The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Introduction
• Textual Introduction: John M. Robson
• Acknowledgments
• Essays On England, Ireland, and the Empire
• Brodie’s History of the British Empire 1824
• Ireland 1825
• The Game Laws 1826
• Intercourse Between the United States and the British Colonies In the West Indies 1828
• Notes On the Newspapers 1834
• The Close of the Session 1834
• Postscript to the London Review, No. 1. 1835
• Parliamentary Proceedings of the Session 1835
• Postscript: the Close of the Session 1835
• State of Politics In 1836 1836
• Walsh’s Contemporary History 1836
• Fonblanque’s England Under Seven Administrations 1837
• Parties and the Ministry 1837
• Radical Party and Canada: Lord Durham and the Canadians 1838
• Lord Durham and His Assailants 1838
• Lord Durham’s Return 1838
• Reorganization of the Reform Party 1839
• What Is to Be Done With Ireland? 1848?
• England and Ireland 1868
• Appendices
• Appendix a
• Appendix B
• Appendix C: Textual Emendations
• Appendix D

Textual Introduction

JOHN M. ROBSON

one of john stuart mill’s strongest claims on our attention derives from his political writings. His lifelong concern with the problems of good government produced durable analysis, description, and advice. Best known for their range and perception are his writings on political theory: Considerations on Representative Government, On Liberty, and the other major essays in Volumes XVIII and XIX of this edition, and sections of his Principles of Political Economy and System of Logic; also important are his speeches and newspaper writings, which have a preponderant political bias. A further essential source, however, for an appreciation of Mill’s political thinking is the body of material contained in this volume. These essays make clear, especially when compared with the other works, that the main tenor and focus of his writings altered about 1840. He began and remained a Radical—his speeches in the 1860s match in fervour his articles of the 1830s, and his anger over the condition of Ireland is as evident in 1868 as in 1825—but there are differences in what may simply be called breadth of approach, of subject matter, of polemic, of form, and even of provenance. In general, his approach became more theoretical, his subjects less immediate, his polemic (with marked exceptions) less evident and (almost always) less one-sided, and the form and provenance of his writings more varied. The standard—the Millian—view (which I share) would assess these changes as gains, but the earlier work is not mere apprentice labour; these essays have their place in the study of the development of a powerful and committed thinker, as well as in any history of British radicalism. Most of these matters are dealt with more fully by Joseph Hamburger in his Introduction above; of them, only the form and provenance of the writings properly occupy a textual editor—though in some places my comments, out of necessity (or wilfulness), overlap his.

All but the last two items in this volume (an unpublished manuscript and a monograph) appeared in periodicals: two in the Westminster Review during its first period, two in the short-lived Parliamentary History and Review, two (one of them the extensive series of “Notes on the Newspapers”) in the Monthly Repository, and the other eleven in the periodical Mill himself edited, the London Review (renamed the London and Westminster Review after its amalgamation with the Westminster). The first four periodical articles date from what Mill calls in the Autobiography his period of “Youthful Propagandism” in the 1820s; the first was written when he was eighteen years of age, the fourth when he was twenty-one. The others are all from the years 1834 to 1839; he was twenty-eight when he wrote the first of these, and thirty-three when he wrote the last. None of these articles—few of them are truly “reviews”—was republished by Mill, and consequently they are less known than many other of his periodical writings. Of those in the Parliamentary History and Review he says:

The concluding judgment is expanded and broadened in his Preface to Dissertations and Discussions, where he justifies his criteria in choosing essays for republication. The papers excluded, he says, “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.”² Whatever propriety this policy had at that time and for Mill’s purposes, reasons can easily be found for now disregarding it. Only a few disparate examples need here be cited to support the case implicit in Joseph Hamburger’s analysis. For instance, one gets a very partial view of Mill’s passionate and abiding concern over Irish affairs without looking at the pieces he chose not to republish: England and Ireland gives us his considered opinion late in life, but cannot show his responses to the recurrent manifestations of the “Irish Question.” Similarly, the strength of his objection to brutality against women is seen not to be spasmodic when one reads the passage from “Notes on the Newspapers” at 267 below. Light—ironically shaded—is thrown also on changes in Mill’s views by such passages as that at 159 when he heaps scorn on the notion that a “representative of the people” need “be always at his post” in the House of Commons; thirty years later he prided himself on the regularity of his own attendance.

