 95)
75.28-30 “it . . . agent:”] But it . . . agent. (I, 96)
78.14-15 “to . . . a written agreement.”] [paragraph] Parol evidence is not admissible to . . . a deed. (I, 530)
79n.2 “The] And the (I, 515)
79.27-8 “the . . . uncertainty.”] [paragraph] If a clause in a deed, or will, or any other instrument, is so ambiguously or defectively expressed, that a court of law, which has to put a construction on the instrument, is unable to collect the intention of the party, evidence of the declaration of the party cannot be admitted to explain his intention; but the . . . uncertainty. (I, 519)
80.8-10 “the . . . matter of specialty . . . of the higher account . . . matter of averment . . . of inferior account in law.”] “Ambiguitas patens,” says Lord Bacon1, [footnote:] 1Bac. Elem. rule 23.] [text:] (that is, an ambiguity apparent on the deed or instrument,) “cannot be helped by averment; and the reason is, because the . . . [none of phrases in italic] . . . in law; for that were to make all deeds hollow, and subject to averment, and so in effect to make that pass without deed, which, the law appoints, shall not pass but by deed. (I, 519-20).
80.13-14 “would . . . testators:”] So in a case, where the testator made dispositions in his will to several persons, among others to his wife and niece, who were the only women mentioned in the will, and then devised “to her” a particular estate for life, the question was, whether parol evidence could be admitted, to shew which of the two was intended: the Lord Chancellor refused to receive it, on the ground, that it would . . . testators; the Court held, that though the term “her” was relative, it was to be referred in this case to the wife, because in other parts of the will it seemed to relate to the wife; but expressly excluded the parol evidence offered to explain the will.2 [footnote:] 2Castleton v. Turner; cited 2 Ves. 217. (I, 520)
81.6-7 “the contents] The Judges were of opinion, that the question must be answered in the negative; and the reason of their opinion was, “That the contents (I, 281)
81.25-82.4 a written . . . all, . . . best evidence . . . occupation.] A written . . . all, [footnote omitted] . . . best evidence . . . occupation. [footnote omitted] (I, 486)
82.13-21 The acts of state of . . . Anderson] [no paragraph] The acts of state, also, of . . . Anderson5 [footnote:] 51 Campb. 65 (a). (I, 382-3)
83.32-7 Records . . . are . . . them. . . . mistake.] Records are . . . them. [footnote omitted] mistake. [footnote omitted] (I, 299)
83.7-8 “that . . . stated,” . . . “as . . . traversable.”] [paragraph] A record, then, is conclusive proof, that . . . stated; and evidence to contradict it will not be admitted. But it will not be conclusive as . . . traversable.1 [footnote:] 1Co. Lit. 352.b (I, 300)
86.12 “different] And, in addition to this argument of inconvenience, the objection taken to the evidence in that case, namely, that it was inapplicable to the point in dispute, appears to be very strong: customs being different (I, 162)
86.18 “ ‘for,’ . . . ‘if] In the Duke of Somerset’s case, Lord Ch. J. Raymond said, he had always looked upon it as a settled principle in the law, that the customs of one manor should not be given in evidence to explain the customs of another; “for, if (I, 161-2)
87.8 “argument of inconvenience,”] [see entry for 86.12 above]
89.22 the plaintiff in this action must prove that he . . . further, that he . . . possession;] [paragraph] The plaintiff, in support of this action, will have to prove, that, at the time of the conversion, he . . . further he . . . possession, and that the goods have been wrongfully converted by the defendant. [footnote omitted] (II, 168)
89.26-7 he must prove . . . defendant,] [paragraph] The plaintiff is also to prove . . . defendant, this being the main bearing of the action. (I, 168)
89.27-8 the denial . . . then, is a wrongful conversion;] “The very denial . . . then, (said Lord Holt in the case of Baldwin v. Cole) [footnote omitted] is an actual conversion, and not only evidence of it, as has been holden: for what is a conversion, but an assuming upon one’s self the property and right of disposing of another’s goods? (II, 169)
89.28-9 the defendant may shew that the property belonged to him or to . . . claims,] [paragraph] Under the general issue of not guilty, the defendant will be at liberty to prove his title to the property in question; for if the property belonged to him, he cannot be charged with a wrongful conversion. Or he may disprove the plaintiff’s title, by showing that the goods belonged to . . . claims; thus, if he took the goods out of the plaintiff’s possession, it will be a good defence in this action, that he took them by the order of one to whom they belonged. (II, 171)
89.29-30 the plaintiff . . . damages against a third person for a conversion of the same goods,] Or the defendant may prove that the plaintiff . . . damages for a conversion of the same goods, in an action of trover against J.S.; for this recovery vests the property in J.S., and the plaintiff has damages in lieu of the goods; in a second action, therefore, he cannot say, they are his property. [footnote omitted] (II, 171-2)
89.31-2 he was . . . parcener,] [paragraph] The defendant may also show that he was . . . parcener; one of these co-tenants cannot maintain trover against another, on the account of the unity of possession, which subsists between them; but if one joint tenant, or tenant in common, or parcener, destroy the common property, [footnote omitted] or sell the whole without authority, [footnote omitted] he will then be liable to this action. (II, 172)
89.32 had a lien on the goods,] [paragraph] In answer to the proof of a demand and refusal, the defendant may show, that he had a right to detain them under a lien. (II, 173)
Phytologist, I (June 1843), cover. Referred to: 264
Pindar (518?-after 446 ; WWG). The Odes of Pindar Including the Principal Fragments (Greek and English). Trans. John Sandys. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1946.
note: in SC is Παντα τα πινδαρου σωξομενα. Omnia Pindari quae extant. Cum interpretatione latina (Greek and Latin), 2 vols. in 1 (Glasgow: Foulis, 1744).
Plato (427-347 ; WWG). Referred to: 103, 362
— Gorgias. In Lysis, Symposium, Gorgias (Greek and English). Trans. W.R.M. Lamb. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1925, 258-532.
note: in SC is Opera omnia, ed. Immanuel Bekker, 11 vols. (London: Priestley, 1826).
referred to: 180
— Parmenides. In Cratylus, Parmenides, Greater Hippias, Lesser Hippias (Greek and English). Trans. H.N. Fowler. London: Heinemann; New York: Macmillan, 1914, 198-330.
referred to: 103, 141
— Phaedo. In Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus (Greek and English). Trans. H.N. Fowler. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1947, 200-402.
referred to: 103
— Protagoras. In Laches, Protagoras, Meno, Euthydemus (Greek and English). Trans. W.R.M. Lamb. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1952, 92-256.
referred to: 180
— Republic (Greek and English). Trans. Paul Shorey. 2 vols. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1946.
referred to: 103, 141
— Symposium. In Lysis, Symposium, Gorgias (Greek and English). Trans. W.R.M. Lamb. London: Heinemann; New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1925, 80-244.
referred to: 103
— Theaetetus. In Theaetetus, Sophist (Greek and English). Trans. H.N. Fowler. London: Heinemann; New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1921, 6-256.
referred to: 180
Plunket, William Conyngham (Baron) (1764-1854; DNB). Referred to: 49
Plutarch (fl. 50-120; WWG). “Alexander.” In Lives (Greek and English). Trans. Bernadotte Perrin. 11 vols. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914-26, VII, 223-439.
referred to: 44
— “Pompey.” In Lives, V, 116-324.
note: see also Zonaras.
Pollexfen, Henry (1632-91; DNB). Referred to: 58
Pompey (Gnaeus Pompeius) (106-48 ; WWG).
note: the reference derives from Zonoras, q.v.
referred to:351, 353
Pope, Alexander (1688-1744; DNB), et al. Memoirs of the Extraordinary Life, Works, and Discoveries of Martinus Scriblerus (1741). In Works. Ed. Joseph Warton, et al., 10 vols. London: Priestley, 1822-25, VI, 61-181.
note: in SC.
Price, Richard (1723-91; DNB). Referred to: 17
— “On the Importance of Christianity, the Nature of Historical Evidence, and Miracles.” in Four Dissertations. London: Millar and Cadell, 1767, 359-439.
referred to: 16-18
Price, Samuel Grove (1793-1839; WWBMP).
note: the reference at 368 is in a quotation from Ward.
referred to:361, 368
— Speech on Spain (10 Mar., 1837; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 37, cols. 249-56.
Priestley, Joseph (1733-1804; DNB). Referred to: 98
— Hartley’s Theory of the Human Mind on the Principle of the Association of Ideas, with Essays Relating to the Subject of It. London: Johnson, 1775.
referred to: 98
Procopius (ca. 326-66 ; WWR). Procopius (Greek and English). Trans. H.B. Dewing. 7 vols. London: Heinemann; New York: Macmillan, 1914-40.
note: this ed. used for ease of reference.
Quadruple Alliance (Treaty). See, under Parliamentary Papers, “Treaty between His Majesty . . .” (1834).
