Front Page Titles (by Subject) Appendix G: John Stuart Mill—Harriet Taylor Mill Correspondence - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume III - Principles of Political Economy Part II
Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume III - Principles of Political Economy Part II
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
Appendix G: John Stuart Mill—Harriet Taylor Mill Correspondence - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume III - Principles of Political Economy Part II 
The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume III - The Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy (Books III-V and Appendices), ed. John M. Robson, Introduction by V.W. Bladen (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965).
About Liberty Fund:
The online edition of the Collected Works is published under licence from the copyright holder, The University of Toronto Press. ©2006 The University of Toronto Press. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form or medium without the permission of The University of Toronto Press.
Fair use statement:
John Stuart Mill—Harriet Taylor Mill Correspondence
in view of John Stuart Mill’s account of Harriet Taylor’s part in the writing of the Principles,1 his dedication of the work to her,2 and his description of it as a “joint production” with her,3 it seems useful to include here those passages in their correspondence which refer specifically to the Principles.4 Unfortunately, Harriet Taylor’s side of the correspondence is lost, except for isolated items not here germane, and only part of John Stuart Mill’s survives. The passages printed below include all references in these letters to revisions for the 2nd and 4th editions. There is no record of the specific part she played in the writing of the first draft, in the revision for the press copy, or for the 3rd edition.5 (The revisions for the 5th, 6th, and 7th were made, of course, after her death.) This is not the place to consider in detail John Stuart Mill’s account of her role as co-author of the Principles, but it might be pointed out that the evidence given below concerns the revision of two important chapters (II, i and IV, vii), both of which were subject to major revisions again after the editions to which this evidence applies.
The letters quoted are all in the Sterling Library at Yale, except that quoted at II.1032n, which is in the Huntington Library. The numbers at the upper left of each letter are those used by the correspondents to indicate the sequence. The letters have no salutations; the dates have been regularized in form; a series of seven dots has been used to indicate omitted passages not dealing with the revisions. Superscript letters (for example, in “2d,” “Messrs,” etc.) have been lowered.
The 1st edition having sold quickly, Mill was urged into revision at the beginning of 1849, when Harriet (to be widowed in July) was at Pau.
19 Feb., 1849
I received your dear letter 11 on Saturday & this morning the first instalment of the Pol. Ec. This last I will send again (or as much of it as is necessary) when I have been able to make up my mind about it. The objections are I think very inconsiderable as to quantity—much less than I expected—but that paragraph, p. 248,6 in the first edit. which you object to so strongly & totally, is what has always seemed to me the strongest part of the argument (it is only what even Proudhon says against Communism)—& as omitting it after it has once been printed would imply a change of opinion, it is necessary to see whether the opinion has changed or not—yours has, in some respects at least, for you have marked strong dissent from the passage that “the necessaries of life when secure for the whole of life are scarcely more a subject of consciousness”7 &c. which was inserted on your proposition & very nearly in your words. This is probably only the progress we have been always making, & by thinking sufficiently I should probably come to think the same—as is almost always the case, I believe always when we think long enough. But here the being unable to discuss verbally stands sadly in the way, & I am now almost convinced that as you said at first, we cannot settle this 2d edit. by letter. We will try, but I now feel almost certain that we must adjourn the publication of the 2d edit. to November. In the new matter one of the sentences that you have cancelled is a favorite of mine, viz “It is probable that this will finally depend upon considerations not to be measured by the coarse standard which in the present state of human improvement is the only one that can be applied to it.”8 What I meant was that whether individual agency or Socialism would be best ultimately—(both being necessarily very imperfect now, & both susceptible of immense improvement) will depend on the comparative attractions they will hold out to human beings with all their capacities, both individual & social, infinitely more developed than at present. I do not think it is English improvement only that is too backward to enable this point to be ascertained for if English character is starved in its social part I think Continental is as much or even more so in its individual, & Continental people incapable of entering into the feelings which make very close contact with crowds of other people both disagreeable & mentally & morally lowering. I