Front Page Titles (by Subject) 1812–1830 - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XII - The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill 1812-1848 Part I
Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XII - The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill 1812-1848 Part I
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
1812–1830 - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XII - The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill 1812-1848 Part I 
The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XII - The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill 1812-1848 Part I, ed. Francis E. Mineka, Introduction by F.A. Hayek (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963).
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The online edition of the Collected Works is published under licence from the copyright holder, The University of Toronto Press. ©2006 The University of Toronto Press. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form or medium without the permission of The University of Toronto Press.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
TO JEREMY BENTHAM1
[July 28, 1812]2
My dear Sir,
Mr. Walker3 is a very intimate friend of mine, who lives at No. 31 in Berkeley Square. I have engaged him, as he is soon coming here, first to go to your house, and get for me the 3.d and 4.th volumes of Hooke’s Roman history.4 But I am recapitulating5 the 1.st and 2.d volumes, having finished them all except a few pages of the 2.d. I will be glad if you will let him have the 3.d and 4.th volumes.
I am yours sincerely
John Stuart Mill.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED FRIEND OF THE FAMILY1
September 13, 1814
I have arrived at Ford Abbey without any accident, and am now safely settled there. We are all in good health, except that I have been ill of slight fever for several days, but am now perfectly recovered.
It is time to give you a description of the Abbey.2 There is a little hall and a long cloister, which are reckoned very fine architecture, from the door, and likewise two beautiful rooms, a dining-parlour and a breakfast-parlour adorned with fine drawings within one door; on another side is a large hall, adorned with a gilt ceiling; and beyond it two other rooms, a dining and drawing-room, of which the former contains various kinds of musical instruments, and the other is hung with beautiful tapestry.
To this house there are many staircases. The first of them has little remarkable up it, but that three rooms are hung with tapestry, of which one contains a velvet bed, and is therefore called the velvet room. The looking-glass belonging to this room is decorated with nun’s lace.
Up another staircase is a large saloon, hung with admirable tapestry, as also a small library. From this saloon issues a long range of rooms, of which one is fitted up in the Chinese style, and another is hung with silk. There is a little further on a room, which, it is said, was once a nursery; though the old farmer Glyde, who lives hard by, called out his sons to hear the novelty of a child crying in the Abbey! which had not happened for the whole time he had lived here, being near thirty years. Down a staircase from here is a long range of bedrooms, generally called the Monks’ Walk. From it is a staircase leading into the cloisters. The rest of the house is not worth mentioning. If I was to mention the whole it would tire you exceedingly, as this house is in reality so large that the eight rooms on one floor of the wing which we inhabit, which make not one-quarter of even that floor of the whole house, are as many as all the rooms in your house, and considerably larger.
I have been to the parish church which is at Thornecomb. Mr. Hume3 has been here a great while. Mr. Koe4 came the other day, and Admiral Chietekoff5 is expected. Willie6 and I have had rides in Mr. Hume’s curricle.
[He goes on to say—] What has been omitted here will be found in a journal which I am writing of this and last year’s journeys. [He then incontinently plunges again into descriptive particulars about the fish-ponds, the river Axe, the deer-parks, the walks, and Bentham’s improvements.]
TO MRS. HARRIET BURROW1
Ford Abbey, Oct. 27th 1817
I write to you now, as both my Sisters are writing, and there is not likely to be another parcel going to town for a great while.
I have very little news to tell you: Willie has informed you of the accident which has happened to James’s2 eye. Willie, Harriet,3 and Clara,4 have begun music: and you learn from Willie’s and Clara’s letters, this also. Willie and Clara are ready to begin the first lesson: Harriet has not finished the treble notes.
The rainy weather has at length set in here, after an exceedingly dry autumn. I am however very glad to say, that no rain now can do any injury to the crop, which is almost all in.
We are still learning to write. How much Willie and Clara have improved you will know by reading their letters.
I hope that all my aunts and uncles are very well. I did not know that I had a new little cousin, till Willie saw it in the paper. I believe my Mother has written to you a very long letter: and I suppose that she has told you all the little news that we have: so that I have very little to tell you: moreover, I had only two days notice to write four letters: or else I would probably have written more.
We are all in very good health, except little Jane,5 who has got a little cough. I had lately the tooth-ache very bad. I hope that you are also in very good health.
Since we were here, there has been a groping in the pond for eels. Mr. Bragg’s two sons went into the mud, (after almost all the water had been let out) and groped with their hands for eels. Those caught were, many of them, very large ones. A number of trout, caught in the river, were afterwards put in that pond.
All of us send our love to you and all our other relations, and our good friends. I am,
Your affectionate Grandson
John Stuart Mill
TO SIR SAMUEL BENTHAM1
Acton Place, Hoxton, July 30, 1819
My dear Sir,
It is so long since I last had the pleasure of seeing you that I have almost forgotten when it was, but I believe it was in the year 1814, the first year we were at Ford Abbey. I am very much obliged to you for your inquiries with respect to my progress in my studies; and as nearly as I can remember I will endeavour to give an account of them from that year.
In the year 1814, I read Thucydides, and Anacreon, and I believe the Electra of Sophocles, the Phœnissæ of Euripides, and the Plutus and the Clouds of Aristophanes. I also read the Philippics of Demosthenes.
The Latin which I read was only the Oration of Cicero for the Poet Archias, and the (first or last) part of his pleading against Verres. And in Mathematics, I was then reading Euclid; I also began Euler’s Algebra, Bonnycastle’s principally for the sake of the examples to perform. I read likewise some of West’s Geometry.