Quer y Martinez, José (1695-1764; GDU). Flora Española ó historia de las plantas que se crian en España. 4 vols. Madrid: Ibana, 1762-64.
note: continued by Gomez Ortega, Vols. V—VI (1784).
referred to: 290
“Rapport officiel sur les opérations de guerre contre les montagnards Musulmans du Caucase,” trans. Heinrich Julius Klaproth, Nouveau Journal Asiatique, 2nd ser., XI (Jan. 1833), 18-30.
quoted:355, 355-6, 356
355.22-32 After . . . death.] [translated from:] [no paragraph] Après que le village eut été occupé une bande d’à peu-près cinquante hommes, conduite par le moullah Abdour-rahman, l’un des partisans les plus déterminés de Kazi moullah, fut coupée du reste de la troupe et cernée dans une grande maison. Ces gens n’avaient aucun espoir de salut; mais lorsqu’on leur proposa de se rendre de bonne volonté, ils entonnèrent des versets du Coran, comme c’est leur usage quand ils se dévouent à la mort, puis, creusant des meurtrières dans les murailles, ils dirigèrent un feu bien nourri et bien ajusté sur les assaillants. Quelques grenades lancées dans la cheminée éclatèrent dans l’intérieur de la maison, mais cela n’ébranla pas leur résolution. Comme il fallait en finir avec leur bravade, l’ordre fut donné de mettre le feu à la maison. Onze d’entr’eux, à moitié suffoqués par la fumée, sortirent et se rendirent; quelques autres, le poignard et le sabre à la main, se précipitèrent sur les baïonnettes de nos guerriers; mais le plus grand nombre périt avec moullah Abdourrahman, en répétant sans interruption le chant de mort. (23-4)
355.38-356.8 The . . . resistance.] [translated from:] Le chemin de Ghumry, qui depuis le pays des Tchetchentses présente des difficultés incroyables, monte depuis Karanaï [footnote omitted] jusqu’au sommet neigeux d’une haute montagne; ensuite il descend pendant quatre versts en décrivant des sinuosités, sur le penchant escarpé des monts et le long des précipices, à travers des rochers et n’a que la largeur d’un sentier; ensuite, il passe, pendant une distance égale, sur les saillies étroites de rochers, et l’on ne peut aller de l’un à l’autre qu’à l’aide d’échelles dont il faut se munir. Ensuite, lorsque ce chemin s’est joint à un autre venant du village d’Erpeli [footnote omitted], il se rétrécit toujours davantage entre deux hauts parois de rochers perpendiculaires, et enfin, en avant du village de Ghumry, il est barré par trois murailles dont la première est fortifiée, de chaque côté, d’une petite tour. Le long de la pente de la montagne, plusieurs terrasses ont été très-habilement disposées de manière à opposer la plus vive résistance. (24-5)
356.11-12 “the . . . heaven.”] [translated from:] Ce défilé fameux est réputé inaccessible, et les montagnards disaient proverbialement: “Les Russes n’y pourront arriver que comme la pluie (en tombant du ciel).” (26)
356.15-24 After . . . Húmry.] [translated from:] Après que nos soldats eurent emporté la première muraille, il ne fut plus possible aux révoltés renfermés dans les petites tours, de se sauver par la fuite. Cependent ils ne voulurent pas se rendre et, au contraire, firent une résistance opiniâtre. Alors le général Veliaminov canonna vivement le rempart qui était en avant de ces tours; mais comme les bandits qui y étaient logés continuaient à tirer comme auparavant, des hommes de bonne volonté tirés du bataillon des sapeurs donnèrent l’assaut à ces fortifications et tuèrent les montagnards qui les défendaient. Parmi eux se trouvaient Kazi moullah et ses partisans les plus dévoués; leurs cadavres, percés de coups de baïonnettes, furent reconnus le lendemain par leurs compatriotes. La nuit mit fin au combat, et notre avant-garde fit halte entre le troisième mur et le village. [paragraph] Le 30 octobre, au point du jour, nos troupes entrèrent dans Ghumry (28)
356.27-38 The . . . understand!] [translated from:] “La justice de Dieu a atteint Kazi moullah, le propagateur de fausses doctrines, l’ennemi de la paix. Ce fourbe, ses principaux adhérents et une quantité de malheureux qu’il avait trompés ont été exterminés par la victorieuse armée russe dans le fameux ravin de Ghumry regardé comme inaccessible. [paragraph] Puisse cet exemple servir d’avertissement à tous les ennemis du repos public! puissent-ils, écoutant la voix du repentir, avoir recours au puissant gouvernement russe, et le grand empereur, dans sa bonté, leur accordera leur pardon! Mais quiconque osera dorénavant tramer des projets coupables, encourra sans miséricorde toute la rigueur des lois. Ni les montagnes, ni les forêts, ni les ravins ne le sauveront. Les troupes russes triomphantes pénétreront partout, partout les désobéissants et les traîtres seront châtiés. Les Galgai, les Itchkeri, les Tchetchentses, ceux de Ghumry et autres l’ont éprouvé. Quiconque a des oreilles pour entendre, qu’il entende et comprenne!” (30)
Ray, John (1627-1705; DNB). Referred to: 274
Raymond, Robert (Lord) (1673-1733; DNB).
note: the quotation is in a quotation from Phillipps, q.v. for the collation.
Ricardo, David (1772-1823; DNB). Referred to: 100
— On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London: Murray, 1817.
referred to: 100
408.3 “the] The (156)
Rich, Edward (Earl of Warwick, Earl Holland) (1673-1701).
note: see Cockayne’s Complete Peerage.
referred to: 56
Richardson, John (1796-1852; MEB). Movements of the British Legion (1836). 2nd ed. London: Simpkin, et al., 1837.
note: first ed. entitled Journal of the Movements of the British Legion.
370.16 Surely] [no paragraph] Surely (312)
Richerand, Balthasar Anthelme (1779-1840; GDU). Elements of Physiology (in French, 1801). Trans. G.J.M. de Lys. Ed. with notes by James Copland. 4th ed. London: Longman, et al., 1824.
referred to: 106
Roebuck, John Arthur (1801-79; DNB). Speech on the Vixen—Treaty of Adrianople (17 Mar., 1837; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 37, cols. 621-8.
note: see also his concluding motion on the same date.
referred to:346, 348
— Motion on the Vixen—Treaty of Adrianople (17 Mar., 1837; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 37, col. 628.
note: see also his preceding speech on the same date.
— Speech on the Affairs of Spain (19 Apr., 1837; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 38, cols. 18-23.
Rosen. See Rozen.
Roth, Albrecht Wilhelm (1757-1834; DBI). Tentamen florae germanicae. 3 vols. in 4 Leipzig: Müller, 1788.
referred to: 297
Rottiers, Bernard Eugène Antoine (1771-1858). Itinéraire de Tiflis à Constantinople. Brussels: Tarlier, 1829.
note: referred to in the text as Rottier. The reference to Gaerber (q.v.) is probably from Rottiers, 59
quoted:351, 351n, 354
referred to:353, 354
351n.14 “he . . . column.”] [translated from:] Dans une des dernières guerres, un de ces princes entreprit avec trois de ses amis de se faire jour à travers une colonne russe. (18)
351.15-17 “even . . . side.”] [translated from:] Il y a plus: les femmes même de cette nation guerrière suivent leurs époux au combat, non seulement pour exciter leur valeur ou panser leurs blessures, mais même pour se battre comme eux. (18)
354.11-24 Issuing . . . tiptoe.] [translated from.] [no paragraph] Dès le printemps, sortant de leurs retraites inexpugnables et de leurs monts tout couverts de neige, ils se jettent principalement sur la Carthlinie et le beau district de Kisichi Boudké. Ils vont se poster aux gués des rivières, dans les bois qui bordent les défilés, parmi les ruines des vieux monastères, et là ils attendent le pâtre et son troupeau, la petite caravane du marchand, et même le voyageur isolé. Souvent ils vont chercher leur proie dans les villages et jusque dans les villes; ils emmènent les habitants prisonniers, les rançonnent ou les gardent comme esclaves. La peine qu’ils se donnent pour empêcher la fuite de ces derniers se réduit à une opération inventée par la plus ingénieuse férocité. On les garde les premiers jours avec une apparente négligence, et on les traite si mal en les employant aux travaux les plus durs, que la plupart tentent de s’échapper: connaissant mal les localités, ils sont rattrapés sans peine, alors pour éviter le cas de récidive, le Lesghis fait à son esclave une incision sous le talon, et il insère dans la plaie du crin coupé par petits morceaux: la blessure se cicatrise bientôt, renferme ce corps étranger et semble complètement guérie; mais le malheureux à qui l’on a fait subir ce traitement éprouve des chatouillements douloureux chaque fois qu’il veut s’appuyer sur le talon: et tout le reste de sa vie, il est forcé de se tenir sur la pointe des pieds. (48-9)
Rozen, Grigory Vladmirovich (1781-1841).
note: the text, following Klaproth, uses the spelling Rosen.
Ruskin, John (1819-1900; DNB). Modern Painters. 5 vols. London: Smith, Elder, 1851-60.
referred to: 224-6, 320
Russell, William (Lord) (1639-83; DNB). Referred to: 58
St. Petersburgh Gazette. Referred to: 358
Sawyer, Robert (1633-92; DNB). Referred to: 58
Scott, Benjamin (1814-92; DNB). Questioned: 390-1, 402-4
Scott, John (Earl of Eldon) (1751-1838; DNB). Referred to: 55
— Speech on the Unitarian Marriage Bill (4 May, 1824; Lords), PD, n.s., Vol. 11, cols. 438-40.
referred to: 55
Scott, Walter (1771-1832; DNB). Rob Roy. 3 vols. Edinburgh: Constable, 1818.
364.7 thews and sinews] With all these cares on his mind, my fellow traveller, to judge by his thewes and sinews, was a man who might have set danger at defiance with as much impunity as most men. (I, 60; 3)
— The Vision of Don Roderick: A Poem. Edinburgh: Ballantyne, 1811.
note: the quotation is in a quotation from the Standard.
Senefelder, Alois (1771-1834; EB). Referred to: 38
Shakespeare, William (1564-1616; DNB). Referred to: 110
— As You Like It. In The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974, 365-402.
note: this ed. used for ease of reference.
356.25 “strange eventful history”] Last scene of all, / That ends this strange eventful history, / Is second childishness, and mere oblivion, / Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans every thing. (382; II, vii, 163-6)
363.13 “wise saws” . . . “modern instances”] And then the justice, / In fair round belly with good capon lin’d, / With eyes severe and beard of formal cut, / Full of wise saws and modern instances; / And so he plays his part. (382; II, vii, 153-7)
— Hamlet. In The Riverside Shakespeare, 1135-97.
note: the reference is to the character, Hamlet.
referred to: 110
— Henry IV, Part I. In The Riverside Shakespeare, 842-85.
note: the references at 110 are to Falstaff.
referred to: 110, 173, 174
— Julius Caesar. In The Riverside Shakespeare, 1100-34.
note: the quotation is in a quotation from Denman.
