The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Introduction
• Additional Earlier Letters 1824–1848
• Additional Later Letters 1849-1873
• Undated Letters
• Appendix A; Letters to Theodor Gomperz: Variant Readings
• Appendix B: List of Form Letters At the India Office Library and Records
• Appendix C: Additions and Corrections to the Check List of Mill’s Indian Despatches In Volume Xxx
• Appendix D: List of Letters to Mill
• Appendix E: Index of Correspondents
• Appendix F: Index of Persons, and Works Cited, With Variants and Notes

ADDITIONAL EARLIER LETTERS

1824–1848

Additional Earlier Letters

8.1.

TO GEORGE AND HARRIET GROTE1

• East India House

1st September, 1824

My dear friends,

Not knowing which of you to write to, and being thus placed in the situation of the ass, I am wiser than he, and instead of starving I seize both the bundles of hay,2 and write to you both. Your journal has been received, & read with great interest, but we have been grieved to hear of Mr Grote’s indisposition, and surprised to learn that you have had so much rain. Last week was with us one of the finest weeks we have had this summer, and the harvest-work which has been done surpasses all belief. This week is equally fine, and corn will be excessively cheap—especially as I hear the harvest is as far advanced in Scotland as here.—I suppose you will be more interested by hearing all that has passed in the Utilitarian world since your departure, than by anything else that I can say.—In the first place, then, last Monday week my father and I dined with Hume, where we met Anthony Hammond, and on the whole we are very much satisfied with that personage.3 Without being much of a philosopher, or possessing very clear or definite notions on law and legislation in general, he carries his ideas of reform to a very great extent. He has already consolidated the whole of the Criminal Law, which it is intended to bring into Parlt either as one bill or a series of bills so as to supersede all the present system:4 he means next to go to work upon the civil law, & consolidate that too: but this consolidation he himself declares to be only preparatory to a complete codification of the whole law, common & statute: on the subject of which he has very rational ideas; and he says it would destroy the whole of the system of pleading as at present constituted, and would leave nothing to the discretion of the judge, of the evils of which he has a very strong impression. Hume expressed on the same occasion some most admirable opinions on the subject of charity, which he declared that he had recently adopted, & tho’ they seemed new to Hammond, he came into them tolerably well.—In the next place, William Whitmore has brought his cousin the member to call upon my father at the India House.5 As I was conversing all the time he staid, with Wm W. in a separate part of the room, I heard very little of what passed between my father & the other Whitmore; but my father says that he fully understands the question of the corn laws, which was the only subject on which they conversed: that he understands not only the general principle, but its practical bearings: & he declares himself fully resolved, if the ministers do not anticipate him, to bring forward a motion & force a discussion every session until he succeeds in carrying the question. As there will be an elaborate article in the Edin. Rev. by M‘Culloch to prepare the way before him, it will be of great importance that we should have an article in the Westminster Review which may bear a comparison with it: for this purpose we are anxious to ascertain, first, whether Whitmore can, and secondly, whether he will, write one.6 William W. whom we employed to get us a copy of Whitmore’s pamphlet, as a sort of test of his capability, wormed out of Prescott7 our ulterior designs, & has taken them up with the utmost eagerness.—I dined at Wimbledon with Mr Tooke8 on Friday last, having gone from the India House to his counting house, & thence with him to his carriage at a quarter before five: from which time till near eleven, we were engaged almost without intermission in discussing the exclusion of Irish labourers.9 In the course of the dispute he was driven, among other things, to deny the principle of population. I could perceive considerable annoyance on his part at the escape of Eyton from the paternal apron string: Two or three times he put him down with considerable harshness, & was continually making indirect hits against the dogmatism, & want of candour, of some of his opponents; by which some, he meant Eyton: who took as well the indirect as the direct reproofs, with the most infidel charity & resignation. I contrived, towards the close of the evening to take a turn with Eyton in the garden, and we had some very profitable conversation: he is eager to do whatever good he can, & to qualify himself for doing more.—The Austins are now domiciled at your quondam lodging on Brockham Green: and we regularly walk with Austin on the Sunday when we go down.10 I am in considerable doubt whether the review of Preuves will ever make its appearance, tho’ I am informed by Mrs Austin that he works at it during a portion of every day.11 I wish he could complete any thing, no matter what: as a given quantity of reputation, plus a given number of pounds sterling, would probably supply as great a stimulus, as his mental constitution is capable of receiving.—Charles Austin12 has been laid up, but is now, I believe, at Norwich, whence he goes to Southampton, & returns not till October. Bingham is absent: Graham not yet returned: Ellis fast bound in his new office, so that the Utilitarian community stagnates.13 Our society waxes thin, & but for the approaching batch, I should say it verged fast to decay. Patten has withdrawn: Secretan has tendered his resignation; his brother having been appointed manager to the marine department of the Alliance, the conduct of the business falls wholly upon him, & he says it leaves him no time for attendance on the society, nor yet upon our Pol. Ec. Conversations.14 If he leaves us it is all over with him. En revanche, I can give the most favorable bulletin of Harfield & of Edw. Ellis.15 The former produced at the last meeting of the society an essay on population, which obtained universal, and, considering it as a first attempt, well-deserved applause; in it he kept the promise he had made, of writ-ing sar-cas-ti-cal-ly, and some of the sar-casm was exceedingly good. He complained however that we all laughed at his or-tho-e-py, (vulgarly called pronunciation): and in truth we had good reason: Doane16 complimented him upon having written a ighly-able, a excellent, a admirable, and in some parts, a ironical essay. Edward Ellis is studying political economy with so much ardour and application, as leaves no fear of his ultimate success in that and in every other branch of useful knowledge which he attempts.—Next, as to our occupations: My father is about to open his battery upon the Quarterly Review: I am still upon Brodie: Ellis is upon the Elements of Pol. Ec.17 Of the occupations of any one else among our friends, I am in ignorance, except as to Arfield,18 who is reading I do not know how many books, & writing, or about to write, I do not know how many essays.—A critique on the first number of the W.R. has appeared in the North American Review: They quote largely from the first article, which they applaud greatly, as well as Bingham’s two articles on America (tho’ they say he knows very little about America—as how can he? or any one here:—& that his stateme[nts] are some of them no longer true, & others never were true).19 They also m[ake] an ingenious attempt to shew, that the Whigs & Tories are two [aristo]cratic parties, & that the Edinburgh Rev. only supports the aristocracy [of] the Whigs, instead of that of the Tories.20 But farther this deponent saith no[t.] You have seen, or will see, the attack on the 3d No. & particularly on poor Ellis, in the last Blackwood.21 I have not seen it yet, but am to see it tomorrow. Malthus, it seems, has been puffing himself again in the Quarterly—tho’ I have not seen the article, it propounds what no other mortal would think of propounding, his Measure of Value.22 Not more certainly is our friend Satan known by his cloven foot, than the Rev. T.R. Malthus by this unfortunate hobby.—If any thing was wanting to ensure the success of the W.R. the badness of the Edin. R. would do it. Only contrast the last Edin. with the last Westmr. That miserable stuff of M‘Culloch about primogeniture must be answered23 —& will, I trust, with the grace of my lord the devil, with whose school, I have no doubt, we are already classed by the enlightened Southey,—or, if not now, shall be so classed, as soon as the article makes its appearance on his book of the Church.24 When that time arrives, I shall expect to see our names, or at any rate, that of the review, introduced into his next dissertation de omni scibili,25 with the addition of a few gentle epithets of disapprobation, as ruffian, miscreant, incendiary, & so forth; or who knows? atheist, perhaps: since, as Ellis says, those who are infidels in tithes, are necessarily infidels in all the other doctrines of religion. The Courier has already expressed some inclination to see “a well-seasoned mess of impiety from Carlile, dished up by the Morning Chronicle.”26 By the way, Black is doing admirable service—particularly with respect to the unpaid magistracy; who, I think, must smart under his lash: he is the greatest enemy they have.27 Prescott is, as usual, “writing an Essay for the society.” Doane is, as far as I know, doing nothing; & Place is doing every thing.28 With all our wishes for your welfare, & speedy return, I remain &c

J.S. Mill

8.2.

TO JOHN BOWRING1

[April, 1825]

Dear Sir

I leave you the article on Pleadings, cut down to a moderate compass—there will be more of it afterwards for another number if you approve of it.2 —I think it will do much good, & may excite controversy—Grimgribber3 has never been attacked in a periodical publication with any thing like the same severity—or if at all, only in general terms. This is specific, & the lawyers will understand its drift better.

Yours truly

J.S. Mill

8.3.

TO JOHN BOWRING1

• Croydon

Monday evening
[11 June, 1825]

Dear Sir

I send you the article on the Game Laws,2 which I hope is not too long—there is more scratching in it than there usually is in my articles and there will be a great deal of small print—If anything must be left out, I think it should be some of the extracts, however of this you will judge for yourself—I also send a little poem which was written by a niece of Mr Mushet of the Mint,3 and given by him to me for you. All I have to ask is that if it cannot be praised it may not be noticed at all.

Eyton Tooke has finished his review of Lord John Russell4 —I suppose he will send it to you immediately, if he has not sent it already—

Please to send my proofs to Ellis at the Indemnity Office—He comes to Croydon every day—

I should like to suspend a review of Brown’s works and particularly of his Lectures upon this Life of his which has just appeared, by the Rev. Mr Welch.5 You have not had any metaphysical articles yet—It will help to give that variety to the work which has been wanting hitherto—I have heard it suggested that you should have some philological articles—Perhaps James Gilchrist6 (not Borthwick) would write one—I know of no one else who could do it.

Yours very truly

J.S. Mill

John Bowring Esq.

29.1.

TO JEAN BAPTISTE SAY1

• London

2d March 1830

My Dear Sir,

You will, I am sure, readily believe with how much regret & sympathy all your friends here have learned the great affliction which you have recently sustained.2 None of them can possibly have so much reason to know and appreciate the greatness of your loss as I have, who had so much experience of Madame Say’s excellence, and have received so much kindness from her. I beg that you will assure the remainder of your family of the part which I take in their grief. My father also is most anxious to assure you how deeply he sympathizes with you and how greatly he esteemed and respected Madame Say. He would have written to you himself long before this if he had not known that I was about to write.

I have myself suffered a most grievous and unexpected loss, by the death of my poor friend Eyton Tooke, who was well-known to you as one of the most excellent and promising of all his contemporaries, and who would have been a blessing to his country and to his kind.3 The loss of such a man will be felt in a thousand ways by persons who never knew him nor were aware what things were to be expected from him if he had lived to pursue the career of self-improvement and philanthropic exertion which he had entered upon; and how admirable a moral influence he would have exercised on all with whom he came in contact, by the unrivalled purity and rectitude of his purposes, combined with the largest and most comprehensive liberality and philanthropy. To his immediate friends, and associates in his labour and plans, the loss is irreparable and to me especially.

Poor Mr. Tooke, the father, although he has in some degree recovered from the first shock, is quite incapable of writing to you either on his own loss or on yours, and he has entrusted to me the duty of sending to you the enclosed paragraphs, extracted from the newspapers of the time, respecting the particulars of the fatal event.4

I owe you a long debt of gratitude for your kindness in sending me successively the six volumes of your work,5 which I have read with the greatest pleasure and instruction, and which I think is likely to be read by more persons, and with more advantage, than any other treatise on the subject which is now extant. You will hardly be surprised that I should not quite concur in the whole of your strictures on those whom you call the “économistes politiques abstraits”;6 though I am forced to admit that they have frequently occupied public attention, to the great detriment of the science, with discussions of mere nomenclature and classification, of no consequence except as to the manner of expressing or of teaching the principles of the science; and that they have occasionally generalized too far, by not taking into account a number of the modifying circumstances, which are of importance in the various questions composing the details of the science. I have myself derived several most important corrections of my speculative views from your work, and from the reflections which it suggested. I am happy to find that there is much less in your principles, than I thought there was, which is positively at variance with the rigidly scientific economists of this country. I believe that their principles when duly modified, constitute a deeper and more searching analysis of the phenomena of wealth than yours, but that they are not materially different in their practical result. I should wish to see the science taught in both ways; in one for the public, in the other for students: though I sometimes lament to see that the two sorts of teachers scarcely understand the scope or appreciate the whole merit of each other. But the rising generation of political economists in this country are not only capable of unity, but do actually unite both, and you will find when their speculations come before the public, that they have benefitted as fully by your writings as by those of Ricardo, and partake in nothing of the forms or of the spirit of a sect or school.

I consider myself to be discharging a duty towards my friend Eyton Tooke, who would have been so distinguished in this very department of science, in telling you how highly he thought of your work. In one of the last conversations I had with him, he spoke to me of it with great admiration and expressed himself almost enthusiastically on the fine spirit of general benevolence, and devotion to the cause of social improvement in all its branches, which runs through the work, and which distinguishes your writings in so honorable a manner from too many of our English economists.

Believe me,
Most sincerely yours

J.S. Mill

31.1.

TO JOHN BOWRING1

Saturday
[19 June, 1830]

My dear Sir

I am canvassing very earnestly for the following candidates for the Atheneum, several of whom you probably intend to vote for, and if you would do as much for the remainder, you would greatly oblige me.

Mr Charles Austin

John Sterling

Coulson

John Fonblanque

Charles Buller M.P.

Charles Romilly

A. Hayward

James Booth

Wm Ogle Carr2

I can strongly certify the fitness of all except the last, who is strongly recommended by Mr George Bentham.3

Yours very truly

J.S. Mill

40.1.

TO SARAH AUSTIN1

Tuesday
[5 July, 1831]

My dear Mütterlein

I set off so soon that I cannot count upon being able to call upon you before I go, which I should have preferred rather than to write, even without any of the additional temptations that you held out to me in your note. I am going to spend a month on and about the lakes of Cumberland & Westmoreland,2 & shall probably see a good deal of Wordsworth, who when he was last in town, very kindly asked me to his house3 —but this invitation I cannot now accept, as I shall have a companion—my friend Grant, whom I am very glad that you have at last seen.4 His extreme modesty—for it is not exactly bashfulness—never would let him call upon you before.

Another excellent friend of mine, Crawley,5 who frequently walks home with Mr. Austin from the lecture,6 would, I am certain, be much pleased by making your acquaintance—though I suppose he was afraid of intruding upon you by coming to the proper side of your door, i.e. the inside. I have taken upon myself to say that you will be glad to see him—& I think I might also have safely promised that you would like him.

I look forward with great pleasure to cultivating a further acquaintance with Mr. Empson under your auspices.7 I know not to what I can be indebted for so very favorable an opinion as that which you mention, except to your mütterlich kindness, which makes you see every thing about me in far brighter colours than those of reality.

I am very happy to hear that Mr. Austin is better. I hope Lucy is quite recovered from all ailments.8

Yours most affectionately

J.S. Mill

49.01.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Examiner’s Office

9th May 1832

My dear Sir

The Bengal Political Draft No 237 having passed the Court before the additional matter arrived from India, we did not think it worth while to keep back the Draft, thinking that it would give less trouble to prepare another Draft which might follow the former almost immediately. It might perhaps be expedient, with reference to Mr Murchison’s explanations,2 to make one or two slight alterations in the strictures on his conduct but I think they should be only verbal.

If, however, you should be of a different opinion there are several courses which might be taken.

The entire Draft might be kept back but I can see no advantage in this.

Or the Draft might be passed with the omission of the additional paragraphs which were inserted subsequently to its return from P.C.

Or paras 426, 427 of the letter dated 26th August, with the collection No 194 corresponding to these paras containing Mr Murchison’s explanations might be added to the Kedah Collection now at the Board & the Draft might be modified by the Board with reference to those particular paras, the remainder of the newly arrived matter respecting Kedah & Nanning being reserved for a future Despatch.

Or lastly, the Board might modify the Draft with reference to the whole of the recent arrivals; but as this would introduce new matter of considerable interest and importance, it would, I think, be more convenient that it should be taken in the regular course of correspondence.

When you have decided which of these alternatives to adopt, we will act accordingly.

At any rate we were thinking of making application to the Board, for leave to make public the Secret letter of 2d December 1831.

Believe me
Most truly yours

J.S. Mill

52.1.

TO SARAH AUSTIN1

Thursday

• I.H.

[mid-June 1832?]

Dear Mütterlein

I know you will never suspect me of being indifferent to your company, therefore I will not scruple to tell you that I had rather not come on Friday: there will be too many without me, and one only goes to see people in a crowd when one does not care to see them otherwise, or when one does not venture to refuse—at least that is the case with me.

The attendance at the lectures is rather slack, certainly, but it is chiefly from unlucky accidents. Roebuck has been ill.2 —Crawley, who has the greatest admiration for the lectures & attended regularly last year, has for the last three or four months been dangerously ill of the only serious illness he ever had, & is not even now recovered. Romilly has been overwhelmed with duties insomuch that he is at this moment failing of one very imperative one, his engagement with Cochrane (no blame to him, however).3 Graham, ever since his appointment as official assignee, has had all his time taken up. Strutt has been always at the House of Commons,4 Chadwick, latterly, has been engrossed by Mr. Bentham’s affairs;5 & so on.

I think there may be a class of some ten or a dozen next year among persons whom I myself know, or know of.

Your question “what can Pelham do here” shews little knowledge of the said Pelham.6 I should not at all wonder if he became a frequenter of yours. There is much good in Bulwer.

Give my love to Lucy—I trust it is not her birthday7 which I am refusing to celebrate.

Ihre Sohn

J.S.M.

53.1.

TO HENRY COLE1

Saturday
[14 July, 1832]

Dear Cole

I have got the tickets for Don Juan on Monday, and “request the pleasure of your company.”2 If I do not see you in the interval, we will meet at the Arcade door a little before seven.

54.1.

TO HENRY COLE1

Wednesday
[18 July, 1832]

Dear Cole

I have taken places by the Red River Southampton coach, which leaves the Bolt in Tun at halfpast 8, and the Gloucester Coffee House at nine. Perhaps it might be as well, as we are to meet G. & R. at Lymington to send some additional linen &c. &c. thither in their parcel or box or what not; but of this each must judge for himself, & G. & R. must act as a court of appeal from both tribunals.

Mit Heil und Gluck

J.S. Mill

58.1.

TO HENRY COLE1

• Polvellen—Looe

30 September, [1832]

My dear Cole

I inclose the letter to Paris which I said I would request you to despatch for me. For the postage thereof as far as Dover you will consider yourself as the creditor of,

Yours faithfully

J.S.M.

The Music-buyers of Devonport are by this time aware of the name & reputation of Marinelli.2

70.1.

TO HENRY COLE1

• India House

Friday
[15 March, 1833]

Dear Cole

If you are disengaged on Monday evening next, my mother and sisters will hope to have the pleasure of seeing you.2 You will meet the Fonblanques and two or three other people3 —come early, by which I mean come soon after seven if you can, or as early as you are able.