Æt. 9.—The Greek which I read in the year 1815 was, I think, Homer’s Odyssey. Theocritus, some of Pindar, and the two Orations of Æschines, and Demosthenes on the Crown. In Latin I read the six first books, I believe, of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, the five first books of Livy, the Bucolics, and the six first books of the Æneid of Virgil, and part of Cicero’s Orations. In Mathematics, after finishing the first six books, with the eleventh and twelfth of Euclid, and the Geometry of West, I studied Simpson’s Conic Sections and also West’s Conic Sections, Mensuration and Spherics; and in Algebra, Kersey’s Algebra, and Newton’s Universal Arithmetic, in which I performed all the problems without the book, and most of them without any help from the book.
Æt. 10.—In the year 1816 I read the following Greek: Part of Polybius, all Xenophon’s Hellenics, The Ajax and the Philoctetes of Sophocles, the Medea of Euripides, and the Frogs of Aristophanes, and great part of the Anthologia Græca. In Latin I read all Horace, except the Book of Epodes; and in Mathematics I read Stewart’s Propositiones Geometricæ, Playfair’s Trigonometry at the end of his Euclid, and an article on geometry in the Edinburgh Encyclopædia. I also studied Simpson’s Algebra.
Æt. 11.—In the year 1817 I read Thucydides a second time, and I likewise read a great many Orations of Demosthenes and all Aristotle’s Rhetoric, of which I made a synoptic table. In Latin I read all Lucretius, except the last book, and Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, his Topica, and his treatise, De Partitione Oratoria. I read in Conic Sections an article in the Encyclopædia Britannica (in other branches of the mathematics I studied Euler’s Analysis of Infinities and began Fluxions, on which I read an article in the Encyclopædia Britannica), and Simpson’s Fluxions. In the application of mathematics I read Keill’s Astronomy and Robinson’s Mechanical Philosophy.
Æt. 12.—Last year I read some more of Demosthenes, and the four first Books of Aristotle’s Organon, all which I tabulated in the same manner as his Rhetoric.
In Latin, I read all the works of Tacitus, except the dialogue concerning oratory, and great part of Juvenal, and began Quintilian. In Mathematics and their application, I read Emerson’s Optics, and a Treatise on Trigonometry by Professor Wallace, of the Military College, near Bagshot, intended for the use of the cadets. I likewise re-solved several problems in various branches of mathematics; and began an article on Fluxions in the Edinburgh Encyclopædia.
Æt. 13.—This year I read Plato’s dialogues called Gorgias and Protagoras, and his Republic, of which I made an abstract. I am still reading Quintilian and the article on Fluxions, and am performing without book the problems in Simpson’s Select Exercises.
Last year I began to learn logic. I have read several Latin books of Logic: those of Smith, Brerewood, and Du Trieu,2 and part of Burgersdicius, as far as I have gone in Aristotle. I have also read Hobbes’ Logic.
I am now learning political economy. I have made a kind of treatise from what my father has explained to me on that subject,3 and I am now reading Mr. Ricardo’s work4 and writing an abstract of it. I have learnt a little natural philosophy, and, having had an opportunity of attending a course of lectures on chemistry, delivered by Mr. Phillips, at the Royal Military College, Bagshot,5 I have applied myself particularly to that science, and have read the last edition of Dr. Thomson’s system of chemistry.
What English I have read since the year 1814 I cannot tell you, for I cannot remember so long ago. But I recollect that since that time I have read Ferguson’s Roman and Mitford’s Grecian History. I have also read a great deal of Livy by myself. I have sometimes tried my hand at writing history. I had carried a history of the United Provinces from their revolt from Spain, in the reign of Phillip II., to the accession of the Stadtholder, William III., to the throne of England.
I had likewise begun to write a history of the Roman Government, which I had carried down to the Licinian Laws. I should have begun to learn French before this time, but that my father has for a long time had it in contemplation to go to the Continent, there to reside for some time.6 But as we are hindered from going by my father’s late appointment in the East India House,7 I shall begin to learn French as soon as my sisters have made progress enough in Latin to learn with me.
I have now and then attempted to write Poetry. The last production of that kind at which I tried my hand was a tragedy. I have now another in view in which I hope to correct the fault of this.
I believe my sister Willie was reading Cornelius Nepos when you saw her. She has since that time read some of Cæsar; almost all Phædrus, all the Catiline and part of the Jugurtha of Sallust, and two plays of Terence; she has read the first, and part of the second book of Lucretius, and is now reading the Eclogues of Virgil.
Clara has begun Latin also. After going through the grammar, she read some of Cornelius Nepos and Cæsar, almost as much as Willie of Sallust, and is now reading Ovid. They are both now tolerably good arithmeticians; they have gone as far as the extraction of the cube root. They are reading the Roman Antiquities and the Greek Mythology, and are translating English into Latin from Mair’s Introduction to Latin Syntax.
This is to the best of my remembrance a true account of my own and my sisters’ progress since the year 1814.
I hope Lady Bentham, and George,8 and the young ladies are in good health.
Your obedient, humble servant,
John Stuart Mill.
To Sir Saml. Bentham.
