The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Introduction
• Textual Introduction
• Acknowledgments
• Essays On Economics and Society 1824–1845
• War Expenditure 1824
• The Quarterly Review On Political Economy 1825
• The Corn Laws 1825
• Paper Currency and Commercial Distress 1826
• The Silk Trade 1826
• The New Corn Law 1827
• The Nature, Origin, and Progress of Rent 1828
• The Currency Juggle 1833
• Corporation and Church Property 1833
• Miss Martineau’s Summary of Political Economy 1834
• Essays On Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy 1844
• Editor’s Note
• Preface
• Of the Laws of Interchange Between Nations; and the Distribution of the Gains of Commerce Among the Countries of the Commercial World
• Of the Influence of Consumption On Production
• On the Words Productive and Unproductive
• On Profits, and Interest
• On the Definition of Political Economy; and On the Method of Ainvestigation Proper to Ita
• The Currency Question 1844
• The Claims of Labour 1845
• De Quincey’s Logic of Political Economy 1845

Textual Introduction

obituary notices suggest that Mill’s contemporaries thought his greatest contribution had been in logic rather than in economics or politics. In the intervening century that judgment has been altered, and Mill is far more often thought of as an economist than as a logician. By quantitative standard alone, the recent view has been more correct, for Mill cultivated his interest in economics more assiduously and constantly than any of his other interests. His first published writings were the letters on the measure of value referred to by Lord Robbins (p. viiin above); the climax of his middle years is signalled by his Principles in 1848 (the date chosen by Professors Mineka and Hayek to terminate the Earlier Letters); and he devoted much thought in his later years to problems of socialism and land tenure. In almost every one of the intervening years he wrote something of interest to students of economics, although seldom is it possible to say that an article or letters or speech is of interest only to economists, and hardly ever that it is of more interest to economists than to others.

This situation presents the editor with an extremely difficult choice. All Mill’s writings with a bearing on economics cannot be gathered in two volumes, and yet to publish three or four volumes as his “Essays on Economics” would mean including material to which other volumes can make a stronger claim. There is, fortunately, a solution suggested by Mill’s polymathic interests: one can reasonably assume that readers will be content to follow Mill across interdisciplinary boundaries into other volumes of the edition. The solution is, then, to gather here those writings in which the economic interest is paramount, and to place those in which it is secondary in volumes centring on, for example, political science and contemporary events.

Like other nineteenth-century authors, Mill thought no subject distinction necessary in collected volumes, and included in his Dissertations and Discussions essays on aphorisms and on Austin, on Coleridge and on currency. The more restricted competences of our specialized age suggest, however, that individual volumes be tailored for separate audiences; the edition as a whole will meet the needs of Emerson’s “Man Thinking.” One necessary qualification is indicated in the title of these volumes and some of their companions: Mill’s constant search for the useful dictated a wide reference, and so many of his essays have a social as well as an economic or political dimension.

In these, the first volumes of the edition to be made up of short monographs, essays, reviews, and similar pieces, this policy of grouping by subject has guided us, and it is followed in each of the volumes of collected pieces throughout the edition. Letters, speeches, journals, and newspaper writings, however, are gathered by provenance and kind.

Mill himself expressed firm opinions on the republication of periodical writings. In the Preface to Dissertations and Discussions, justifying the volumes, he suggests that if “frequent writers in periodicals” foresaw such republication, they might try to remove “the crudity in the formation of opinions, and carelessness in their expression, which are the besetting sins of writings put forth under the screen of anonymousness. . . .” He continues: “The following papers, selected from a much greater number, include all the writer’s miscellaneous productions which he considers it in any way desirable to preserve. The remainder were either of too little value at any time, or what value they might have was too exclusively temporary, or the thoughts they contained were inextricably mixed up with comments, now totally uninteresting, on passing events, or on some book not generally known; or lastly, any utility they may have possessed has since been superseded by other and more mature writings of the author.”¹

With my usual respect for Mill’s sensibility and sense, and at a time when masses of print threaten to bury the inquiring mind, I cannot but feel the weight of this argument. But we can now, perhaps, use Mill’s argument for exclusion at least in part to support our inclusions. Whatever the justice of his comments at that time, they are not now valid. Whether the subject of study is Mill himself, nineteenth-century thought, or nineteenth-century history, the items in this volume are of interest and value. Individually, it may be, some of them are slight, but in the context of the volume and the edition each gives, at the very least, detail that otherwise would be lacking. Even those which, in Mill’s view, were superseded by “more mature writings” are important in establishing the development of his and his century’s attitudes and opinions.