59.28-9 “let us . . . a feast . . . carcass for the hounds.”] And, gentle friends, / Let’s kill him boldly, but not wrathfully; / Let’s . . . a dish . . . / . . . carcass fit for hounds; / And let our hearts, as subtle masters do, / Stir up their servants to an act of rage, / And after seem to chide ’em (1113; II, i, 171-7)
Shaw, Charles (1795-1871; MEB). Personal Memoirs and Correspondence of Colonel Charles Shaw, K.C.T.S., &c. of the Portuguese Service, and Late Brigadier-General, in the British Auxiliary Legion of Spain; Comprising A Narrative of the War for Constitutional Liberty in Portugal and Spain, from Its Commencement in 1831 to the Dissolution of the British Legion in 1837. 2 vols. London: Colburn, 1837.
note: the heading of the article gives the title as Sketches of the War for Constitutional Liberty in Spain and Portugal; Interspersed with Scenes and Occurrences Abroad and at Home, but gives the same description of the author, the same publisher, date, and no. of vols.; it also lists “Shaw’s Memoirs, unpublished.” There can be little doubt that the title here given encompasses both those listed; see 386-7 for a partial explanation.
387.10 “great means at their command”] [paragraph] Once or twice General Reid came down to superintend the construction of the defences of Portugalette; but I could not help remarking that he must have been always accustomed to have great means at his command, and that engineering in this small way very naturally was not at all to his taste, and that he took much more interest in the drill of the Light Brigade. (II, 451)
387.14 “voluminous staff”] [paragraph] I was ordered to Bilbao, where I never saw a better dressed set of officers; but the General’s Staff was now so voluminous, that he was obliged to scatter them among the different brigadiers, displeasing thus a great many. (II, 452)
Shaw, T. George.
note: see also William Napier. Charles Shaw does not identify in his memoirs to which of his brothers Napier’s letter was addressed; however, George is a more likely recipient than Patrick, since most of Charles Shaw’s letters at this time were addressed to him.
Sidney, Philip (1554-86; DNB). Referred to: 364
Sim, John (ca. 1812-93).
note: see Alexander Irvine, “Address to the Contributors,” 1860.
referred to: 283
Smith, Adam (1723-90; DNB). The Theory of Moral Sentiments, to Which Is Added a Dissertation on the Origin of Language (1759). 6th ed. 2 vols. London: Strahan and Cadell; Edinburgh: Creech and Bell, 1780.
note: in SC.
referred to: 230-1
Smith, James Edward (1759-1828; DNB). Referred to: 259
— The English Flora. 4 vols. London: Longman, et al., 1824-29.
referred to: 259, 278, 282
Sonder, Otto Wilhelm (1812-81). Flora Hamburgensis. Beschreibung der phanerogamischen Gewächse, welche in der Umgegend von Hamburg wild wachsen und häufig cultiviert werden. Hamburg: Kittler, 1851.
referred to: 294
Spencer, Herbert (1820-1903; DNB). Referred to: 102, 159
— The Principles of Psychology. London: Longman, et al., 1855.
quoted: 205, 205-6, 206, 206-7, 207-10
referred to: 102, 139, 140, 159, 160, 184, 211
205.8 “On] [on paragraph] On (212)
205.113 pressure.” . . . [paragraph] “Allied] pressure [paragraph] Allied (212)
205.14 muscular motion. . . . While] muscular motion. Concerning the state of consciousness induced by muscular motion, and concerning the ideas of Space and Time which are connected with it in adult minds, something will be said hereafter. For present purposes it will suffice to notice, that while (212)
205.15 rises] arises (212) [treated as printer’s error in this ed.]
205.18 composition. [paragraph] When] composition. [1-paragraph omission] 55. When (213)
206.9 “What] [no paragraph] Still, however, there remains the question—What (226)
206.12 position. When we imagine] position. When we think of a particular area, we think of a surface whose boundary lines stand to each other in specific degress of remoteness; that is—are related in position. When we imagine (226)
206.29 locality, what] locality. What (226) [treated as printer’s error in this ed.]
207.23 position] positions (228) [treated as printer’s error in this ed.]
207.32 In the] For the (229) [treated as printer’s error in this ed.]
207.37 “How] [paragraph] Omitting for the present all consideration of the visual phenomena, let us turn our attention to the question in which centres the whole controversy respecting the genesis of our ideas of Motion, Space, and Time: the question namely—How (257)
207.43 developed? [paragraph] . . . Taking] developed. [paragraph] Already, in treating of visual extension (58), and the visual perception of space (62), and in showing how serial states of consciousness are consolidated into simultaneous states which become their equivalents in thought, the way has been prepared for answering these questions. The process of analysis partially applied to retinal impressions, has now to be applied, after a more complete manner, to impressions on the body at large. To this end, taking (258)
208.6 as the degrees] as the degree (258) [printer’s error in Source?]
208.15 them; no] them; no classing of them; no (259)
208.39 finger-end. . . . As] finger-end. Now it might be argued that some progress is made towards the idea of space, in the simultaneous reception of these sensations—in the contemplation of them as coexistent: seeing that the notion of coexistence and the notion of space have a common root; or in other words—seeing that to be conscious of a duality or multiplicity of sensations, is the first step towards being conscious of that duality or multiplicity of points in space which they imply. It might also be argued that as, when the finger is moved back from Z to A, these serial sensations are experienced in a reverse order, there is thus achieved a further step in the genesis of the idea: seeing that coexistent things are alone capable of impressing consciousness in any order with equal vividness. But passing over these points, let us go on to notice, that as (260)
208.50-209.] consciousness. [paragraph] Due] consciousness. [no paragraph] Due (261)
209.11 case,] case (58), (261)
209.13 presentations] presentation (261) [treated as printer’s error in this ed.]
209.14 positions.a . . . As] positions. [no footnote] positions: and it is needless here to repeat the explanation. What it now concerns us to notice is this:—that as (261)
209.14-19 As . . . other.] [in italic] (261)
209n.1 “Objects] And when, by numberless repetitions, the relation between any one finger and each of the others is established, and can be represented to the mind as a series of a certain length; then we may understand how a stick laid upon the surface so as at the same moment to touch all the fingers from A to Z inclusive, will be taken as equivalent to the series A to Z—how the simultaneous excitation of the entire range of fingers, will come to stand for its serial excitation—how thus, objects (222)
209n.3 cover. . . . By] cover—and how by (222)
209n.8 We see that “a set of [nervous] elements] We have seen that a set of retinal elements (224)
209n.9 quasi] quasi (224)
209n.10 coexistent positions] [in italic] (224)
209n.11 successive positions] [in italic] (224)
209n.13-14 of . . . extension] of visible extension (224)
Standard. Leading article on the Durango Decree, 28 Mar., 1837, 2.
Stanhope, Philip Henry (Viscount Mahon, later Earl Stanhope) (1805-75; DNB). Speech on the Affairs of Spain (18 Apr., 1837; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 37, cols. 1428-38; reported in Morning Chronicle, 19 Apr., 1837, 3.
Starkey, Theophilus William.
note: clerk to JSM’s solicitor, R.S. Gregson.
Starkie, Thomas (1782-1849; DNB). A Practical Treatise of the Law of Evidence, and Digest of Proofs in Civil and Criminal Proceedings. 3 vols. London: Clarke, 1824.
referred to: 7n, 47n, 52, 85n, 89
Stephens, Edward Bell.The Basque Provinces: Their Political State, Scenery, and Inhabitants; with Adventures among the Carlists and Christinos. 2 vols. London: Whittaker, 1837.
Stewart, Dugald (1753-1828; DNB). Referred to: 163
— Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind. 3 vols. London: Strahan and Cadell; Edinburgh: Creech, 1792 (Vol. I). Edinburgh: Constable; London: Cadell and Davies, 1814 (Vol. II). London: Murray, 1827 (Vol. III).
referred to: 163, 218, 245
Swift, Jonathan (1667-1745; DNB). “The Grand Question Debated: Whether Hamilton’s Bawn Should be Turned into a Barrack or Malt-House.” In The Works of JonathanSwift, D.D., Dean of St. Patrick’s, Dublin; Containing Additional Letters, Tracts, and Poems, Not Hitherto Published; with Notes and a Life of the Author. Ed. Walter Scott. 19 vols. Edinburgh: Constable; London: White, et al.; Dublin: Cumming, 1814, XV, 148-55.
note: this ed. in SC.
363.10 nation.] nation: / My schoolmaster call’d me a dunce and a fool, / But at cuffs I was always the cock of the school; / I never could take to my book for the blood o’ me. (XV, 154)
Tahmasp II (Shah of Persia) (1704-40; EB).
note: appears at Támásp in the text.
Taylor, Algernon (1830-1903).
note: second son of Harriet and John Taylor.
referred to:329, 331, 338
Taylor, Elizabeth Mary (1861-1924).
note: elder daughter of Algernon Taylor.
referred to:329, 330, 331, 332
Taylor, Helen (1831-1907).
note: JSM’s companion on his tour through Spain, and hence included in the narrative “we” at 289-320 passim.
referred to:289-320 passim, 327-44 passim
Taylor, John Cyprian (1862-1939).
note: son of Algernon Taylor.
referred to:329, 330, 331
Taylor, Mary (1863/4-1918).
note: younger daughter of Algernon Taylor and eventually legatee of JSM’s papers.
referred to:329, 330, 331, 332
Temple, Henry John (Lord Palmerston) (1784-1865; DNB).
note: the reference at D.7 is in a quotation from Ward.
referred to:345, 346, 349
— Speech on the Vixen—Treaty of Adrianople (17 Mar., 1837; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 37, cols. 630-6.
— Speech on the Affairs of Spain (19 Apr., 1837; Commons), Morning Chronicle, 20 Apr., 1837, 2. Also in PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 38, cols. 59-96.