TO SARAH AUSTIN1
Montpellier2 17 Janv. 1821
Je n’ai reçu que depuis deux jours la lettre dont vous avez bien voulu m’honorer. Croyez, Madame, à ma réconnaissance de tout ce qu’elle contient: réconnaissance qui aurait été grande, si vous aviez écrit sous de meilleures auspices: jugez donc combien elle doit l’être dans le cas actuel. J’avoue que je ne suis point digne de cet effort que vous avez fait pour m’écrire: puisque deux ou trois lignes à la fin d’une lettre à mon père sont tout ce que vous avez eu de ma part, depuis que j’ai quitté l’Angleterre. Je vous prie de vouloir bien pardonner ma negligence, et recevoir cette lettre en expiation de ma faute. Puisque vous lisez toutes mes lettres à mon père, il est inutile que je vous raconte la manière dont je m’occupe ici: la lettre qui accompagne celle-ci vous donnera tous les renseignemens là dessus que vous pouvez désirer. Il ne me reste donc plus qu’à vous remercier des bons conseils que vous me donnez: ne doutez pas qu’ils ne produisent tout l’effet que vous souhaitez.
Le cours publics que je suis dans ce moment ne termineront pas encore de quelque temps. Le professeur de Logique3 ne fait guère que d’entrer dans son sujet: le professeur de Zoologie4 n’a fait encore que douze leçons. Il est cependant probable que si les cours durent encore longtems, je n’en attende pas la fin: Je partirai d’ici au milieu du mois prochain, pour retourner à Paris. J’aurai donc l’honneur de vous revoir avant qu’il soit longtems: J’espère que nous aurons l’occasion de causer ensemble sur toutes les choses dont vous parlez, et sur beaucoup d’autres dont je n’ai pas la place ni le tems de vous entretenir momentanément. Ce sera alors que j’aurai l’honneur de vous assurer moi même de ma reconnaissance, non seulement de l’interêt que vous prenez à tout ce qui m’arrive, mais de la bonté avec laquelle vous vous êtes donner la peine de soigner l’éducation de mes sœurs: Je ne sais si elles sentent toute l’étendue de cette bonté, mais je vous assure que je la sens, et que je ne manquerai pas de vous en remercier, à mon retour, de vive voix. — Je suis très fâché que vous ne jouissiez pas d’une santé pareille à mes vœux: J’espère qu’elle vous sera bientôt rendue. Veuillez bien, assurez Mr votre époux de mes sentimens de réconnaissance pour lui; et croyez, Madame, que je serai toujours,
Votre serviteur très obligé
J. S. Mill
Pardonnez mon embrouillomanie.
TO JAMES MILL1
25 Avril 1821
Mon cher père,
Je vous écris cette lettre de Paris, où je suis arrivé hier, après un heureux voyage. Vous voyez que mon départ a été un peu retardé, presque de jour en jour, mais je n’ai pas la place de vous donner des détails: ce sera pour la prochaine lettre que je ne tarderai pas à vous envoyez. Il y a long tems que je ne vous ai rien ecrit. Ce n’est pas qu’il me manquait de la matière, mais il y a bien près d’un mois que je devais partir incessamment de Montpellier, par consequent pour diminuer le post, je n’ai pas voulu pas ecrire avant mon arrivée ici. J’aurai encore de quoi remplir deux longues lettres pour ramener le journal à la date de la présente. Je vous les enverrai de suite.
J’apprends par vos deux lettres à M. Say,2 qu’il a eu l’extreme complaisance de me communiquer, qu’il est décidé que j’irai passer quelque tems à Caen. Je suis bien convaincu que vous avez formé cette determination après avoir bien pesé le pour et le contre: et c’est certainement vous êtes le plus capable d’en juger. Cependant malgré le respect que je dois à M. Lowe,3 et les bontés qu’il a pour moi, je ne vous cache pas que je suis fâché d’aller chez lui en revenant de chez M. Bentham, et cela principalement parceque je vois bien que cela fait de la peine à toute la famille. Ne croyez pas qu’ils soient guidés par l’amour propre, mais leur plus grand desir était toujours que je revinsse chez vous aussitôt que je les eusse quittés pourque vous puissiez juger des instructions qu’ils ont eu la bonté de me donner, et savoir si leurs idées cadrent avec les vôtres. Ce n’est pas le sentiment d’un seul d’entre eux mais de toute la famille; et je ne puis que me féliciter qu’ils n’aient pas su d’abord que je devais aller ailleurs que chez vous après les avoir quittés: car s’ils l’avaient su je suis persuadé qu’ils ne se seraient jamais donnés tant de peine pour mon instruction—Je ne puis plus ecrire; croyez que je serai toujours
votre dévoué et obéissant fils
J. S. Mill
TO JAMES MILL1
[The letter begins with a short account of his studies. He read Blackstone (with Mr. Austin) three or four hours daily, and a portion of Bentham’s “Introduction” (I suppose the “Morals and Legislation”) in the evening.] I have found time to write the defence of Pericles3 in answer to the accusation which you have with you. I have also found some time to practise the delivery of the accusation, according to your directions. [Then follows an account of a visit of ten days with the Austins to the town of Yarmouth, with a description of the place itself. The larger part of the letter is on the politics of Norwich, where “the Cause” (Liberal) prospers ill, being still worse at Yarmouth. He has seen of Radicals many; of clear-headed men not one. The best is Sir Thomas Beever,4 whom he wishes to be induced to come to London and see his father and Mr. Grote.5 At Yarmouth he has dined with Radical Palmer,6 who had opened the borough to the Whigs; not much better than a mere Radical.] I have been much entertained by a sermon of Mr. Madge,7 admirable as against Calvinists and Catholics, but the weakness of which as against anybody else, I think he himself must have felt. [The concluding part of the letter should have been a postscript—]
I wish I had nothing else to tell you, but I must inform you that I have lost my watch. It was lost while I was out of doors, but it is impossible that it should have been stolen from my pocket. It must therefore be my own fault. The loss itself (though I am conscious that I must remain without a watch till I can buy one for myself) is to me not great—much less so than my carelessness deserves. It must, however, vex you—and deservedly, from the bad sign which it affords of me.