It is unlikely that economists will question seriously the inclusion of any of the essays in these volumes; it is hardly to be expected, however, that the principles of exclusion will please everyone. The first and most apparent exclusion is that of Mill’s economic writings for newspapers. These are reserved for a volume containing all his newspaper writings: first, because that volume, read in conjunction with the Letters and the Autobiography, will give a clearer picture of the range of interests throughout his life than is otherwise possible; second, because, as intimated above, it is impossible to select among them without inconveniencing those wishing to study other aspects of his thought. For example, it would certainly be reasonable (if space allowed) to include here his leading articles on Irish problems in the late 1840s; to do so, however, would be to reject the more reasonable policy of joining them with his other writings on Ireland—in this imperfect world, where all goes by approximation, it has seemed most reasonable to put them with his other writings for the ephemeral press.

Other exclusions may be illustrated by examples. “Centralization,” published in the Edinburgh Review in 1862, is obviously relevant to Mill’s attitude towards socialism, which is such a prominent concern in some of the essays below. The major weight of the article, however, bears upon political rather than economic questions, and so it is gathered into the volume of Essays on Politics and Society. Again, Mill’s “The French Revolution of 1848 and Its Assailants,” which gives good evidence of his view of socialism during the crucial period when he was revising his Principles for the second and third editions, was intended less as a comment on socialism than on the state of affairs in France and on British reaction to that state; the essay has therefore been put with other essays on contemporary France. These are hard examples—both essays were seriously considered for inclusion here—and it is hoped that the reader will be able to see similar reasons for other exclusions.

Marginalia are not included in these volumes; a full example, obviously resulting from Senior’s request for criticism, will be found in F. A. von Hayek, “Notes on N. W. Senior’s Political Economy,” Economica, n.s.XII (Aug., 1945), 134-9. It is regrettable that the meetings of the Political Economy Club were virtually unrecorded; a brief account of one meeting to which Mill contributed may be seen in Adelaide Weinberg, “A Meeting of the Political Economy Club on 7 May, 1857,” Mill News Letter, 1 (Spring, 1966), 11-16. One other unfortunate gap should be mentioned: the manuscript of the work submitted by Mill in 1829 to the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge has disappeared without record. (See Francis E. Mineka, ed., Earlier Letters, in Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, XIII, 742.)

The reasons for grouping essays by subject within the edition apply with less force to arrangements within individual volumes. Chronological ordering, which allows a clear view of development of interest and idea, and fixes periods, appears best. It does not impede—as Lord Robbins’ Introduction above indicates—thematic and logical discussion.

Most of the items in these volumes were not republished by Mill: he included three of them in the first edition (1859) of Dissertations and Discussions;² and five were republished in 1875 by his step-daughter, Helen Taylor, in the fourth volume of Dissertations and Discussions (we do not know if Mill himself had a hand in the selection). The volume of Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy (1844) was also republished by Helen Taylor, in 1874, without significant alterations; the fifth essay in this work is a revised version of an article in the Westminster Review. Finally, the incomplete manuscript of the “Chapters on Socialism” was first published, edited by Helen Taylor, in 1879, six years after Mill’s death. In establishing our text, we have ignored later republications, as they have no textual authority.

Two of the items, “The Silk Trade” (1826) and “The Nature, Origin, and Progress of Rent” (1828), are new attributions; the evidence for Mill’s authorship is given in their headnotes.