cannot help thinking that something like what I meant by the sentence, ought to be said though I can imagine good reasons for your disliking the way in which it is put. Then again if the sentence “the majority would not exert themselves for anything beyond this & unless they did nobody else would &c”9 is not tenable, then all the two or three pages of argument which precede & of which this is but the summary, are false, & there is nothing to be said against Communism at all—one would only have to turn round & advocate it—which if done would be better in a separate treatise & would be a great objection to publishing a 2d edit. until after such a treatise. I think I agree in all the other remarks. Fourrier10 if I may judge by Considerant is perfectly right about women both as to equality & marriage—& I suspect that Fourier himself went farther than his disciple thinks prudent in the directness of his recommendations. Considerant sometimes avails himself as Mr Fox used, of the sentimentalities & superstitions about purity, though asserting along with it all the right principles. But C. says that the Fourrierists are the only Socialists who are not orthodox about marriage—he forgets the Owenites, but I fear it is true of all the known Communist leaders in France—he says it specially of Buchez, Cabet, & what surprises one in Sand’s “guide, philosopher & friend” of Leroux. This strengthens one exceedingly in one’s wish to prôner the Fourrierists besides that their scheme of association seems to me much nearer to being practicable at present than Communism.
21 Feb., 1849
I despatched yesterday to the dear one an attempt at a revision of the objectionable passages.11 I saw on consideration that the objection to Communism on the ground of its making life a kind of dead level might admit of being weakened, (though I think it never could be taken away) consistently with the principle of Communism, though the Communistic plans now before the public could not do it. The statement of objections was moreover too vague & general. I have made it more explicit as well as more moderate; you will judge whether it is now sufficiently either one or the other; & altogether whether any objection can be maintained to Communism, except the amount of objection which, in the new matter I have introduced, is made to the present applicability of Fourierism.12 I think there can—& that the objections as now stated to Communism are valid: but if you do not think so, I certainly will not print it, even if there were no other reason than the certainty I feel that I never should long continue of an opinion different from yours on a subject which you have fully considered. I am going on revising the book: not altering much, but in one of the purely political economy parts which occurs near the beginning, viz. the discussion as to whether buying goods made by labour gives the same employment to labour as hiring the labourers themselves, I have added two or three pages of new explanation & illustration which I think make the case much clearer.13
14 March, 1849
What a nuisance it is having anything to do with printers—Though I had no reason to be particularly pleased with Harrison, I was alarmed at finding that Parker had gone to another, & accordingly, though the general type of the first edition is exactly copied, yet a thing so important as the type of the headings at the top of the page cannot be got right—you know what difficulty we had before—& now the headings, & everything else which is in that type, they first gave much too close & then much too wide, & say they have not got the exact thing, unless they have the types cast on purpose. Both the things they have produced seem to me detestable & the worst is that as Parker is sole owner of this edition I suppose I have no voice in the matter at all except as a point of courtesy. I shall see Parker today & tell him that I should have much preferred waiting till another season rather than having either of these types—but I suppose it is too late now to do any good—& perhaps Parker dragged out the time in useless delays before, on purpose that all troublesome changes might be avoided by hurry now. It is as disagreeable as a thing of the sort can possibly be—because it is necessary that something should be decided immediately without waiting for the decision of my only guide & oracle. If the effect should be to make the book an unpleasant object to the only eyes I wish it to please, how excessively I shall regret not having put off the edition till next season.
17(?) March, 1849
The bargain with Parker is a good one & that it is so is entirely your doing—all the difference between it & the last being wholly your work, as well as all the best of the book itself so that you have a redoubled title to your joint ownership of it. While I am on the subject I will say that the difficulty with the printer is surmounted—both he & Parker were disposed to be accommodating & he was to have the very same type from the very same foundry today—in the meantime there has been no time lost, as they have been printing very fast without the headings, & will I have no doubt keep their engagement as to time. You do not say anything this time about the bit of the P.E.—I hope you did not send it during the week, as if so it has miscarried—at the rate they are printing, both volumes at once, they will soon want it.