TO MR. AND MRS. GEORGE GROTE1
Q[ueen] S[quare] 14 Novr. 1822
My dear Sir and Madam,
I crave pardon for addressing you jointly. It is a liberty for which, like a true lawyer, I have two reasons, a technical and a rational one. My technical reason (for confirmation of which vide Blackstone) is that baron and feme are one person in law. My utilitarian reason is that to do otherwise might imply that I failed of rendering to one of you, the tribute of gratitude which your friendship so justly deserves at my hands.
I have little news to tell you, save that which regards the Util. Soc.2 On this subject my father still preserves the most profound silence. (I am sure that I shall often remind you of the pleasure with which I anticipate its meetings, by the life-and-death style in which I speak and write about it). The unsettled state of mind in which Alfred3 has been, and is still kept, from the uncertainty of his destination, has prevented him from giving any attention to the thing: and I have great fears that in the event of his being able to enter into it at all he will still have too little time to read and to study hard on Utilitarian subjects. Still I have great hopes of him, but I have greater hopes of R. Doane,4 who as I see, is very much in earnest about the thing, who has read my father’s Pol. Ec.5 with great attention as a preparative. He has also made considerable progress in writing his introductory essay; and I will venture to prophecy, from what I know of him by his conversation and by the application which he shows, nothwithstanding his want of encouragement, that he will be an active and useful member, and will profit by the Society, as well as that he will be a source of profit to all the other members.—I have not seen Mr. W. Prescott6 since I saw you last, but it is unnecessary that I should see him till Alfred’s fate is decided. As for myself, I have not only completed Jug True,7 but have commenced writing for the Util. Rev.8 and I hope that, on your return, the Defence of Pericles,9 which is now undergoing a transmutation from a highly illegible to a tolerably legible state, will undo all the impression which the accusation may have made on your mind. (A propos, pardon this scrawl).
You who interest yourself so strongly in favour of M. Berchet,10 will be delighted with Santa Rosa:11 who grows every day in the good opinion of all the Utilitarians who see him. I hope to see him play a conspicuous role in your society: both for his own sake, and for yours.
ERRATUM in your letter. For STERN MORALIST read DESPONDING PHILANTHROPIST. It is the more appropriate appellation. The other I do not think at all correct.
J. S. Mill
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
As Graham2 is unable to walk tomorrow we had better perhaps postpone our walk to next Sunday.
Very truly yours
J. S. Mill
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
If you have any influence with Thwaites,2 you will oblige me greatly by exercising it in favour of a gentleman of the name of Taylor3 who is about to appear for the first time as a public singer, at the Concert at Covent Garden or Drury Lane (I forget which) on Wednesday. I could tell you much about Mr Taylor which would interest you very strongly in his behalf, but this I reserve till I see you. I believe his qualifications to be of a very high order, but he does not ask to be praised, he is only anxious that if he should sink, he may sink quietly, without being treated with severity or with ridicule.
Very truly yours
J. S. Mill
I should say perhaps that I write to you not at his request but at that of his relations who are my very particular f[riends].4
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
Being engaged to breakfast with McCulloch2 tomorrow, I cannot walk before breakfast—but if the weather should be sufficiently fine to tempt you out I shall hope to meet with you chez Graham at eleven: Elliott3 has been informed.
I hope you are not the “young law student of Lyon’s Inn” whose chère amie tried to throw herself into the Thames yesterday?
yours most truly
J. S. Mill
P.S. What is the reason that you lawyers always have pens with nibs an inch wide?
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
Graham is absolutely engaged tomorrow, & I am conditionally so. I have therefore agreed with Grant2 not to walk tomorrow unless Elliott comes, which I understand is not probable—But if you think he will come, pray come yourself and I shall be ready to join you.
Very truly yours
J. S. Mill
TO JEREMY BENTHAM1
[ca. April 24, 1827]
I certainly did not understand you to have expressed any desire that my name should be in the title page. Nevertheless, if you positively require it, I am willing that it should be so,2 rather than that you should imagine I had taken less pains with the work under the idea of its being (so far as I am concerned) anonymous. But I confess I should greatly prefer that my name should be omitted. That the work should be benefited by it is out of the question. I myself might be benefited inasmuch as it would prove that you thought me worthy to be the editor of a work of yours. But on the other hand very little of the labour which I have bestowed upon the book appears on the face of it, or can be known to any one who was not acquainted with the MS.3 If my name were annexed to it people would think that I wished to make a parade either of your good opinion [of]4 me, or of the few notes which I have added.5 The notes are not of sufficient value to make it of any consequence to the public to know who wrote them—I should be very sorry to be suspected of wishing to obtain a reputation at a cheap rate by appearing before the public under the shelter of your name.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
Tooke2 cannot come this evening—therefore I must beg you to defer your visit till further notice—Tuesday & Friday next he is disengaged, therefore I hope you will also keep yourself at liberty for one of those days—I cannot yet answer for myself.
J. S. Mill
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
Tooke will be with me tonight.
J. S. Mill
TO ARTHUR AYLMER1
[Nov. 27, 1827]
London Debating Society
The half yearly subscription2 for September last being now due, you are requested to forward it, with all arrears of former subscriptions, to my address.