Most of the major articles appeared first in the great reviews, nine in the Westminster (including the one republished in the Essays on Some Unsettled Questions), five in the Fortnightly, and one in the Edinburgh. Four (including two Mill thought important enough for republication) appeared in lesser reviews, one in each of The Parliamentary Review, Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine, The Jurist, and the Monthly Repository. Five derive from Mill’s evidence before parliamentary committees,³ and one from evidence submitted to a French parliamentary commission. Of the other items, one is a separate book (Essay on Some Unsettled Questions), one a note to McCulloch’s edition of Adam Smith, and two appeared in pamphlets issued by the Metropolitan Sanitary Association and the Land Tenure Reform Association. In Appendices (see p. liv below) are found an essay (also from the Westminster) written with Ellis in which Mill’s part is not determined, a public petition on free trade, an examination paper prepared by Mill, and a sheet distributed by the Land Tenure Reform Association. It may be noted that there are at least three pieces from every decade of Mill’s publishing life, the longest gap being from 1834 to 1844.

Specific details about the texts will be found in headnotes to each item. These include details of publication (“not republished” means not republished by Mill in his lifetime), the entry from Mill’s bibliography,⁴ and any epistolary or biographical information relevant to the text, attribution, and publication. (These are not, of course, designed as essays on the text.)

There is almost no manuscript material for these articles, and no evidence of any having existed subsequent to publication, except in the case of the “Chapters on Socialism.” The only fragments, one of “Endowments” and one of “Thornton on Labour and its Claims,” have been collated with their texts. The disappearance of the manuscript of “Chapters on Socialism” is deeply to be regretted, for the published version is edited to an unknown extent by Helen Taylor. In Sothebys’ sale of the effects of Mary Taylor (Helen’s niece), 29 March, 1922, the following item was bought by Maggs for £5.5.0: “Mill (John Stuart). Five chapters on Socialism. Auto. MS., 74pp. 4to, with a copy in the hand of Miss Helen Taylor.” Early in 1934, the late J. A. Symington of Leeds offered an American buyer, for £40, one or both of these manuscripts, describing the item thus:

ON SOCIALISM

SOCIALIST OBJECTIONS TO THE PRESENT ORDER OF SOCIETY

SOCIALIST OBJECTIONS EXAMINED

DIFFICULTIES OF SOCIALISM

IDEA OF PRIVATE PROPERTY NOT FIXED BUT VARIABLE

NOTES

THE ORIGINAL MSS. with corrections and directions to

the printer. A good deal of the MS. is in the

handwriting of Helen Taylor with a preliminary note

by her, signed and dated Jany. 18, ’79. 1 Vol. 4to.

There is no subsequent record of the manuscript.

The general policy in these volumes, as throughout the edition, is to adopt as the basic text the latest version from Mill’s own pen. Earlier versions, and those in which he may have had a hand (though published after his death), are collated with the basic text, and the resulting substantive variants are given as footnotes.

The variants derive mainly from the republication of essays in Dissertations and Discussions; other sources are corrections by Mill in his own copies, and the two manuscript fragments mentioned above. Special cases are found in the Essays on Some Unsettled Questions: the variants in the first essay derive from Mill’s alterations in the passages quoted in his Principles; those in the final essay derive from its earlier publication in the Westminster; and throughout there are corrections based on the posthumous edition of 1874.

It is likely that the essays in the first two volumes of Dissertations and Discussions were revised at the same time (see xlvin above), and since Mill in the Preface to the first volume explains that he made no attempt to bring the essays into full coherence with his views in 1859, it is not surprising that there are very few major alterations. Changes resulting from time and provenance, as well as those indicating a change of opinion or correction of fact, make up about 15 per cent of the total 391 substantive alterations in the three relevant essays; qualifications and clarifications, the particular marks of Mill’s style, make up a further 30 per cent; the remainder are minor verbal alterations or slight tonal changes through, for example, the removal of italics. An example of this minor group is seen in the changes from “man” to “person” (e.g., 218^b-b). (Considering Mill’s attitude towards women, the changing of the gender of “truth” from feminine to neuter on p. 217 is difficult to assess.) Mill did little rewriting for the second edition of Dissertations and Discussions; only fourteen of the variants, minor in nature, derive from that edition.