21 March, 1849
The Pol. Ec. packet came on Monday for which a thousand thanks. I have followed to the letter every recommendation. The sentence which you objected to in toto of course has come quite out.14 In explanation however of what I meant by it—I was not thinking of any mysterious change in human nature—but chiefly of this—that the best people now are necessarily so much cut off from sympathy with the multitudes that I should think they must have difficulty in judging how they would be affected by such an immense change in their whole circumstances as would be caused by having multitudes whom they could sympathize with—or in knowing how far the social feelings might then supply the place of that large share of solitariness & individuality which they cannot now dispense with. I meant one thing more, viz. that as, hereafter, the more obvious & coarser obstacles & objections to the community system will have ceased or greatly diminished, those which are less obvious & coarse will then step forward into an importance & require an attention which does not now practically belong to them & that we can hardly tell without trial what the result of that experience will be. I do not say that you cannot realize & judge of these things—but if you, & perhaps Shelley & one or two others in a generation can, I am convinced that to do so requires both great genius & great experience & I think it quite fair to say to common readers that the present race of mankind (speaking of them collectively) are not competent to it. I cannot persuade myself that you do not greatly overrate the ease of making people unselfish. Granting that in “ten years” the children of a community might by teaching be made “perfect” it seems to me that to do so there must be perfect people to teach them. You say “if there were a desire on the part of the cleverer people to make them perfect it would be easy—but how to produce that desire in the cleverer people? I must say I think that if we had absolute power tomorrow, though we could do much to improve people by good laws, & could even give them a very much better education than they have ever had yet, still, for effecting in our lives anything like what we aim at, all our plans would fail from the impossibility of finding fit instruments. To make people really good for much it is so necessary not merely to give them good intentions & conscientiousness but to unseal their eyes—to prevent self flattery, vanity, irritability & all that family of vices from warping their moral judgments as those of the very cleverest people are almost always warped now. But we shall have all these questions out together & they will all require to be entered into to a certain depth, at least, in the new book which I am so glad you look forward to as I do with so much interest.
c. 31 March, 1849
The alteration I had made in that sentence of the P.E. was instead of “placard their intemperance” to say “placard their enormous families”—it does not read so well, but I think it may do, especially as the previous sentence contains the words “this sort of incontinence”—but your two sentences are so very good that as that sheet is not yet printed, get them in I must & will.15 —Are you not amused with Peel about Ireland? He sneers down the waste lands plan, two years ago, which the timid ministers, timid because without talent, give up at a single sarcasm from him, & now he has enfanté a scheme containing that & much more than was then proposed—& the Times supports him & Ireland praises him. I am extremely glad he has done it—I can see that it is working as nothing else has yet worked to break down the superstition about property—& it is the only thing happening in England which promises a step forward—a thing which one may well welcome when things are going so badly for the popular cause in Europe—not that I am discouraged by this—progress of the right kind seems to me quite safe now that Socialism has become inextinguishable. I heartily wish Proudhon dead however—there are few men whose state of mind, taken as a whole, inspires me with so much aversion, & all his influence seems to me mischievous except as a potent dissolvent which is good so far, but every single thing which he would substitute seems to me the worst possible in practice & mostly [?] in principle. I have been reading another volume of Considerant lately published16 —he has got into the details of Fourierism, with many large extracts from Fourier himself. It was perhaps necessary to enter into details in order to make the thing look practicable, but many of the details are, & all appear, passablement ridicules. As to their system, & general mode of thought there is a great question at the root of it which must be settled before one can get a step further. Admitting the omnipotence of education, is not the very pivot & turning point of that education a moral sense—a feeling of duty, or conscience, or principle, or whatever name one gives it—a feeling that one ought to do, & to wish for, what is for the greatest good of all concerned. Now Fourier, & all his followers, leave this out entirely, & rely wholly on such an arrangement of social circumstances17 as without any inculcation of duty or of “right,” will make every one, by the spontaneous action of the passions, intensely zealous for all the interests of the whole. Nobody is ever to be made to do anything but act just as they like, but it is calculated that they will always, in a phalanstere, like what is best. This of course leads to the freest notions about personal relations of all sorts, but is it, in other respects, a foundation on which people would be able to live & act together [?]18Owen keeps in generals & only says that education can make everybody perfect, but the Fourierists attempt to shew how, & exclude, as it seems to me, one of the most indispensable ingredients.