Textual assessment of the essays is facilitated when they are considered in three groups: those of the early propagandistic period in the 1820s, those of his activism in the 1830s, and the two later pieces on Ireland.

ESSAYS OF THE 1820s

little is known of the composition of the first four essays, the subjects of which may well have been offered to Mill, or chosen by him in editorial sessions when topics were assigned to contributors to the Westminster Review and the Parliamentary History and Review. The goals, spirit, and to some extent the planning of these radical reviews are described by Mill in his Autobiography in illuminating passages, unfortunately too long to be quoted here (see CW, I, 93-103, and 119-23). To the Westminster Mill contributed thirteen articles between 1824, when the review was founded, and 1828, when he withdrew from it. The tone and content of at least the earliest of these are well illustrated in “Brodie’s History of the British Empire” (published in the issue for Oct., 1824), the first essay in this volume. It shows the strengths and weaknesses of the exacting training school of the older Philosophic Radicals. The most obvious of its sectarian marks is, in Alexander Bain’s words, “the exposure of Hume’s disingenuous artifices” in his History of England, justified in Mill’s mind because Hume’s “resplendent” reputation as a metaphysician was disguising “his moral obliquity as a historian.”³ Indeed the abuse of the Tory Hume outruns the praise of the Whig Brodie; but both abuse and praise are, as one would expect in a Radical review, attuned to the theme that the follies of the past as well as the biases of historians can be used to enlighten the present. Echoes of James Mill, whose educational experiment with his eldest child was now bearing fruit, are evident: for example, his “Government” lies behind such remarks as “If [these statesmen] had possessed undue power, they would probably, like other men, have abused it . . .” (28-9), and “That the king had no intention of resigning any power which he could safely keep, is sufficiently certain from the principles of human nature . . .” (36). As to rhetorical form, the accomplished ease of his later essays is but scantily adumbrated in his saying, for instance, that his objects in the review “may best be united by such a concise sketch of the events of the period as is compatible with the narrow limits of an article [56 pages in the present edition!]; and to this, after requesting the indulgence of the reader to the very general view which it is in our power to afford, we shall proceed” (9). The awkwardness having been admitted, however, one might well ask what grade is appropriate for such an essay by an eighteen-year-old part-time student (he had joined the East India Company as a clerk in 1823). While a comparison of the essay with Brodie’s book reveals that much of the material for which no references are given derives from Brodie, as do some of the references to other sources, there is no plagiarism here, and Mill includes matters and sources that show him going beyond Brodie and Hume: he almost certainly read Catharine Macaulay (see 23), Burnet’s Memoires (26), Laing’s History of Scotland (37), and Perrinchief (7 and 55); also, looking to other sources used in the article, James Mill’s Commonplace Books include passages from Clarendon’s History and Life, and Rushworth’s Historical Collections, as well as from Hume (in the 8-vol. London ed. of 1778)—such texts almost certainly were shared by father and son.

The second essay here included, “Ireland,” presumably written in 1825,⁴ though it appeared in the Parliamentary History and Review in 1826, shows the same marks, though it is more typical of the essays in this volume in dealing with recent parliamentary events. The Radical attack is strongly pressed, and in a manner proper to a periodical designed to exploit the weapons of Bentham’s Book of Fallacies (see, e.g., 78-9). In further echoes of James Mill’s language, we are told that the “few, in every country, are remarkable for being easily alarmed” (70), and that a “principle of human nature” is “well established” (and therefore needs no demonstration) (80). Again the exordium, with an explicit divisio, is stiff and almost graceless. But apart from the interest in the matter, the powers of organization and analysis, and again even the sheer bulk (38 pages in this edition) are impressive, especially when one realizes that in addition to his work at the India Office he was engaged then in the massive task of editing Bentham’s Rationale of Judicial Evidence, and doing much else.⁵