The changes are best studied in their context, but a few general comments may be made. An alteration illustrative of the lessened “asperity of tone” (Preface, p. v) may be seen at p. 203, where in 1833 Mill said with reference to trustees, “it is currently asserted, and that not modestly, and in a tone of discussion, but angrily, abusively, and in the spirit of arrogant assumption, that the endowments of the Church and of the Universities are theirproperty. . . .” In revision, this became: “it is currently asserted, and in the tone in which men affirm a self-evident moral truth, that the endowments of the Church and of the Universities are their property. . . .” His desire for moderation and greater precision of statement is illustrated in the rewriting of the sentences on p. 212 dealing with the Catholic Church. The removal of the hesitant judgment concerning the propriety of using endowments for the support of a national gallery (218^v) probably reflects less a change in Mill’s basic view than the growing importance of the National Gallery in London (the collection was initiated in 1824, but the building, finished in 1838, was barely begun when the passage was composed). As will be noted, all these examples are taken from “Corporation and Church Property,” in which the most significant alterations in this group occur.⁵ Interesting changes resulting from the difference in time between two versions are also seen, however, in “The Claims of Labour,” for example at 371^k, 382^a, ^b, and 384^g, ^h. (In this essay one finds as well, at 371^m-m and 374^o-o, the unexpected change from the earlier “factory” to “manufactory” which is seen in his Principles at I.74^b-b.)

No extensive comment is needed on the variants found in comparing the earlier and later versions of the essays reprinted after Mill’s death in the fourth volume of Dissertations and Discussions. They are almost all corrections of misprints and misreadings found in the periodical versions; the two manuscript variants at pp. 618 and 667 are important principally as rare examples of their type.

Nearly one-third of the 159 changes resulting from the rewriting of “On the Definition of Political Economy” for the Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy are simply removals of italics. Mill’s writing of the System of Logic and his reading of Comte are, however, reflected in such variants as those at 317^a-a and ^b-b, 320^p-p, 326^t-t, 333^u, and 337^r-r. And his concern over the relation of theory to practice, growing from his reassessment of his father’s views, can be seen in different degrees in such variants as those at 324^i-i, 333^t-t, 334^w-w, ^x, ^y-y, and 337^p-p, ^r-r. One interesting speculation: in a passage on p. 327, Mill substituted in 1844 “shut up Euclid’s Elements” for “use Euclid’s Elements as waste paper.” Although the destruction of the manuscript of the first part of Carlyle’s French Revolution occurred in 1835, a year before the initial publication of this essay, Mill first composed it in 1831 and rewrote it in 1833, and the change may well be taken as evidence of his feelings of guilt.

Apart from the variants reflecting the changes made in quoting the first of the Essays on Some Unsetled Questions in his Principles (see headnote on p. 232), the other variants in these essays, deriving from the second edition in 1874, are simple corrections.

Mill’s library has provided marginalia important in identifying as Mill’s the note on “The Nature, Origin, and Progress of Rent” (and see Lord Robbins’ comment, p. viii above). Also, the text of “Newman’s Political Economy” is clarified by his frequent corrections in his copy. One of these (455^r-r) can be dignified by a biographical gloss: Alexander Bain, in his John Stuart Mill (London: Longmans, Green, 1882), p. 177n, commenting on Mill’s “dread of running into a figurative or florid style,” mentions his “great annoyance at the numerous misprints that had been allowed to pass” in this article. “One of these,” Bain continues, “was a very excusable error. He had written ‘the family in the patriarchal sense,’ and the printer had changed it into ‘tents’; making, as he said, in a complaining tone, a picture.” (Cf. headnote on p. 440.)

No matter what their source, the variants often suggest misreadings of Mill’s hand. Most common are probable misreadings of “&” for “of” or “or” (e.g., 314^j-j, 317^z-z, and 375^r-r). More extreme, but not less likely cases are typified by the reading “economical aspects” for “essential respects” at 679^i-i.