365. 14 “Unfortunately, history] But, unfortunately, sir, history (2)
365n.16 Europe. Let them look to their] Europe. (hear! hear!) Look at their (2)
365n.17 America—to all] America—Look at all (2)
365n.18 and they would see that their] and you will see that in all cases their (2)
365n.19 earth. One] earth. [paragraph omitted] One (2)
365n.19-22 One of the effects of the regeneration of Spain, through the force of constitutional government, was, that, by generating a public opinion they would improve the Spanish character, and put an end to atrocities like these.”] But I trust and hope that one of the results, at least, from the regeneration of Spain, through the medium of a free constitution will be, by the creation of public opinion which such a constitution must produce, that these defects and vices of the national character will, for the future, be corrected. (2)
Tenore, Michele (1780-1861; GDU). Catalogus plantarum horti regii Neapolitani ad annum 1813. 2 pts. Naples: Trani, 1813, 1819.
referred to: 297
Thiers, Louis Adolphe (1797-1866; GDU). Speech in the Chamber of Deputies (14 Jan., 1837), Morning Chronicle, 17 Jan., 1837, 2.
378n.9 “Look] For, look (2)
378n.13 has] had (2)
Thornton, William Thomas (1813-80; DNB). Referred to: 327-41 passim
Thwaites, John (1815-70; MEB). Questioned: 395-7
Tite, William (1798-1873; DNB). Referred to: 399
— Question in “Third Report from the Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Government,” PP, 1867, XII, 569
399.4-5 “Our sewers ceased at Holborn Bars, and therefore we thought it very desirable to have this power.”] The point was this: that when we got to Holborn Bars our authority ceased, and that was very inconvenient and very undesirable? (569)
Tooke, John Horne (1736-1812; DNB). Referred to: 103
— Επεα πτεροεντα; or, The Diversions of Purley (1786). 2nd ed. 2 vols. London: Johnson, 1798, 1805.
referred to: 103
Tormasoff, Alexander (1752-1819). Referred to: 357
Travassos Valdez, José Lúcio (1787-1862). Referred to: 385
Treby, George (1644?-1700; DNB). Referred to: 56
Uniacke, Crofton (1783-1852).
note: Uniacke’s “plan” is embodied in his The New Jury Law: Forming a Title of the Code of Legal Proceedings, According to the Plan Proposed for the Statute Law of the Realm (London: Clarke, 1825).
referred to: 7n
Valdez. See Travassos Valdez.
Valerius Flaccus, Gaius (d. ca. 90 ; WWR). Valerius Flaccus (Latin and English). Trans. J.H. Mozley. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1934.
351n.2-7 “Cunabula . . . imperet.”] nec minus hinc varia dux lactus imagine templi / ad geminas fert ora fores cunabula . . . imperet; Arsinoen illi tepidaeque requirunt / otia laeta Phari pinguemque sine imbribus annum, / hi iam Sarmaticis permutant carbasa bracis. (274-6; V, 416-24)
Vauban, Sébastien le Prestre de (1633-1707; GDU). Referred to: 312
Veliaminov, Alexei (1783-1838).
note: the reference is in a quotation from Klaproth.
Vere, Horace (Baron Vere of Tilbury) (1565-1635; DNB).
note: referred to in the text as Horatio Vere.
Virgil (Publius Virgilius Maro) (70-19 ; WWR).
note: the reference is in a quotation from Laromiguière.
referred to: 134
Volkhovsky, V.D. (1778-1841).
note: the reference is in a quotation from Klaproth, who refers to him as the major-general.
Volney, Constantin François de Chasseboeuf, comte de (1757-1820; GDU). Voyage en Syrie et en Egypte, pendant les années 1783, 1784 et 1785. 2 vols. Paris: Volland, and Desenne, 1787.
350n.15-20 “During . . . years,” . . . “that . . . young.”] [translated from.] Depuis cinq cent-cinquante ans qu’il y a des Mamlouks en Egypt, pas un seul n’a donné lignée subsistante; il n’en existe pas une famille à la seconde génération: tous leurs enfans périssent dans le premier ou le second âge. (I, 99)
350n.20 young. The] [2-page omission]
350n.20-2 The . . . country (Circassia).”] [translated from:] Le moyen qui les a perpétués et multipliés, est donc le même qui les y a établis: c’est-à-dire, qu’ils se sont régénérés par les esclaves transportés de leur pays originel. (I, 101).
Volta, Alessandro (1745-1827; EB). “On the Electricity Excited by the Mere Contact of Conducting Substances.” In a letter to Sir Joseph Banks, 20 Mar., 1800, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, XC, Pt. II (1800), 403-31.
referred to: 28
Voltaire, François Marie Arouet (1694-1778; GDU). “Lettre XXII. Sur M. Pope et quelques autres poètes fameux,” Lettres sur les Anglais, ou Lettres philosophiques (1733). In Oeuvres complètes. 66 vols. Paris: Renouard, 1819-25, XXIV, 125-38.
note: in SC; the copy has a pencilled line beside it, probably not Mill’s.
163.36 Anglais sont d’accord, il] Anglais pensent de même, il (136)
Walid I (675-715 ). Referred to: 352
Walker, George William.
note: clerk to JSM’s solicitor, R.S. Gregson.
Walton, William (1784-1857; DNB). Referred to: 364, 365
— A Reply to the Anglo-Christino Pamphlet, Entitled “The Policy of England towards Spain.” London: Hatchard, 1837.
368.27-8 “that the privates were the lowest] [paragraph] On the return of our liberals to power, they resolved to reward the compliance of the Carlists by letting loose upon them the lowest (138)
Ward, Edward (1638-1714; DNB). Referred to: 56, 58
Ward, Henry George (1797-1860; DNB). Speech on the Affairs of Spain (18 Apr., 1837; Commons), Morning Chronicle, 19 Apr., 1837, 3. Also in PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 37, cols. 1420-8.
Warwick, Lord. See Edward Rich.
Watson, Hewett Cottrell (1804-81).
note: the specific references at 267 and 281 have not been located.
referred to: 266, 267, 281
— “Some Account of the Oenanthe pimpinelloides, and peucedanifolia of English Authors,” Phytologist, II (Jan. 1845), 11-15.
referred to: 265
Watson, Richard (1737-1816; DNB). Referred to: 20
— A Letter to the Members of the Honourable House of Commons, Respecting the Petition for Relief in the Matter of Subscription. By a Christian Whig. London: Boyer and Nichols, 1772.
referred to: 20
Wellesley, Arthur (Duke of Wellington) (1769-1852; DNB). Referred to: 368, 377-8
— Speech on Spain—Lord John Hay’s Despatches (21 Apr., 1837; Lords), Morning Chronicle, 22 Apr., 1837, 1-2. Also in PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 38, cols. 137-50.
note: Mill’s exact source has not been located.
Wellington, Duke of. See Arthur Wellesley.
Wilkins, John William (b. 1829). “The Republic of Andorre,” Edinburgh Review, CXIII (Apr. 1861), 345-59.
referred to: 317
317.25 “isolated . . . frontier.”] Andorre, then, is a republic isolated . . . frontier, included neither in France nor in Spain, but intervening between the two countries, and (so far as their frontiers and government are concerned) by much more ancient than either (346-7)
William IV (of England) (1765-1837; DNB). Referred to: 376, 377, 378
Woods, Joseph (1776-1864; DNB). The Tourist’s Flora: A Descriptive Catalogue of the Flowering Plants and Ferns of the British Islands, France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and the Italian Islands. London: Reeve, et al., 1850.
referred to: 292, 316
Wordsworth, William (1770-1850; DNB). “Rob Roy’s Grave” (1807). In Poetical Works. 5 vols. London: Longman, et al., 1827, III, 24-30.
note: in SC.
360.7 The good] For why?—because the good (III, 26; 37)
360.7 rule, the] Rule / Sufficeth them, the (III, 26; 37-8)
Yorke, Philip (Earl of Hardwicke and Viscount Royston) (1690-1764; DNB). Referred to: 80
Zonaras, Joannes (fl. 12th cent.). Επιτομη ιστοριων.
note: the spelling Zonoras appears in the text. Zonaras based his Epitome on Plutarch’s Lives (q.v.), among other works.
“Report Made to His Majesty by the Commissioners Appointed to Enquire into the Practice of Chancery,” PP, 1826, XV, 1-120.
referred to: 8
Protocols of the Conferences Held at London, between the Plenipotentiaries of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, PP, 1833, XLII, 1-551.
“Treaty between His Majesty, the Queen Regent of Spain, the King of the French, and the Duke of Braganza, Regent of Portugal,” PP, 1834, LI, 299-309.
note: the Quadruple Treaty, also known as the Quadruple Alliance, signed 22 Apr., 1835. The wording in PP differs markedly from that quoted in the text. The reference at 367 is in a quotation from Ward.
referred to:367, 368, 373, 377, 378; 378n, 379
376.30 daughter, Isabella II.,] Daughter Donna Isabella the Second (300).
376.31 kingdoms] Kingdom (300)
376.32 and the ] and of the (300)
376.32 of Queen] of the Queen (300)
376.32 II.] the Second (300)
376.32-3 intimately convinced that the interest] being impressed with a deep conviction that the interests (300)
376.33 Crowns imperiously demand] Crowns, and the security of their respective Dominions, require (300)
376.34 mutual] joint (300)
376.34 for terminating] to put an end to (300)
376.34-5 which heretofore had for their object the overthrow of her Portuguese Majesty’s throne, and] which, though directed in the first instance against the Throne of Her Most Faithful Majesty (300)
376.35 countenance] shelter (300)
376.36 discontented] disaffected and rebellious (300)
376.36 kingdom] Crown (300)
376.36-41 their . . . kingdom.”] and Their Majesties being desirous, at the same time, to prove the necessary means for restoring to the subjects of each, the blessings of internal peace, and to confirm, by mutual good offices, the friendship which they are desirous of establishing and cementing between their respective States,—They have come to the determination of uniting their forces, in order to compel the Infant Don Carlos of Spain, and the Infant Don Miguel of Portugal, to withdraw from the Portuguese Dominions (300)
377.3-7 “The . . . treaty.”] In consequence of this agreement, Their Majesties the Regents have addressed themselves to Their Majesties the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the King of the French; and Their said Majesties, considering the interest they must always take in the security of the Spanish Monarchy, and being further animated by the most anxious desire to assist in the establishment of peace in the Peninsula, as well as in every other part of Europe, and His Britannic Majesty considering, moreover, the special obligations arising out of His ancient Alliance with Portugal, Their Majesties have consented to become Parties to the proposed engagement. (300-2)
“A Bill Intituled ‘An Act for the Establishment of Municipal Corporations within the Metropolis,’ Appendix 9 of Second Report from the Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Government, etc.; together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendix,” PP, 1866, XIII, 619-28.
referred to:399, 404
“A Bill to Make Better Provision for the Raising of Money to Be Applied in the Execution of Works of Permanent Improvement in the Metropolis,” 30 Victoria (26 Feb., 1867), PP, 1867, IV, 203-6.