76.1.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Examiner’s Office

4th June 1833

My dear Sir,

My father has received from Mr Lawford the accompanying note on the power of Govt to detain a civil servant in India against his will.2 It appears they cannot do it except by application to the Supreme Court; and it is perhaps more than we could be warranted in affirming positively here that they were wrong in not making such an application in Mr Ricketts’ case because there is some doubt whether the presumption they could have established against him were such as the Court would have proceeded upon, & because he could probably have quitted India before process could have issued.3

As the P.C. is with you, perhaps the requisite alteration in the wording could be most conveniently made at the Board.

Would it not be highly advisable that the Government of India should have the power given it of detaining its servants in India until their accounts with Government are settled? By their covenants they are bound to remain—but it seems that the Govt cannot compel them to do so.

Believe me
yours faithfully

J.S. Mill

82.1.

TO HENRY COLE1

[2 Aug., 1833?]

Dear Cole

I am at your service this evening for anything—Fonblanque, Mrs. Kingston,2 or what not—only it is not the best of all times for Fonblanque.

I shall call here as soon as I have had my dinner somewhere.

J.S. Mill

85.1.

TO JERÔME ADOLPHE BLANQUI1

• India House

10th September 1833

My dear Sir

I avail myself of your permission to answer your questions in my own language.

All the chairs of Political Economy which exist in England are of very recent foundation. The professorship at the London University you are probably aware of: the lectures however were so ill attended that for the last session or two none have been delivered.2 There is also a professorship at the rival institution in London, called King’s College.3 At Oxford a chair was founded a few years ago by and at the expense of an individual, a wealthy banker of London, Mr Henry Drummond. This chair has been filled successively by Mr Senior, and Dr Whately, the present Archbishop of Dublin; and you are doubtless acquainted with the excellent lectures which those distinguished persons have in each successive year, published, pursuantly to one of the provisions of the act of endowment.4 What effect the lectures produced upon those who heard them delivered, I know not; but when published they have added greatly to the reputation of their authors and have conduced to the diffusion of a taste for the science.5

Mr Pryme, a private individual, what is called in this country a provincial barrister, (now member of parliament for the town of Cambridge) for some years delivered lectures on political economy at that town, on his own private authority, without any connexion with the University: some years however after the establishment of the Oxford Professorship, the University of Cambridge followed the example, by recognizing Mr Pryme’s lectures and giving him the title of Professor of Political Economy at the University.6 Whether any emoluments from the University are annexed to the Professorship, I know not.

I am not aware of any other chairs of Political Economy in England. I am informed that one has recently been established in the University of Dublin through the influence of the Archbishop.7 There is no such chair at any of the Scotch universities, but courses of political economy have been occasionally though rarely delivered by the Professors of Moral Philosophy at Edinburgh.8 Some years ago (during Lord Liverpool’s ministry) a number of distinguished persons at Edinburgh presented a memorial to the King (who is the head of the Scottish universities though not of the English) requesting that he would authorize the establishment of a chair of Political Economy; but their request was refused.9

The views taken of the science in the lectures delivered from these several chairs, are of course determined by the particular opinions of the Professors; who differ, as in the present state of the science may be expected, on a great number of important points, but the tendency of all their doctrines is in favour of liberty of commerce.

I had nearly forgotten to mention that there is a chair of Political Economy at the College of Haileybury, for the education of the Civil Servants of the East India Company. This chair has for many years been filled by Mr Malthus.10

In answer to your question, “quelles doctrines sont aujourdhui en faveur” I hardly know what to say. The subject is so little studied scientifically that there can scarcely be said to be any “doctrines of political economy” in favour among any class; but in commercial & financial legislation the Tories are generally for keeping up the old institutions, the Whigs and Radicals generally for the removal of restrictions, whether imposed by monopolies, duties on importation, or indirect taxation involving an inconvenient interference with processes of manufacture.

There are no periodical papers which pay any special attention to political economy. Mr MacCulloch occasionally writes articles in the Edinburgh & Foreign Quarterly Reviews;11 and Colonel Perronet Thompson, the proprietor of the Westminster Review, frequently writes on questions connected with the science:12 he has taken more pains than most men in the study of it as a science. In Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine there are frequently good articles by a scientific political economist.13

The University of London has I believe got over its pecuniary difficulties, rather by reducing its expenses than by increasing its number of pupils. But the lectures on the moral & political sciences are so ill attended that several of the professors have ceased to lecture: particularly the professors of Jurisprudence and Political Economy.14 The lectures best attended are those on English law and the medical sciences,15 because those kinds of knowledge may be turned into money—which is a consideration nearer to the heart of most English fathers than the desire to make their sons wise or accomplished men.

I should be most happy to communicate any other information in my power, which you may desire to possess on these or other points.

Believe me, My dear Sir
Most sincerely yours

J.S. Mill

I forgot to ask you the other day, whether a successor is yet appointed to our friend M. Say, and to enquire concerning another valued friend of my father’s and mine, whom you are doubtless well acquainted with—M. Comte.16

96.1.

TO FORTUNATO PRANDI1

• India House

20 January 1834

My dear Prandi

Would you so far oblige me as to take charge of the accompanying letter & two packets? There is nothing sealed, & you have unlimited license to untie.

Shall you be long absent? & will you not let me see something of you when you return? we never meet.

yours ever

J.S. Mill

96.2.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Examiner’s Office

5th Feb. 1834

My dear Sir

We have no clue to trace the project of Mr Elphinstone2 respecting lapsed Jageers,3 except that which is afforded by paras 18 & 19 of Political Letter from Bombay of 2d March 1822, which state that a scheme of the kind you mention was once contemplated but afterwards abandoned.

We have vainly attempted by means of this indication to discover any Minute or Dispatch in which the proposition was made.

Believe me
Yours very truly

J.S. Mill

98.1.

TO EFFINGHAM WILSON1

• India House

14th February 1834

My dear Sir

The accompanying MS. on education has been sent to me with a request that I would offer it to you for publication.2 I hear the highest character of it from a friend of mine whom I think fully competent to judge of the merits of such a work—& I should have liked much to read it before putting it into your hands—but as I have no time just at present, I send the MS.3 There is in addition to what I now send, a mass of very valuable and erudite notes, which with the present MS. would make a good sized 8vo volume.

The author would be glad of an early answer if possible.

Ever yours

J.S. Mill

E. Wilson Esq.

101.1.

TO HORACE HAYMAN WILSON1

• India House

29th March 1834

Sir,

I have had the honor of receiving and laying before Mr. Loch2 your letter of the 6th Ultimo; and I am desired to express to you his acknowledgments for the readiness with which you have consented to afford your valuable aid in the selection of a competent person for the office of Head Master in the Anglo Indian College,3 and which was no more than he expected from your zeal for the interests of Native Education in general, and of that Institution in particular. I have also to express his obligations to you for your remarks on the nature of the office, and on the qualifications which it requires; and, above all, for your public spirited offer to give preparatory instruction in the native languages to any gentleman whom the Court may nominate to it. Such instruction, and the continued communication with yourself which it would involve, are advantages of the value of which, to any person who may be selected for the duties in question, Mr. Loch is deeply sensible.

Your observations on the expediency of attaching a higher salary to the office than that now appropriated to it from the Education Fund, have been perused by Mr. Loch with every attention. But while he feels the force of your reasons, and the weight due to your opinion, he would not consider himself justified in proposing to the Court the adoption of the measure which you recommend, until trial shall have been made of the possibility of procuring a competent person on the terms originally proposed. He will therefore feel greatly indebted to you if you will endeavour to obtain a person qualified for the office, and willing to undertake it on the present conditions. Should this be found impracticable, it will no doubt be advisable for the Court to take into consideration the expediency of increasing the Salary.

I have the honor to be, Sir
Your most obedient Servant

J.S. Mill

103.1.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Ex. Off.

9 June 1834

My dear Sir

I have the pleasure of returning to you the papers on Mr Masson,2 to stand as a fourth volume in the Colln in the manner you propose.

On the subject of the Board’s alteration in the reply to Bengal Pol P.C. 1308,3 (concerning the Boondela chiefs & jageerdars) as the Chairman4 has not adopted the passage which you have inserted, I may take this opportunity of mentioning why. No 49 in the classified list annexed to the H. of C. Report,5 viz the Nana of Calpee, is the chief of Jaloun, he is no longer called Nana of Calpee because Calpee has been ceded to the British Govt. No 52 is probably Kishore Sing of Punnah. The others who are referred to in the Board’s insertion (most of whom appear to be of the Chobey family) are entirely insignificant. The Chairman has often seen them when he was in Bundlecund and says they are petty Jageerdars of no sort of consequence, and their engagements are not treaties but are constituted by Sunnuds on our part, & acknowledgments of allegiance on theirs.

You will find that we have made several additions to this PC since it returned to us. We find that it saves much time & trouble to continue the subjects up to the latest advices.

Believe me, Dear Sir
yours faithfully

J.S. Mill

105.1.

TO JOHN BOWRING1

• India House

1st July [1834]

My dear Sir

Would you oblige me by letting me know by 2d post as soon as your second Report is procurable,2 as my friend Mr Nichol of Montrose has written to me to send him a copy as early as possible.

You have been in communication with Mr Nichol recently & are aware of the purpose for which he is anxious to see your report as soon as may be,3 & therefore you will, I know, excuse my troubling you with my present request—

Believe me
Yours ever

J.S. Mill

107.1.

TO JOHN ARTHUR ROEBUCK1

[2 August, 1834]

. . . I have not yet seen Falconer2 not that I have thought of any better person nor so good. But I have been rather dilatory though all this week I have been intending to call & at last have written to him to come to me. Apropos I have seen a composition which I understand to be his, lately, which I did not think showed much editorial talent, a project of a programme for a Finsbury Electoral Committee.3 The ideas were all good but it was very clumsily drawn up, and was not good English . . . .

108.1.

TO HENRY COLE1

• India House

26th August 1834

Dear Cole

I am sorry to say that I shall not be able to join you at Chepstowe or anywhere else, as my father has not yet returned, & I do not like during his absence to be away for more than a day or two—& for several other reasons. I should have enjoyed exceedingly the Wye and meeting with you—however it cannot be helped.

I am very glad that Cornwall has fulfilled your expectations. I think you would have admired Falmouth as much as I did, if I had not praised it so much beforehand—& you had perhaps seen, as I had not, the parts about St. Blazey, and Tregony, & also Fowey harbour.2

Grant is still in the vale of Festinniog (or ffestinniog, is it?) but has had, it seems, quantities of rain. We have not had any here, for more than a fortnight, until the last three days. If you have been as lucky you have had the finest weather possible in the finest places.

Did you see anything of Buller while you were at Looe?

Ever yours truly.

J.S. Mill

110.1.

TO ADOLPHE NARCISSE THIBAUDEAU1

[13 September, 1834]

Mon cher Thibaudeau

Vous voyez par la lettre de Wilson, quelles sont les conditions pécuniaires de la correspondance du Globe, et quel en est le genre de correspondance qu’il faut à ces messieurs.2 Je ne sais si cela vous convient; tout ce que je sais, c’est que vous êtes l’homme en France le plus propre à une correspondance quelconque entre les deux pays, dans un journal quelconque, soit français, soit anglais.

Dans le cas où cela ne vous convînt pas, je voudrais bien que cela pût convenir à Dussard.3 Je sais combien il serait au-dessous de vous pour une pareille tâche; mais il en a besoin et il vaudrait mieux que les correspondans actuels des journaux anglais.

Je ne veux plus bore you par rapport à la Niobé;4 j’ai donné cette commission à un voyageur anglais.

Carrel s’occupe à apprendre l’anglais;5 les Buller l’ont invité à leur faire visite en Cornwall, je l’ai conseillé d’accepter, s’il doit rester encore quelque temps en angleterre. Il n’y a presque personne à Londres qui parle français.

Donnez-moi de vos nouvelles quand vous en aurez le temps et croyez que je suis toujours

votre dévoué

J.S. Mill

125.1.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Exam. Off.

7th March 1835

My dear Sir,

We have discovered an agreement with Scindia respecting the Contingent,2 posterior to that which you allude to. I send you a copy of it, together with copies of paragraphs which will refer you to subsequent reductions in the strength of the Contingent,3 by the act of the British Government alone. Should you wish the paragraphs from India to be copied also, I shall have great pleasure in ordering it to be done.

Believe me
yours very truly

J.S. Mill

126.1.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Ex. Off.

11th March 1835

My dear Sir,

The grounds, on which in PC 1411, the distinction is made between the British Levy & the remainder of Scindia’s Contingent, are solely those which appear in the Collection. Of their sufficiency or otherwise you can judge. I do not distinctly recollect them.

The Ajmere Engagement2 shall be looked at.

Believe me, My dear Sir
Yours very truly

J.S. Mill

139.1.

TO HENRY SCOTT ALVES1

• E.I. House

4 July 1835

Political Department

Mr J.S. Mill presents compliments to Mr Alves, and by desire of the Chairman & Deputy Chairman,2 transmits in duplicate Draft of a proposed reply to various paras. of the Political Letters from Bengal, dated the 13 March, 10 July, & 13 November 1834, relative to the North Eastern & Eastern Frontiers.3

15 collections, in 1327 pages, accompany the Draft.

H.S. Alves, Esq &c &c &c

159.1.

TO HORACE HAYMAN WILSON1

• India House

5th January 1836

My dear Sir

Some months ago, by the desire of the then Chairman,2 I had the honour of placing myself in communication with you with a view to obtain your valuable aid in procuring a person qualified to superintend the Anglo Indian College & to be the principal teacher in that Institution, and you kindly consented to look out for a fit person. The Managers of the Institution have since withdrawn their application, stating that they have now no doubt of being able to select a competent person in India and I am consequently directed by the Revenue & Judicial Committee to apprise you that any further continuance of your endeavours to procure a person in this country will be unnecessary.

Having thus fulfilled my instructions, permit me in my individual capacity to say how much pleasure I have derived from your letter in this month’s Asiatic Journal.3 The Government of India in their recent conduct have gone directly in the teeth of the instructions they have received from this country—as well as violated the most obvious rules of policy & common prudence.

Believe me, My dear Sir
Very truly yours

J.S. Mill

163.1.

TO SARAH AUSTIN1

• India House

8th Feby 1836

My dear Mütterlein

Thanks for letting me know when there was an opportunity of writing. How are you? & how “is” Mr Austin? I wish much to know—as for me I am much the same as when I last wrote neither better nor worse—& I do not find that I get better—however the medical men think it is a very trifling ailment.2 While it lasts, however, it cripples me for many things. My father also is in statu quo or nearly so—& will not get rid of the remains of his complaint till the warm weather.3 My brother James goes to Deal tonight to join his ship in the Downs.4 News of any other sort I have none as to anybody in whom you take interest. Nor is there anything doing by anybody—except indeed in India—where Cameron is going on very satisfactorily & there is a prospect of his being able to do some good.5 I send you a copy of the review.6 Now that Von Raumer is done (which by the bye I have asked Buller to review) could not you do something for it?7

You have heard I suppose from Bickersteth all the circumstances attending his appointment8 —which is worth all other things put together that the Whigs have done—though they ought to have done it long before.

Henry Taylor is printing a little book on Statesmanship in which I have no doubt there will be good things, & I should think some weak ones.9

I hardly ever go out now—so you will not wonder that I have so little to tell.

Yours affectionately

J.S. Mill

177.01.

TO J.B. ALEXANDRE PAULIN1

• Paris
• samedi

[6 August, 1836]

Mon cher Monsieur Paulin

En passant par Paris trop vîte pour aller voir mes amis, je vous écris à la hâte un petit mot de réponse à votre lettre. L’Histoire Parlementaire aura bientôt un article dans le London Review, article fait par un de mes amis qui a beaucoup étudié la Révolution française et qui fait très grand cas de cet ouvrage.2 L’espace seul a manqué à l’Examiner pour en rendre compte il y a déjà longtemps. J’ai pris des démarches pour qu’il soit parlé dans quelques journaux anglais de votre traduction de l’excellent ouvrage de Ritter, et je ferai de mon mieux pour les autres ouvrages, notamment pour celui de M. Fauriel.3

Comme la revue n’a pas d’abonnés en france il serait inutile qu’elle persiste à faire les frais d’une agence parisienne. Si donc vous voulez bien écrire à M. Falconer en vous servant de mon nom et l’indiquer ce qui nous reste à payer, nous terminerons à la fin du mois courant l’arrangement que nous avons fait ensemble il y a quelque temps.

Quel funeste evenement, mon cher M. Paulin, que la mort de Carrel—la france perd en lui le plus grand de ses hommes politiques et la cause populaire son plus noble défenseur.4 J’ai peu joui de l’avantage immense de son intimité—malgré cela j’ai senti sa perte comme celle d’un père.5

tout à vous

J.S. Mill

201.2.

TO HENRY COLE1

• India House

Thursday
[April 1837?]

My dear Cole—

Under the circumstances you mention I should wish to have the longer passage omitted entirely. The shorter one may stand as it is, except that instead of “indispensable to insure confidence abroad” I would rather say “the most effectual means of insuring” etc.2

Yours

J.S. Mill

212.1.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Examiner’s Office

5th August 1837

My dear Sir

In the PC herewith forwarded on the subject of Baroda affairs, you will find that orders are given for the removal of Mr Williams from the Office of the Commissioner & Resident.2 Similar Orders were inserted by the Board in the P.C. recently returned on the subject of Myhee Caunta—but the Chairman did not think that so good an occasion as the present one & consequently the P.C. has been laid before the Committee recently as it originally stood. It seems more just & less embarrassing in its consequences to remove Mr Williams for general unfitness as proved by the general state of affairs at the Court to which he is accredited, than for specific instances of misconduct of which his superiors (the Bombay Government of the time) must share the blame & which the home authorities when they first animadverted on them, did not deem worthy of so serious a punishment, for you will observe that the misconduct of Mr Williams in regard to the Myhee Caunta was as fully known to the Court when they sent out their last dispatch on that subject as it is now.

The Board have also inserted in the PC on the Myhee Caunta, an order for the removal of Mr Erskine from Kattywar.3 This seems very severe treatment for an error of judgment which in him was comparatively venial. He had never since he was in India been under any proper superintendance; his superior was Mr Williams, who, as well as the Government to whom they naturally looked for instructions, for years countenanced & approved all he did. If this does not render an error of judgment excusable, would it not at least be hard to ruin the entire prospects of a young man for errors committed under such circumstances.

I trouble you with this to explain the reason why the alterations have not been adopted.

Believe me
ever truly yours

J.S. Mill

220.01.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Ex. Off.