Method of Indicating Variants. All the substantive variants are governed by the principles enunciated below, except for a few special cases, in which self-explanatory footnotes are given in square brackets and italics. “Substantive” here means all changes of text except spelling, capitalization, hyphenation, punctuation, demonstrable typographical errors, and such printing-house concerns as type size, etc. Except for changes between “though” and “although” and between “on” and “upon,” all substantive variants are recorded. These are of three kinds: addition of a word or words, substitution of a word or words, deletion of a word or words. Examples to illustrate these three kinds are drawn from “The Currency Juggle.”

Addition of a word or words: see 187^g-g. In the text, the passage “(as is alleged)” appears as “^g(as is alleged)^g”; the variant note reads ^g-g+59,67.” Here the plus sign indicates that the passage “(as is alleged)” was added; the numbers following (“59,67”) indicate the editions of this particular text in which the addition appears. The editions are always indicated by the last two numbers of the year of publication: here 59=1859 (the first edition of Volumes I and II of Dissertations and Discussions); 67=1867 (the second edition of these volumes). Information explaining the use of these abbreviations is given in each headnote, as required. Any added editorial information is enclosed in square brackets and italicized.

Placing this example in context, the interpretation is that when first published (1833) the reading was “a present of”; in 1859 this was altered to “a present (as is alleged) of”, and the altered reading was retained in 1867.

Substitution of a word or words: see 183^a-a. In the text the word “political” appears as “^apolitical^a”; the variant note reads “^a-a33 the spirit of”. Here the words following the edition indicator are those for which “political” was substituted; applying the same rules and putting the variant in context, the interpretation is that when first published (1833) the reading was “progress of the spirit of reform”; in 1859 this was altered to “progress of political reform,” and the reading of 1859 was retained (as is clear in the text) in 1867. An example of a passage that was altered twice is seen in “Corporation and Church Property” at 198^f-f. In the text appears “^fbe only a moderate^f”; the variant note reads “^f-f33 not be a long] 59 be but a moderate”. Here the different readings, in chronological order, are separated by a square bracket. The interpretation is that the original reading in 1833, “not be a long”, was altered in 1859 to “be but a moderate”, and in 1867 to the final “be only a moderate”. In the two cases of substitution where a manuscript variant is given, the manuscript is indicated by “MS”.

Deletion of a word or words: see 183ⁱ. In the text, a single superscript ⁱ appears centred between “the” and “evil”; the variant note reads “ⁱ33 serious”. Here the word following the edition indicator is the one deleted; applying the same rules and putting the variant in context, the interpretation is that when first published (1833) the reading was “the serious evil”; in 1859 “serious” was deleted, and the reading of 1859 was retained (as is clear in the text) in 1867.

Variants in Mill’s footnotes. To avoid four levels of text on the page, a different method has been used to indicate the few changes in the notes supplied by Mill. An example from “Corporation and Church Property” will be seen at 203n, where the footnote ends: “that collective body without [33 a particle of] injustice.” Here “a particle of”, which appeared in 1833, was deleted in 1859, and the text of 1859 was retained in 1867. When necessary, to prevent confusion in reading, the words before and/or after the altered passage are given (see the other variants in the same note).

Dates of footnotes. Here the practice is to place immediately after the footnote indicator, in square brackets, the figures indicating the edition in which the footnote first appeared, if it was not in the first version. At 214n, for example, the “[59]” indicates that the note was added in 1859 (and retained in 1867). If no such figure appears, the note is in all versions.

Punctuation and spelling. In general, changes between versions in punctuation and spelling are ignored. (For the sake of purists, it might be noted that, given the obvious intrusions by the printer in other writings of Mill where we have the manuscript, and given the range of different periodical and other sources from which the items below are taken, there is insufficient reason to adopt accidentals from the earliest version, in contravention of our normal acceptance of the latest version as copy-text.) Those changes which occur as part of a substantive variant are included in that variant, and the superscript letters in the text are placed exactly with reference to punctuation. As alterations in terminal punctuation indicate at least a slight change in emphasis, these are included, as are changes between italic and roman type.