The other two early essays, “The Game Laws” and “Intercourse between the United States and the British Colonies in the West Indies,” merit similar comments. “The Game Laws,” like “Ireland,” centres on an immediate issue in the parliamentary session of 1825 (though much of its material derives from that of 1824, as Mill explains at 113), and undoubtedly it was written in that year. The same guiding judgments are present (see the antithesis between “the Many” and “the Few” at 102, as well as the continued attack on landowners), but with more ease than in “Ireland,” presumably because the issues were clearer and the need to comment on all verbal follies less pressing, as Bentham’s Book of Fallacies was not an explicit benchmark. Indeed the quiet wit that has been little discerned in Mill’s writings begins to show itself (perhaps because, as some of the references reveal, he had been reading Sydney Smith). The article on trade between the United States and the West Indies, written in December, 1827 (see 147n) for the Parliamentary Review of 1828, is more mature than “Ireland” in analysis and polemic; he was then more comfortable, one may infer, with general economic than with concrete political issues. The target, outlined more sharply by the use of Ricardo’s ideas, is that of his mentors, but there is evident an individuality, as he said, “a maturity, and a well-digested character.” The conclusion, for example, shows the balance and precision for which he became known:

Only a little tolerance—and that little lessened by reference to his other writings of 1827-29—is needed to accept Mill’s judgment about the effect of his editing of Bentham: “Through these influences my writing lost the jejuneness of my early compositions; the bones and cartilages began to clothe themselves with flesh, and the style became, at times, lively and almost light.”⁶

ESSAYS OF THE 1830s

mill’s conclusion to the essay on British-American trade, quoted above—“For us, if we can contribute in any degree to give the right direction to the opinions of any portion of the public on this question, we shall have effected all that we aim at, and all that is in our power”—might be taken as the theme of his political writings from 1834 to 1839. During the Reform crisis, he was, curiously, almost silent about British politics, though he wrote extensively in the Examiner about French affairs after the Revolution of 1830. But the post-Reform parliaments called forth his most sustained burst of commentary on current domestic issues.

W.J. Fox having begun in his Monthly Repository a series of short comments on topics of the day, under the title of “Notes on the Newspapers,” Mill contributed an extensive and continuous commentary from March through September, 1834—that is, covering the sitting of parliament in that year, but mentioning some non-parliamentary subjects. Francis E. Mineka says that these notes “constitute a kind of political diary, and are perhaps the best extant record of Mill’s day-to-day application of his political philosophy.”⁷ The “perhaps” can be removed, and the last clause should conclude “his political philosophy at the time,” but the comment is cogent. Mill states his attitude to the “Notes” in a letter of 2 March, 1834, to Thomas Carlyle: he wishes “to present for once at least a picture of our ‘statesmen’ and of their doings, taken from the point of view of a radical to whom yet radicalism in itself is but a small thing.”⁸ And, writing to Fox on 26 June, he says that William Adams (who also contributed to the series as “Junius Redivivus”) “will like my notes this time. . . . There is much of ‘the devil’ in them.”⁹ The devil, it is said, is a radical, and one with a strong bent for reform.

“The Close of the Session,” which appeared in the Monthly Repository coincident with the last of the “Notes,” was a summary of the progress of reform and a forecast, using the language of the “Movement” to induce acceptance of inevitable change. The trope is most evident at the close:

Mill thought at this time of founding a new review to represent what he saw as a new radicalism, more attuned to the times and to the aspirations of the younger group. His goal was achieved when the London Review appeared in April, 1835, with Mill as the real, though not the ostensible, editor; in April of the next year it amalgamated with the Westminster, and continued as the London and Westminster under Mill’s editorship and eventual proprietorship until 1840. Here Mill had an organ responsive to his will—though subject to the variable tides of popularity and the gusty winds of contributors and sub-editors—and used it to the full, supplying all or part of over thirty articles, including eleven of those reprinted in this volume. The themes are fully covered in the Introduction above, the texts present no major problems,¹⁰ and so little need here be said about these important articles. It is excusable to mention, however, the continuing pattern of fluctuating hope and frustration in them, leading finally to an abandonment of this road to reform. Mill evidently wished to remain behind the scenes as an éminence grise, but there was no one to play Richelieu to his Père Joseph: he tried to arouse Grote¹¹ and then to lead a rally round Durham,¹² but no one rose to the occasion. The Radicals in Parliament quarrelled and scattered, and Mill became a contributor to the Edinburgh Review, the old Whig instrument so excoriated by him in his first periodical article in the Westminster.¹³ His last political essay in the London and Westminster, “Reorganization of the Reform Party,” is curiously anticlimactic.¹⁴ Its running titles (see 466) provided a programme for the Radicals just as their strength was fading, and its thesis might well have expressed Mill’s aspirations at the founding of the review rather than just before he withdrew: “Radicalism has done enough in speculation; its business now is to make itself practical. Most reformers are tolerably well aware of their ends; let them turn to what they have hitherto far less attended to—how to attain them.” (468.)