I am, Sir
|J Ms and Sisters|
|Studies since 1814|
|15 years old|
|24 May 1821|
Sir Samuel Bentham (1757-1831), younger brother of Jeremy, naval architect and engineer, rose to the rank of brigadier general in the service of Russia; in England, was Inspector General of Navy Works, 1795-1807, and Commissioner of the Navy, 1807-12. After retirement he bought an estate in the south of France. This letter may have served to pave the way for Sir Samuel’s invitation to JSM to come to France for an extended residence in 1820-21. Its account of his studies should be compared with that in his Autobiography.
[2. ]Seven years later JSM and the friends associated with him in the study club that met at George Grote’s home in Threadneedle Street reprinted Du Trieu’s work (see Autobiog., p. 85): Philippus Du Trieu, Manuductio ad Logicam; sive Dialectica Studiosae Juventuti ad Logicam Praeparandae. Ab Editione Oxoniensi anni 1662 Recusa. Londini, typis B. M’Millan, 1826. A copy of this rare reprint is at the University of Chicago; another is at Somerville College, Oxford.
[3. ]JSM’s first instruction in the subject was given to him by his father during their walks (Autobiog., p. 19): “He expounded each day a portion of the subject, and I gave him next day a written account of it, which he made me rewrite over and over again until it was clear, precise, and tolerably complete. . . . The written outline of it which resulted from my daily compte rendu served him afterwards as notes from which to write his Elements of Political Economy.”
[4. ]David Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (London, 1817); James Mill played a major part in the production of this work, for it was undertaken by his reluctant friend only after Mill’s persistent insistence.
Ricardo seems to have been genuinely interested in JSM’s development, invited the boy to his home, and on the very day (Sept. 5, 1823) when he was stricken with his fatal illness addressed to James Mill an extended criticism of a paper by JSM on the measure of value (Works of David Ricardo, IX, 385-87).
[5. ]For an account of this experience and of the impression made by JSM at the College, see his father’s letter to Ricardo, Oct. 26, 1818 (Works of David Ricardo, VII, 313-14). Ricardo in reply commented on JSM’s retired education and noted the boy’s “need of that collision which is obtained only in society, and by which a knowledge of the world and its manners is best acquired” (ibid., p. 326).
[6. ]That James Mill had talked with his friends about moving his family to France as early as the autumn of 1814 may be seen in a letter from Edward Wakefield to Francis Place, Nov. 27, 1814 (Brit. Mus. Add. MSS 35,152, ff. 114-15). On Sept. 6, 1815, James Mill wrote to Francis Place to encourage the latter to join him in moving to the Continent: “I foresee nothing there which would make it uncomfortable for us to reside as soon as we please. Assure yourself that the French people will soon be very quiet & contented slaves, & the despotism of the Bourbons a quiet, gentle despotism. There I may live cheap—my children will acquire a familiarity with the language & with the manners & character of a new people. When they have enough of this we shall remove into Germany, till the same effects are accomplished, & after that if we please, we may go to Italy. We shall then return accomplished people, and, men & women of us, I hope, able to do something for the cause of mankind. We shall, at any rate, have plenty of knowledge; the habit of living upon little; & a passion for the improvement of the condition of mankind” (Brit. Mus. Add. MSS 35,152, ff. 160-64).
[7. ]He was appointed on May 12, 1819, as Assistant to the Examiner of India Correspondence at a salary of £800. Rising by fairly rapid steps, he became head of the office, with the rank of Examiner, on Dec. 1, 1830. JSM was appointed a junior clerk in the office on May 21, 1823.
[8. ]George Bentham (1800-1884), son of Sir Samuel, became one of the most distinguished of nineteenth-century botanists.
[1. ]Addressed: A / Madame Austin. MS at King’s.
Sarah Austin, née Taylor (1793-1867), translator and miscellaneous writer. She married John Austin (1790-1859), later known as a writer on jurisprudence, in 1819. Their first home was in Queen Square, in close proximity to the homes of Jeremy Bentham and James Mill. JSM quickly grew fond of the Austins, and they were close friends for many years. JSM studied German with Mrs. Austin, and in 1821-22 Roman law with her husband. As a young man JSM often greeted her in his letters as “Dear Mütterlein,” but in later life he criticized her severely (The Early Draft of John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, ed. Jack Stillinger [Urbana, 1961], pp. 147-48).
[2. ]JSM was the guest of Sir Samuel Bentham and family from June, 1820, to June, 1821, first at Sir Samuel’s château in the valley of the Garonne, then at an apartment in Toulouse. In the fall, after an extended tour of the Pyrenees, the Benthams took him to a new estate which they had purchased near Montpellier. For about six months JSM attended courses in the Faculté des Sciences in the local university. A manuscript letter-journal addressed to his father and covering approximately the first six months of his stay in France is in the British Museum (Add. MSS 31,909). Professor Anna Jean Mill has recently published most of this journal as well as portions of a contemporary notebook of JSM which is in her possession: John Mill’s Boyhood Visit to France (Toronto, 1960).
[3. ]One M. Gergonne, “a very accomplished representative of the eighteenth century metaphysics” (JSM, Autobiog., chap. ii). Identified by Professor Mill as Joseph Diez Gergonne (1771-1859), professor of astronomy and Dean of the Academy at Montpellier. An exercise book containing JSM’s notes on Gergonne’s lectures on logic is at LSE. Professor Mill prints the text of the notes on the 19th lecture (John Mill’s Boyhood Visit to France, pp. 110-15). Another notebook, entitled by JSM, “Traite de Logique / redigé d’après le cours de Philosophie / de M. Gergonne / Doyen de la Faculté des Sciences / de l’Academie de Montpellier / avec des Notes / par J. Mill,” is in the Pierpont Morgan Library.