The next references to the Political Economy in the correspondence between John Stuart Mill and Harriet occur in the series of letters written early in 1854 when Harriet was at Hyères. As the letters indicate, Mill was approached by Frederick J. Furnivall, on behalf of the Christian Socialists, with a request to reprint “On the Probable Futurity of the Labouring Classes” (IV, vii) as a pamphlet. Mill, with Harriet’s and his publisher’s approval, acceded to the request, and made extensive alterations to the chapter. Although he sent the proofs to Furnivall, no copy of the pamphlet has been located, and there is considerable doubt as to whether it was printed. In fact, Furnivall approached him again in 1860 with the same request, to which Mill replied almost exactly as he had done six years earlier.19
4 Feb., 1854
While I write, in comes a note from one of the Kingsley set who has written before, as you probably remember. I send his affected note which asks leave to reprint the Chapter on the Future of the Labouring Classes. Of course I must tell him that he must ask leave of Parker, but I should perhaps tell him also, & certainly should be prepared to tell Parker, whether I have any objection myself. I should think I have not: what does my angel think? I did not expect the Xtian Socialists would wish to circulate the chapter as it is in the 3d edit. since it stands up for Competition against their one-eyed attacks & denunciations of it.
13 Feb., 1854
I will answer Furnivall as you say. I do not know what alterations the chapter requires & cannot get at it as the last edition is locked up in the plant room. I can of course get from Parker another copy, or even those particular sheets from the “waste”. I imagine that if I tell Furnivall of making alterations he will be willing to give me time enough—besides I could send you the chapter by post.
18 Feb., 1854
I wrote to Furnivall in the manner you wished, & have had two notes from him since—the first short—“I am very much obliged to you for your kind letter of yesterday, & will communicate forthwith with Messrs Parker & Son, & then again with you as to the additions to the chapter.” The other which came this morning “Messrs P. & Son have given me their consent to your chapter on” &c. “being reprinted. If you will be kind enough to send me the additions you said you would be so good as to make, as soon as is convenient to you, I will have the chapter as revised set up immediately on receipt of them, & send you a proof.” I wrote a short answer asking for a few days time to consider how I could improve it, & wrote to Parker for the sheets—they will come I suppose on Monday & I will send them to my precious guide philosopher & friend by that day’s post. I have not the least idea at present what additions they require, but between us we shall I am sure manage to improve them very much.
20 Feb., 1854
The chapter of the P.E. I shall send by the post which takes this letter. If the post office tells me right, a penny stamp will cover it & you will have nothing to pay. I do not know where to begin or where to stop in attempting to improve it. One would like to write a treatise instead. As for minor additions I wish I could get some more recent facts as to the French Associations Ouvrières. I must also say something about the English ones (though a very little will suffice) as Furnivall suggests in another note he has written to me which I inclose. The note at p. 33120 now requires modification so far as concerns the first half of it. I shall not attempt any alterations till I hear from you.
28 Feb., 1854
You have by this time got the chapter—As so much is said of the French associations I must put in a few words about the English, of which Furnivall has sent me a long list21 —especially as it is going among the very people—but I shall take care not to commit myself to anything complimentary to them. F. has also from Nadaud some later intelligence about the French,22 nearly all of which are put down.