8 November 1837

My dear Sir

With reference to Political Draft No 487, in which the Board have inserted a paragraph they inserted before in the PC, relating to the inexpediency of including a multiplicity of subjects in the same letter—the Court I dare say will not make any remonstrance—but the reason why the paragraph was struck out, was, that the substance of it was embodied in an additional paragraph to a previous P.C. & thereby reached India earlier than it would have done if left in the P.C. in which the Board originally inserted it. With reference to the subject generally it seems to me very important that any instructions given to the Govt of India to matters in their separate letters, they should be warned at the same time not to discontinue the practice of sending quarterly General letters embracing all subjects not already reported on separately. The necessity of this appears from the conduct of the Bombay Government which ever since it has written none but separate letters has made a practice of having a great part of its proceedings unreported for years together & obliging us occasionally to take up subjects from the Consultations alone. The natural tendency of the system of separate letters seems to be to leaving subjects unnoticed until either some grave event happens, or a considerable quantity of matters has accumulated or the attention of Govt or the Court is drawn to the fact that there has been no report for a long time & the only check to this tendency seems to be making obligatory on somebody to look through a whole quarter’s or half year’s proceedings & report everything of any moment.

If you should agree in these views you will no doubt use your influence with the Board in support of them. As it is, we are writing as often & as vigorously to Bombay to demand General letters, as to Bengal to do what looks very like demanding their discontinuance or at least might admit of that interpretation.

Believe me. My dear Sir
Most truly yours

J.S. Mill

227.01.

TO JOHN ROBERTSON1

• I.H.

Wednesday
[December 1837]

Dear Robertson

I send you a letter from Col. Napier for your consideration. If you think what he proposes will do, I am quite willing to acquiesce.2

I left at Reynell,3 the whole of “Caricatures” except the one page herewith enclosed, which I have omitted because (while it makes no gap) I cannot at present see what is the merit you ascribe to Gilray’s idea or in what you consider it to resemble & surpass Hogarth’s.4 Of course reinsertion in the proof is practicable if desirable.

I send Adams’ article: he has done all we desired & inserted a splendid joke about Anthracite in p. 31.5 It will do very well now, only I am not certain about pp. 4 to 7. If you think they do not come in well, put them in somewhere as a note, or omit part of them or the whole, just as you like.

I would come to you tonight—but must work at Palmyra6 —I will come as soon as I can.

faithfully yours

J.S. Mill

228.1.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Ex. Off.

21 Dec 1837

My dear Sir

The paragraphs respecting Col. Alves2 were omitted in the Draft to which you allude, because the Committee considered that the only reason for releasing the other Madras officers from the retrenchment,3 was its being retrospective & that if an officer had been retrenched without hardship of a refund, and in obedience to the regulations of the service he had no claim to the restoration of the money. If the money were repaid to Col. Alves, the Committee thought that the Bengal officers would ask for it & on the whole it appeared to them that if Col. Alves thought himself aggrieved he would memorialize the Govt or the Court & the question might then be decided with a knowledge of the sentiments of the Govt.

These, as far as I could collect from the discussions in Committee, were the reasons which led to striking out the paragraph respecting Col. Alves.

Believe me, My dear Sir
most truly yours

J.S. Mill

229.02.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Ex. Off.

6 Jany 1838

My dear Sir

From a PC herewith forwarded on the Affairs of Oude, you will perceive that the death of the King of that country2 has not, in the opinion of the Chairs,3 obviated the necessity of taking into consideration the great principles of general policy laid down in the Resolutions of Govt which contemplated the removal of that prince from the throne.

It was to these general principles only, that any allusion was intended in the Hyderabad P.C. & the Chairman, with reference to the nature of the paragraphs now submitted, does not see any necessity for the remodelling of the concluding part of the Hyderabad paragraphs. If the President4 after reading the Oude P.C. should continue of his former opinion I should be much obliged to you if you would suggest to me the sort of modification which would best meet the President’s views. In the mean time the Hyderabad paragraphs will be kept in abeyance.

Believe me
Ever truly yours

J.S. Mill

233.1.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• India House

3d Feby 1838

My dear Sir

With reference to your note of the 31st ulto, I have caused search to be made for any documents respecting the amount of crime in the Guicowar’s territory,2 but none can be found, nor do I well understand how any such can exist. The great amount of crime in our own territories the authors of which find refuge in the Guicowar’s, will appear from the Collection to the P.C. in the affairs of the Guicowar, herewith sent.

I am also directed by the Chairman3 to call your attention to the observations respecting Mr Williams,4 (to a similar effect with those inserted by the Board in Draft 50) which are contained in the present P.C. 2095 & which were reserved for it instead of being put into Draft 50, because when the original P.C. was divided & the portions of it which related to the general government separated from those which touched upon special points, the remarks on Mr Williams’ conduct seemed to belong rather to the former division. This is still the view entertained by the Chairs, & they are on that account, desirous that the insertion in Draft 50 may be withdrawn, for which an application will probably be made in the regular form.

Believe me
ever truly yours

J.S. Mill

237.1.

TO HENRY COLE1

• Kensington

Tuesday evg.
[March 1838?]

Dear Cole

I am obliged to send this article back to you; I never had so unmanageable a one in my life.2 Not only is it often quite impossible for me to make out what you mean, but there is not one sentence in the whole article in its proper place. I wish you would rewrite it or rearrange it, on the principle of proving only one thing at a time & not jumping from one point to another & back again several times in a page. The article is utterly unmanageable by me—it can only be disentangled by the hand that entangled it—but the material is all excellent.

Ever yours

J.S. Mill

You must lose no time if it is to be in this number.

237.2.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• India House

1 March 1838

My dear Sir

With reference to your note of yesterday’s date which has just been handed to me by Mr Peacock;2 I have to state that Draft No 70, respecting the family of Wittul Rao3 formed (with a slight exception) a part of P.C. 2002 on the affairs of Baroda which was returned by the Board (so far as that portion of it was concerned) unaltered.

Believe me my dear Sir
ever truly yours

J.S. Mill

239.2.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• India House

26th March 1838

My dear Sir

With reference to the alteration in PC 2072 (Affairs of Kattywar) just returned; I do not clearly understand in what manner the Joonaghur chief is to continue his responsibility for the Babrias, when he is specifically interdicted from interfering with them. It strikes me that a clearer statement of the Board’s intentions would be desirable2 & would facilitate the passing of the Draft through the Court.

Ever yours truly

J.S. Mill

239.3.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Ex. Off.

18 April 1838

My dear Sir

With reference to Mr Gordon’s letter of this day’s date respecting Colonel Gowan,2 & the desirableness of requiring from the Indian Govt their reasons for the appointment you may perhaps not be aware what those reasons may very naturally be presumed to be, viz. that Col. Gowan is a connexion by marriage of Mr Ross in whose gift as Lieutenant Governor of Agra3 the appointment was.

Believe me
Ever truly yours

J.S. Mill

241.1.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Ex. Off.

8 June 1838

Private

My dear Sir

Can you give me any idea whether P.C. 2133, sent to the Board on the 19th March, is likely to be soon returned? It reviews the proceedings of the Agra Lieutenant-Governor2 from April to June 1836, & as several subsequent Agra P.C.s have been returned, which being full of references to P.C. 2133 are kept waiting by it, I would venture to suggest that in case any point or points should require prolonged consideration or are likely to give rise to correspondence, the paras relating to them might perhaps be detached & made into a separate P.C. & the rest proceeded with. I wish the same course had been adopted in this office respecting Draft 3, one point of which (that relating to the tomb of the Persian ambassador)3 is still under discussion between the Board and the Court, during which time all the other parts of the Draft (some of which have been referred to in subsequent dispatches being signed & sent off) are detained in this country.

Believe me, My dear Sir
Yours most truly

J.S. Mill

248.2.

TO JAMES STEPHEN1

• India House

3d November 1838

My dear Sir

The enclosed paper has been given to me by some of my Italian friends in this country, who knew of no better means of forwarding it to its destination.2 It appears to be intended as a sort of Memorial to the Colonial Department & is, as you will see, signed by the party in whose name it is made out & who is a Sicilian refugee at Malta—but it has been very long on its way hither, & the friends of the party are in complete ignorance whether his case has been decided or not. I know nothing whatever personally of the man, but I am informed, that his removal from Malta would be ruinous to his circumstances, & that his conduct while there has never incurred the slightest censure from the authorities.

With many apologies for adopting this mode of communication which I do from not knowing the proper one,

believe me
yours faithfully

J.S. Mill

249.1.

TO ROBERT GORDON1

• Examiner’s Office

24 Novr 1838

Mr Mill presents his compliments to Mr Gordon,2 & although unable to refer him at once to any authority, he believes Mr Gordon will find that the provision in question of the Canon Law (which it need not be observed is founded on the Roman Catholic religion) was the occasion of the famous Nolumus leges Angliae mutari.3 The barons, in that instance, were resisting the attempt to introduce into English law the legitimatio per subsequens matrimonium of the Canon Law. Wherever the municipal laws of the nations of Europe are of Roman origin, Mr Mill believes that this rule will be found to prevail—& he would instance Scotland & France.

253.1.

TO JOHN AITKEN CARLYLE1

• Rome

18th March 1839

My dear Sir

I received your two letters both together today, not from any negligence of mine in asking for them, but from the carelessness of the Post office people in telling me there was nothing for me. Many thanks for the trouble you have taken. The packet containing the first part of the report2 is not worth paying 12½ piastres for, or one piastre, as I have already seen the whole document here in a newspaper, & can have as many copies of it as I like in England, where alone they can be of any use, therefore pray do not trouble yourself any further about the packet. I will give the 17 carlini3 to Sterling or to somebody else who may be going to Naples, as there appears to be some fear that Dr Calvert’s4 health may prevent Sterling from going there—he will at any rate not stay more than ten days, as he will set out if at all about the 1st of April & return about the 15th with a brother of his who is bringing home a sick wife from Corfu.5 Your messages shall be given to him. I believe he knows Severn—Wolff6 I have not heard him speak about.

The two other parts of the Report reached me duly. I am really concerned that you have had so much more trouble about a matter of such small consequence, than I expected, or than I should ever have dreamed of imposing upon you.

One of the letters which you forwarded tells me what you probably have heard from your brother direct, that the whole edition of his History is sold, except a few copies.7 He was well & in spirits.

I have attended to your advice about riding, but have not found it possible to ride so much or so often as I intended, on account of a pain in my side which invariably comes on after I have ridden a very short time. I do not find myself at all better, or getting better, & have renounced the hope of any considerable benefit from this journey or climate. I still adhere to my macaroni diet which I find as pleasant & as least as wholesome as any other.

Pray command my services to the utmost for anything you may wish done here or in the way to England. I have for sundry reasons given up all thought of Sicily.

Excuse this trumpery affair of a letter which I write only to thank you for your kindness & believe me

ever yours truly

J.S. Mill

259.1.

TO HORACE GRANT1

[1 July, 1839?]

Dear Grant

I am here—so please send me my papers by bearer.

yours

J.S. Mill

260.1.

TO EDWARD SCOTT1

• India House

30th July 1839

My dear Sir

Your very kind letter increases my mistification at what has happened.

I was aware that you valued the book highly as a gift from a friend, & as not easy to be replaced; but I was quite unaware that it was (or that as a Prospectus of an unpublished work it was likely to be) in such request or of such value in the market, as could make it an object with any one to become possessed of it by dishonest means.2

I have no clue whatever to trace it by, but if you would have the kindness to give me the exact title, I will set my bookseller to look out for it. I fear there is little chance of success since whoever got possession of it most probably desired to keep it rather than to sell it—or if to sell it, intended to sell it immediately, having some customer in view.

yours ever truly

J.S. Mill

With regard to the Saumaise papers your directions shall be attended to. Perhaps if you have time you would write a letter to the Trustees of the Museum for me to send with the papers—which would increase their value both to the institution & to posterity.3

265.1.

TO JOHN MITCHELL KEMBLE1

• India House

10th October 1839

My dear Sir

Perhaps a former slight acquaintance with you, which I always look back to with pleasure, may be a sufficient excuse for my troubling you with this note on a subject in which you also are interested though not so directly as myself. I have been for some time engaged in carrying on a review, from which various reasons now conspire to make me desirous of disconnecting myself. Though its circulation is steady, it is not sufficient to cover the expenses; & the deficit would be still greater unless I were to continue devoting an amount of my own time & exertion to the review which is not convenient to a person who has other pursuits, & is not justified by any amount of good likely to be produced in the existing state of the public mind by a person of my particular cast of opinions & general mental qualifications, at least through the channel of a periodical work. Now your review has the same difficulties to struggle against, & if there are any two reviews which more particularly stand in each other’s way it is the British & Foreign & the London & Westminster. The proprietor of the British & Foreign2 has shewn an honorable perseverance in carrying on a review which cannot hitherto have been prosperous as a mere pecuniary speculation, in which quality I should be very glad to imitate him if I had his resources & his consequent means of obtaining the best help.

Now therefore what I should wish to know is, whether it is probable that he would be willing to become a purchaser of the L. & W. & I prefer asking your opinion on the matter in this way, because if you think that he certainly or almost certainly would not, I should proceed no farther in the business. I am aware of no one to whom the acquisition of the review would be so advantageous, no one else indeed to whom in a pecuniary sense there would be much likelihood of its being at all advantageous, unless possibly to some bookseller as an instrument of puffing & to such I should not chuse to be the means of consigning it. Some one might perhaps be found who would undertake it from higher motives & whose circumstances would enable him to be indifferent to the very moderate pecuniary loss at present incurred. But I should very willingly see it united to your review, since the only individualizing character which it has possessed in all its avatars & which therefore it ought not to part with, & live, is that of an organ of radicalism, & the article on the State of the Nation, in your last number but one, rather surpasses in point of radicalism, than falls short of, my limits.3

Believe me, My dear Sir
Yours most truly

J.S. Mill

268.1.

TO HENRY COLE1

• I.H.

Tuesday
[12 November, 1839?]

Dear Cole

I have seen Robertson once since he saw you.2 We separated with a half intention of calling on you when he comes again to town this week. He seemed to me to be neither for nor against the plan, but to await my decision. Now my decision, if I consider myself only, will be, whatever becomes of the review, to withdraw myself from it. I have not yet received any answer from Beaumont, but I cannot be much longer without it: if I do not come to terms with him, I will make up my mind once for all. I should like best, in that case, that your schemes should proceed, with some other person than myself as the proprietor.

ever yours

J.S. Mill

268.2.

TO NASSAU WILLIAM SENIOR1

• 18 K.[ensington] S.[quare]

Thursday
[before 5 Dec., 1839]

My dear Senior

As I see a question of mine stands first for the P.E. Club I think it right to let you know beforehand that I shall not be there this time. I hope to be at the February meeting, & the subsequent ones to the end of the season.

Perhaps Merivale, or you, who stand next, will bring on your questions.2

ever yours

J.S. Mill

N.W. Senior Esq.

270.01.

TO THOMAS CARLYLE1

• I.H.

Monday
[January 1840]

My dear Carlyle

Let us have Milnes’ article at all events to see & judge of, since it is written. I dare say it will suit the review very well.2

I have read “Chartism” with renewed pleasure but only found out one new passage.3

ever faithfully yours

J.S. Mill

270.03.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Ex. Off.

29th Jany 1840

My dear Sir

According to your request I send the Secret Letter of 7th November with its enclosures, as a supplement to the Joudpore Collection. I do not think that the information contained in these papers, is likely to occasion any alteration in the PC though it may require the addition of a sentence or two, chiefly respecting the restoration of the Joudpore share of Sambur.2

ever truly yours

J.S. Mill

270.4.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1

[February 1840?]

. . . sum you mention—the more especially as circumstances at present render me unable to make any arrangements with respect to any number of the review but the forthcoming one. I hope I may rely upon having, for the present number, . . . prefer

Yours truly

J.S. Mill

271.1.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Ex. Off.

14 Feb. 1840

My dear Sir

The additional matter in para 7 of Draft 61 was inserted in the Political Committee on the proposition of a Director & I presume he cannot have adverted to the passages in the Collection, to which you have now been so obliging as to refer me. (If I had remembered their existence I would have pointed them out to him.) His object was to discourage the Government from embarrassing themselves with the domestic disputes of stipendiaries.

Ever truly yours

J.S. Mill

277.1.

TO HENRY COLE1

20 minutes before 6
[27 February, 1840?]

Dear Cole

Pray come or send your answer to the printer’s,2 where I shall be for some time. If you do not, I shall return here. I am pressing because there must be an announcement in the present number which must be printed tonight.3

I have had an offer from the other quarter I alluded to in my note4 —& if you are willing to carry it on our agreement must be conditional on the very probable event of my refusing that.

Ever yours

J.S. Mill

277.2.

TO HENRY COLE1

Friday
[6 March, 1840]

Dear Cole

The responsibility thus devolving wholly on me I must take till Monday to consider. But I will be prepared to give you an answer positively on that day.2

Ever yours

J.S. Mill

281.1.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Ex. Off.

April 14 1840

Private

My dear Sir

On my return here2 your note of the 19th ulto respecting P.C. 2674 was shewn to me.

The reasons for keeping the paragraphs respecting the Institution Fee in the Political Department are, first, that the former correspondence on the subject has been in that Department. Secondly that the question to be at present decided is a Mysore question exclusively & it was not the intention of the Chairs3 that the decision should be considered as prejudging in any degree the question respecting the abolition of the Institution Fee in our own territories—which would in some measure at least apparently be the case if these paragraphs were sent to India in the Legislative or Judicial Departments.

For my own part, believing that an Institution Fee is everywhere objectionable & that the arguments in Cameron’s admirable report4 are conclusive everywhere I should be happy to see the abolition made general but the Court, at present, are certainly not prepared for such a measure.

ever truly yours

J.S. Mill

284.1.

TO JOHN MITCHINSON CALVERT1

• India House

25th April 1840

My dear Calvert

I have hitherto kept in view the physiological maxim inculcated in the conclusion of your note to me, & I should probably have allowed myself a few more days of gestation if I had not wished to ask your opinion as to a certain matter. I had arranged with the undertaker, McDowell,2 that the grave should be built up to a certain height above the ground: that being done, an iron railing round it would have been unnecessary & expensive.3 On the very morning of the funeral McDowell informed me that the rector would not allow the grave to be built up as high as we had intended—& when I saw it, I found the gravestone quite on a level with the surface of the earth. Had I known this previously I would have had an upright, not a flat gravestone: but the mischief being done, I wrote to McDowell to express my wish to erect an iron railing round the grave, to which he replies that the rector objects to that too, & he recommends my writing to Mr Coope himself.4 —Now it is on this that I wish to ask your advice, viz. as this Coope seems a queer customer, whether there is any use in applying to him at all & if so, what is the best mode of doing so—whether directly by letter, or in any more circuitous mode: & whether any of my friends at Falmouth would be likely to mend the matter by interesting themselves in it.

We are again all assembled here, & all tolerably well. I have written once to Sterling since I arrived,5 but have not heard from him, as indeed I did not expect. I have a “pretty considerable” quantity of business on my hands here at present & my head is rather confused, which must account for my writing so trumpery a letter—

ever yours truly

J.S. Mill

I hear good accounts of Cunningham’s performance from the Foxes as well as from you.6 There is no hurry about sending it. I have remitted the ten guineas for him to Mr Robert Fox, as I had forgotten C.’s christian name & feared the bankers might not know to whom to pay it. Bullmore is paid.7

285.1.