“A Bill, Intituled, ‘An Act for Regulating the Traffic in the Metropolis, and for Making Provision for the Greater Security of Persons Passing through the Streets; and for Other Purposes,’ ” 30 Victoria (27 Mar., 1867), PP, 1867, VI, 423-35.
“Third Report from the Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Government, &c.; together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendix” (20 May, 1867), PP, 1867, XII, 443-660.
4 Henry VII, c. 13. Clergy Shall Be Allowed but Once. A Convict Person Shall Be Marked with the Letters M or T. A Provision for Them Which Be within Orders (1487).
referred to: 56
8 Elizabeth, c. 4. An Act to Take Away the Benefit of Clergy from Certain Offenders for Felony (1565).
referred to: 70
18 Elizabeth, c. 7. An Act to Take Away Clergy from the Offenders in Rape or Burglary, and an Order for the Delivery of Clerks Convict without Purgation (1576).
referred to: 56
29 Charles II, c. 3. An Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries (1676).
referred to: 72
7 & 8 William III, c. 3. An Act for Regulating of Trials in Cases of Treason and Misprision of Treason (1695).
referred to: 70
9 & 10 William III, c. 32. An Act for the More Effectual Suppressing of Blasphemy and Prophaneness (1698).
referred to: 54
4 George I, c. 11. An Act for the Further Preventing Robbery, Burglary, and Other Felonies, and for the More Effectual Transportations of Felons, and Unlawful Exporters of Wool; and for Declaring the Law upon Some Points Relating to Pirates (1717).
referred to: 56
19 George III, c. 74. An Act to Explain and Amend the Laws Relating to the Transportation, Imprisonment, and Other Punishment, of Certain Offenders (1779).
referred to: 56
39 & 40 George III, c. 93. An Act for Regulating Trials for High Treason and Misprision of High Treason, in Certain Cases (28 July, 1800).
referred to: 70
43 George III, c. 141. An Act to Render Justices of the Peace More Safe in the Execution of Their Duty (11 Aug., 1803).
referred to: 47
48 George III, c. 129. An Act to Repeal So Much of an Act Passed in the Eighth Year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, Intituled, An Act to Take Away the Benefit of Clergy from Certain Offenders for Felony, as Takes away the Benefit of Cergy from Persons Stealing Privily from the Person of Another; and for More Effectually Preventing the Crime of Larceny from the Person (30 June, 1808).
referred to: 70
53 George III, c. 127. An Act for the Better Regulation of Ecclesiastical Courts in England, and for the More Easy Recovery of Church Rates and Tithes (12 July, 1813).
referred to: 55
53 George III, c. 160. An Act to Relieve Persons Who Impugn the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity from Certain Penalties (21 July, 1813).
referred to: 55
5 George IV, c. 41. An Act to Repeal Certain Duties on Law Proceedings in the Courts in Great Britain and Ireland Respectively (28 May, 1824).
note: one of Peel’s law reforms.
referred to: 8, 50, 57
6 George IV, c. 25. An Act for Defining the Rights of Capital Convicts who Receive Pardon, and of Convicts after Having Been Punished for Clergyable Felonies; for Placing Clerks in Orders on the Same Footing with Other Persons, as to Felonies; and for Limiting the Effect of the Benefit of Clergy (20 May, 1825).
note: one of Peel’s law reforms.
referred to: 8, 57
6 George IV, c. 84. An Act to Provide for the Augmenting the Salaries of the Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancellor of England, the Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer, and the Puisne Judges and Barons of the Courts in Westminster Hall; and to Enable His Majesty to Grant an Annuity to Such Vice Chancellor, and Additional Annuities to Such Master of the Rolls, Chief Baron and Puisne Judges and Barons, on Their Resignation of Their Respective Offices (5 July, 1825).
note: one of Peel’s law reforms.
referred to: 8, 48
6 George IV, c. 96. An Act for Preventing Frivolous Writs of Error (5 July, 1825).
note: one of Peel’s law reforms.
referred to: 8, 45
11 & 12 Victoria, c. 112. An Act to Consolidate and Continue in Force for Two Years and to the End of the Then Next Session of Parliament, the Metropolitan Commissions of Sewers (4 Sept., 1848).
18 & 19 Victoria, c. 120. An Act for the Better Local Management of the Metropolis (14 Aug., 1855).
25 & 26 Victoria, c. 102. An Act to Amend the Metropolis Local Management Acts (7 Aug., 1862).
29 & 30 Victoria, c. 90. An Act to Amend the Law Relating to the Public Health (7 Aug., 1866).
referred to:397, 398
Loi concernant les mesures de salut public prises relativement à la conspiration royale (19 fructidor, an V [5 Sept., 1797]), Bull. 142, No. 1400, Bulletin des lois de la république française, 2nd ser., IV, 7-10.
Loi qui ordonne la déportation des journalistes royaux (22 fructidor, an V [8 Sept., 1797]), Bull. 143, No. 1405, Bulletin des lois de la république française, 2nd ser., IV, 12-14.
Code Civil. In Journal officiel du royaume des Pays-Bas, Vols. 17-21 (1822-26).
referred to: 91-2
Las siete partidas del rey Alfonso el Sabio, cotejadas con varios codices antiguos por la Real Academia de la Historia (1263). 3 vols. Madrid: Imprenta Real, 1807.
note: JSM’s reference is to the provision for the succession of daughters to the throne in default of sons, Partida II, Title xv, Law 2 (II, 132-3). The partidas were the work of Alphonso X, King of Castile, in 1263. This law was restored in the Constitution of Cadiz (q.v.) in 1812.
Constitución política de la Monarquía Ėspañola. Promulgada en Cadiz á 19 de marzo de 1812. Cadiz: Imprenta Real, 1812.
Pragmatica—Sancion en fuerza de ley decretada por el Señor Rey Don Carlos Cuarto a peticion de la cortes del año de 1789, y mandada publicar por S.M. Reinante para la observancia perpetua de la ley segunda, título quince, partida segunda, que establece la sucesion regular en la corona de España. Madrid: Imprenta Real, 1830.
note: the first reference is to the secret Cortes of 1789, where Charles IV overturned the Salic Law instituted by Philip V in 1713; the second is to the promulgation of this decision by Ferdinand VII in 1830 in his proclamation of his daughter as his successor.
Estatuto real para la convocacion de la Córtes Generales del Reino (10 Apr., 1834). Madrid: De Burgos, 1834.
Constitución de la monarquía española, decretada y sancionada por las Córtes Generales en 1837, y adoptada por la Reina gobernadora Doña María Cristina de Borbón (8 Jan., 1837). Madrid: n.p., 1837.
[102 ]Code Civil, in Journal Officiel du Royaume des Pays-Bas, Vols. 17-21 (1822-26). The Code was laid out in separate acts, not in sequential order, between 14 June, 1822, and 23 March, 1826.
[103 ]See Johann Gottlieb Heineccius (1681-1741), Elementa juris civilis, secundum ordinem institutionum et pandectarum (1727), in Operum ad universam juris prudentiam, 8 vols. (Geneva: Cramer Heirs and Philibert Bros., 1744-49), Vol. V, p. 374 (IV, XII, iii, 118).
[104 ]Ibid., p. 245 (III, XII, ii, 28). Bentham’s explanation is in Vol. I, pp. 409-10 (Bk. II, Chap. vi).
[1 ]Harriet Taylor Mill (née Hardy) (1808-58), who following the death in 1849 of her first husband, John Taylor, married Mill in 1851, after an intimate friendship that began in 1830.
[2 ]William Ellis (1800-81), an insurance executive, economist and educational reformer, had been a friend of Mill’s since the early 1820s.
[3 ]William Thomas Thornton (1813-80), economist, was from 1836 employed with Mill in the Examiner’s Office of the East India Company.
[4 ]Helen Taylor fulfilled this obligation by publishing Mill’s Autobiography in October 1873 after his death on 7 May of that year.
[5 ]Algernon Taylor (1830-1903), second son of Harriet and John Taylor, whose wife Ellen had died in 1864, and their three children, Elizabeth (1861-1924), Mary (1863/4-1918), who became the literary executor of Helen Taylor and so custodian of Mill’s surviving papers in 1907, and John Cyprian (1862-1939).
[6 ]Mary Elizabeth Colman (née Mill) (1822-1913), Mill’s youngest sister, married Charles Frederick Colman in 1847, and had by him the four children mentioned below, Marion (known as Minnie), Stuart, Henry, and Archibald. It will be noted that none of his other surviving sisters is mentioned in the will (his three brothers had all died unmarried before the date of the codicil).
[7 ]John Morley (1838-1923), editor, author, and later statesman, had been an admirer and adherent of Mill’s since 1865.
[8 ]The notary Paul Giéra (1816-61) was one of the group of seven Provençal poets who, in 1854, had formed the group called les félibres. His son, Jules, and their successor, Michel Baulieu, continued to serve as notaries to Mill and Helen Taylor.