[4. ]Professor Mill identifies him as Jean Michel Provençal.
[1. ]Original not located. Text from copy contained in unpublished letter of Jeremy Bentham to Sir Samuel Bentham, in Brit. Mus., Add. MSS 33,545, f. 516.
[2. ]Jean Baptiste Say (1767-1832), prominent French economist. In 1814 Say had visited England and through James Mill had been introduced to Ricardo and Bentham. JSM was a guest in Say’s home for a time in 1820. (See Works of David Ricardo, VI, xxv.)
[3. ]Joseph Lowe, a Scottish friend of James Mill and a writer on statistical subjects, who had emigrated to Caen in 1814.
[1. ]Published in Bain, JSM, pp. 27-28. MS not located. The portions in brackets are Bain’s summary.
[2. ]According to Bain, the letter was undated, but written while on a visit to Norwich with the Austins. The approximate date, however, can be inferred from the reference to the composition of the defence of Pericles here and in the succeeding letter.
[3. ]In his Autobiog. (pp. 50-51) JSM records that after he wrote his first argumentative essay in the summer of 1822 his father recommended that his next exercise in composition should be of the oratorical kind: “Availing myself of my familiarity with Greek history and ideas and with the Athenian orators, I wrote two speeches, one an accusation, the other a defence of Pericles, on a supposed impeachment for not marching out to fight the Lacedemonians on their invasion of Attica.”
[4. ]A mis-spelling of the name of Sir Thomas Branthwayt Beevor (1798-1879), a Norfolk squire who became a supporter of William Cobbett.
[5. ]See Letter 8, n. 1.
[6. ]Presumably Nathaniel Palmer (1779-1854), solicitor. The Examiner for Jan. 20 and May 19, 1822, in reports of Norfolk County meetings on Jan. 12 and May 11, 1822, respectively, summarized portions of the remarks by Mr. N. Palmer of Yarmouth, attacking the Tory ministry.
[7. ]Rev. Thomas Madge (1786-1870), co-pastor of Octagon Chapel (Unitarian), Norwich, 1811-25; minister of Essex Street Chapel, Strand, London, 1825-60.
[1. ]MS in the possession of Mr. E. F. Buxton, Fairbridge, Tonhill, Kent, in 1944.
George Grote (1794-1871), banker, MP (1832-41), and historian of Greece, was introduced to James Mill by David Ricardo in 1819and soon became an intimate of the Bentham-Mill circle. He and his wife Harriet (née Lewin) frequently entertained many of the Benthamite group in their home over the banking establishment in Threadneedle Street. Except for some later periods of estrangement from Mrs. Grote, JSM was a lifelong associate of the couple.
[2. ]The Utilitarian Society, the first of the study and discussion groups with which JSM was associated (Autobiog., p. 56). The Society at first consisted of only three members, Richard Doane, W. G. Prescott, and JSM. Later members included Eyton Tooke, William Ellis, George J. Graham, and J. A. Roebuck.
[3. ]Identification uncertain. Possibly Alfred Say, son of the French economist, J. B. Say.
[4. ]Richard Doane, then an amanuensis to Jeremy Bentham. It was he who secured permission for the Society to meet in Bentham’s house. Doane was called to the bar of the Inner Temple in 1830, and practised in the courts until his death on Feb. 8, 1848.
[5. ]Elements of Political Economy (London, 1821).
[6. ]William George Prescott (1800-1865), then junior partner in the banking firm of Grote, Prescott, & Co.
[7. ]The reference is obscure, but may be to his lost “reply to Paley’s Natural Theology” (Early Draft, ed. Stillinger, p. 79). Bentham and his friends often denominated Christianity as Jug (shortened form of Juggernaut).
[8. ]Possibly the plans for the Society included the establishment of such a review, but the reference is more probably to the long-projected Benthamite organ which eventually materialized in Jan., 1824, as the Westminster Review.
[9. ]See preceding letter, n. 3.
[10. ]Probably Giovanni Berchet, Italian poet and patriot then a refugee in England, rather than Ambrogio Berchet, likewise an Italian refugee. See M. C. W. Wicks, The Italian Exiles in London, 1816-1848 (Manchester, 1937).
[11. ]Santorre Annibale de Rossi de Pomarolo, Count of Santarosa (1783-1825), Italian patriot, who had arrived in London in early Oct., 1822, after having been denied further refuge in France. Santarosa was an especial favourite of Sarah Austin. See ibid., and Gordon Waterfield, Lucie Duff Gordon (London, 1937), p. 36.
[1. ]Addressed: Edwin Chadwick Esq / 9 Lyon’s Inn. Postmark: 8 MORN 8 / 19 FE / 1827. MS at UCL.
Edwin (later Sir Edwin) Chadwick (1800-1890), sanitary reformer. At this time, a law student and journalist; secretary to Jeremy Bentham, 1831-32; member of various Poor Law, factory, and sanitary commissions. A lifelong friend and correspondent of JSM.
[2. ]George John Graham (1801-1888), a member of JSM’s Utilitarian Society; in 1838 became Registrar General of Births and Deaths.
[1. ]Addressed: Edwin Chadwick Esq. / 9 Lyon’s Inn. Postmark: 2.A.NOON / MR26 / 1827 and T.P. / Lombard St. Paper watermarked 1818. MS at UCL.
[2. ]The proprietor of the Morning Herald, for whom Chadwick had worked as a reporter.