LATER WORKS ON IRELAND

the pattern of mill’s life, at least as author, changed markedly after his disposing of his interest in the London and Westminster in 1840 and the completion of his System of Logic (published in 1843, but virtually finished two years earlier). Henceforth he took for the most part to a broader canvas and a more abstract style, and also chose his “sitters” less frequently from the Houses of Parliament. He did not, however, abandon immediate issues, though this volume contains only two examples of his continued political interest. That interest found its outlet in the abundance of specific illustrations in his theoretical works, in newspaper writings, in speeches, and in a few essays on subjects not immediately political: all these will be found in other volumes of the Collected Works.

The final two items in this volume both deal with Ireland, and in similar terms, but formally they are very different. “What Is to Be Done with Ireland?” is an undated manuscript, apparently unpublished, which may have been designed as a speech or a newspaper article, or perhaps as part of a longer work (the title is used in England and Ireland, 507); given Mill’s ready access to different media, there is no evident reason for its remaining unused. The manuscript, now in the Hugh Walpole Collection, the King’s School, Canterbury, was sold as part of lot 669 on 27 July, 1927, by Sothebys to Maggs for £1, at the second sale of the effects of Mary Taylor (Mill’s step-grand-daughter).¹⁵ The text, in Mill’s hand, is written recto and verso on the first four and one-quarter sides of three folios, c. 21 cm. × 34 cm., watermarked without date, now bound in green morocco. Throughout there are pencilled revisions in the hand of Harriet Taylor, who became Mill’s wife in 1851, but who assisted him with revisions at least as early as 1848, when his Principles first appeared.¹⁶ The manuscript then most certainly was written before 1858, when she died, and since discussion of it is not found in the extensive (though incomplete) correspondence between them in the mid-1850s, it is at least likely that it predates those years. No external evidence has been found, but the reference internally to the “military operations of Mr. Smith O’Brien” (499-501), which are discussed as though recent, makes a date of late 1848 very likely, as does the mention of the large and liberal English gifts of “less than two years ago” (501).

Nearly twenty years passed before, in 1867, Mill thought that the time had come “to speak out [his] whole mind” on Ireland;¹⁷ he did so in England and Ireland, published in 1868. This is the only item in this volume to have been republished by Mill; though he says it “was not popular, except in Ireland,”¹⁸ it went through four editions in 1868, and into a fifth in 1869, and was translated into French for the Journal des Economistes for the issue of March, 1868.¹⁹ In fact, the “editions” are just new impressions (one change—“these” for “those”—was made in the 2nd ed.), except for the 3rd, which incorporates a few changes, the most important of which is a footnote (516n-17n) added in reply to criticisms.

Most of what is almost certainly the first draft of England and Ireland exists in manuscript. Many of Mill’s papers and books remained after his death in his Avignon home, where he had spent about one-half of each year following his wife’s death there in 1858. When Helen Taylor, his step-daughter, who had taken over the house, returned finally to England in 1905, the papers were sorted by Mary Taylor, her niece, and a friend of hers; some were sent (or taken back) to England by Mary Taylor, and the rest were either burnt or given for sale to the Avignon bookseller, Roumanille. The manuscript of England and Ireland must have been mistakenly divided at that time, the larger portion remaining in Avignon, where it was bought as part of a parcel by Professor G.H. Palmer, who gave the collection to Harvard (catalogued in the Houghton Library as MS Eng 1105). A smaller fragment appears to have been returned to England, where it was sold at Sothebys in the first sale of Mary Taylor’s effects on 29 March, 1822, as part of lot 730 (“With various unfinished MSS. in the hand of J.S. Mill”) to Maggs for £2. 8s. (On the verso of the second folio, in what appears to be Helen Taylor’s hand, is “Unimp.”) The rest of the manuscript seems not to be extant, perhaps having been burnt at Avignon or (since the missing sheets contained the beginning and conclusion) given away to friends. The manuscript is written in ink on unwatermarked blue French paper, c. 40 cm. × 26 cm. folded to make 20 cm. × 26 cm. folios, which are inscribed recto. Mill numbered only the first folio of each pair: the Harvard portion consists of the sheets numbered by Mill as 3, and 6 through 11; the Yale portion (following directly on) is sheet number 12 (the draft almost certainly concluded with a few lines on sheet number 13). The text of the draft is printed as Appendix A below, keyed to that of the 5th ed. (the copy-text for this edition). The revisions, typical of Mill, show an attempt to attain precision and force. The polemic, ars artium, is less evident than in the apprentice essays in this volume, but is still very strong, as Mill justifies radical action by criticizing weak policy.