TO JOHN MITCHINSON CALVERT1

• India House

1st May 1840

My dear Calvert

First, let me thank you for taking so much trouble about the affair with Coope.2 We have finally determined that the thing had better remain as it is; although McDowell is much to blame for having told me positively that the matter could be arranged as we at first ordered it; but for which assurance, I should have chosen one of the numerous other spots in the burial ground the choice of which he offered me & in respect to some of which the objection derived from the necessity of passing over the place to get beyond it would not have had existence. But it is too late to remedy this now. A headstone would be absurd unless for the purpose of an inscription; & an inscription twice over would be almost equally so.

Sterling is here, as you know, & I have seen as much of him as his engagements allowed. We do not think he is so well as when he was at Falmouth, but there seems no decided change for the worse. He still coughs more than one likes to see. I dined along with him on Tuesday, with the Sterling Club,3 where I saw for the first time your friends Samuel and Robert Wilberforce,4 —with whom, especially the latter, Sterling had a controversy touching the purposes of Christianity, the essential Christianship of whosoever acknowledges in Christ the model-man, & the bad effect upon most minds of dwelling more upon any set of means than upon the end, viz. individual holiness, very beautiful to hear, & very edifying to the rest of us, & to me particularly valuable as helping me to a clearer knowledge of what is in such minds as those of the Wilberforces on such subjects. This discussion went off into one as to whether philosophy tended—or should tend to make men believe more, or less, W. maintaining the former & S. the latter view; the Wilberforces both contending that philosophy enables one to give credit not only to all the Bible miracles but to a considerable scantling of the legends of saints & even of the Pagan prodigies besides.

You said in one of your letters to me, that Sterling’s departure & mine had closed your philosophical season. I might almost say that the loss of Sterling & you had suspended mine, for till now when I have him again for a few days I have thought but little on any of the topics on which we used to converse. I have indeed written no small number of pages on subjects of great importance viz. the “affairs of the Guicowar” and the “disputes between the Rao of Cutch and certain Wagur chiefs”5 —with one considerable advantage over the more speculative topics which I have sometimes written about, that I can foresee much more exactly the effects with which my lucubrations will be attended. It would be vastly more agreeable if in writing on Bentham or Coleridge to a host of review readers6 one could adopt the “Do this” style, with a prospect of being obeyed. (At this crisis I have made a great blot lower down the page, which I hope you will impute to the liveliness of my feelings.) My evenings have been employed in the tedious task of revising old review articles for republication7 —taking the sharpness, or rather tartness, out of some of them, & alas! sacrificing some splendid passages because I find they are ignorant nonsense! but what goes to my heart most of all is, spoiling the music of some of my most rhythmical periods by the painful necessity of substituting one foot of truth for two of error or exaggeration: while the feelings which inspired the sentences being clean gone, any attempt to re-modulate them would only give rise to choice specimens of lumbering affectation. But as Swift would say, “as the old saying is, an ounce of sense is better than a pound of sound.”8

A propos of review articles, if it comes in your way do read Stephen’s review (in the last Edinburgh) of the writings of Isaac Taylor of Ongar, author of the “Natural History of Enthusiasm.”9 It is in great part made up of two verae historiae, viz. first a supposed Biography of the author, written twenty years hence, & next a supposed Autobiography by him, relating the particulars of his posthumous existence, & how he gets on in the sun, which it appears is to be the scene of our next stage of existence. Our souls no doubt continue to gravitate, while the centrifugal force perishes with our material integuments.

Sterling tells me you have been seen to eat “a potatoe”—if that is the cause of your not being in force, those are right who say that potatoes are poison, as is natural to the plants of the genus Solanum, natural family Solanaceae &c. &c.10 I presume you add to your potatoe what Carlyle speaks of as “an unknown condiment named Point.”11 If you go to Penzance pray go to Lemorna Cove, the Logan stone, the Land’s End, & St Just & pray do not go to Kynance, for I do not want to be the only person who has not been there. It will be very pleasant to see you in town.

ever yours truly

J.S. Mill

287.1.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Ex. Off.

21 May 1840

Private

My dear Sir

In the Political PC 2695 which either has been or will immediately be sent to you from the Court in the official form, you will find two material variations from the paragraphs which were originally sent to you. One is on the subject of the proposed reform of the Jyepore Army by the substitution for the greater part of it of a force under British officers:2 this the Court are disposed to encourage provided it can be done without an abuse of our superior power; & on the whole I may say the Court are much more favourable than they had been until recently to Lord Auckland’s view on the subject of bringing the armies of the native states under our control as opportunities offer,3 provided we avoid what would have been the effect of the proposed Oude Treaty viz. to make a prince pay a second time for what he had paid the full value for already.

The second alteration is in the paragraph respecting a misstatement by Moosherraf Begum of Joura affecting the character of Major Borthwick.4 I enclose Copy of a Memorandum by Sir H. Willock,5 concurred in by Mr Edmonstone, which will explain to you the reason of the alteration or rather omission in this instance.

yours ever truly

J.S. Mill

287.2.

TO HENRY COLE1

[before 26 May 1840?]

Dear Cole

I have read all the notices, & if certain corrections are made which I have suggested I think none of them will be any discredit to the review. Whether they will be of any use to it is a matter on which I retain my original opinion.2

J.S.M.

289.1.

TO THOMAS CARLYLE1

• I.H.

Friday
[29 May, 1840]

My dear Carlyle

Can you & Mrs Carlyle2 come to Kensington on Wednesday? not to dinner if you would rather not, but as early in the evening as you can. Barclay Fox & his father & mother & sisters will probably come at some time or other in the evening but I hope you will come whether they do or not.

ever faithfully

J.S. Mill

290.1.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Ex. Office

12 June 1840

My dear Sir

I am requested by Mr Edmonstone to send you a second memorandum on the Rohilla jageer of Rampore,2 which he has prepared in conformity to the desire expressed in your note to Mr Melvill3 of the 27th ulto. He also desires me to say that it would have been prepared sooner, but that other business claimed his prior attention.

Ever yours, etc

(signed) J.S. Mill

290.2.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Ex. Off.

13 June 1840

My dear Sir

I have just discovered to my great mortification that by some gross & untraceable blunder in this office, the Guicowar PC which was borrowed in consequence of the last arrivals was sent to the Board again verbatim the same as before, instead of a greatly altered PC which I prepared & which the Chairs2 sanctioned. Nothing can now be done but to send at once the altered paragraphs to you, which ought to have been sent a month ago, & I apologize for the needless trouble occasioned to you by one of the absurdest pieces of official negligence I have ever known of.

Yours ever truly

J.S. Mill

290.3.

TO ROBERT WERE FOX1

• I.H.

Monday
[about 14 June, 1840?]

My dear Sir

Nichol bids me “tell Mr Fox that he will do me a great service by taking the construction of that instrument entirely into his own hands & making it what he thinks it ought to be. I do not at all care for a few pounds.”2

Calvert is staying near Sevenoaks with his convalescent sister,3 & bids me tell you that his absence there prevents his calling upon you.

ever yours truly

J.S. Mill

293.1.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1

• India House

Thursday
[after July 1840?]

My dear Sir—

Mr Hickson will be very happy to receive your article, & it will reach him if addressed W.E. Hickson Esq. care of Mr Lunford, East Temple Chambers, Whitefriars Street.2

very faithfully yours

J.S. Mill

294.1.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Ex. Off.

2d Septr 1840

My dear Sir

The Rampore papers will be taken into consideration immediately. The Governor General2 takes Mr Edmonstone’s view as to the expediency of continuing the Jageer in the Rohilla family3 but has adopted, apparently without much examination, a different opinion from Mr Edmonstone as to the eventual rights of the Oude State.

Every truly yours

J.S. Mill

294.2

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Ex. Off.

2d Septr 1840

My dear Sir

The reference has been made to the Company’s Counsel and the Queen’s Advocate General,2 but as yet we have not received their answer. It was not supposed that the paragraph would be affected by it & any additional instructions can be sent hereafter if required.

While I am writing I will say one word respecting the Board’s addition to paragraph 64 of PC 2810, respecting the Bhonsla’s villages in the Nizam’s country.3 It strikes me that the plan suggested by the Board would never answer. We could manage the villages of a native prince & pay over the revenues to him, because he can trust us—besides he must. But they never trust one another, & there is no instance among them I believe of a joint property in which the agents of both sharers do not exercise a right of joint management. It must end therefore in our managing the villages for both governments; which neither would like.

Would it not be better to refer to the Govt of India as a general question, the possibility of negotiating an arrangement by which the double Revenue agency might be avoided?

ever truly yours

J.S. Mill

296.1.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Ex. Off.

29th Septr 1840

My dear Sir

With reference to the India Political P.C. 2810, & to the paragraphs in it which relate to the Bhonsla’s Deshmooky rights in the Nizam’s territory;2 in addition to the remarks which I took the liberty of privately communicating to you on the subject of the proposed commutation of those rights, it may be added that no such commutation could possibly satisfy the Nagpore Raja.3 It is not the money, but the tenure, as an ancient family possession, that he is solicitous about; & no money grant would compensate for the cession of a privilege venerated for its antiquity.

There is another alteration made by the Board in the same P.C. which appears founded on a misapprehension; I allude to the subject of the Title offered by Shah Shooja to Sir C. Wade4 which it would seem the Board conceive to be of the nature of those honours which can only be accepted by express permission of the Sovereign. This applies to Orders, Decorations etc but not to Titles, which have been very often conferred upon Company’s Servants without any other mention than that of their own Government at Calcutta. The King of Delhi5 used to create, almost as a matter of course, the officer who was the organ of communication with him, a something ool Moolk or ood Dowla etc etc.

ever yours truly

J.S. Mill

308.1.

TO WILLIAM CABELL1

• Ex. Off.

14 Jany 1841

My dear Sir

With reference to your note dated this day2 respecting para 8 of PC 2954; I had not overlooked the opinion of Mr Sutherland3 which you mention; but it appeared to me that the reasons originally given for transferring the Kunkraj Zillah to the charge of the Agent at Pahlunpore,4 were strong, & the only valid reason against it seemed to be that mentioned by Capt Lang5 in p. 34 of the Colln, which is of a temporary nature and depending upon the fact the Pahlunpore Agent is at present virtual manager of the Pahlunpore country.

Believe me, my dear Sir
Very truly yours

J.S. Mill

321.1.

TO HENRY COLE1

• I.H.

Friday
[11 June, 1841]

Dear Cole

I hope you will come to the Kensington Anti Corn Law meeting at the King’s Arms on Tuesday evening at half past five.2

yours ever

J.S. Mill

322.1.

TO RICHARD BENTLEY1

• India House

8th July 1841

Mr Mill presents his compliments to Mr Bentley and has the pleasure of inclosing a letter which he has just received from Professor Nichol on the subject of the proposition which he made some time ago through Mr Mill respecting the copyright of his astronomical & other writings.2

339.1.

TO THOMAS N. WATERFIELD1

• Ex. Off.

16th Jan 1842

My dear Sir

I answer your questions respecting Draft 356 under considerable disadvantages from not having the Collection to refer to. But I think I can answer them tolerably correctly.

The reason why I draw a distinction between the Myhee Caunta division & the other ceded possessions is that Capt. Carnac then Rest at Baroda who negotiated the treaty2 says expressly in his letter of 16th August 18173 “The cession does not include any part of the dues from the Myhee Caunta division including Pahlunpore & Ballasmore which remain with the Guicowar under his accession to the late Treaty with H.H. the Paishwa.”4 The Ghans Dana from the M.C. division must therefore be deemed to have been distinctly & purposely withheld from us. It appears however that under the Partition Treaty between the Guicowar & the Peshwa the G. never had really any right to this Ghans Dana & therefore his not waiving a claim which was never well grounded, did not constitute any reason for our paying him the exactions in question. Still, we have paid them & are therefore estopped from disputing the right.

But in regard to the other ceded possessions the G. did not himself claim to have any right to Ghans Dana subsequently to the Treaty, & if he had any clearly alienated it in our favour by the Treaty. If therefore we had ever paid Ghans Dana (which we did not) it would be no disputable point but a manifest oversight & would not therefore, I conceive, have been binding upon us after we found out that he had expressly renounced the claim.

ever yours

J.S. Mill

342.1.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1

• I.H.

Wedy
[23 Feb., 1842?]

I find scarcely anybody is going tomorrow whom you would probably care to see, except Peacock & Dr Royle.2

As you were doubtful before, this will probably decide you, & it therefore decides me—in the negative.

J.S.M.

If you have not engaged your name to any visitor for the Pol. Ec. club next Thursday will you give it to Charles Buller & me for Monckton Milnes?

352.1.

TO JOHN WILLIAM PARKER1

• India House

13th April 1842

My dear Sir

On further consideration of the suggestion I threw out in my last note to you, on the subject of gratis copies of the book on Logic, I do not think it would be quite fair to you in the shape in which it first occurred to me.2 What I am now inclined to propose is that whatever copies I wish to give away may be debited to me at trade price, & in the event of there being any profit, that the half profit which you so liberally offer may be set against those copies, & if there be a balance against me I shall be happy to pay it. If there should fortunately be a balance on the other side of the account I have no desire to receive it, but am perfectly ready without any such condition to engage that if there be another edition you shall have the refusal of it on the terms you propose.

ever yours

J.S. Mill

What time will suit you best for beginning to print?

372.1.

TO JOHN WILLIAM PARKER1

• India House

26th Septr 1842

My dear Sir,

The page2 will I think do very well, except that there is not quite margin enough for the quantity of letterpress, but that I suppose will be amended.

I have returned the proof to your office, corrected, & shall be able to go on steadily.

I have been requested by two gentlemen to have the sheets sent to them: the one wishes to translate the book into French,3 the other is under engagement to review it in the Edinburgh Review.4 As they are both living abroad I can only send to them as opportunities occur & as I also wish to have the sheets for myself as they are struck off, I shall be much obliged if you will direct three sets to be sent to me regularly.

very truly yours

J.S. Mill

374.1.

TO JOHN MITCHELL KEMBLE1

• India House

12th October, 1842

My dear Sir

If you are still of the same mind in regard to Mr Potter’s article on Socrates, would you be kind enough to leave it at the publisher’s for him?2

very truly yours

J.S. Mill

386.1.

TO THOMAS CARLYLE1

[February 1843]

I send what I can, viz. Bentham, my father, Brougham, & four others, which you can send if you think Varnhagen will care for them, viz. Ram Mohun Roy, Sir Alex. Burnes, Lords Lansdowne & Palmerston.2

Yours ever

J.S. Mill

415.1.

TO WILLIAM EMPSON1

[December 1843]

Sir—

When I requested the Editor of the Ed. Review to insert a contradiction of the assertions in the article on Bentham in the October number, I did not ground my request on relationship, nor did I use the terms father & “son”—the word father, where it occurs in the letter, was inserted by Mr Napier2 —I was actuated solely by a sense of justice, & your polite acknowledgment of regret for any pain you have caused me in no degree alters my opinion of the merits of the article in question.

I am Sir your obt Servt

J.S. Mill

420.1.

TO THOMAS N. WATERFIELD1

• Ex. Off.

29 Jany 1844

My dear Sir

With reference to Mr Stark’s letter to me on the subject of PC 41942 (respecting the proposed Pension Fund for the Nizam’s local officers) it seems to me there is a misapprehension respecting the nature of the proposition which is now before the Court.

There will not, in the present plan, be any annual subscriptions from the officers, no more than there are to the Civil Annuity Fund in Bengal,3 which is the model that has been followed in the proposed arrangements. The fund will be formed by the Nizam’s annual contribution & its interest, together with the payment which each officer will make on accepting the annuity viz one half its computed value.

In reality the plan is simply one by which the Nizam’s Govt would grant pensions to the local officers, not gratuitously but on payment of one half their value4 computed at 9 per cent interest which is a very low rate compared with that which the Nizam’s Govt habitually pays:5 & even at that rate it could only cost the Nizam (according to the McGriffith Davies calculations) a few hundred rupees a year over & above the 12000 RS which his Govt has already expressed willingness to pay.6

I apprehend that there would be in the nature of the case an implied guarantee on the part of the British Govt to the intent, that if the Nizam promised this boon to the officers he would not afterwards break his promise without a breach of faith with us. But the engagement would be so little onerous that there would be small temptation to break it.7

very truly yours

J.S. Mill

427.1.

TO THE FINANCE AND HOME COMMITTEE1

• Examiner’s Office
• India House

9th April 1844

I certify that the education of George Grote Mill2 has been under my exclusive superintendance during the last seven years, with the exception of short intervals: that his conduct & character have always been excellent & that his acquirements considerably surpass the average of well educated youths.

J.S. Mill

438.1.

TO JOHN MITCHELL KEMBLE1

• India House

22d Aug. 1844

My dear Mr Kemble

I accept very thankfully the additional time which you give me.2

Masson is I think a young man of great promise & even the faults of his stile are not of a discouraging kind—but he is not yet out of his apprenticeship. If you return his article I will offer to edite it for him & make it if possible admissible.3

I have some, but a very slight knowledge of Thommerel,4 but I do not know where he is to be found at present. Four years ago his address at Paris was 34 Rue des Postes.

Very truly yours

J.S. Mill

J.M. Kemble Esq

447.1.

TO JOHN AUSTIN1

Extract B

• I.H.

30th Decr. 1844

My dear Austin

I have been hoping for some time to hear from you finally about the pecuniary matter & get it finally settled, & I have thought it might be facilitated by my sending you a statement of the various receipts & disbursements in case the principle you adopt for fixing the Interest should require them. [See other side]2

(The rest of the letter regards some of the items & does not require to be copied.)

Very truly yours

J.S. Mill

447.2.

TO JOHN AUSTIN1

A

• India House

Tuesday*

My dear Austin

After my interview with you I have never felt much doubt as to what Kindersley’s2 opinion would be; but I should like to know why the Interest is fixed at 4 per Cent, a rate which certainly cd not have been obtained in the 3 per cents, since it implies their price to be 75. When as you are aware they have been during the whole period varying only from about 90 to 100, their present price.

It is necessary also to determine how the Interest is to be calculated. Is it to be made up to the end of each year & added to the principal, i.e. is compound Interest to be given? or, is Interest to be charged upon each item from the date of its receipt? Is a balance in hand to be allowed &c. &c.

Yours ever

J.S. Mill

455.1.

TO [JOHN HAMILTON THOM?]1

• India House

1st March 1845

My dear Sir

An elderly lady2 from whom I once submitted to you some manuscripts for publication, which did not suit you, having heard of your new Magazine has asked me to offer to you the inclosed papers for it.3 I have not read them but I know her to be a meritorious person & very much in want of anything, however small, which she might be able to earn by her pen.