[a][cancelled] Je lègue et laisse
[b-b][cancelled] ai fait édifier
[c-c][an addition noted in the margin]
[9 ][In margin:] Rayé sept mots nuls aux présentes.
[d-d][cancelled] dix huit
[10 ][In margin:] Rayé trois mots nuls dans le cours de l’acte.
[e-e][cancelled] huit et le
[f-f][in the margin, replacing the cancelled name Jules Giéra]
[g-g][an addition noted in the margin]
[h-h][in the margin, replacing the cancelled word soussigné]
[l-l][cancelled] la formalité hypotheq
[m-m][cancelled] Giéra ou de son successeur
[11 ][In margin:] Approuvé dix sept mots rayés nuls.
[1 ]See PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 37, cols. 133, 134 (6 Feb., 1837), and 165 (9 Mar., 1837).
[2 ]John Arthur Roebuck (1801-79), Motion on the Vixen—Treaty of Adrianople (17 Mar., 1837), ibid., col. 628.
[3 ]Henry John Temple (1784-1865), Speech on the Vixen—Treaty of Adrianople, ibid., cols. 630-6.
[4 ]See the debate on the King’s Message respecting Captures at Nootka Sound (5-6 May, 1790), in The Parliamentary History of England, ed. William Cobbett and John Wright, 36 vols. (London: Bagshaw, Longmans, 1806-20), Vol. XXVIII, cols. 769-82.
[5 ]See Roebuck, speech of 17 Mar., 1837, col. 622.
[6 ]George Bell and Co. owned the Vixen.
[7 ]Roebuck, speech of 17 Mar., 1837, col. 623; the Emperor was Czar Nicholas I (1796-1855).
[8 ]Czar of Russia (1672-1725).
[9 ]Ismael Beg (d. ca. 1740), ambassador of Shah Tahmasp II (1704-40), was instrumental in securing the Treaty of Alliance between Russia and Persia, signed at St. Petersburg, 12 September, 1723 (in Consolidated Treaty Series, Vol. XXXI, pp. 423-8).
[10 ]Treaty between Russia and Turkey, signed at Constantinople, 23 June, 1724 (ibid., pp. 487-94).
[11 ]Nadir Quli Beg (1687-1747), known as Nadir Shah.
[12 ]Heraclius II (d. 1798) put himself under Russian protection by the Treaty between Georgia and Russia, signed at Fortress George, 24 July, 1783 (in Consolidated Treaty Series, Vol. XLVIII, pp. 413-28). Eastern Georgia was annexed in December 1800 and much of western Georgia in October 1804. Perhaps the reference is to the beginning of the Russo-Turkish war of 1806-12.
[13 ]One of the legendary Pharoahs of Egypt, dating from the beginning of the second millenium
[* ]He adds: “the Phoenicians and Syrians of Palestine confess that they learned this practice (of circumcision) from the Egyptians; but the Syrians who dwell on the rivers Thermodon and Parthenius assert that they recently derived the practice from the Colchians.” [Herodotus (ca. 484-420 ), the Greek historian; see Herodotus (Greek and English), trans. A.D. Godley, 4 vols. (London: Heinemann; New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1926-30), Vol. I, p. 393 (II, 104).] This theory has been revived in our own day by Mr. Klaproth, who asserts that he recognised several Coptic words in the idioms of the north-western Caucasus. [Heinrich Julius von Klaproth (1783-1835), Tableau historique, géographique, ethnographique et politique du Caucase (Paris: Ponthieu, 1827), pp. 8-9.] We are far, however, from receiving this evidence as conclusive; we are of those who believe that the immediate derivation of the Coptic from the ancient language of Egypt is anything but proved; and we should much rather attribute these similarities to the Cherkessian Mamlukes who so long were the masters of Egypt. “During the five hundred and fifty years,” says Volney ([Constantine François de Chasseboeuf, comte de Volney (1757-1820),] Voyage en Syrie [et en Egypte, 2 vols. (Paris: Volland, and Desenne, 1787), Vol. I,] pp. 99, 101), “that the Mamlukes were in Egypt, no one of them became founder of an existing line; there was not a single family existing in the second generation; all their children died young. The means by which they were perpetuated are the same as those by which they were established; that is to say, by fresh importations of slaves from their native country (Circassia).” This would lead us to reverse the order of causation, and conclude that the Copts derived the words common to both nations from the Cherkessians.
[† ]Herodotus, Euterpe, Lib. II. See 103, 104, and 105. [Herodotus, Vol. I, pp. 391-3.] It is also mentioned by Valerius Flaccus.
(Argonaut [Gaius Valerius Flaccus (d. ca. 90 ); see Valerius Flaccus (Latin and English), trans. J.H. Mozley (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1934), pp. 274], V, 417-22.)
[14 ]Klaproth, Travels in the Caucasus and Georgia, trans. F. Shoberl (London: Colburn, 1814), p. 314.
[* ]The Colonel uses a phrase common to the Irish peasants, when attacking a rival faction: “he swore he’d let daylight through the column.” [Translated from Bernard Eugène Antoine Rottiers (1771-1858), Itinéraire de Tiflis à Constantinople (Brussels: Tarlier, 1829), p. 18.]
[16 ]For the tale concerning Gnaeus Pompeius (106-48 ), see Plutarch, Life of Pompey, in Lives, Vol. V, p. 209, a Greek passage that Joannes Zonaras used in his Ἐπιτομἠ Ἱστοριων; for Procopius (ca. 326-66 ), see Procopius (Greek and English), trans. H.B. Dewing, 7 vols. (London: Heinemann; New York: Macmillan, 1914-40), Vol. V, pp. 77-9 (VIII, iii, 10).
[* ][Translated from] Recueil de Voyages dans le Nord, [ed. Jean Frédéric Bernard (d. 1752), 10 vols. (Amsterdam: Bernard, 1715-38),] Vol. VII, pp. 180-1.
[† ]Conolly’s Travels [Arthur Conolly (1807-42), Journey to the North of India, 2 vols. (London: Bentley, 1834)], Vol. I, pp. 9-10.
[17 ]Caliph Walid I (675-715 ) and his brother Maslama (d. 739 )
[18 ]Muhammad Ibrahim Khan (d. 1738).
[* ]Rottiers, pp. 47-8. [The preceding two paragraphs closely follow Rottiers, pp. 46-7.]
[† ]Hanway’s Travels [Jonas Hanway (1712-86), An Historical Account of the British Trade over the Caspian Sea (1753), 2nd ed., 2 vols. (London: Osborne, et al., 1754)], Vol. II, pp. 410-11. [Ahmed Khan, the Ousmai, and Ahmed Khan, of Shunketén, both fl. 1741.]
[* ][John Malcolm (1769-1833),] History of Persia, [2 vols. (London: Murray, 1815),] Vol. II, p. 95n.
[19 ]Not located.
[† ]Rottiers, pp. 48-9.
[‡ ][“Rapport officiel sur les opérations de guerre contre les montagnards, Musulmans du Caucase,” trans. Klaproth,] Nouveau Journal Asiatique, No. 61 [2nd ser., XI (Jan. 1833), 18-30.]
[20 ]Shah Gazi Muhammed (ca. 1793-1832).
[21 ]Grigory Vladmirovich Rozen (1781-1841).
[* ][Translated from] “Rapport officiel,” pp. 23-4.
[* ][Translated from] ibid., pp. 24-5.
[22 ]Translated from ibid., p. 26.
[† ][Translated from] ibid., p. 28. [The Russian general was Alexei Veliaminov (1783-1838).]
[23 ]William Shakespeare (1564-1616), As You Like It, II, vii, 164; in The Riverside Shakespeare, ed. G. Blakemore Evans (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974), p. 382.
[‡ ]“Rapport officiel,” p. 30. [The proclamation was issued by V.D. Volkhovsky (1778-1841).]
[* ]Before quitting the Lesghians, we must notice the singular tradition of a Genoese colony having been established in their country. The town of Akusha, on the river Koisa, contains about 1000 families. Colonel Gaerber, who travelled through these countries in 1728, asserts that they called themselves Franki. At the present day they are distinguished from the rest of their countrymen by their manufacturing skill. They make excellent fire-arms, sabres, and daggers; they also fabricate coats of mail, inlaid with gold and silver; and they coin imitations of Persian, Turkish, and even Russian money. Akusha is regarded as a kind of neutral republic by the surrounding hordes; its citizens enjoy the privileges of self-government, annually electing a council of ten to rule their little state. They have a tradition of being descended from Genoese mariners, shipwrecked on the coast about the time of the capture of Constantinople by the Turks; but their language retains no traces of such an origin. [The reference is to Johann Gustar Gaeber, “Nachrichten von denen an der westlichen Seite der Caspischen See,” in Sammlung russischen Geschichte, ed. Gerhard Friedrich Müller, 9 vols. (St. Petersburg: Kayserl. Academie der Wissenschaften, 1732-64), Vol. IV, pp. 57-79; the source is probably Rottiers, who gives the reference on p. 59.]
[24 ]Alexander Tormasoff (1752-1819).
[† ]The natural fertility of Georgia and Russian Armenia is very great; corn, wine, and oil are produced abundantly; fruit trees cover the hills and encircle the forests; apples, pears, and cherries, are produced in the north, while the more genial climate of the south ripens the pomegranate, the fig, the nectarine, and the peach. But Russia derives little benefit from this bounty of nature; the empire does not import raw produce, it has an abundant supply within for the limited wants of its population.
[25 ]Treaty of Peace between Russia and Turkey, signed at Adrianople, 14 September, 1829 (in Consolidated Treaty Series, Vol. LXXX, pp. 83-96).
[1 ]Friedrich Wilhelm Heinrich Alexander, Freiherr von Humboldt (1769-1859), devised the first chart indicating equal temperatures.
[2 ]See Donald Maclean (1800-74), Speech on the Affairs of Spain (18 Apr., 1837), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 37, cols. 1394-1411; and Samuel Grove Price (1793-1839), Speech on Spain (10 Mar., 1837), ibid., cols. 249-56.