6 March, 1854
The Pol. Ec. was put into the post 21 Feb. being Tuesday, instead of Monday, the day I wrote—the reason being that Parker did not send it till I was just leaving the I.H. at near five oclock, & as I had no other copy I wished to read it quietly at home before sending it. It certainly dear was very wrong to send it without making that sentence illegible,23 for it was wrong to run any risk of that kind—the risk happily was small, as they were not likely to take the trouble of looking into letters or packets addressed to unsuspected persons, nor if they did were they likely to see that sentence, nor if they saw it to make the receiver answerable for a sentence in a printed paper forming part of an English book. Still it was a piece of criminal rashness which might have done mischief though it probably has not. Did it arrive with a penny stamp, attached half to the cover & half to the blank page, so as to be a sort of cachet? If it did not, however, it would not prove it to have been opened, as the stamp might come off. It was another piece of thoughtlessness not to say that I had no other copy. It is, however, probable, though not certain, that I could get another from Parker, & I would have applied to him for one now if you had said that you would not send yours until you receive this; but as you will probably have sent it after receiving my next letter, & it is therefore probably on its way, I will wait to see. I quite agree with you about the inexpediency of adding anything like practical advice, or anything at all which alters the character of the chapter—the working men ought to see that it was not written for them—any attempt to mingle the two characters would be sure to be a failure & is not the way in which we should do the thing even if we had plenty of time & were together.
9 March, 1854
About the P.E. I shall write immediately to Parker for another copy. I do not intend to say anything in praise of the English Associations but solely to state the fact that they are now very numerous & increasing—perhaps stating how many, according to a list which F. gave me. Whatever I do write I will send you & it will cause no or but little delay as the thing can go to press meanwhile & alterations be made when it is in proof.
11 March, 1854
I have not yet any answer from Parker to my application for another copy of the chapter.
14 March, 1854
I find a good deal of difficulty in adding much to the chapter of the P. Econ. without altering its character, which must be maintained, in the main, as it is, as something written of but not to the working classes. I think I agree in all your remarks & have adopted them almost all—but I do not see the possibility of bringing in the first two pages (from the preceding chapter)24 —I see no place which they would fit. Not having your copy, I do not know what sentence you would omit from page 330.25 I do not see how to bring in anything about short hours bills well; does it seem necessary to do so here?—& I have not yet succeeded in bringing in your remark on page 346.26 I have translated (with some omissions) all the French. I give on the next page all the additions I have made. If I make any more I will send them. I shall keep it back from Furnivall for a few days—if he is not urgent, till I hear from you.
Additional note, in brackets, to p. 33127
[Mr Fitzroy’s Act for the better protection of women & children against assaults, is a well meant though inadequate attempt to remove the first reproach. The second is more flagrant than ever, another Reform Bill having been presented this year, which largely extends the franchise among many classes of men, but leaves all women in their existing state of political as well as social servitude.]
Page 332 near the bottom.28 “The rich in their turn are regarded as a mere prey & pasture for the poor & are the subject of demands & expectations wholly indefinite, increasing in extent with every concession made to them. The total absence of regard for justice or fairness in the relations between the two, is at the least as marked on the side of the employed as on that of the employers. We look in vain among the working classes for the just pride which will choose to give good work for good wages: for the most part their sole endeavour is to receive as much, & return as little in the shape of service, as possible.”
Page 346, continuation of note.29 “One of the most discreditable indications of a low moral condition, given of late by the English working classes, is the opposition to piece work. Dislike to piecework, except under mistaken notions, must be dislike to justice & fairness, or desire to cheat, by not giving work in proportion to the pay. Piecework is the perfection of contract; & contract, in all work, & in the most minute detail—the principle of so much pay for so much service carried to the utmost extremity—is the system, of all others, in the present state of society, most favorable to the worker, though most unfavourable to the non-worker who wishes to be paid for being idle.”