In sum, these essays from all three periods add detail to our picture of one whose life, in his own as in our estimation, centred on public issues: we see here more of his strong immediate reaction to politics than we do in his more theoretical writings. We also have material for an enriched assessment of nineteenth-century political questions in these reactions of an acute and engaged mind. Since Mill was in his earlier years a member of a distinct group, indeed one of its spokesmen (sometimes self-appointed), and that group reveals many characteristics of young radical sectarians, there is matter here useful for analysis of the development, cohesion, and dissolution of such groups. The main interest, however, lies in the revelation of a powerful theoretic intellect struggling with the rhetoric of practical politics, analyzing, accusing, prodding, proclaiming, persuading, not always with success or balance by the standards of his time or ours, but never with stupidity or dullness.

TEXTUAL PRINCIPLES AND METHODS

as throughout the Collected Works, the copy-text for each item is that of the final version supervised by Mill;²⁰ in this volume, however, there is but a single version for all of the essays except England and Ireland, where the fifth edition provides the copy-text. In one case, “What Is to Be Done with Ireland?”, never before published, the copy-text is the MS, described above. Details concerning each text, including the descriptions in Mill’s own list of his published writings,²¹ are given in the headnotes to each item. Running titles from the periodical articles have, when necessary, been used as titles.²²

Textual notes. The method of indicating substantive variants in the Collected Works, though designed for more elaborate revisions, is used in England and Ireland for the few changes Mill made, only one of which is extensive. Five of the lesser ones involve the substitution of a word or words; in these cases the final words in the copy-text are enclosed in superscript italic letters, and a footnote gives the editions in which the earlier version appeared, with its wording. E.g., at 516 the text gives “^binterfere^b” and the note reads “^b-b68¹,68² prevent”; the interpretation is that in 68¹ (1st ed., 1868) and 68² (2nd ed., 1868) “prevent” appears where “interfere” appears in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th eds. In one case (516^c-c) the footnote reads “^c-c+68³,68⁴,69”; this means that “of”, the word in the text bracketed by^c-c, was added in 68³ (3rd ed., 1868), and retained in 68⁴ (4th ed., 1868) and 69 (5th ed., 1869). The most significant change is the addition of a long footnote (516n-17n); this is signalled by the insertion, at the beginning of the note, in square brackets, of “[68³]”, indicating that the footnote first appeared in the 3rd ed.

The MS of “What Is to Be Done with Ireland?” shows only current revisions by Mill, with the cancellations and interlineations indicating minor syntactic and semantic second thoughts. The MS makes evident, however, as mentioned above, that Harriet Taylor, as was normal practice for them, read the MS and suggested changes. These are recorded in footnotes, using the system of superscripts described above, with one further kind to indicate an addition: see 499^k, where the single superscript in the text, centred between “would” and “be” indicates that an additional word or words (in this case, as the footnote shows, “perhaps”) had been proposed.

The other MS represented in this volume, the early draft of England and Ireland, shows signs only of current revisions by Mill. (It was written after his wife’s death.) Although (as the discussion above indicates) there was little time between the writing of this draft and the publication of the 1st ed., the extensive differences between the two suggest that Mill, as usual, wrote another complete version, which probably served as press-copy. The nature as well as the extent of the changes makes it impracticable to employ our usual method of indicating substantive variants in footnotes; therefore the MS has been printed in full as Appendix A, keyed to show parallel passages, additions, omissions, and reordering, by using superscript Greek letters (to avoid confusing these with the variants among the printed texts), with editorial explanations in square brackets. Non-substantive variants, such as changes in spelling, hyphenation, and punctuation, are not indicated.