Other textual liberties. The practice of heading articles in the reviews simply by an article number and the titles of the books under consideration makes it necessary to affix new titles in many cases. Similarly in other cases the original is inadequately titled, for example in the evidence before parliamentary committees. Those which have been chosen by the editor are modified from the running titles, titles affixed for republication, and the entries in Mill’s bibliography; the actual headings and other information explaining the choice are given in the headnotes. The dates added to the titles are those of first publication. The original footnotes to the titles, giving bibliographic information, have been deleted, and the information is given in the headnotes.

Typographical errors have been silently corrected in the text; the note below lists them.⁶ In the headnotes, the quotations from Mill’s bibliography, the manuscript of which is a scribal copy, are also silently corrected, and superscripts lowered; again, the note below lists the corrections.⁷ While the original punctuation and spelling of each article are retained, the style has been made uniform: for example, periods are removed after £ signs, and added after abbreviations; square brackets have been made round; footnote indicators have been transposed as necessary (“*.” becomes “.*”); tables have been made uniform; and italic punctuation following italic passages has been made roman. The spelling “McCulloch” has been adopted in place of “MʿCulloch”, “MʾCulloch”, and MacCulloch”.

Also, in accordance with modern practice, all long quotations have been reduced in size, and the quotation marks removed. In consequence, it has been necessary occasionally to add square brackets around such phrases as “he says”; there is little opportunity here for confusion, as my editorial insertions in the text (except page references) are in italics. Mill’s page references, when necessary, have been normalized and silently corrected; a list of the corrections is given below.⁸ Evidence from parliamentary committees has been restyled to give prominence to Mill’s answers (they are in roman type, to distinguish them from the questions, given in italic), and to the names of the questioners (given in small capitals); the sequential numbering of the questions is omitted (the enclosing numbers are listed in the headnotes); and the marginal notes have been deleted, with the information added in footnotes.

Appendices. These pieces are taken out of the normal chronological order and appended for special reasons. Appendix A, “McCulloch’s Discourse on Political Economy,” is placed here because the extent and nature of Mill’s contribution is not known; it is otherwise treated uniformly with the main text. Appendix B, the “Petition on Free Trade,” although it appeared in a newspaper, is included because it was not written specifically for a newspaper; its form, however, suggests that it be not included in the main text. Appendix C is the examination paper for Girton mentioned above. Appendix D, a sheet asking members of the Land Tenure Reform Association to support Dilke’s Lands and Commons Bill, is here included as an example of the efforts of the Association, and because Mill may have contributed to its composition.

Appendix E, the Bibliographic Appendix, provides a guide to Mill’s quotations, with notes concerning the separate entries, and a list of substantive variants between his quotations and their sources. For easy reference, the questions asked by members of parliamentary committees are treated as quotations under individual names. Not counting these or general references to Statutes and Parliamentary Papers, Mill refers to over 150 publications in these papers, seventeen of which (in whole or part or ostensibly) he reviews, and from sixty of which he quotes. As would be expected, his most frequent citations are of Adam Smith and Ricardo, followed by those of McCulloch (especially in the early essays), Tooke, and Malthus. There are fewer references to James Mill than one might expect, and only one to Senior. Except in the “Chapters on Socialism,” Mill shows little acquaintance with socialist writings. There is some evidence of his adaptation of periodical writings for his Principles (De Quincey’s passage on snuff-boxes, mentioned by Lord Robbins, being an outstanding example), but not so much as is found in his newspaper writings. The collation with sources demonstrates further the trouble printers had with his hand, and displays his facility in translation from the French. The suppressions in quotations are of minor importance; worthy of note are his excisions of complimentary references to himself (650.n10 and 673.35) and to his father (15.28), and of uncomplimentary references to Adam Smith (27). The usual errors in Mill’s transcriptions are obvious, and it might be held that the fifteen substantive corrections in quotations from Leslie found in the version of “Leslie on the Land Question” in Dissertations and Discussions are good evidence that Helen Taylor prepared the text for Volume IV of that work.