Very truly yours

J.S. Mill

468.1.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1

• India House

Tuesday
26th Augt [1845]

My dear Sir

Having just returned to town I have found your note—written I know not how long ago, as there is no date or postmark. Will you be kind enough to inform me whether the letter you ask me to write will still be useful.

Very truly yours

J.S. Mill

473.1.

TO HENRY REEVE1

• India House

Wedy
[after 24 Oct., 1845]

My dear Reeve

I have quite given up dining out, but I hope to see both you & Beaumont2 at the India House.

I am afraid the letter which will be written to the Govt of India about Capt. Taylor will be virtually this—“do as you please, on your own responsibility. We praised Capt Taylor but we did not mean you to keep him unless you like.”3 However as his removal is suspended, I do not think there is much danger of its taking effect.

Yours ever truly

J.S. Mill

508.2.

TO [JAMES?] HUTCHINSON1

• 73 Eccleston Square

June 26 1847

Mr Mill presents his compliments to Mr Hutchinson, & begs to mention that he is much obliged by his interesting work having been transmitted to him, but that Mr Mill’s department being wholly unconnected with the subject, Mr Mill did not immediately direct his attention to Mr Hutchinson’s communication for which he begs that he will have the goodness to excuse him.

513.1.

TO JOHN WILLIAM PARKER1

• India House

15 Nov. 1847

Dear Sir—

Not having received any answer to my note of the 27th of last month, I suppose it must have miscarried. If you have received it, I must request an immediate answer to it.

Yours truly

J.S. Mill

530.1.

TO THOMAS STORY SPEDDING1

• India House

31st August 1848

Dear Sir

I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your pamphlet on the Poor Laws, & of the very flattering letter which accompanied it.2 I am much gratified that you should have found in my Political Economy, or in my other writings, anything which appeared to you to deserve being so spoken of.

Your pamphlet, and particularly the concluding letter of the series, contains much in which I heartily concur, & which I think likely to be very useful.3 Of all contained in it, the thing which seems to me especially valuable is the strong recognition of the very early & very low state of advancement in which civilized society now is, compared with what may one day be realized, & may already be reasonably aimed at. It is probable that a greater amount of alteration in existing opinions & institutions, than you contemplate, would be included in my idea of this possible & desirable improvement; but I am happy to find that we completely agree in thinking that neither individuals nor classes can expect permanently to retain any power or influence except by taking a lead in promoting this great object.

On the more especial subject of the pamphlet, I sympathize entirely in the feelings which make you desire that the conditions of relief should be made less onerous to those who wish to maintain themselves, but cannot, than to those who can, but will not.4 But in regard to the ablebodied I can see at present no means of sifting the one class from the other, except by making the conditions such that no one will accept relief who can possibly do without it. I suspect that the present poor law is the best possible, as a mere poor law; that any nearer approach to abstract justice is not to be had in a poor law, & must wait for a revision of social arrangements more fundamental than poor laws. I think it likely that society will ultimately take the increase of the human race under a more direct controul than is consistent with present ideas; in which case an unlimited “droit au travail”5 for all who are born, as well as many other things, would not be the chimeras which they seem to be in the present state of opinion & feeling.

I am, Dear Sir
Yours faithfully

J.S. Mill

530.2.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

• India House

Thursday
[September 1848?]

My dear Chadwick

I delayed sending you the notice you asked for because I rather fancied (erroneously as it now appears) that its anonymousness might be inconsistent with the intentions you had in asking for it.

ever yours

J.S. Mill

[1 ]MS in the India Office Library and Records. Folded and addressed: George Grote Junr. Esq. / Queen’s Hotel / Edinburgh. Cancelled for: Buck’s Head Inn / Glasgow. Wax seal bears initials JSM. The square brackets in the text indicate conjectural readings made necessary by rips caused by the seal. Published in MNL, XX (Summer 1985), 4-7, edited by John M. Robson.

George Grote (1794-1871), banker, M.P. (1822-41), and, later, historian of Greece; Harriet Grote (née Lewin, 1792-1878). The Grotes were central to the Benthamite group.

[2 ]The donkey, placed equidistant from two bundles of fodder, starves because it cannot decide which to eat. The dilemma, known as asinus Buridani, is traditionally attributed to Jean Buridan (ca. 1290-ca. 1358).

[3 ]Joseph Hume (1777-1855), Radical M.P. for Montrose, best known for his constant attempts at economic reform, close associate of James Mill (1773-1836), whose schoolmate he had been. Anthony Hammond (1758-1838), barrister and advocate of Benthamite legal reforms.

[4 ]See “Report from the Select Committee on the Criminal Law of England” (2 Apr., 1824), Parliamentary Papers [PP], 1824, IV, 39-405; the recommendations, based entirely on Hammond’s testimony and submissions, led eventually to partial consolidation of the criminal code in 7 & 8 George IV, cc. 27-31 (1827).

[5 ]William Whitmore, a young Benthamite, of a family that produced several members of parliament, now less well known than William Wolryche Whitmore (1787-1858), his cousin, M.P. for Wolverhampton.

[6 ]Mill is forecasting the appearance of “Price of Foreign Corn—Abolition of the Corn-Laws,” Edinburgh Review, XLI (Oct. 1824), 55-78, by James Ramsay McCulloch (1789-1864), the Scottish economist who was, in spite of his strayings from pure orthodoxy, closely associated with the Radicals, for example in the founding of the London Debating Society and of London University. Indeed, in 1828 J.S. Mill contributed a note on rent to McCulloch’s edition of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (in Essays on Economics and Society, CW, Vols. IV-V [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967], Vol. IV, pp. 161-80). The views of the Westminster on the matter were in the event expressed by Mill himself: “The Corn Laws,” Westminster Review, III (Apr. 1825), 394-420 (in CW, Vol. IV, pp. 45-70). Evidently W.W. Whitmore either could not, or would not, write an answer to McCulloch. Mill, however, took the pamphlet mentioned in the next sentence, Whitmore’s A Letter on the Present State of and Future Prospects of Agriculture, 2nd ed. (London: Hatchard, 1823), as the occasion for his “Corn Laws,” in which he argued against McCulloch’s article (without mentioning his name), while praising another of McCulloch’s articles (see CW, Vol. IV, pp. 51 and 53). Mill also there cites Whitmore’s promise to raise the issue in parliament (ibid., pp. 69-70).

[7 ]William George Prescott (1800-65) became a partner in Prescott, Grote, in 1822, and was an original member of the Utilitarian Society, founded by Mill.

[8 ]Thomas Tooke (1774-1858), a banker, was one of the best known economic writers of the period, much noticed by Mill. He had reviewed in the Globe and the Morning Chronicle Tooke’s Thoughts and Details on the High and Low Prices of the Last Thirty Years (London: Murray, 1823) on its appearance, and had just praised it in an article, “War Expenditure,” in the 3rd number of the Westminster, II (July 1824), while apologizing for not reviewing it (CW, Vol. IV, p. 4n). Tooke’s son, William Eyton Tooke (1806-30), known by his middle name, whose views were evidently becoming incompatible with his father’s, was one of Mill’s closest friends in these years. Tooke’s suicide on 27 January, 1830, deeply affected Mill; see CW, Vol. XII, p. 19, and Letter 29.1 below to J.B. Say.

[9 ]The question centred on the increased numbers of Irish migrant labourers who had found quicker and cheaper passage to Britain when regular steamboat services began in 1816, and who were able to obtain work partly because of the reluctance of British workers to migrate for temporary work as they would lose their right to parish poor relief. It was also becoming apparent that the Irish population was growing very rapidly; it almost trebled between 1785 and 1841.

[10 ]John Austin (1790-1859) and Sarah Austin (1793-1867) were almost second parents to John Mill, who, after his return from France, had studied law under John’s tutelage, and had played with their young daughter Lucy in the gardens of the houses in Queen’s Square Place, where they were near neighbours. The Mills in these years rented summer accommodation at Dorking, in Surrey, where they spent their weekends and vacations; Brockham Green is about two miles east of Dorking, a trivial distance for the perambulating Mills.

[11 ]This is a very early reference to John Austin’s almost complete inability to fulfill the great promise everyone agreed he possessed. He never did review Etienne Dumont’s redaction of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), Traité des preuves judiciaires, 2 vols. (Paris: Bossange, 1823).

[12 ]John Austin’s brother Charles (1799-1874) was at this time one of the most outspoken of the young Radicals. He became a very successful barrister, but retired from public life and issues.

[13 ]Peregrine Bingham (1788-1864), a Benthamite barrister, friend of the Austins, helped edit and wrote extensively for the early numbers of the Westminster. George John Graham (1801-88), whose first article in the Westminster appeared in July 1825, later was an official assignee of the Bankruptcy Court. William Ellis (1800-81), subsequently known for his educational and economic views, had just moved to the Indemnity Marine Insurance Co. from Lloyds; he had written in the 2nd and 3rd numbers of the Westminster (for the latter, see n21 below), and was preparing the one mentioned in n17 below for the 4th number.

[14 ]Patten might be either George (1801-65), the painter, who studied at the Royal Academy after 1816, or John Wilson-Patten (1802-92), later Baron Winmorleigh, who went up to Magdalen College, Oxford, in 1821. One of the Secretans is probably John James, author of Epitome of Foreign Stocks, Most Currently Bought and Sold in London (1824), and other works on commercial and financial topics.

[15 ]A James Harfield is listed as one of the members of the London Debating Society, but nothing more has been discovered about him. While no trace has been found of an Edward Ellis, it may be that Mill had not yet learned the spelling of the name of Edward Ellice Jr. (1810-80), son of the well-known M.P., who later was secretary to Lord Durham in Russia and Canada, and was known by Mill; though only in his fourteenth year at the time, he may well fit the description in the letter, for Mill and his friends were certainly not given to discouragement of precocity.

[16 ]Richard Doane (1805-48), Bentham’s amanuensis, had preceded Mill as a guest of the Samuel Benthams in France, and was connected with Mill in all his early endeavours, including the Mutual Improvement Society that was a forerunner of the Utilitarian Society.

[17 ]All three articles appeared in the 4th number of the Westminster, II (Oct. 1824): James Mill, “Periodical Literature: Quarterly Review,” 463-503; John Stuart Mill, “Brodie’s History of the British Empire,” 346-402 (in Essays on England, Ireland, and the Empire, CW, Vol. VI [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982], pp. 1-58); and William Ellis, “Political Economy,” 289-310 (a review of James Mill’s Elements [London: Baldwin, Cradock, and Joy, 1821; 2nd ed. revised, 1824]).

[18 ]I.e., Harfield.

[19 ]“Miscellaneous Notices, No. 11. Westminster Review,” North American Review, n.s. IX (Apr. 1824), 419-26. Particular notice was taken of William Johnson Fox (1786-1864), “Men and Things in 1823,” Westminster Review, I (Jan. 1824), 1-18; and Peregrine Bingham, “Travels of Duncan, Flint and Faux,” and “Periodical Literature: The Quarterly Review, No. LVIII—Faux’s Memorable Days in America,” ibid., 101-20, and 250-68.

[20 ]Mill is being mildly ironic, this idea being in fact the central point in “Periodical Literature: Edinburgh Review (Part I),” in the 1st number, 206-49, written by James Mill with considerable help from J.S. Mill (see Autobiography, in Autobiography and Literary Essays, CW, Vol. I [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981], pp. 93-5), who himself wrote the continuation of the attack in the 2nd number (Apr. 1824), 505-41 (in CW, Vol. I, pp. 291-325).

[21 ]William Maginn (1793-1842), “Letters to Timothy Tickler, Esq. (No. XVII): To Christopher North, Esq., on the last Westminster Review,” Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, XVI (Aug. 1824), 222-6, attacking particularly William Ellis, “Charitable Institutions,” Westminster Review, II (July 1824), 97-121.

[22 ]Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834), “Political Economy,” Quarterly Review, XXX (Jan. 1824), 297-334. Though he had not seen this article, Mill had written a year earlier an attack on Malthus’s view in reviewing his pamphlet, The Measure of Value Stated and Applied (1823), in the Morning Chronicle, 5 Sept., 1823, p. 2 (in Newspaper Writings, CW, Vols. XXII-XXV [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986], Vol. XXII, pp. 51-60).

[23 ]McCulloch’s “Disposal of Property by Will—Entails—French Law of Succession,” Edinburgh Review, XL (July 1824), 350-75, was answered in one of John Austin’s rare articles: “Periodical Literature: Edinburgh Review, Number XL, Art. IV—Disposition of Property by Will [and] Primogeniture,” Westminster Review, II (Oct. 1824), 503-53.

[24 ]James Mill, in “Southey’s Book of the Church,” Westminster Review, III (Jan. 1825), 167-212, made an onslaught on The Book of the Church, 2 vols. (London: Murray, 1824), by Robert Southey (1774-1843), the poet, friend of Coleridge and Wordsworth, who, like them, had deserted early radical views for conservative ones. The term, “the Satanic school,” had been applied by Southey in the Preface to his A Vision of Judgement (London: Longman, et al., 1821) to those “of diseased hearts and depraved imaginations, who, forming a system of opinions to suit their own unhappy course of conduct, have rebelled against the holiest ordinances of human society” (pp. xvii-xxii).

[25 ]“Knowledgeable about all things one can know.” The traditional title of the “900 Theses” of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-94), often quoted with the tag added by a wit (possibly Voltaire), et quibusdam aliis (“and even a few others”).

[26 ]The Courier and Evening Gazette (founded 1792), a conservative paper, referred, in a leading article of 28 August, 1824, p. 2, to the Radicalism of the Morning Chronicle, which defended the free-thinking Richard Carlile (1790-1843), a target for governmental blasphemous libel charges. The Chronicle replied to this attack on 30 August, p. 2, and the Courier (an evening paper) responded on the same day, p. 2, quoting from both its account on the 28th and the Chronicle’s reply. Mill had himself at the beginning of 1823 written five articles over the signature “Wickliff,” protesting against the prosecution of Carlile, his wife, and sister. Three of these were published under the title “Free Discussion” in the Morning Chronicle of 28 January, 8 and 12 February, 1823 (CW, Vol. XXII, pp. 9-12, 12-15, 15-18). The other two, Mill says in his Autobiography, contained “things too outspoken for that journal, [and] never appeared at all” (CW, Vol. I, pp. 89-91).

[27 ]John Black (1783-1855), who had begun to take major responsibility for the policies of the Morning Chronicle in 1817, was greatly influenced by James Mill, and printed most of the journalism of John Mill in the 1820s. For the latter’s mature confirmation of the early judgment, see Autobiography, CW, Vol. I, pp. 91-3, which includes mention of the attacks on the “unpaid magistracy.” Some of these were, in fact, written by Mill himself; e.g., “Blessings of Equal Justice,” and “Securities for Good Government,” CW, Vol. XXII, pp. 43-6 and 62-4.

[28 ]Francis Place (1771-1854), the “Radical tailor of Charing Cross,” organizing force behind the Radicals’ agitations and campaigns, who had received much of his political education from James Mill, was active at this time, inter alia, in promoting Neo-Malthusianism.

[1 ]MS at the College of Law, Nihon University, Tokyo. Addressed: John Bowring Esq. Dated in another hand.

John Bowring (1792-1872), Bentham’s disciple, was editor of the Westminster Review, 1824-36.

[2 ]George John Graham’s “Law Abuses: Pleadings,” appeared in the Westminster Review, IV (July 1825), 60-88; he continued the attack in “Law Abuses: Pleading—Practice,” ibid., V (July 1826), 39-62.

[3 ]A term adopted by Bentham from Richard Steele and John Horne Tooke to apply to legal jargon: see, e.g., Bentham, Rationale of Judicial Evidence, ed. J.S. Mill, 5 vols. (London: Hunt and Clarke, 1827), Vol. V, p. 344.

[1 ]MS in the Cornell University Library. Dated in another hand.

[2 ]J.S. Mill, “The Game Laws,” Westminster Review, V (Jan. 1826), 1-22; in CW, Vol. VI, pp. 99-120.

[3 ]Robert Mushet (1782-1828), a senior officer of the Royal Mint, was an original member of the Political Economy Club. The niece was probably Margaret Mushet (1799-1885), who later contributed to periodicals; her poem was not noticed in the Westminster.

[4 ]“Memoirs of the Affairs of Europe,” Westminster Review, IV (July 1825), 178-83, a review of the first volume of John Russell (1792-1878), Memoirs of the Affairs of Europe from the Peace of Utrecht, 2 vols. (London: Murray, 1824-29).

[5 ]Mill was at this time (see CW, Vol. I, p. 71) reading the Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: Tait, 1820), by Thomas Brown (1778-1820), Professor of Moral Philosophy at Edinburgh. He did not, however, review David Welsh (1793-1845), An Account of the Life and Writings of Thomas Brown (Edinburgh: Tait, 1825).

[6 ]James Gilchrist (1783-1835), a General Baptist preacher and author of etymological and philological works; Mill distinguishes him from John Borthwick Gilchrist (1759-1841), formerly a surgeon in the East India Company service, then Professor of Hindi at the Company’s College, who wrote on Hindi philology. Neither wrote for the Westminster.

[1 ]MS in the possession of Professor Arnold Heertje, University of Amsterdam. Published in MNL, VIII (Fall 1972), 11-13, edited by Heertje and Evert Schoorl.

Jean Baptiste Say (1767-1832), French economist, visited England in 1814 and met James Mill and Bentham. J.S. Mill was his guest in France in 1820 and 1821, at the beginning and end of his year in France.

[2 ]Say’s wife, Julie Gourdel-Deloche, died on 10 January, 1830.

[3 ]Eyton Tooke committed suicide on 27 January, 1830.

[4 ]Perhaps those on 29 January in the Morning Chronicle, p. 3, and The Times, p. 2.

[5 ]Cours complet d’économie politique, 7 vols. (Paris: Rapilly, 1828-29).

[6 ]See Cours, Vol. I, pp. 125-6, with reference especially to David Ricardo (1772-1823), and J.R. McCulloch.

[1 ]MS at the College of Law, Nihon University, Tokyo. Dated in another hand; verified from the postmark. Addressed: Dr Bowring / No. 5 Milman Place / Bedford Row.

[2 ]In 1830 the Athenaeum Club, founded in 1824, decided to expand its membership by 200 to pay for its new building (still used). One hundred new members, including Mill, were chosen by a committee (on which his father sat); their nomination was announced on 12 June. The second hundred were to be elected by the full membership. Of those Mill lists, Charles Austin, Charles Buller (1806-48), recently elected M.P. for West Looe, and Charles Romilly (1808-87) were successful at this time. Walter Coulson (1794-1860), a barrister and editor, once amanuensis to Jeremy Bentham, Abraham Hayward (1801-84), Tory barrister, whose relations with Mill were seldom cordial, James Booth (1796-1880), a freethinking Chancery lawyer, and William Ogle Carr (ca. 1802-56), another barrister, were all elected to the Athenaeum in the next five years. Never elected were John Sterling (1806-44), the brilliant Cambridge graduate, then becoming a close friend to Mill, and John Samuel Martin de Grenier Fonblanque (1787-1865), brother of Albany Fonblanque, the editor of the Examiner, for which Mill was beginning to write.