[3. ]Edward Taylor (1784-1863), after having failed in business, was at this time embarking upon a career in music, in which he achieved distinction. From 1837 to 1863 he was Gresham Professor of Music, Gresham College, London. His performance on March 28, 1827, at Covent Garden was favourably reviewed in the Morning Chronicle on March 29. JSM had probably become acquainted with the Taylor family of Norwich through John Austin and his wife Sarah (Taylor) Austin.
[4. ]Corner torn off.
[1. ]Addressed: Edwin Chadwick Esq. MS at UCL. Published in S. E. Finer, The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London, 1952), p. 11, but dated 1824. The date is established by the event recorded in the second paragraph. The Times on April 12, 1827, p. 3, reported the attempted suicide of one Mary Ann Jones, who had been “cohabiting with a young law student of Lyon’s Inn.”
[2. ]John Ramsay McCulloch (1789-1864), economist.
[3. ]Thomas Frederick Elliot (1808-1880), nephew of the first Earl of Minto, and later Permanent Assistant Under-Secretary for the Colonies, 1849-68.
[1. ]Addressed: Edwin Chadwick Esq. / 9 Lyon’s Inn. MS at UCL.
[2. ]Horace Grant (1800-1859), a colleague of JSM in the Examiner’s office at the India House, 1826-45.
[1. ]MS at Yale. Draft of letter on sheet used first to cover letter of another person addressed to “J. Bentham Esq. / 2 Queen Square Place / Westminster” and then to cover a note addressed “John S. Mill Esq.” It is endorsed in JSM’s hand “Notes from Mr. Bentham respecting the publication of my name as editor of his Rationale of Evidence” and has a label attached, “Notes from Mr. Bentham 1827 to 1830. No. 1.” Published in part in Packe, p. 73.
Yale also has three letters by Bentham on this matter, to one of which this is evidently an answer.
It is matter of no small surprise to me to see the title page without your name to it. Nothing could be more clearly understood between us than that it should be there. I do not say that the word title page was used on that occasion—but such was the meaning. If what you have done has been written under a different impression, so much the worse for me—and if the book be good for any thing, for the [world?] at large.
J. S. Mill Esq.
My dear John
Your name is of far too great importance to the work to be omitted in the title page to it.
J. S. Mill Esq.
My substituted title I suppose you have. / If you have not you will let me know.
[2. ]Bentham accepted JSM’s reluctantly given consent:
If you know not what that means send to the Booksellers for a Hebrew Dictionary.
J. S. Mill Esq.
P.S. Name at the end of the Preface
[3. ]JSM had begun in late 1824 or early 1825 preparing the Rationale of Judicial Evidence for publication. “Mr. Bentham had begun the treatise three times, at considerable intervals, each time in a different manner, and each time without reference to the preceding. . . . These three masses of manuscript it was my business to condense into a single treatise.” (Autobiog., p. 80.) He had also to make Bentham’s involved style readable, and to supply “any lacunae which he had left.” The work was published in 1827 in five volumes, with a Preface signed John S. Mill. For JSM’s later attitude to this work, see Letter 226, esp. n. 2.
[4. ]Page torn.
[5. ]The word “added” is crossed out but the word substituted for it, which may have been “appended,” is mostly torn away.
[1. ]Addressed: Edwin Chadwick Esq. / 9 Lyon’s Inn. Paper watermarked 1825. MS at UCL.
[2. ]William Eyton Tooke (1808-1830), son of the economist Thomas Tooke (1774-1858) and one of JSM’s closest friends. His suicide in 1830 (see Letter 29) deeply affected JSM.
[1. ]Watermark: 18[25?]. Paper appears identical with that of preceding letter. MS at UCL.
[1. ]Addressed: Arthur Aylmer Esq / 41 Great Russel [sic] Street / Bloomsbury. Postmarks: ??? / ??? / 1827; 2ANOON2 / 27NO / 1827; ?ANOON? / 28[?]NO / 1827; and ??? / 27 NO / ??? On outside in another hand: “Turn Over” “Gone away not known where / T Redbourn / R T [?] Summers [?]” MS at LSE; a page of JSM’s “Speech on the Church” (published in Autobiography by JSM, with an Appendix of Hitherto Unpublished Speeches, ed. Harold J. Laski [London, 1924], pp. 310-25) is written on verso. Actually a form letter in another hand; JSM filled in “September,” his signature and address, and wrote the address on the outside.
Aylmer has not been identified.
Early Draft, ed. Stillinger (pp. 112-15) contains a somewhat fuller account of the founding and early years of the London Debating Society than does Autobiog.
[2. ]Ten shillings.
[1. ]Addressed: Edwin Chadwick Esq. / 9 Lyon’s Inn. Postmark: 2A. NOON / DE 22 182[7?]. MS at UCL.
[2. ]John Arthur Roebuck (1801-1879), politician. At this time a law student, he had first been introduced to JSM at the India House by Thomas Love Peacock about 1824. For some years Roebuck, George John Graham, and JSM (the “Trijackia” they called themselves) were very close friends. The cause of the ultimate break between JSM and Roebuck in the 1830’s was probably Roebuck’s disapproval of JSM’s attachment to Mrs. John Taylor.
[1. ]Addressed: W. H. Ferrell Esq / 22 Hatton Garden. Postmarks: 12 NOON 12 / 14 JA / 1828 and 10FNOON10 / JA 15 / 1828. On outside in another hand: “Gone away not known where—G [?]. Ellis / E. Midzoth” [?] obscured by postmark. MS at LSE; the last page of JSM’s “Speech on the Church” is written across the outside of the letter; across the letter itself is written: “write to Bowring.” Like Letters 16, 21, and 23, this is a form letter; JSM filled in the amount of arrears (“£1”), his signature and address, and wrote the address on the outside.