Note to p. 347.30 “According to the latest accounts which have reached us (March 1854) seven of these associations are all which are now left. But Cooperative stores (associations pour la consommation) have greatly developed themselves, especially in the S. of France, & are at least not forbidden (we know not whether discouraged) by the Government.”
Note to p. 348.31 “Though this beneficent movement has been so fatally checked in the country in which it originated, it is rapidly spreading in those other countries which have acquired, & still retain, any political freedom. It forms already an important feature in the social improvement which is proceeding at a most rapid pace in Piedmont: & in England on the 15th of Feb. of the present year 1854 there had been registered under the Indl & Provt Societies Act, 33 associations, 17 of which are Industrial Societies, the remainder being associations for cooperative consumption only. This does not include Scotland, where also these assns are rapidly multiplying. The Societies which have registered under this new Act are only a portion of the whole. A list dated in June 1852 gives 41 assns for productive industry in E. & Sc. besides a very much greater number of flour mill societies & cooperative stores.”
18 March, 1854
My letter to Avignon also contained copies of all the new matter of any importance in the Chapter of the Pol. Ec. & asked what was the sentence in page 330 that you had marked to come out—but the chapter itself has arrived since & there is no sentence marked in that page—I suppose the dear one altered her mind & rubbed out the marks.32 I still hold to keeping it back from Furnivall till I hear your opinion of the additional matter which will be in a few days now.
3 April, 1854
When I got her approval of the alterations in the chapter, I inserted a saving clause about piece work33 & sent the whole to Furnivall who promises a proof shortly.
The last references to the Political Economy in the correspondence between John Stuart Mill and Harriet occur in 1857, when he was revising for the 4th edition while she was in Glasgow.
18 Feb., 1857
I get on quickly with the Pol. Econ. as there is but little to add or alter.
19 Feb., 1857
I pass the evening always at the Pol. Economy, with now & then a little playing to rest my eyes & mind. There will be no great quantity to alter, but now & then a little thing is of importance. One page I keep for consideration when I can shew it to you. It is about the qualities of English workpeople, & of the English generally. It is not at all as I would write it now, but I do not, in reality, know how to write it.34
[1 ]Autobiography (Columbia University Press, 1924), 173-6. An early draft of part of this passage is in the Sterling Library, Yale.
[2 ]This dedication, not included in the 1st edition because Harriet’s husband, John Taylor, objected, was pasted into gift copies of the 1st and 2nd editions. (Cf. F. A. Hayek, John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor [London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1951], 121-2, and M. St. J. Packe, The Life of John Stuart Mill [London: Secker and Warburg, 1954], 309-10.) The only one I have seen is in JSM’s copy of the 2nd edition, in the library of Somerville College, Oxford. It reads: “TO/MRS JOHN TAYLOR,/AS THE MOST EMINENTLY QUALIFIED/OF ALL PERSONS KNOWN TO THE AUTHOR/EITHER TO ORIGINATE OR TO APPRECIATE/SPECULATIONS ON SOCIAL IMPROVEMENT,/THIS ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN AND DIFFUSE IDEAS/MANY OF WHICH WERE FIRST LEARNED FROM HERSELF,/IS/WITH THE HIGHEST RESPECT AND REGARD,/DEDICATED.”
[3 ]N. MacMinn, J. McCrimmon, and J. Hainds (eds.), Bibliography of the Published Writings of John Stuart Mill (Northwestern University Press, 1945), 69.
[4 ]Most of the passages are quoted or referred to by Professor Hayek in John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor; they are printed here, in corrected form, from the MSS.
[5 ]Actually, except for the two brief references in letters dated 1857 (quoted below), the revisions for the 4th edition apply not to the edition itself, but to the preliminary rewriting done in 1854 with a view to the proposed reprint of IV, vii by the Christian Socialists as working-class propaganda. See II.1032-7.
[6 ]48.I.247-8; see II.978.1-18.