[3 ]George Bentham (1800-84), later a distinguished botanist, son of Jeremy’s brother, Brigadier-General Sir Samuel Bentham, was one of the recently elected members. In 1820 he had been Mill’s instructor in botany and much else. William Carr was the son of Thomas William Carr (d. 1829) a friend of Sir Samuel; George Bentham had been enamoured of William’s sister, Laura.

[1 ]MS in the Varnhagen von Ense Collection, Jagiellonian Library, Cracow. Envelope addressed: Mrs Austin / 26 Park Road / Regent’s Park. Published in Victorians Institute Journal, V (1987), 138-9, edited by T.H. Pickett, and in MNL, XXIII (Winter 1988), 17-18, edited by Joseph Hamburger. Mill set out for the Lake District on Friday, the 8th; so this letter probably dates from the preceding Tuesday.

[2 ]Mill’s journal of this walking tour in Yorkshire and the Lake District (8 July-8 August) is in Journals and Debating Speeches, CW, Vols. XXVI-XXVII (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988), Vol. XXVII, pp. 501-56.

[3 ]Mill is probably referring to his breakfasting with William Wordsworth (1770-1850) at Henry Taylor’s on 27 February, 1831. He saw Wordsworth, then living at Rydal Mount, briefly on 18 July, and spent 4-7 August at Ambleside in order to visit him and his sister Dorothy.

[4 ]Horace Grant (1800-59), like Mill, worked as a clerk in the Examiner’s department at the India Office.

[5 ]Francis Edward Crawley (1803-32), a member of the London Debating Society, had accompanied Mill on a walking tour of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, and Surrey in July 1828.

[6 ]I.e., from John Austin’s lectures on jurisprudence at the University of London, which began in January 1831, with only eight students.

[7 ]William Empson (1791-1852), Professor of Polity and Laws of England at Haileybury College, contributor to and later editor (1847-52) of the Edinburgh Review.

[8 ]Lucie Austin (1821-69), later Lucie Duff Gordon, the Austins’ only child.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/283, pp. 91-[n.p.], India Office Library and Records. See Check List of Mill’s Indian Despatches in CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 46.

William Cabell (1786-1853) was at this time Senior Clerk in the Secret and Political Department at the Board of Control. In August 1839, his responsibility for the Secret Department was transferred to Thomas Nelson Waterfield, but he continued as Senior Clerk in the Political Department. From September 1835 until his retirement in May 1841, he was also Assistant Secretary to the Board of Control.

[2 ]Murchison had explained his conduct in connection with his negotiations with the Ex-Rajah of Kedah in a Political letter from Bengal dated 26 August, 1831.

[1 ]MS in the Varnhagen von Ense Collection, Jagiellonian Library, Cracow. Addressed: Mrs. Austin / 26 Park Road / Regent’s Park. Published in Victorians Institute Journal, V (1987), 138, edited by T.H. Pickett, and in MNL, XXIII (Winter 1988), 18-20, edited by Joseph Hamburger. Dated certainly between January and July 1832, during John Austin’s third series of lectures on jurisprudence at the University of London, which Mill attended. Francis Crawley (see Letter 40.1 above) had attended the lectures in 1831. The reference to Chadwick’s heavy commitment to Bentham’s “affairs” suggests that the letter was written after Bentham’s death on 6 June, 1832.

[2 ]John Arthur Roebuck (1801-79), barrister, disciple of Bentham’s, and intimate friend of Mill’s, M.P. 1832-37, 1841-47, 1849-79.

[3 ]The reference is probably to Charles Romilly (see Letter 31.1), but could be to one of his brothers, John (1802-74) or Edward (1804-70), both of whom were in the philosophic radical circle. The “engagement” was presumably for an article in the Foreign Quarterly Review, edited by John George Cochrane (1781-1852) from July 1827 through December 1834.

[4 ]Edward Strutt (1801-80), Baron Belper, 1856, M.P. for Derby 1830-48, 1851-56, was associated with the philosophic radicals in the 1830s.

[5 ]Edwin Chadwick (1800-90), barrister, close friend of Mill’s, was a disciple of Bentham’s, and an executor of his will.

[6 ]The allusion is to Edward George Bulwer, Lord Lytton (1803-73), novelist, editor, politician, member of the London Debating Society, and author of the popular novel Pelham; or, The Adventures of a Gentleman (London: Colburn, 1828).

[7 ]Her birthday was 21 June.

[1 ]MS not located; typescript McCrimmon. For the dating, see n2.

Henry Cole (1808-82), active in postal reform, member of the London Debating Society, Mill’s companion on the tour to the Lake District described in Letter 40.1 above, and on another later that month; see Letter 54.1 below.

[2 ]Don Giovanni, by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-91), was produced at the King’s Theatre, Haymarket, on 16 July, 1832, the role of Donna Elvira being sung by Henriette Méric-Lilande (1798-1867), and that of Donna Anna by Wilhelmine Schröder-Devrient (1804-50). For Mill’s comments on the latter during this season, see CW, Vol. I, p. 351, and CW, Vol. XXIII, p. 465.

[1 ]MS not located; typescript McCrimmon. Dated from internal evidence.

Mill and Cole set out the following morning, 19 July, for a walking tour of Hampshire, West Sussex, and the Isle of Wight that lasted until 6 August. The plan to meet G. and R. (probably Grant and Roebuck) seems not to have materialized. Mill’s journal is in CW, Vol. XXVII, pp. 557-611.

[1 ]MS not located; typescript McCrimmon, who indicates it is addressed on verso: Henry Cole Esq. / 4 Adam Street / Adelphi.

Mill had obviously been visiting the Buller family at Looe before setting out on his tour of Cornwall; for the journal of this tour, see CW, Vol. XXVII, pp. 613-37.

[2 ]Gaetano Marinelli (1754-1820), Italian composer mainly of comic operas, was popular among musical amateurs such as Mill and Cole.

[1 ]MS not located; typescript McCrimmon. Dated from the entry in Cole’s Diary for 18 March, 1833, Victoria and Albert Museum.

[2 ]Mill’s mother, Harriet (née Burrow) (ca. 1782-1854), and his sisters Wilhelmina Forbes (1808-61), Clara Esther (1810-86), Harriet Isabella (1812-97), Jane Stuart (ca. 1816-83), and Mary Elizabeth (1822-1913).

[3 ]Albany William Fonblanque (1793-1872), his wife (née Keane), and her sister, plus Nassau Senior and his sister (Cole’s Diary).

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/289, n.p. (before Bengal PC 1153), India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 58.

[2 ]The note, also dated 4 June, and directed to James Mill by Edward Lawford, solicitor to the Company, follows J.S. Mill’s letter to Cabell in L/P&S/6/289.

[3 ]PC 1153 concerned the dismissal of the Resident at Lucknow, Mordaunt Ricketts, for having taken bribes.

[1 ]MS not located; typescript McCrimmon. Presumably after 15 Mar., 1833, when Cole met Fonblanque at the Mills’, apparently for the first time (see Letter 70.1 above), and quite possibly Friday, 2 Aug., 1833. Cole’s Diary indicates that Mill called on him in the evening; they went to the Kingstons, but as no one was home, they called on Horace Grant.

[2 ]In the early 1830s Cole and the Mill family frequently spent musical evenings with the Kingstons, who are otherwise unidentified.

[1 ]MS in the German National Museum, Nuremberg.

Jérôme Adolphe Blanqui (1798-1854), pupil and assistant to Jean Baptiste Say, Professor of Industrial Economy and History from 1825 at the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers, in 1833 succeeded Say as Professor of Political Economy at the Conservatoire.

[2 ]J.R. McCulloch was appointed to the Chair of Political Economy in the University of London in July 1827, and held it until 1837; however, he stopped lecturing in 1831 because attendance at his lectures was minimal (sometimes indeed there were no students), and his remuneration was inadequate.

[3 ]Nassau William Senior (1790-1864) was appointed to the Chair in King’s College London (established 1829), but was appointed a tithe commissioner before the College opened in 1831, and consequently never lectured. He resigned in March 1832, and was succeeded in January 1833 by Richard Jones (1790-1855).

[4 ]Henry Drummond (1786-1860) established the Oxford Chair in 1825; for the provisions, see CW, Vol. XXII, p. 327. Senior, who assumed the Professorship in 1826, published An Introductory Lecture on Political Economy (London: Mawman, 1827), Three Lectures on the Transmission of the Precious Metals (London: Murray, 1828), Three Lectures on the Cost of Obtaining Money (London: Murray, 1830), and Two Lectures on Population (London: Murray, 1831). Whately published his Introductory Lectures on Political Economy (London: Fellowes, 1831).

[5 ]Favourable reviews of Senior’s lectures appeared, e.g., in the Westminster Review, VIII (July 1827), 177-89, and, by Whately, in the Edinburgh Review, XLVIII (Sept. 1828), 170-84. Whately’s Lectures were widely praised; see, e.g., Mill’s review, Examiner, 12 June, 1831, 373 (in CW, Vol. XXII, pp. 327-9), and Thomas Perronet Thompson’s in the Westminster, XVI (Jan. 1832), 1-22.

[6 ]George Pryme (1781-1868), M.P. for Cambridge 1832-41, who began to lecture in 1816, was recognized as Professor by the Senate in May 1828 and continued to lecture until 1863, evidently without salary. He published A Syllabus of a Course of Lectures on the Principles of Political Economy (Cambridge: printed Smith, 1816), which went through subsequent editions, to which he added An Introductory Lecture in 1823.

[7 ]Whately privately endowed the Chair at Trinity College Dublin in 1832; Mountifort Longfield (1802-84) was the first incumbent, 1832-34.

[8 ]Some of the lectures on political economy by Dugald Stewart (1753-1828), who held the Chair of Moral Philosophy at Edinburgh 1785-1809, are in Vols. VIII and IX of his Collected Works, ed. William Hamilton, 11 vols. (Edinburgh: Constable, 1854-60).

[9 ]In 1825, during the administration of Robert Banks Jenkinson (1770-1828), Lord Liverpool, McCulloch, with the assistance especially of Macvey Napier (1776-1847), editor of the Edinburgh Review, attempted to have a Chair in Political Economy established. Their Memorial to the Government Concerning a Chair of Political Economy in the University of Edinburgh (BL Add. MSS 38746, f. 219) was unsuccessful, being opposed strongly by Robert Saunders Dundas (1771-1856), Viscount Melville, Lord Privy Seal of Scotland.

[10 ]At the end of 1805 Malthus was appointed Professor of History and Political Economy in the newly founded College.

[11 ]McCulloch’s far from occasional contributions to the Edinburgh Review began with “Ricardo’s Political Economy,” XXX (June 1818), 59-87; his most recent was “Complaints and Proposals Regarding Taxation,” LVII (July 1833), 434-48. He wrote less frequently for the Foreign Quarterly Review, his first article being “Wine Trade of France,” III (Jan. 1829), 636-49, and his most recent the two-part essay, “Prussian Commercial Policy,” IX (May 1832), 455-70, and XI (Apr. 1833), 403-6.

[12 ]Thomas Perronet Thompson’s first economic article in the Westmister was “Absenteeism in Ireland,” X (Jan. 1829), 237-43, and his most recent, “Property Tax,” XIX (July 1833), 1-9. (For full lists, see The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals, Vol. V.)

[13 ]Mill is preserving the anonymity of John Pringle Nichol (1804-59), astronomer and political economist, who was unsuccessfully recommended in 1833 by James Mill and Nassau Senior for the Chair of Political Economy at the Collège de France vacated by the death of Say. Nichol’s first article in Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine was “Incidence of Tithes,” I (May 1832), 224-8; his most recent, “Political Economy for Farmers,” III (May 1833), 191-8.

[14 ]In addition to John Austin, whose lectures in Jurisprudence ceased in June 1833, and McCulloch (see n2 above), Mill is referring to John Hoppus (1789-1875), who was appointed late in 1829 to the Chair in the Logic and Philosophy of the Human Mind. His much criticized lectures, which began in 1830, were very poorly attended.

[15 ]The highly acclaimed Professor of English Law was Andrew Amos (1791-1860). In medicine, the professors were John Conolly (1794-1866), on the nature and treatment of diseases, David Daniel Davis (1777-1841), on midwifery and the diseases of women and children, and Anthony Todd Thomson (1778-1849), on materia medica and therapeutics.

[16 ]In November 1833, Pellegrino Luigi Edoardo, Count Rossi (1787-1848), an Italian who had been Professor of Roman History at Geneva before moving to France, was appointed Say’s successor at the Collège de France. One of the unsuccessful applicants was François Charles Louis Comte (1782-1837), a liberal political writer, son-in-law of Say, known personally to the Mills for a decade.

[1 ]MS in the Reed Collection, Dunedin Public Library, New Zealand. Published in MNL, XXIII (Winter 1988), 22, edited by Eric W. Nye.

Fortunato Prandi (d. 1868), an Italian political refugee and journalist, was a member of Sarah Austin’s circle. He was presumably going to France.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/288, pp. 463-[4], India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 923.

[2 ]Mountstuart Elphinstone (1779-1859) was Governor of Bombay 1819-27.

[3 ]A jagir was a right, enjoyed by an official (or a family), to collect revenues from specified villages, or districts, in lieu of salary.

[1 ]MS in the Osborn Collection, Yale University.

Effingham Wilson (1783-1868), London publisher.

[2 ]The application was successful: the work by Victor Cousin (1792-1867), translated by Sarah Austin, was published as Report on the State of Public Instruction in Prussia (London: Wilson, 1834).

[3 ]Mill’s authority might have been Harriet Taylor (1807-58), later his wife, whose views on education he much valued. Whether or not he had read the manuscript—and it seems unlikely that he had not—he quickly reviewed the published work, “Mrs. Austin’s Translation of M. Cousin’s Report on the State of Public Instruction in Prussia,” Monthly Repository, n.s. VIII (July 1834), 502-13 (in Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, CW, Vol. XXI [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984], pp. 61-79).

[1 ]MS in the India Office Library and Records. Published in MNL, IX (Summer 1974), 3-4, edited by Gerald and Natalie Robinson Sirkin.

Horace Hayman Wilson (1786-1860), in the Indian Government in India, Sanskrit scholar.

[2 ]John Loch (1781-1868), a Director of the East India Company 1821-54, was the Chairman of the Court of Directors at the time.

[3 ]This College,also known as the Hindu College and as the Vidyalaya, was organized in 1816 by a group of leading Hindus in Calcutta for the purpose of teaching English and Western science to high-caste Hindu boys. The College ran out of funds because of mismanagement, and by 1823 it asked the government for financial assistance. The government was soon providing nearly all the required funds, although the administration remained in the hands of the “native managers.”

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/290, pp. 517-[20], India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 69.

[2 ]Charles Masson (identified only as “a traveller in Central Asia”) was apparently the pseudonym of James Lewis, an authority on Indian inscriptions.

[3 ]The altered paragraphs are in L/P&S/6/290, pp. [510-12].

[4 ]Henry St. George Tucker (1771-1851) was Chairman of the Court of Directors at this time.

[5 ]The names of the Boondela chiefs appear inAppendix No. 29 to the “Minutes of Evidence Taken before the Select Committee on the Affairs of the East India Company,” PP, 1831-32, XIV, 447.

[1 ]MS in the possession of Professor Arnold Heertje, University of Amsterdam. Datedby postmark. Addressed: Dr Bowring / 1 Queen Square / Westminster.

[2 ]Bowring was one of two Commissioners who had submitted a “First Report on the Commercial Relations between France and Great Britain,” PP, 1834, XIX, 1-257; the “Second Report. . . . Silks and Wine,” by Bowring, did not appear until the following year, both as a pamphlet (London: Clowes) and in PP, 1835, XXXVI, 441-697.

[3 ]Nichol presumably wanted the information in the reports as he was preparing “Rae’s New Principles of Political Economy in Refutation of Adam Smith,” Foreign Quarterly Review, XV (July 1835), 241-66.

[1 ]MS in the National Archives of Canada, Ottawa. Dated extract in an unclasped notebook of Harriet Roebuck, his wife.

[2 ]Thomas Falconer (1805-82), a barrister, was brother to Roebuck’s wife. The proposal was probably that Falconer become nominal editor of the projected London Review; he was chosen, and served rather badly as, in effect, sub-editor under Mill’s direction.

[3 ]Not located.

[1 ]MS in the Reed Collection, Dunedin Public Library, New Zealand. Watermarked 1834. Published in MNL, XXIII (Winter 1988), 22-3, edited by Eric W. Nye.

[2 ]For Mill’s journal of his tour of Western Cornwall in 1832, see CW, Vol. XXVII, 612-37.

[1 ]MS in the possession of Professor Akira Tada, Chiba, Japan. Dated from postmark. Addressed: Monsieur / M. Adolphe Thibaudeau / au bureau du journal / “Le National de 1834” / Rue du Croissant / No 16 à Paris. Mill’s letter is written on pages 3 and 4 of a letter dated 11 Sept., 1834, from John Wilson, a Factory and Poor Law Commissioner, and editor of the Globe and Traveller.

Adolphe Narcisse, comte Thibaudeau (1795-1856), one of the editors of the radical Paris paper, Le National, who spent some time in England after June 1832.

[2 ]Wilson was offering three guineas for, at most, two articles per week. He suggested that “minor points of difference between parties in France . . . not be made too prominent,” and that “to censure Louis Philippe & his government as they perhaps deserve would be to play into the hands of the Tories.” He recommended that Thibaudeau treat of “the general relations” and “the state of feeling” between the twocountries, and “the grand continental divisions of interest in which France & this country are opposed to the absolute military powers.”

[3 ]Hippolyte Dussard (1798-1876), another radical journalist.

[4 ]Perhaps Mill was trying to obtain music from the opera, La Niobé (first performed 1826), by Giovanni Pacini (1796-1867).

[5 ]Jean Baptiste Nicolas Armand Carrel (1800-36), the French radical editor whom Mill most admired, was visiting England at this time.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/293, pp. 49-[50] (before India PC 1411), India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 79.

[2 ]“Engagement between the British Government and the Maharajah Dawlut Rao Sindiah” (22 Apr., 1820), is in L/P&S/6/293, pp. 53-[8].

[3 ]The paragraphs are ibid., pp. 61-9. The issue was whether the British Government had the right to supply or withold military services at its discretion.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/293, pp. 73-[4](before India PC 1411), India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 79.

[2 ]Presumably an engagement similar to that referred to in Letter 125.1 above.

[1 ]MS in the possession of Mrs. Barbara McCrimmon.

Henry Scott Alves (d. 1859), at that time Assistant Secretary to the Board of Control.