[3 ]William Wordsworth (1770-1850), “Rob Roy’s Grave” (1807), in Poetical Works, 5 vols. (London: Longman, et al., 1827), Vol. III, p. 26 (ll. 37-40).
[4 ]The “Spanish Question” involved both Spain and Portugal. In the former, Ferdinand VII (1784-1833) had in 1830 revoked the Salic law (introduced in 1713 by Philip V [1683-1746]) of exclusive male succession to make his young daughter Isabella (1830-1904) queen, with his wife, Maria Christina de Bourbon (1806-78) as regent. This settlement was disputed by Ferdinand’s brother, Don Carlos Maria Isidro de Bourbon (1788-1855). His challenge failed, partly through the intervention of a British force, and a more democratic constitution was forced on Maria Christina in 1837.
[5 ]Alexander Pope (1688-1744), et al., Memoirs of the Extraordinary Life, Works, and Discoveries of Martinus Scriblerus (1741), in Works, ed. Joseph Warton, et al., 10 vols. (London: Priestley, 1822-25), Vol. VI, p. 111.
[6 ]Not identified; probably written by White for the occasion. The catch-phrase, “The church is in danger,” originated in a debate in the House of Commons in 1704; see Cobbett, Parliamentary History, Vol. VI, cols. 479-511.
[* ]An old joke slightly varied supplies a better epithet than that which has been applied to himself by the once popular baronet:
[The doggerel has not been located; for the claim, see Francis Burdett (1770-1844), Speech to a Deputation of the Electors of Westminster, The Times, 6 May, 1837, p. 6. The other M.P.s referred to are Henry David Inglis, Henry Goulburn (1784-1856), Robert Peel (1788-1850), and Henry Hardinge (1785-1856).]
[7 ]Horace (65-8 ), Odes, in Odes and Epodes (Latin and English), trans. C.E. Bennett (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964), p. 278 (III, xxx, 14-15).
[8 ]See PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 37, cols. 223-86 (10 Mar., 1837), cols. 1329-1460 (17 and 18 Apr., 1837); Vol. 38, cols. 1-170 (19 and 21 Apr., 1837).
[9 ]Hardinge’s speech (ibid., Vol. 37, cols. 1329-53; 17 Apr.) is reported in the Morning Chronicle, 18 Apr., p. 2, from which the quotation appears to be taken.
[10 ]Charles Brodrick (1761-1822).
[11 ]James Gambier (1756-1833), an admiral of the fleet with limited sea-faring experience, had tried to apply his strict Methodist views in the navy.
[12 ]Jonathan Swift, “The Grand Question Debated” (1732), in Works, ed. Walter Scott, 19 vols. (Edinburgh: Constable; London: White, et al., Dublin: Cumming, 1814), Vol. XV, p. 154.
[13 ]William Shakespeare, As You Like It, II, vii, 156; in The Riverside Shakespeare, p. 382.
[14 ]Philip Henry Stanhope (1805-75), Viscount Mahon, Speech on the Affairs of Spain (18 Apr., 1837), reported in the Morning Chronicle, 19 Apr., p. 3.
[15 ]The phrase “thews and sinews” appears to have originated with Walter Scott (1771-1832); see Rob Roy, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: Constable, 1818), Vol. I, p. 60 (Chap. iii).
[16 ]Elizabeth I (1533-1603), reigned 1558-1603; Philip Sidney (1554-86) and Horace Vere (1565-1635) were famed for their military valour.
[17 ]George III (1738-1820).
[18 ]George de Lacy Evans (1787-1890), leader of the British Legion in Spain, who was also M.P. for Westminster.
[19 ]Walton, A Reply, p. 148.
[* ]Nothing was more surprising in the late debate than the anxiety exhibited by some of the Conservative orators for the morals of the Legion! It was feared that they would be contaminated by the pernicious examples of Spanish cruelty daily before their eyes; their tender sympathies would be blunted, their generous hearts hardened, and all the noble feelings with which they were suddenly invested in one of Lord Francis Egerton’s fits of poetic enthusiasm, would have disappeared like Goethe’s spirit in his lordship’s translation of the Faust! [Faust: A Drama, by Goethe, and Schiller’s Song of the Bell, trans. Francis Leveson Gower (later Egerton; 1800-57) (London: Murray, 1823). Faust, by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), appeared in German in 1808 (Pt. I) and 1833 (Pt. 2).] We should like to know, from these soft-hearted moralists, when they first discovered that war was a trade not likely to foster the growth of humanity, and at what period the soldiers of the Legion, long described as the vilest outcasts, became objects of such virtuous care. We do not attempt to hide our detestation of the barbarities that have been perpetrated in the Spanish contest, but, as Lord Palmerston justly said, “Unfortunately, history told them that in all times, whether in peace or in war, the character of the Spanish nation was more cruel and bloodthirsty than that of any other nation in Europe. Let them look to their conquest of America—to all the wars that had taken place in Spain—from the war of Succession down even to 1815, and they would see that their conduct was stained by atrocities which inflicted a deeper disgrace on humanity than the conduct of any other nation on earth. One of the effects of the regeneration of Spain, through the force of constitutional government, was, that, by generating a public opinion they would improve the Spanish character, and put an end to atrocities like these.” [Temple, Speech on the Affairs of Spain (19 Apr., 1837), reported in the Morning Chronicle, 20 Apr., p. 2.] But the Conservatives may take comfort; the legionaries have not been brutalized: at Irun and Fontarabia they exhibited a degree of forbearance and moderation, which could scarcely have been expected after the publication of the Durango degree. [See Don Carlos, “Royal Decree” (20 June, 1824), The Times, 2 July, 1835, p. 6.]
[Standard, 28 Mar., 1837, p. 2; the concluding quotation is from Walter Scott, The Vision of Don Frederick: A Poem (Edinburgh: Ballantyne, 1811), p. 41 (Canto XLII, ll. 8-9).]
[20 ]Anne (1665-1714), reigned 1702-14.
[21 ]John Cartwright (1740-1824), the ultra-Radical.
[22 ]Claude Adrien Helvétius (1715-71), De l’esprit (Paris: Durand, 1758), e.g., pp. 53-5.
[23 ]Hardinge, Motion on the Affairs of Spain (17 Apr., 1837), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 37, cols. 1352-3.
[24 ]See “Treaty between His Majesty, the Queen Regent of Spain, the King of the French, and the Duke of Braganza, Regent of Portugal,” PP, 1834, LI, 299-309.
[25 ]Peel, Speech on the Address in Answer to the King’s Speech (31 Jan., 1837), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 36, cols. 50-6.
[26 ]Samuel Grove Price (1793-1839).
[27 ]Henry George Ward (1797-1860), Speech on the Affairs of Spain (18 Apr., 1837), reported in the Morning Chronicle, 19 Apr., p. 3.
[28 ]Arthur Wellesley (1769-1852), Duke of Wellington, Speech on Spain (21 Apr., 1837), reported in the Morning Chronicle, 22 Apr., pp. 1-2.
[29 ]Walton, A Reply, p. 138.
[30 ]Bartolomé Guibelalde, “commandante general” of the Carlists 1836-38.
[31 ]Lord John Hay (1793-1851).
[32 ]William Lamb (1779-1848), Lord Melbourne.
[33 ]Wellesley, speech of 21 Apr., pp. 1-2.
[34 ]Richardson, Movements of the British Legion, pp. 312-13.
[35 ]William Arden (1789-1849), Lord Alvanley, Speech on Spain (21 Apr., 1837), reported in the Morning Chronicle, 22 Apr., p. 1.
[36 ]Lieutenant-General Charles Chichester (1795-1847).
[37 ]Baldomero Espartero (1792-1879), commander of the Spanish troops.
[38 ]Ramon Maria Narvaez (1800-68), in charge of the “Army of the Centre,” had been successful against the Carlists near Acros in November 1836, but when a brigade of his army defected to the revolutionary forces he was unable to capitalize on the victory; consequently he lost control of the army.
[39 ]The British General (1761-1809) famed for his campaign in the Peninsula during the Napoleonic wars.
[40 ]Reported in the Morning Chronicle, 17 June, 1837, p. 3.
[41 ]Cf. the version of the satire on Henri IV (1553-1610) in The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes, ed. Iona and Peter Opie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951), p. 176.
[42 ]Richardson, Movements of the British Legion; Shaw, Personal Memoirs; Herbert Byng Hall (1805-83), Spain; and the Seat of War in Spain (London: Colburn, 1837).
[43 ]Marcelino Oráa y Lecumberri (1788-1851) was a general in Narvaez’ army. The invading army of Don Carlos crossed the river Arga and defeated Oraá’s forces at Barbastro on 1 June, 1837.
[44 ]Baron Ramon De Meer (b. 1787), Viceroy of Navarre and commander of the army of Catalonia.
[45 ]I.e., the British Army command.
[46 ]Roebuck, Speech on the Affairs of Spain (19 Apr., 1837), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 38, cols. 18-23.
[47 ]Loi concernant les mesures de salut public prises relativement à la conspiration royale (19 fructidor, an V [5 Sept., 1797]), Bull, 142, No. 1400, Bulletin des lois de la république française, 2nd ser., Vol. IV, pp. 7-10; and Loi qui ordonne la déportation des journalistes royaux (22 fructidor, an V [8 Sept., 1797]), Bull. 143, No. 1405, ibid., pp. 12-14.
[48 ]I.e., the French National Convention, elected by a wide suffrage, which sat from 20 Sept., 1792, until 26 Oct., 1795, governing through its committees.
[49 ]See Protocols of the Conferences [of 4 Nov., 1830, and 1 Oct., 1832] Held at London, between the Plenipotentiaries of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, PP, 1833, XLII, 1-551. The earlier agreements were, as regards Greece, the Anglo-Russian protocol of 4 Apr., 1826, and the subsequent Treaty of London, 6 July, 1827, which France also signed; and, as regards Belgium, the agreement amongst England, France, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, at the London Conference of December 1830, with the subsequent protocol of 20 Jan., 1831, and the treaty of 5 Nov., 1831.