This Appendix serves as an index to persons, books, and statutes, so references to them are omitted from the Index proper, which has been prepared by R. I. K. Davidson.

[1 ]Dissertations and Discussions, I (2nd ed., 1867), iii-iv. (For the full text of this Preface, see Essays on Ethics and Society in Collected Works.) Cf. Autobiography (New York: Columbia University Press, 1924), 128 (quoted below, p. 194), and the letter of 25 Feb., 1855, quoted in F. A. von Hayek, John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1951), 226. Because of the confusion in library catalogues and hence in scholars’ minds about the editions of Dissertations and Discussions, it may be helpful to say that the first two volumes were published in 1859 in London by Parker. In 1867 the second edition of these two volumes appeared, with the first edition of the third volume; the three volumes published by Longmans. In 1875 Longmans published the third edition of the first two volumes, with the second edition of the third volume, and the first edition of the fourth volume (which was republished in the same year in a second edition).

[2 ]Most of the variants in these essays derive from the first, not the second, republication. The second, however, as the latest to be revised by Mill, provides our copytext. Concerning the first edition of two volumes, Mill says inhis Autobiography (183): “The selection had been made during my wife’s lifetime, but the revision, in concert with her, with a view to republication, had been barely commenced [at the time of her death]; and when I had no longer the guidance of her judgment I despaired of pursuing it further, and republished the papers as they were, with the exception of striking out such passages as were no longer in accordance with my opinions.”

[3 ]The page references for these items are taken from the inked numbers in the volumes in the British Museum, which run from the beginning to the end of the volumes, rather than from the printed numbers, which apply to sections printed separately but now bound together.

[4 ]The page references are to the edition by Ney MacMinn, J. M. McCrimmon, and J. R. Hainds, Bibliography of the Published Writings of J. S. Mill (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1945), but the readings have been corrected from the manuscript in the British Library of Political and Economic Science, London School of Economics.

[5 ]A straight count of variants, which implies little in so small a sample, shows that there is an average of 10.6 variants per page in “The Currency Juggle,” where there is the highest frequency of revision, but fewer of them are significant than in “Corporation and Church Property,” where there is an average of 8.8 per page. In “The Claims of Labour” the average is only 1.6 per page. In “On the Definition of Political Economy,” which was revised for a different provenance at an earlier time, the average is 5 per page.

[6 ]Typographical errors in earlier versions are ignored. The following are corrected (with the erroneous reading first, followed by the corrected reading in square brackets):

15.17 mis-calculation [miscalculation]

40.8 said [said,]

74.3 entirel [entirely]

85.21 expence [expense]

85.23 expence [expense]

86.7 whe e [where]

88.n14 fall. [fall,]

94.49 excceding [exceeding]

96.3 obvious [obvious.]

99.18 unacompanied [unaccompanied]

106.36 446,521 [446, 521]

122.13 in in [in]

133.4 of [on]

137.10 material [materials]

146.26 64s: [64s.:]

156.17 lie [lies] [as in Source]

187.13 years, [years.]

239.16 probly [probably]

261.13 snch [such]

358.n17 prempt [prompt] [as in Source]

358.n24 prempt [prompt] [as in Source]

413.15 fnnction [function]

433.26 combine [combine.]

433.29 comanies [companies]

434.25 indisputable [indisputable.]

451.24 exacted [enacted] [as in Source]

457.20 loaal [local] [corrected in Somerville College copy]

462.3 monoplized [monopolized]

466.25 principle the [principle of the]

467.23 posessing [possessing]

488.6 (D.) [(D.).]

493.19 somemode [some mode]

496.11 an income [on income]

523.10 grain [drain]

534.2 it [its]

534.20 county [country]

536.31 amounts [amount]

538.5 hence. [hence?]