[2 ]This formula covers the transmission of Draft Despatches from the Examiner’s Office to the Board of Control; the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the East India Company’s Court of Directors were then William Stanley Clarke and James Rivett Carnac (1785-1846).

[3 ]This despatch, entitled “North Eastern and Eastern Frontier” and dated 25 Sept., 1835, is given as Mill’s in his handlist; see CW, Vol.XXX, App. A, No. 111.

[1 ]MS in the India Office Library and Records. Published in Journal of General Education, XXIV (Jan. 1973), 231, and in MNL, IX (Summer 1974), 4, edited by Gerald and Natalie Robinson Sirkin.

[2 ]John Loch; see Letter 101.1 above.

[3 ]“Education of the Natives of India,” Asiatic Journal, n.s. XIX (Jan.-Apr. 1836), 1-16.

[1 ]MS in the Varnhagen von Ense Collection, Jagiellonian Library, Cracow. Published in Victorians Institute Journal, V (1987), 139-40, edited by T.H. Pickett (where it is followed by a letter dated 21 June, by James Mill to Sarah Austin), and in MNL, XXIII (Winter 1988), 20-1, edited by Joseph Hamburger.

The Austins were staying at Boulogne, as John Austin’s work in London, both the Inner Temple lectures and his connection with the Criminal Law Commission, had terminated. John Austin at this time was a victim of depression and other ailments, and Sarah Austin recently had experienced a nervous breakdown.

[2 ]Mill was suffering from exhaustion and general debility, and he soon had other symptoms—weakened lungs, a deranged stomach, and a nervous twitching of the right eye.

[3 ]James Mill became seriously ill, probably with tuberculosis, in August 1835, and died 23 June, 1836.

[4 ]James Bentham Mill (1814-62) was on his way to India, where he joined the East India Company’s civil service.

[5 ]Charles Hay Cameron (1795-1880), a lawyer and one of Bentham’s disciples, was on the law commission which was part of the Supreme Council of India. He worked with T.B. Macaulay in preparing the penal code for India.

[6 ]Sarah Austin’s article, “D’Israeli’s Vindication of the English Constitution,” had appeared in London Review, II (Jan. 1836), 533-52.

[7 ]Sarah Austin translated the first two volumes of England in 1835, 3 vols. (London: Murray, 1836), by Frederick Ludwig Georg von Raumer (1781-1873). Charles Buller did not review Raumer, at least not in the London Review, nor did Sarah contribute.

[8 ]Henry Bickersteth (1783-1851) became Baron Langdale in 1836, when he was appointed Master of the Rolls. A friend of Bentham’s, he promoted law reform.

[9 ]Henry Taylor (1800-86), poet, Colonial Office official, author of The Statesman (London: Longman, et al., 1836), which Mill with George Grote reviewed in the London and Westminster Review, V & XXVII (Apr. 1837), 1-32 (in Essays on Politics and Society, CW, Vols. XVIII-XIX (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977), Vol. XIX, pp. 617-47.

[1 ]MS in the German National Museum, Nuremberg. Addressed: “Monsieur / Monsieur Paulin / libraire / Rue de Seine”. Dated from postmark.

J.B. Alexandre Paulin (1796-1859), publisher and bookseller, was agent for the London and Westminster Review in France.

[2 ]In “Parliamentary History of the French Revolution,” London and Westminster Review, V & XXVII (Apr. 1837), 233-47, Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881), then an intimate friend of Mill and Harriet Taylor, reviewed the published volumes of Philippe Joseph Benjamin Buchez and Prosper Charles Roux, eds., L’histoire parlementaire de la révolution française, which was being published in Paris by Paulin. (It was completed, in 40 vols., in 1838.)

[3 ]The early volumes, dealing with Africa, of Karl Ritter, Die Erdkunde im Verhältnis zur Natur und zur Geschichte des Menschen oder allgemeine vergleichende Geographie, 19 vols. in 21, 2nd ed. (Berlin: Reimer, 1822-59), were issued in Paris by Paulin in 1835-36 as Géographie générale comparée, ou Etude de la terre dans ses rapports avec la nature et avec l’histoire de l’homme, 3 vols. trans. E. Buret. Paulin also published in 1836 the four volumes of Histoire de la Gaule méridionale sous la domination des conquérants germains, by Claude Charles Fauriel (1772-1844), historian and philologist. The notices Mill refers to have not been located.

[4 ]Carrel, whom Mill had met first in 1833, died on 24 July, 1836, from wounds suffered in a duel with Emile de Girardin. For Mill’s tribute, see “Armand Carrel,” London and Westminster Review, VI & XXVIII (Oct. 1837), 66-111 (in Essays on French History and Historians, CW, Vol. XX [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985], pp. 167-215.

[5 ]James Mill had died on 23 June, 1836.

[1 ]MS not located; typescript McCrimmon.

[2 ]The reference would appear to be to an economic article in the Guide, a newspaper edited by Cole that began publication on 22 April, 1837, to which Mill contributed; see CW, Vol. XXIV, pp. 793-4.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/302, n.p. (after Bombay PC 1934), India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 946.

[2 ]James Williams of the Bombay Civil Service was Commissioner in Gujerat and Resident at Baroda. His death precluded his dismissal for general incompetence.

[3 ]James Erskine was the Political Agent at Kathiawar.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/305, pp. 339-[44], India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 159.

[1 ]MS in the Prussian State Library, Berlin.

John Robertson (ca. 1811-75), nominal editor (in fact, sub-editor) of the London and Westminster Review from early 1837 until 1840.

[2 ]It is probable that Colonel William Francis Patrick Napier (1785-1860), historian of and participant in the Peninsular War, proposed that he contribute the article that was published as “The Duke of Wellington,” London and Westminster Review, VI & XXVIII (Jan. 1838), 367-436. (Mill appended an editorial note indicating that the views were those of the author, not of the review; see CW, Vol. I, p. 604.)

[3 ]Charles Wetherby Reynell (1798-1892), printer of the London and Westminster.

[4 ]As published, John Robertson’s “Caricatures,” London and Westminster Review, VI & XXVIII (Jan. 1838), 261-93, contains only slight reference to James Gillray (1757-1815) and William Hogarth (1697-1764) on pp. 279-80; evidently what Mill omitted stayed out. See also Mill to Robertson, CW, Vol. XII, pp. 362-3, presumably earlier.

[5 ]William Bridges Adams (“Junius Redivivus”) (1797-1872), “Dr. Arnott, On Warming and Ventilation,” ibid., 345-67. The joke reads thus: “A proprietor who wished much to render his mines available to the public, applied to a scientific gentleman . . . for a certificate of [anthracite’s] durability. He obtained it, to the effect that the certifier verily believed that it would be the last thing destroyed on the day of judgment. About the same period a barn, in which a quantity of the coal was stored up, caught fire, and the part not destroyed was covered by the coal.” (P. 365.)

[6 ]I.e., Mill’s “Ware’s Letters from Palmyra,” ibid., pp. 436-70 (in CW, Vol. I, pp. 431-61).

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/304, n.p. (before India Draft 600), India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 170.

[2 ]Lieutenant-Colonel Nathaniel Alves of the Madras Establishment was at this time Political Agent at Rajputana.

[3 ]Military officers holding civil positions, such as political agent, in which no military duties were involved, had been forbidden to receive their military pay in addition to their civil allowances. This regulation had not been enforced for some years, and then retrenchment, or recovery of monies paid, had been instituted, causing some hardship and much dissatisfaction among the officers affected.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/307, pp. 387-9, India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 172.

[2 ]Nasir-ud-Din Haidar (d. 1837).

[3 ]James Rivett Carnac was Chairman, and James Law Lushington (1779-1859) Deputy Chairman of the Court of Directors at this time.

[4 ]John Cam Hobhouse (1786-1869) was President of the Board of Control from April 1835 to September 1841.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/305, pp. 575-7, India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 955.

[2 ]I.e., in the territory of Sayaji Rao, Gaikwar of Baroda, who ruled 1819-47.

[3 ]For the Chairs see Letter 229.02 above.

[4 ]See Letter 212.1 above.

[1 ]MS not located; typescript McCrimmon.

[2 ]Almost certainly a draft of Cole’s “Uniform Penny Postage,” which remained somewhat disorganized when published in the London and Westminster Review, VII & XXIX (Apr. 1838), 225-64.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/307, p. 313, India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 953.

[2 ]Thomas Love Peacock (1775-1866) had succeeded James Mill as Chief Examiner of India Correspondence in 1836.

[3 ]Wittul Row Dewanjee, dismissed as minister of the Gaikwar of Baroda in 1827, had subsequently been employed by the British Government to administer a sequestered district, and large allowances had been granted to him and his family. On his death, the legality of these payments was called into question, and his nephew and adopted son, Christna Rao, was making a strong claim for their continuance.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/309, pp. 449-51, India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 954.

[2 ]Cabell’s reply of 28 March follows Mill’s letter in L/P&S/6/309, pp. 453-[6], and provides a better statement: “My Dear Sir/ The alteration in PC 2072 is, as you justly remark in yr letter of the 26th Instant, rather obscurely worded: Its intention, I have ascertained would be more clearly expressed if it were to run thus—‘& tho’ it might be very desirable, as you state, to induce this Chief to continue responsibility for the good conduct of the Babriawur Villages, we are not aware how this could be allowed, as you have no right to enforce any such obligation now that you have deprived him of sovereign Power over these Villages.’ ”

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/308, pp. 25-[6], India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 183.

[2 ]Robert Gordon (1791-1847), M.P. for Windsor, was Joint Secretary to the Board of Control from 1835. He had written about the apparently much earlier appointment of George Edward Gowan (d. 1865), of the Bengal artillery, to the position of Commissioner in Kumaun.

[3 ]Alexander Ross (b. 1777) was Member of the Supreme Council of India from October 1833, and Lieutenant-Governor of Agra December 1835 to June 1836.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/305, pp. 173-5, India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 149.

[2 ]See Letter 239.3 above.

[3 ]Hajee Khuleel Khan, Ambassador to Bombay from Persia, had been killed by a random shot during an altercation between his attendants and some Sepoys in 1802. Since he was deemed to have been under British protection at the time, the Government had offered, as a gesture of compensation, an annual sum of money for purposes of charity, and devotion at his tomb at Mujiff, in Persia. Arrears were now being claimed by his son.

[1 ]MS at the Public Record Office.

James Stephen (1789-1859), Under-Secretary for Colonial Affairs from 1836.

[2 ]With the letter is a “Statement of Facts” of the case, dated at Malta, 23 August, 1838, signed by Diego Arangio, a merchant, the political refugee in question, who had fled to Malta in 1837, where he was refused asylum. Accepted by a French possession in Africa, he subsequently obtained a passport, and returned to Malta to reestablish his business. The British authorities there, under pressure from the Neapolitan Consul, had then tried to expell him. Mill’s “Italian friends” included Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-72) and Angelo Usiglio (1803-75), both of whom were in exile in England.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/314, n.p. (before India PC 2278), India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 216.

[2 ]Mill was responding to Robert Gordon’s note of 23 Nov., 1838, which immediately precedes this letter in L/P&S/6/314, asking legal assistance with the case of the legitimacy of the children of Francis Steddy, Deputy Post Master at Ryepur, who had died intestate. As Steddy and his wife, who were both Roman Catholics, had married after the birth of their children, an opinion had been expressed that “according to the Roman Catholic religion, children born of parents previous to their marriage become legitimate on such subsequent marriage.”

[3 ]See 20 Henry III, Statutes of Merton, c. 9 (1235).

[1 ]MS at the National Library of Scotland. Addressed: Dr Carlyle / Poste Restante / a Napoli. Postmark: Naples, 27 March.

John Aitken Carlyle (1801-79), younger brother of Thomas Carlyle, was visiting the Continent at this time as travelling physician to the Duke of Buccleuch.

[2 ]The reference is to “Report on the Affairs of British North America, from the Earl of Durham,” PP, 1839, XVII, 1-690. In the previous year, Mill had written three articles in defence of Durham’s policies: see CW, Vol. VI, pp. 405-64.

[3 ]Unit of Italian currency.

[4 ]John Mitchinson Calvert (1801-42) had become a friend of John Sterling when both were wintering in Madeira for their health in the previous year.

[5 ]Anthony Coningham Sterling (1805-71), brother of John, Captain in the 23rd Foot, and his wife Charlotte (d. 1863) apparently met John on the outskirts of Rome on 4 April (see Carlyle’s Life of Sterling [London: Chapman and Hall, 1851], pp. 236-7). Anthony and Charlotte visited Dr. Carlyle in Naples in April, but John Sterling’s plans were altered by the death of his infant son in England on 30 March.

[6 ]Joseph Severn (1793-1879), artist and friend of John Keats, who was still living in Rome at this time, and, presumably, Joseph Wolff (1795-1862), missionary and orientalist.

[7 ]Thomas Carlyle, The French Revolution: A History, 3 vols. (London: Fraser, 1837).

[1 ]MS in the Hollander Collection, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Dated on the assumption that Mill had returned to India House after a lengthy absence, during which Grant looked after his papers; see letter of 18 Oct., 1839, CW, Vol. XVII, p. 1990. The first of July was the Monday following Mill’s return from the Continent.

[1 ]MS in the National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth. Addressed: Edward Scott, Esq., Bodtalog, Machynnlleth, N. Wales. Published in National Library of Wales Journal, XXIV (1986), 354-5, edited by Mary and Lionel Madden.

Edward Scott (1752/3-1842), a friend of Thomas Love Peacock, through whom he met James and J.S. Mill, was interested in Welsh culture.

[2 ]The work has not been identified.

[3 ]In 1789 Scott married Louisa Mary (née Anwyl), widow of comte Louis de Saumaise of the Burgundy family. The family papers presumably came to Scott on her death in 1812. The collection was given to the British Museum in 1839; it includes BL Add. MSS, 11,644-54, and Add. Charters 4608, 4615-4717.

[1 ]MS at Wasada University, Tokyo.

John Mitchell Kemble (1807-57), philologist and historian, edited the British and Foreign Review 1836-44. For the sequel to this letter, see CW, Vol. XIII, p. 410.

[2 ]Thomas Wentworth Beaumont (1792-1848), formerly M.P. for Northumberland, from 1835-44 owned the British and Foreign Review, which supported liberal principles with special reference to foreign countries.

[3 ]“State of the Nation,” British and Foreign Review, IX (July, 1839), 273-319, was written by Kemble, with Beaumont’s assistance.

[1 ]MS in the William R. Perkins Library, Duke University.

[2 ]According to Cole’s diary, he and Robertson first conferred on Thursday, 7 November, 1839, and not again until 20 February, 1840. See Introduction, pp. xii-xiv above.

[1 ]MS in the National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth.

[2 ]Senior was on the supervising committee of the Political Economy Club from 1835-1849, and so would be concerned about the schedule. In the event, the question of Herman Merivale (1806-74), the Drummond Professor of Political Economy at Oxford, was discussed on 5 December, 1839: “What general principles should be adopted relatively to the employment of Paupers, Soldiers, and Prisoners in productive labour?” Mill’s question came forward on 6 February, 1840: “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?” Senior’s question was discussed on 5 March: “What is the connection between the price of Provisions and the Price of Labour?”

[1 ]MS at Trinity College, Cambridge. Dated on internal evidence.

[2 ]“American Philosophy: Emerson’s Works,” by Richard Monckton Milnes, Baron Houghton (1809-85), appeared in the London and Westminster Review, XXXIII (Mar. 1840), 345-72.

[3 ]Carlyle’s Chartism (London: Fraser, 1840), actually appeared in December, 1839. Mill had read it in manuscript just before publication; see CW, Vol. XIII, p. 414.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/318, n.p. (before India Draft 135) India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 243.

[2 ]Further comments by Cabell on the cession of this territory are contained in his Draft 135, which follows Mill’s letter in L/P&S/6/318.

[1 ]MS fragment in the Pforzheimer Collection, New York Public Library. Dated on internal evidence.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/317, n.p. (before India Draft 61), India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 228.

[1 ]MS not located; typescript McCrimmon. For the dating, see the Introduction, p. xiv above.

[2 ]Charles Wetherby Reynell; see Letter 227.1 above.

[3 ]The announcement appeared in the June number of Vol. XXXIV, on the verso of the Table of Contents: “The present number of this Review appears under a new Proprietorship and Editorship, but without any changes in the principles, nor, it is hoped, in most of the contributors, among whom the present proprietors had long been numbered. . . . / No one connected with the proprietorship or editorship of the London Review being concerned in the present management, the word ‘London,’ which had been annexed as part of the title on the junction of the London and Westminster Reviews in 1836 will henceforth be dropped, and the Review will appear under its original title of the Westminster Review. / The only new features intended to be introduced into the management are exemplified on the present occasion by the graphic illustrations appended to the article which heads the number, and the miscellaneous notices which conclude it.”

[4 ]The “note” is Letter 277, CW, Vol. XIII, pp. 421-2; the source of the other offer, which was not accepted, is unknown.

[1 ]MS not located; typescript McCrimmon. For the dating, see Introduction, p. xv above.

[2 ]I.e., concerning the transfer of the London and Westminster to Cole and William Edward Hickson (1803-70), educational and municipal reformer.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/319, n.p. (before India PC 2674), India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 250.

[2 ]Mill had been with his mother and sisters in Falmouth, attending his younger brother Henry; see Letter 284.1 below.

[3 ]Richard Jenkins (1785-1853) was Chairman, and William Butterworth Bayley (1782-1860) Deputy Chairman of the Court of Directors at this time.

[4 ]For Cameron, see Letter 163.1 above. He had been responsible for the “Report . . . of His Majesty’s Commissioners of Inquiry, upon the Judicial Establishments and Procedure in Ceylon” (31 Jan., 1832), PP, 1831-32, XXXII, 119-52.

[1 ]MS at the Wordsworth Trust, Dove Cottage, Grasmere. Addressed: Dr Calvert / Falmouth. Postmark: 25 April, 1840.

Calvert, whom Mill had met in Rome the previous year (see Letter 253.1 above), was staying in Falmouth for ill-health early in 1840, and there met the Fox family and the Mills. In March, Mill had joined his mother and sisters Clara and Harriet, who were attending his second youngest brother Henry (1820-40) in his last illness. The Foxes, with whom the Mills also became very friendly, were Robert Were (1789-1877), his wife Maria (née Barclay) (1786-1858), and their children, Anna Maria (1816-97), Robert Barclay (1817-55), and Caroline (1819-71), for whom Mill prepared a “Calendar of Odours” of flowers (in CW, Vol. XXXI, pp. 257).

[2 ]Probably William McDowell (b. 1794), who practised in Falmouth as a cabinet-maker, upholsterer, and auctioneer.

[3 ]Henry had died of tuberculosis on 4 April, at the age of nineteen.

[4 ]William John Coope (1809-70), rector of Falmouth 1838-70.