[7 ]In 48 the passage actually reads: “The necessaries of life, when they have always been secure for the whole of life, are scarcely more a subject of consciousness. . . .” (48.I.247.34ff.) It was altered in 49; see II.978f-f.
[8 ]This passage does not occur in any edition, and its intended place cannot be accurately determined. The most likely place is in 49.I.254.31—255.4 (see II.978f-f, and the next letter below, II.1028.note 11); other possibilities are 49.I.265.26ff. (suggested by Professor Hayek, 300.n44), and 49.I.264 (see II.986-7).
[9 ]In 48 the passage actually reads: “I believe that the majority would not exert themselves for any thing beyond this, and that unless they did, nobody else would. . . .” (48.I.250.5-7.) The sentence is deleted in 49; see II.980n.
[10 ]JSM’s inconsistency in spelling Fourier’s name may indicate that at the time he knew his work only at second-hand.
[11 ]The reference here is undoubtedly to the passage referred to in the previous letter; see II.1027. note 8.
[12 ]49.I.263.5—264.18; see II.984.37—985.38.
[13 ]49.I.102.1—105.2 (I.84n—86n).
[14 ]See II.1027. note 8.
[15 ]See I.368c-c. The phrase “this species [not sort] of incontinence” occurs two sentences above; Harriet’s sentences presumably are those in the note added in 49 (I.368n).
[16 ]V. P. Considerant, Le socialisme devant le vieux monde, ou, le vivant devant les morts. Paris: 1848. Cf. Hayek, 302. note 72.
[17 ]Page ripped; MS reads only “circumstance”.
[18 ]Page ripped.
[19 ]Were the date on the letter not so clear, and the last paragraph omitted, one would assume that it was written in 1854. It reads:
Saint Véran near Avignon Dec. 10. 1860.
I would with great pleasure accede to your proposal with respect to a reprint of the chapter on the Futurity of the Labouring Classes for separate sale, if it rested with me to do so. The current edition however of the Pol. Economy is the property of the publisher Mr Parker, and he alone has the power of authorizing what you propose. Your application therefore should be to him, unless you prefer waiting till the present edition is out of print, which is likely to be, I believe, in a few months. I propose making some additions to the chapter for another edition, so as to bring up the facts of Cooperation to the latest date, and if I have anything to say worth saying in the way of advice to Cooperators, that will be, I think, the most suitable occasion.
I am very glad to hear such good news of the progress of Cooperation. The publicity given to the brilliant results of the Rochdale and Leeds experiments, by Mr Holyoake’s book, by Bright’s speech, and otherwise, was likely to encourage others to do the same. I am
Dear Sir very truly yours
J. S. Mill
57.II.335n. Deleted in 62; see II.765b.
[21 ]See 57.II.352n-353n. Passage rewritten in 62; see II.784i-i793.
[22 ]See II.784i-i793, and II.1036.23-30.
[23 ]Probably one of the sentences in the paragraph at 52.II.347.10ff., beginning “It is painful to think. . . .” See II.784h-h.
[24 ]The reference is not clear; probably IV.vi.2 is intended; see II.753-7. No such change was made in any subsequent edition.
[25 ]No alterations were made to this passage, see II.764-5.
[26 ]The only alteration to this page is that indicated in the note by JSM added to this letter; see II.1036, note to p. 346.
[27 ]See II.765b (the wording was altered before the 4th ed.).
[28 ]See II.767e-e and the variants therein.
[29 ]See II.783n and the variants therein.
[30 ]This passage was almost completely rewritten for the 57 edition; see II.784h-h.
[31 ]See II.784i-i793 and the variants therein.
[32 ]See II.1035. note 25.
[33 ]See II.783n, and JSM’s note to 52.346 (II.1036). Cf. Hayek, 203, who says that Harriet suggested the added clause.
[34 ]The reference is probably to I.104f-f (I.vii.3); cf. Hayek, who suggests I.viii [? vii]. 5.