[50 ]Louis Philippe (1773-1850) and William IV (1765-1837).
[51 ]Cf. the wording in “Treaty between His Majesty, the Queen Regent of Spain, the King of the French, and the Duke of Braganza, Regent of Portugal,” PP, 1834, LI, 300.
[52 ]Ibid., pp. 300-2.
[53 ]General Federico Castanon y Lorenzana (1770-1836); his proclamation is in Carmelo de Echegaray, Compendio de las instituciones forales de Guipúzcoa (San Sebastian: Disputación de Guipúzcoa, 1925), pp. 292-3.
[54 ]See Art. III of “Treaty between His Majesty,” pp. 304-6.
[* ]The example of the French Government has indeed been quoted [by Hardinge, speech of 17 Apr., 1837, col. 1349; and by Maclean, speech of 18 Apr., 1837, cols. 1399-1400, and 1408] in condemnation of the conduct pursued by the British ministry; undoubtedly Louis Philippe has taken a very different view from our ministers, of the obligations of the Quadruple Treaty; but M. Thiers has concentrated into a brief space all that need be said to characterize the spirit in which their obligations have been interpreted, and fulfilled by a man who can endure anything rather than institutions arising from popular movements, although to them he owes his throne. “Look at the Treaty,” said M. Thiers; “Portugal gave an army, England a naval force, and France gave nothing but promises. These promises evidently meant succour. If they were given and meant succour, then to refuse it was to break the Treaty. If the promises were given and meant nothing, then the French Government has meanly sought to dupe England and Europe.” [Louis Adolphe Thiers (1797-1866), Speech in the Chamber of Deputies (14 Jan., 1837), reported in the Morning Chronicle, 17 Jan., p. 2.]
[55 ]See, e.g., Archibald Alison (1792-1867), “The Spanish Contest,” Blackwood’s Magazine, XLI (May 1837), 573-99, esp. 577.
[56 ]Jeanne of France and Navarre (1273-1305) and Philip IV (1268-1314).
[57 ]Petronilla (1137-64) married Raymond Berenger IV, Count of Barcelona, who ruled Catalonia.
[58 ]Las siete partidas del rey Alfonso, 3 vols. (Madrid: La imprenta real, 1807), Vol. II, pp. 132-3 (Part II, Title xv, Law 2).
[59 ]Auto-acordado of May 1713.
[60 ]See Pragmatica-Sancion en Fuerza de Ley Decretada por el Señor Rey Don Carlos a peticion de las cortes del año de 1789, y Mandada publicar por S.M. Peinante para la Observancia Perpetua de la Ley Segunda, Título quince, partida segunda, que establece la sucesion regular en la corona de España (Madrid: Imprenta real, 1830). In it Charles IV overturned the Salic law of Philip V.
[61 ]See Constitución política de la monarquía Española. Promulgada en Cadiz á 19 de marzo de 1812 (Cadiz: Imprenta real, 1812), Title IV, c. II, Art. 177.
[62 ]See Pragmatica, n 60 above.
[63 ]Francisco Tadeo Calomarde (1773-1842).
[* ]A new edition of this interesting work has just been published, with an additional chapter on the recent changes in Spain, which is both an accurate and impartial resumé of recent events in Spanish history. [“Introduction,” Vol. I, pp. xiii-xliv.] We have learned with pleasure that the travels in the footsteps of Don Quixote, prepared for the press by the author a little before his lamented decease, will be published in the course of the year. From the specimens that appeared in one of the Magazines, we doubt not that this will be joyous news to the admirers of the hero of Cervantes. [For Inglis’ travels in the path of the hero of Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra’s The History and Adventures of the Renowned Don Quixote, see “Recent Rambles in the Footsteps of Don Quixote,” Englishman’s Magazine, I (Apr., May, June, and Aug., 1831), 84-90, 208-16, 328-35, and 592-601; republished as Rambles in the Footsteps of Don Quixote (London: Whittaker, 1837).]
[64 ]Henry John George Herbert (1800-49), Earl of Carnarvon, Portugal and Gallicia, with a Review of the Social and Political State of the Basque Provinces: and a Few Remarks on Recent Events in Spain, 2 vols. (London: Murray, 1836).
[65 ]The praise of Inglis by George Hamilton Gordon (1784-1860), Lord Aberdeen, minister under Wellington and Peel, has not been located.
[66 ]Inglis, Spain, Vol. I, p. 45.
[67 ]Anon., The Policy of England towards Spain, p. 24.
[68 ]Ibid., pp. 22-3.
[69 ]See PD, new ser., Vol. 14, cols. 733-859 (23-24 Feb., 1826).
[70 ]Anon., The Policy of England towards Spain, pp. 26-7.
[71 ]Inglis, Spain, Vol. I, p. 20.
[72 ]Estatuto real para la convocación de las Cortes Generales del Reino (10 Apr., 1834) (Madrid: De Burgos, 1834); Constitución de la monarquía española (8 Jan., 1837) (Madrid: n.p., 1837).
[* ][Adolphe de Bourgoing,] L’Espagne: souvenirs de 1823 et 1833 [(Paris: Dufart, 1834), pp. 299-300].
[73 ]Inglis, Spain, Vol. I, p. 97.
[74 ]Cf. Charles Churchill (1731-64), The Rosciad (London: Flexney, 1761), pp. 20-1 (ll. 521-2), attacking the actor, Henry Mossop (1729-73).
[75 ]Liberal politicians, exiled after their share in the government of 1820-23, who returned after the death of Ferdinand VII in 1833: Agustin Argüelles (1776-1844), António Alcala Galiano (1789-1865), Juan Alvarez Mendizabel (1790-1853), and José Lúcio Travassos Valdez (1787-1862).
[76 ]The ministry of Charles Grey (1764-1845), formed 16 Nov., 1830, broke up in 9 July, 1834, because of difficulties over Ireland: Dublin Castle was the government centre in Ireland.
[77 ]Not St. Paul, but Zechariah, 4:10.
[78 ]Cook, Sketches in Spain, Vol. I, pp. 330-1.
[79 ]Shaw, Personal Memoirs, Vol. II, p. 451.
[80 ]I.e., Pedro IV of Portugal.
[81 ]Shaw, Personal Memoirs, Vol. II, p. 452.
[* ][Ibid., pp. 456n-7n.] Dwyer afterwards deserted near to Vittoria, taking with him eleven of the Grenadiers of the 4th regiment fully equipped and armed, and became an officer of Don Carlos, and was very active and successful in getting more of the Legion to follow him.
[82 ]William Francis Patrick Napier (1785-1860), History of the War in the Peninsula and in the South of France, from the Year 1807 to the Year 1814, 6 vols. (London: Murray, 1828-40).
[83 ]Letter to T. George Shaw (28 Sept., 1835), in Shaw, Personal Memoirs, Vol. II, p. 460.
[1 ]William Corrie (1806-81), Remembrancer of the City of London from 1864, had been an original member of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He had appeared earlier before the Committee; see CW, XXIX, 443.
[2 ]John Locke (1805-80), M.P. for Southwark, a member of the Committee.
[3 ]Benjamin Scott (1814-92), Chamberlain of the City of London from 1858, had also appeared earlier before the Committee; see CW, XXIX, 443-4.
[4 ]Richard Mayne (1796-1868), Chief Commissioner of Police from 1850, later appeared before the Committee to refute Scott; see p. 406 below.
[5 ]James Medwin, a bootmaker, was a vestryman in St. James’s parish.
[6 ]18 & 19 Victoria, c. 120 (1855). Sect. 31 set up the Metropolitan Board of Works; the vestries’ powers were established by Sects. 67-134.
[7 ]“A Bill, Intituled, an Act for Regulating the Traffic in the Metropolis, and for Making Provision for the Greater Security of Persons Passing through the Streets; and for Other Purposes,” 30 Victoria (27 Mar., 1867), PP, 1867, VI, 423-35.
[8 ]John Thwaites (1815-70) was Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works from 1855 to his death. He had testified earlier before the Committee; see CW, XXIX, 437-42.
[9 ]In Clause 3 of “A Bill to Make Better Provision for the Raising of Money to Be Applied in the Execution of Works of Permanent Improvement in the Metropolis,” 30 Victoria (26 Feb., 1867), PP, 1867, IV, 203-6. The Bill was brought in by Ayrton and Tite.
[10 ]Henry Letherby (1806-76) was Medical Officer of Health under the City Commissioners of Sewers from 1855.
[11 ]29 & 30 Victoria, c. 90 (1866).
[12 ]11 & 12 Victoria, c. 112 (1848), frequently renewed and amended, led to Clause 35 in 29 & 30 Victoria, c. 90.
[13 ]William Haywood (1821-94), an architect and civil engineer, was Chief Engineer to the Commissioners of Sewers from 1846.
[14 ]John Francis Bontems, a vestryman of Islington, was a member of the Common Council of the Corporation of London and of the City Sewer Commission.
[15 ]I.e., the legislation proposed by James Beal, and earlier given to the Committee, “A Bill Intituled ‘An Act for the Establishment of Municipal Corporations within the Metropolis,’ ” App. 9 of the “Second Report,” PP, 1866, XIII, 619-28.
[16 ]William Tite (d. 1873), M.P. for Bath 1855-73, a member of the Committee, actually said (question 1972), not that the sewers, but the Board’s “authority,” ceased at Holborn Bars.
[17 ]25 & 26 Victoria, c. 102 (1862), esp. Sect. 72.
[18 ]John Thomas Bedford (1812-1900) was a Member of the City Court of Common Council from the Ward of Farrington Without.
[19 ]Particularly by Committee members during the questioning of William Corrie on 11 April; see “Third Report,” 568 ff.
[20 ]In his earlier evidence; see “Third Report,” 493 ff.
[21 ]John Jones, a watchmaker, was a vestryman from the Strand.
[22 ]See p. 391 above.
[1 ]David Ricardo, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (London: Murray, 1817), p. 156.