[5 ]Mill’s letter to Sterling of 22 April, is in CW, Vol. XIII, pp. 428-9. Sterling had met Calvert in Madeira in 1837.

[6 ]Henry Francis Cunningham (dates unknown, but active in Falmouth artistic circles 1837-43), made portraits of John and Henry Mill.

[7 ]Probably Frederick Charles Bullmore (1801-96), the surgeon who had attended Henry Mill.

[1 ]MS at the Wordsworth Trust, Dove Cottage, Grasmere. Addressed: Dr Calvert / Falmouth. Postmark: May 1840.

[2 ]See Letter 284.1, above.

[3 ]The Club, made up of Sterling’s friends, was founded in 1838 after his return from Madeira; it met monthly for dinner and discussion. A list of forty-one members is given in Carlyle’s Life of Sterling (London: Chapman and Hall, 1851), p. 208.

[4 ]Samuel Wilberforce (1805-73) was then rector of Brixton, Isle of Wight, and later prominent as Bishop of Oxford. His brother Robert (1802-57) was rector of East Farleigh, Kent, and then (in 1840) of Burton Agnes, Yorkshire; he later converted to Roman Catholicism. Neither is listed in the original membership of the Sterling Club.

[5 ]Two of Mill’s Despatches from the Examiner’s Office of the East India Company: “Affairs of the Guicowar” (2 July, 1840), partly printed in PP, 1852-53, LXIX, 259; and “Dispute between the Rao of Cutch and Certain Wagur Chiefs” (8 July, 1840); listed as Nos. 979 and 980 in CW, Vol. XXX, App. A.

[6 ]An allusion to Mill’s well-known articles, “Bentham” and “Coleridge,” in the London and Westminster Review, respectively VII & XXIX (Aug. 1838), 467-506 (in Essays on Ethics, Religion, and Society, CW, Vol. X [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969], pp. 75-115), and XXXIII (Mar. 1840), 257-302 (in CW, Vol. X, pp. 117-63).

[7 ]On 6 April, 1842, Mill proposed to John William Parker a collection of his articles; nothing came of it, however, until 1859, when Parker brought out Dissertations and Discussions in two volumes. (A third was added in 1867, and a fourth, posthumously, in 1875.) For his later description of the revisions, see the “Preface” to Dissertations and Discussions, CW, Vol. X, pp. 493-4.

[8 ]Not located.

[9 ]James Stephen, “Works of the Author of the Natural History of Enthusiasm,” Edinburgh Review, LXXI (Apr. 1840), 220-63, is ostensibly a review of Physical Theory of Another Life. By the Author of “Natural History of Enthusiasm.” The invented title is ascribed to Isaac Taylor (1759-1829), engraver and later non-Conformist pastor of Ongar, author of practical as well as uplifting works for the young.

[10 ]As the Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. explains, when potatoes lie above ground, “they become green and have an acrid taste, which renders them unpalatable to human beings, and as poisonous qualities are produced similar to those of many Solanaceae [e.g., henbane, deadly nightshade] they are unwholesome.”

[11 ]Sartor Resartus, 2nd ed. (Boston: Munroe, 1837), p. 285 (Bk. III, Chap. x). The allusion is to Diogenes Teufelsdröckh’s account of the sect of Drudges (as compared to the Dandies), who live on “Potatoes-and-Point.” Teufelsdröckh pretends not to know the meaning of “Point,” which derives from the poor “pointing” with their potato towards bacon, cheese, or other inaccessible extras, and then eating the potato ungarnished.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/319, n.p. (before India Draft 286), India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 251.

[2 ]The variations appear on pp. [496-500] of PC 2695, in L/P&S/6/319.

[3 ]The opinion of the Governor-General, George Eden (1784-1849), Earl of Auckland, is given ibid., pp. 529-[30].

[4 ]The Begum had apparently accused Major W. Borthwick; Political Agent for Mehidpur, of misappropriating funds paid to the Government.

[5 ]A copy of the Memorandum from Henry Willock (1788/89-1858) follows Mill’s letter, ibid. Both he and Neil Benjamin Edmonstone (1765-1841) were Directors of the Company.

[1 ]MS not located; typescript McCrimmon. Dated by Cole’s participation in the editing of the Westminster, from which he withdrew after the June number, published on 26 May (Cole’s diary).

[2 ]Mill had not favoured the introduction of the section headed “Critical and Miscellaneous Notices,” though he contributed three notices to the September number; see Essays on Philosophy and the Classics, CW, Vol. XI (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978), pp. 239-43; Vol. I, pp. 517-21; and Vol. XVIII, pp. 149-52.

[1 ]MS in the Varnhagen von Ense Collection, Jagiellonian Library, Cracow. Addressed: Thomas Carlyle Esq. / 5 Cheyne Row / Chelsea.

Dated from Caroline Fox, Memories of Old Friends, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (London: Smith, Elder, 1882), Vol. I, pp. 203-4, where she describes an evening with the Carlyles at the Mills’ Kensington home on Wednesday, 3 June, 1840.

[2 ]Jane Baillie Carlyle (née Welsh) (1801-66).

[1 ]MS copy in L/P&S/6/318, n.p. (before India Draft 165), India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 239.

[2 ]“Memorandum on the Distinctive Character of the Rampore Jageer and on the Equity and Policy of Resuming or Continuing It after the Decease of the Present Head of the Rohillas, the Nawab Ahmed Alli Khaun,” dated 10 June, 1840, and signed by Edmonstone, follows Mill’s letter in L/P&S/6/318, n.p.

[3 ]James Cosmo Melvill (1792-1861) held the most senior position in the Home Establishment as Secretary of the Company.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/319, n.p. (after Bombay PC 2726), India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 979.

[2 ]Jenkins and Bayley (see Letter 281.1 above) served for two consecutive years.

[1 ]MS in the possession of Professor Arnold Heertje, University of Amsterdam.

[2 ]The letter from John Pringle Nichol has not been located. During 1840, Nichol was commissioning new equipment for the Glasgow observatory. The matter had evidently been discussed during the Foxs’ recent visit to London. Cf. CW, Vol. XIII, p. 436. Robert Were Fox was an inventor of scientific instruments.

[3 ]Mary Stanger (1804-90), John Calvert’s younger sister.

[1 ]MS at the Ueno Library, Kyoto City, Japan. Dated from Henry Cole’s withdrawal from his association with Hickson in the London and Westminster during July (Cole’s diary).

[2 ]Not further identified.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/318, n.p. (before India Draft 165), India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 239.

[2 ]See Letter 287.1 above.

[3 ]See Letter 290.1 above.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/320, n.p. (before India Draft 624, by Cabell, which comments on this letter), India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 260.

[2 ]Sergeant Spankie was Standing Counsel to the East India Company, and George Grey (1799-1882) was Judge Advocate General at this time.

[3 ]Paragraph 64, relating to villages within the territory of Nasir-ud-Daula, Nizam of Hyderabad (ruled 1829-57), in which the chief of “the Bhoonslah family” had hereditary rights to revenue, and the Board’s addition to it, are in L/P&S/6/320, pp. 395-[8a].

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/320, n.p. (before India Draft 624 and Letter 294.2 above), India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 260.

[2 ]See Letter 294.2 above.

[3 ]Raghuji III (1818-53).

[4 ]The first Afghan War, in 1839, had resulted from Lord Auckland’s attempt to restore to power Shah Shuja (1780-1842), the exiled King of Afghanistan. Lieutenant-Colonel Claude Martine Wade (1794-1861) had had singular success in forcing the Khyber Pass and capturing Kabul.

[5 ]Mill is presumably thinking of Akbar II, who was titular ruler of the district 1806-37.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/322, n.p. (before Bombay PC 2954), India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 988.

[2 ]Cabell’s letter immediately precedes Mill’s in L/P&S/6/322.

[3 ]James Sutherland, Political Agent in Gujerat.

[4 ]The matter of the transfer of the zillah, or district, is raised in paragraph 8, pp. 169-[70], ibid.

[5 ]James Strachan Lang, Political Agent in the Mahi Kantha.

[1 ]MS in the University of Iowa Library, Iowa City.

[2 ]At the meeting, on Tuesday, 15 June, a petition for free trade written by Mill was approved. For the petition, which was printed in the Morning Chronicle on 17 June, p. 6, see CW, Vol. V, pp. 761-3, and Vol. XXIV, pp. 803-6. Mill “had a great share in getting up the public meeting” (CW, Vol. XIII, p. 478), which was described in the Spectator, 19 June, p. 580.

[1 ]MS in the William R. Perkins Library, Duke University.

Richard Bentley (1794-1871), publisher.

[2 ]Nothing is known of Mill’s earlier approach on this matter, and the effort seems to have been fruitless.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/328, n.p. (before Bombay Draft 356), India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 1015.

Thomas Nelson Waterfield (1799-1862), Cabell’s successor as Senior Clerk in the Secret and Political Department.

[2 ]“Treaty with the Peishwah, Dated 13th June, 1817,” PP, 1818, XI, 346-50, concluded an agreement among Baji Rao II (1775-1851?), Peshwa of the Marathas, Arnand Rao, Gaikwar of Baroda (ruled 1800-1819), and the East India Company.

[3 ]A copy of James Rivett Carnac’s letter immediately follows Mill’s in L/P&S/6/328; the following quotation is on p. 41.

[4 ]“Treaty between the East India Company and the Peshwa, Concluded at Bassein, the 31st December, 1802,” PP, 1803-04, XII, 90-3.

[1 ]MS in the Houghton Library, Harvard University. Dated tentatively by the postscript. Richard Monckton Milnes, known to Mill from about 1840, attended the meeting of the Political Economy Club (of which he never became a member) on 3 March, 1842, when Mill, but not Buller, attended.

[2 ]For Peacock, see Letter 237.2, above. John Forbes Royle (1799-1858), surgeon and naturalist, who shared Mill’s botanical interests, was in charge of East India Company correspondence relating to vegetable production.

[1 ]MS in the William R. Perkins Library, Duke University.

John William Parker (1792-1870), printer and publisher, who had agreed to bring out Mill’s A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive (published February 1843); CW, Vols. VII-VIII (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1973). Parker remained Mill’s publisher until the business was transferred to Longman in 1864.

[2 ]In his earlier letter to Parker (CW, Vol. XIII, p. 514), Mill mentioned “some 25 or 30 copies.”

[1 ]MS at Kokugakuin University, Tokyo.

[2 ]I.e., the layout of the pages for Mill’s System of Logic.

[3 ]Sheets were sent to Armand Marrast (1801-52), who had edited La Tribune and Le National, but whom Mill correctly thought would not complete the work (see CW, Vol. XIII, pp. 587 and 632). No French version appeared until 1886, when the 6th ed. was translated by Louis Peisse.

[4 ]John Austin, then living in Prussia, had proposed to review the System of Logic in the Edinburgh Review (see CW, Vol. XIII, pp. 527-8); he failed to do so, and no review ever appeared in the Edinburgh.

[1 ]MS in the possession of Professor Toshio Ohfuchi, Nihon University, Tokyo.

[2 ]Apparently Kemble had indicated unwillingness to publish the article, which Mill had forwarded to him (see CW, Vol. XIII, p. 515), by John Phillips Potter (1793-1861). He changed his mind, however, and “The Philosophy of Socrates” appeared in the British and Foreign Review, XIV (Feb. 1843), 289-333. The publisher was Richard Taylor (1781-1858).

[1 ]MS in the Varnhagen von Ense Collection, Jagiellonian Library, Cracow. Dated by the librarian.

[2 ]Mill is replying to Carlyle’s request for autographs, on behalf of Karl August Varnhagen von Ense (1785-1858), Prussian diplomat and biographer. The autographs are, in addition to those identified above, of Henry Peter Brougham (1778-1868), judge and prolific writer; Ram Mohun Roy (1774-1833), Indian reformer, who became known to the Bentham circle while on visits to England; Alexander Burnes (1805-41), a political officer in India who travelled extensively, and was killed in an Afghan uprising; Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice (1780-1863), Marquis of Lansdowne, prominent Whig statesman; and Henry John Temple (1784-1865), Viscount Palmerston, an even more prominent Whig politician.

[1 ]MS in the Hill Memorial Library, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Headed in Mill’s hand: “Copy of my letter to Empson in answer to his disclaimer of intention to offend—December 1843.”

William Empson (1791-1852), later editor of the Edinburgh Review 1847-52, author of “Jeremy Bentham,” Edinburgh Review, LXXVIII (Oct. 1843), 460-516, which provoked Mill’s “Letter to the Editor of the Edinburgh Review on James Mill,” ibid., LXXIX (Jan. 1844), 267-71 (in CW, Vol. I, pp. 533-8).

[2 ]Macvey Napier (1776-1847) was then editor of the Edinburgh Review; Mill wrote to him on 14 October, 1843, asking that a reply to Empson’s article be printed (CW, Vol. XIII, pp. 598-9). At the end of the first paragraph of Mill’s article, as printed, appeared: “I mean the late Mr. James Mill, my father.” “Son” does not appear in the article, but does in the accompanying editorial note; see CW, Vol. I, p. 536.

[1 ]MS in L/P&S/6/334, n.p. (before India PC 4194), India Office Library and Records. See CW, Vol. XXX, App. A, No. 374.

[2 ]A copy of the letter from Hugh Stark, Assistant Secretary and Senior Clerk in the Revenue Department, immediately precedes Mill’s in L/P&S/6/334.

[3 ]Above the line, in pencil, is “A,” keyed to a note at the foot of the page, in another hand: “This is, I imagine, a mistake—five per cent is deducted from all salaries on account of the Fund.”

[4 ]In the same hand, interlined in pencil: “then—the other half is given gratuitously—”.

[5 ]Similar interlineation: “because its credit is so bad that people will not lend to it at a lower rate.”

[6 ]Similar interlineation: “rather, which Chundoo Loll, at that time, was willing to promise—”.

[7 ]Similar interlineation over the last sentence: “that is—we should make him pay—consequently we give our guarantee—but these officers cannot be allowed to have the advantage of both Hydrabad interest & British security.”

[1 ]MS in L/F/2/82, No. 31 of April 1844, India Office Library and Records.

[2 ]George Grote Mill (ca. 1825-53), Mill’s youngest brother, who served in the Home Establishment of the East India Company from 1844-48, when he moved to Madeira, on account of ill health.

[1 ]MS in the Reed Collection, Dunedin Public Library, New Zealand. Published in MNL, XXIII (Winter 1988), 23, edited by Eric W. Nye.

[2 ]Mill had offered to Kemble the article that eventually appeared as “Duveyrier’s Political Views of French Affairs,” not in the British and Foreign Review but in the Edinburgh Review, LXXXIII (Apr. 1846), 435-74 (in CW, Vol. XX, pp. 295-316); see CW, Vol. XIII, pp. 627 and 632-3.

[3 ]Mill had earlier written to Kemble to introduce David Masson (1822-1907), a Scot who became a prominent man of letters. No article by him appeared in the British and Foreign Review, though he proposed one on Wallace; see CW, Vol. XIII, p. 628.

[4 ]J.P. Thommerel published in the 1830s and 1840s on English prose and poetry.

[1 ]MS in the Yale University Library consists of a single page, containing two extracts in an unknown hand, headed respectively, as here, “Extract B” and “A” (see Letter 447.2 below), with a page of accounts verso.

[2 ]This square-bracketed note by the copyist refers to the accounts.

[1 ]See Letter 447.1, n1.

[* ]Copyist’s note: There is no other date; but the note was clearly written subsequently to Kindersley’s opinion.

[2 ]Richard Torin Kindersley (1792-1879), a barrister, K.C. 1835, active in Chancery.

[1 ]MS in the Bodleian Library.

John Hamilton Thom (1808-94) had founded, with James Martineau and John James Tayler, the Prospective Review in February 1845. He had previously edited the Christian Teacher, and while that seems an unlikely place for Mill to submit manuscripts, Thom was known to Mill through Joseph Blanco White.

[2 ]Not identified.

[3 ]If the identification of Thom is correct, and if any of the “papers” were accepted, the most likely article is “The White Lady and Undine,” Prospective Review, I (May 1845), 275-82.

[1 ]MS in the Pierpont Morgan Library, watermarked 1844. Since 26 August was a Tuesday in 1845, that is the likely year.

[1 ]MS in the Pierpont Morgan Library. Dated by a letter from Beaumont to Alexis de Tocqueville of the same date.

Henry Reeve (1813-95), nephew of Sarah Austin, was from 1837 an official of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

[2 ]Gustave Auguste de Beaumont de la Bonninière (1802-66), writer on social and political topics, was visiting London for a week or two.

[3 ]Philip Meadows Taylor (1808-76), a cousin of Reeve’s, in the military service of the East India Company, had been Resident in Shorapore after pacifying it in 1841. An unsuccessful attempt was made in 1845 to replace him as Resident by a member of the Company’s civil service. See two earlier letters to Reeve on this matter, CW, Vol. XIII, pp. 680-1.

[1 ]MS, in Harriet Taylor’s hand, in the possession of Professor Arnold Heertje, University of Amsterdam.

James Hutchinson, a surgeon, may be the person addressed; he was author of A Report of the Medical Management of the Native Jails throughout the Territories Subject to the Governments of Fort William and Agra (Calcutta, 1835), which was republished in 1845 as Observations on the General and Medical Management of Indian Jails.

[1 ]MS in the Houghton Library, Harvard University.

On 27 October, 1847, Mill had written to Parker concerning the contractual arrangements for his Principles of Political Economy; see CW, Vol. XIII, pp. 723-4. Another letter to Parker, in CW, Vol. XVII, p. 2006, with the conjectural date of November 1847, is evidently the first of this series, and should probably be dated 25 October.

[1 ]MS in the possession of Mr. John Spedding, Mirehouse, Keswick.

Thomas Story Spedding (1800-70), lawyer, author of Letters on the Poor-Laws (London: printed Odell, 1847).

[2 ]The letter has not been located.

[3 ]Letter VIII, “The Prospects of Society,” Letters on the Poor-Laws, pp. 51-81.

[4 ]See, e.g., ibid., p. 34.

[5 ]Established by the short-lived Provisional Government in Paris after the Revolution of 1848; see Le Moniteur Universel, 26 Feb., 1848, p. 503.

[1 ]MS at University College London.

The paper is watermarked 1848, the year when Chadwick was seeking an appointment for Alexander Bain (1818-1903), Mill’s chief Scottish disciple, to the Metropolitan Sanitary Commission. In the absence of other information it may be hypothesized that the reference is to Mill’s “Bain’s On the Application of Science to Human Health and Well-being,” Examiner, 2 Sept. 1848, p. 565 (in CW, Vol. XXV, pp. 1118-20), a laudatory review of Bain’s On the Application of Science to Human Health and Well-being (London and Glasgow: Griffin, 1848). Chadwick believed that Bain’s work would help establish his credentials for the position—which he did not receive (Bain, Autobiography [London: Longmans, Green, 1904], p. 197n).