555.4 rule also [rule would also]

568.35 man [men]

575.13 think, [think]

579.36 incom frome the [income from the]

584.20 says. [says,]

587.11 or [on] [as in Source and in next quotation]

588.14 other., [other,]

604.25 écroulement [écoulement]

608.38 c’est-à dire [c’est-à-dire]

610.33 privilége [privilège]

620.26 it it will [it will]

643.17 determine [determines] [not corrected in D&D]

685.n9 i dustrial [industrial]

The following errors disappear or are altered by re-styling and setting:

17.22 consume.” [consume.’]

22.n6 value.” [value.’]

78.11 cur [cur-]

88.n9 ap [ap-]

98.6 them [them-]

98.7 prac [prac-]

113.13 be [be-]

416.13 experi [experi-] [end-of-line hyphen in present text also]

421.30-1 limitation? [limitation.]

454.22 consum [consum-]

456.4 Mr [Mr.]

493.32 pursuits? [pursuits.]

563.10 difficulties? [difficulties.]

589.17 taxation? [taxation.]

[7 ]46 The ellipsis replaces “also”, a reference to the preceding item in the bibliography (“Liberty of the Press”).

162 “MacCulloch” altered to “McCulloch” twice; “Nations.” substituted for “nations”; and the closing parenthesis supplied.

194 “In February” altered to “in February”, and “reformable” corrected to “resumable”.

230 “from news” corrected to “four new”.

342 “Torke” corrected to “Tooke”; and “2)” added to complete the entry.

364 “,” deleted after the opening bracket.

392 “De Luciney’s” corrected to “De Quincey’s”.

406 Opening quotation marks added.

440 “Neuman” corrected to “Newman”.

464 “Vol. IX” substituted for “No. ”.

600 The final word “published” is deleted, as there is no indication of how JSM would have completed the entry.

632 “June 1,” added in blank space.

[8 ]Following the reference to the text, the first reference is to JSM’s identification; the corrected identification (that which appears in the text) follows in square brackets. There is no indication of the few places where a dash has been substituted for a comma to indicate adjacent pages (e.g., where “pp. 94-5” replaces “pp. 94, 95”), or where “P.” (or “Pp.”) replaces “p.” (or “pp.”) or the reverse.

7.22 p. 31 [p. 32]

7.n7 p. 31 [pp. 31-2]

14.27 p. 53 [pp. 53-4]

19.6 p. 67 [Pp. 66-7]

29.33 p. 307 [Pp. 307-8]

32.16 p. 25 [pp. 25-6]

33.25 p. 88 [pp. 88-9]

35.34 p. 316 [pp. 315-16]

39.7 p. 322 [p. 323]

41.34 p. 330 [Pp. 329-30]

56.22 p. 61 [Pp. 61-2]

64.5 pp. 58, 60 [pp. 58-60]

65.13 p. 197 [pp. 197-8]

66.4 pp. 98-9 [pp. 198-200]

92.n18 p. 47 [pp. 47-8]

109. n1 P. 62 [p. 62n]

117.n1 p. 314 [pp. 313-14]

154.11 p. 34 [Pp. 34-5]

154.37 p. 37 [Pp. 37-8]

155.5 p. 44 [Pp. 44-5]

155.42 p. 49 [Pp. 48-9]

156.36 p. 55 [Pp. 55-6]

158.6 p. 51 [Pp. 51-3]

158.41 p. 56 [Pp. 56-7]

351.9 pp. 373-4 [pp. 273-4]

360.23 Pp. 109, 111 [Pp. 109-10, 111]

446.39 p. 11 [P. 12]

449.17 p. 109 [Pp. 109-10]

454.15 p. 323 [pp. 322-3]

616.n2 p. 11 [pp. 11-12]

642.n7 p. 69 [p. 69n]

676.n19 Pp. 41, 87 [Pp. 41, 87-8]

678.5 P. 67 [Pp. 67-9]

678.18 Pp. 18, 20 [P. 18]

678. 47 P. 39 [Pp. 39-40]

680.19 p. 207 [pp. 207-8]

681.47 P. 191 [Pp. 191-2]

684.n24 P. 52 [Pp. 52-3]

685.n19 Pp. 77-9 [Pp. 76-9]