Textual liberties. In editing the MSS, end-of-line punctuation has been silently added when the sense requires, and (except in Appendix A) the ampersand has been printed as “and”. In both printed texts and MSS, superscripts in abbreviations have been lowered, and (for consistency) periods supplied after such abbreviations as “Mr.” References to monarchs have been altered to the standard form (e.g., from “Charles the first” to “Charles I”). In the two early essays from the Westminster initial capitals have been added to titles of position and status, and to institutional and party names, for consistency (neither Mill nor the Westminster later used the lower-case forms) and to avoid confusion. Dashes are deleted when combined with other punctuation before quotations and references, and italic punctuation closing italic passages has been made roman. Indications of ellipsis have been normalized to three dots plus, if needed, terminal punctuation. One authorial headnote has been made into a footnote (168), and one editorial footnote in the Monthly Repository deleted.²³ The positioning of footnote indicators has been normalized so that they appear after adjacent punctuation marks; in some cases, for consistency, references or footnote indicators have been moved to the end of passages. All long quotations are given in reduced type and (when necessary) the quotation marks have been removed; consequently, square brackets have occasionally been added around Mill’s words in those quotations, but there is little reason for confusion, as there are no editorial insertions except added references. Double quotation marks are used throughout, and titles of works originally published separately are given in italics. For consistency, in one place (10) round brackets have been substituted for square to enclose a reference; in another (261), square for round, to enclose an authorial intervention. The nineteenth-century practice of printing names of signators in small capitals has not been followed.

Typographical errors and some anomalies have been emended; Appendix C lists them. Mill’s references to sources, and additional editorial references, are normalized. When necessary, his references have been emended; a list of the alterations is given in the note below.²⁴

Appendix D is a Bibliographic Index, listing the persons and works cited and referred to by Mill. These references are consequently omitted in the analytic Index, which has been prepared by Dr. Maureen Clarke.

[1 ]Autobiography, CW, I, 121-3.

[2 ]Appendix A, CW, X, 493.

[3 ]Alexander Bain, John Stuart Mill (London: Longmans, 1882), 34. For a later attack on Hume by Mill see “Bentham,” CW, X, 80q-q; this attack, penned in 1838, was deleted by Mill in the reprinted version of 1859.

[4 ]The parliamentary events covered occurred in the first half of 1825, and in Mill’s list of his own writings the article is mentioned before “The Game Laws,” which appeared in the Westminster for January, 1826.

[5 ]For a summary, see CW, I, xii-xiii.

[6 ]Autobiography, CW, I, 119.

[7 ]The Dissidence of Dissent: The Monthly Repository, 1806-1838 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1944), 280. For ease of reference, the titles of the “Notes” are listed in Appendix B below. The Note for 1 Mar., 1834, appeared in the Monthly Repository, as it does in our text, after that for 5 Mar. (see 181-3, and 178-81).

[8 ]EL, CW, XII, 218. Again the last clause needs qualification: it is true that Mill had begun to re-assess his radicalism, but the sentiment and the language are designed to please the letter’s recipient.

[9 ]Ibid., 227. For other references to the “Notes on the Newspapers,” see ibid., 213, 215.

[10 ]It should be noted that “Radical Party and Canada: Lord Durham and the Canadians” is sometimes referred to by critics as “Radical Party in Canada,” an evident misnomer arising from a typographical error in the running titles of some copies; the second part of the title here used derives from the running titles of the conclusion of the article and the table of contents of the bound volume. “Lord Durham’s Return” has proved elusive for many students because it appeared only in the second edition of the London and Westminster for August, 1838.

[11 ]See 314n below.

[12 ]See 405-64 below.

[13 ]“Periodical Literature: Edinburgh Review,” CW, I, 291-325.

[14 ]This was his only contribution in 1839; his last essay before handing over the periodical in 1840 was his valedictory “Coleridge.”

[15 ]The lot (subsequently sold, evidently intact, to the bookseller James Tregaskis) included Mill’s twenty-five pages of notes sent to George Grote concerning his Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates, the manuscripts of his speech to the Education League and of his main election speech of 1865, six letters, and portraits.

[16 ]Her revisions are recorded in our text, according to principles described on lxiii below.

[17 ]Autobiography, CW, I, 280. He had, of course, been expressing his opinions forcibly for two years in the House of Commons. Indeed his first speech in the Commons, which has generally been thought to have been disappointing because of its delivery, offended more because of its apparent extremism on the Irish question.

[18 ]Ibid. The first two editions appeared in February, 1868 (each 1500 copies), the third in April (250 copies), the fourth in May (250 copies), and the fifth in October, 1869 (250 copies). The fifth was reissued in April, 1870 (again 250 copies). (Information from the Longman Archive, Reading University.) A sixth edition appeared in 1881.

[19 ]Vol. IX (15 Mar., 1868), 421-49. See LL, CW, XVI, 1384-5.

[20 ]The argument for this practice is given in my “Principles and Methods in the Collected Edition of John Stuart Mill,” in Editing Nineteenth-Century Texts, ed. John M. Robson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967), 96-122.

[21 ]Ed. Ney MacMinn, J.R. Hainds, and J.M. McCrimmon, Bibliography of the Published Writings of J.S. Mill (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1945). Entries from this work, based on the MS, which is a scribal copy, are given in the headnotes to each item, with the following emendations (scribal reading, followed by the emended reading in square brackets):

60.4 Parlamentary [Parliamentary]

282.2 “the [‘The]

320.4 entituled [entitled]

320.4 1836, [1836,’]

320.5 —Progress [—‘Progress]

350.5 Administrators [Administrations]

382.11 entituled [entitled]

382.11 Review” [Review]

466.12 Reorganization [‘Reorganization]

One possible emendation has not been made, because the wording may reflect Mill’s indecision: “Reorganization of the Reform Party” (the left-hand running title) is given in the bibliography as “Reorganization of the Radical Party.”

[22 ]To avoid confusion with either “The Close of the Session” (Monthly Repository, Sept., 1834) and “Postscript” (London Review, Apr., 1835), the article for October, 1835, in the London Review, which is identified simply as “Close of the Session” in Mill’s bibliography and in the running titles, has been given as title the full heading, “Postscript: The Close of the Session.” For simplicity, the heading, “State of Politics in 1836” (also used in Mill’s bibliography), is used as title for the article of April, 1836. The title “Radical Party and Canada: Lord Durham and the Canadians” is explained at lix n above.

[23 ]The “Notes on the Newspapers” for April, 1834, were divided into two sections; the first concluded (at the end of the note, “The Trades’ Unions,” 191) with a note, “For the remainder of the Notes on the Newspapers, see page 309.” This reference is, of course, unnecessary in the present edition.

[24 ]The reference in the copy-text is followed by the emended reference in square brackets. Not indicated are changes from commas to hyphens joining adjacent pages, the replacement of “P.” or “Pp.” by “p.” or “pp.” (or the reverse), or the addition or deletion of the volume number from the reference.

6.32-3 110 [110n-14n], 263 [263n-4n], 265 [265n], 306 [306n-8n], 316 [136n], 334 [334n-5n], 336 [336n], 389 [389n], 552 [551n-4n]

14n.2-3 90 [77-8, 90-1]

45n.2 310 [310n]

73n.6 104 [104-5]

81n.2 170 [169]

88n.7 435-6 [436-7]

88n.11 290 [280]

93n.4 233 [733] [here and in the next nine places listed, JSM was using a version with different pagination]

96.35 54, 55 [554-5]

96.35 79 [579]

96.36 109 [609]

96.36 [131, 132], 159, 163, [165], 179 [[631-2], 659, 663, [665], 679]

96.37 134, [137], 139 [634, [637], 639]

97.1 204 [704]

97.1 219 [719]

97.2 228, 229, 230, 231 [728-31]

97.2 [233, 234] [[733-4

97n.9 270 [270-1]

103n.1 22 [22-3] [reference moved in this ed.]

103n.2 6 [6-7] [reference moved in this ed.]

104.41 26 [26-7] [reference moved in this ed.]

110n.1 7 [7-8] [reference moved in this ed.]

110n.5 14 [14-15] [reference moved in this ed.]

112n.2 26 [26-7] [reference moved in this ed.]

123n.3 867 [21-51] [here and in the next two places listed, JSM was using versions with different pagination]

126n.1 7 [31]

129.23 27 [51]

140n.3 287-8 [288-9]

339.10 33 [33-4]

341.8 78 [78-9]

346.16 56 [56-7]

357.5 237-239 [237-41]

361.34 vol. 1. pp. 168, 169, 171 [Vol. II, pp. 168-71.]

361.42 234 [234-5]

361n.2 265 [265-72]

361.44 299 [299-308]

370.4 147, 148 [146-8]

372.20 182-186 [182-5]]]