Ferrell has not been identified.
[1. ]Addressed: A Monsieur / Monsieur Comte / Rue Richer / à Paris / France. Postmarks: Angleterre, and Janvier / 28 / 1828. MS at LSE.
François Charles Louis Comte (1782-1837), liberal political writer, son-in-law of the economist J. B. Say.
[2. ]Published as “Scott’s Life of Napoleon,” WR, IX (April, 1828), 251-313.
[3. ]Histoire de la Garde nationale de Paris . . . (Paris, 1827).
[4. ]MS torn.
[5. ]F. A. M. Mignet, Histoire de la Révolution française de 1789 à 1814 (Paris, 1824; London, 1826). JSM had reviewed it with high praise in WR, V (April, 1826), 385-98.
[6. ]François Emmanuel, vicomte de Toulongeon, Histoire de France depuis la Révolution de 1789 . . . (Paris, 1801-10).
[1. ]Addressed: John Bowring Esq. / 4 Highbury Park. Postmark: EVEN. 4 / MAR 10 / 1828. MS at LSE. Published with one omission in Packe, p. 65.
John Bowring (1792-1872), linguist, writer, and later statesman, had been editor of the Westminster Review since its inception in 1824. He was a close associate of Jeremy Bentham and became his literary executor.
[2. ]George Bentham published An Outline of a New System of Logic in 1827.
[3. ]Jeremy Bentham, George’s uncle.
[4. ]Richard Whately (1787-1863), then Principal of St. Alban’s Hall, Oxford, and later (1831) made Archbishop of Dublin, had published his Elements of Logic in 1826.
[5. ]No such review by JSM appeared in the Westminster.
[1. ]Addressed: Benjamin Keen Esq. / 1 Pump Court / Temple. Postmarks: 7. NIGHT.7/23.AP/1828 and 10.F.NOON.10/AP.25/1828. Endorsed: [Neither direction nor signature is legible] / T. Forth. MS at LSE; written on the verso of a page of the debating speech published by Laski as “Notes of my Speech against Sterling” (Autobiog. ed. Harold J. Laski, pp. 300-309). A form letter in another hand, except for details filled in by JSM, as in Letters 16 and 18.
Keen has not been identified.
[1. ]Addressed: A Monsieur / Monsieur Comte. MS at LSE.
[2. ]See Letter 19, n. 2.
[3. ]Possibly Félix Bodin (1795-1837), journalist and historian.
[4. ]Victor Jacquemont (1801-1832), naturalist and traveller. Presumably JSM met him in London, where he consulted with British authorities and the East India Company before sailing for India in the summer of 1828.
[1. ]Addressed: Archibald Thomson Esq. / 17 Mitre Court Buildings / Temple. Postmarks: ?? ??? ?? / 26 NO / 1828 and ??VEN / NO 27 / 1828 and T.P. / BdWay We?r. Endorsed: Gone abroad. [Two illegible signatures]. MS at LSE; written on the verso of a page of the debating speech published as “Notes of my Speech against Sterling” (Autobiog., ed. Harold J. Laski, pp. 300-309). A form letter in another hand, except for details filled in by JSM, as in Letters 16, 18, and 21.
Neither Thomson has been identified.
[1. ]Addressed: A Monsieur / M. Gustave d’Eichthal / à Paris. Draft (incomplete) at LSE. MS at Arsenal. Published, with minor errors, in Cosmopolis, VI, 22-25, and in D’Eichthal Corresp.
Gustave d’Eichthal (1804-1886), son of a rich Jewish banking family, first became acquainted with the writings of Henri Saint-Simon through his mathematics teacher, Auguste Comte. D’Eichthal on a visit to England first saw JSM on May 30, 1828, when he accompanied Eyton Tooke to a meeting of the London Debating Society at which JSM spoke. D’Eichthal became a close friend of JSM, his chief contact with the Saint-Simonians, and a lifelong correspondent.
[2. ]Adolphe d’Eichthal, younger brother of Gustave.
[3. ]The first report of the council of the recently established University had been made on Oct. 30, 1826. Other early reports and statements by the Council are listed in H. H. Bellot, University College, London, 1826-1926 (London, 1929), App. I, pp. 429-30.
[4. ]Leonard Horner (1785-1864), geologist and educator, was Warden of London University, 1827-31.
[5. ]D’Eichthal’s projected book on England was never completed. His son, Eugène d’Eichthal, later published some of the notes he had taken for the book: “Condition de la classe ouvrière en Angleterre (1828),” in Revue historique, LXXIX (May, 1902), 63-95.
[6. ]This was a division on the first reading of the Catholic Emancipation bill in the early morning hours of Saturday, March 6. Final passage of the bill in the House of Commons came on March 30, and in the House of Lords on April 10; royal assent was granted on April 13, 1829.
[7. ]Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland (1771-1851), fifth son of George III, had long been strongly opposed to any relaxation of the Catholic penal laws.
[8. ]John Scott, first Earl of Eldon (1751-1838), jurist, was twice Lord Chancellor.
[9. ]John Singleton Copley, Baron Lyndhurst (1772-1863), had succeeded Eldon as Lord Chancellor in 1827.
[10. ]Sir Robert Peel (1788-1850), long an opponent of Catholic Emancipation, but convinced that the country was determined to have it, in March 1829 introduced the bill for granting the measure.
[11. ]Henry Addington, first Viscount Sidmouth (1757-1844), Tory politician.
[1. ]Published in Elliot, I, 1-3. MS at King’s. The date has been pencilled in in a different hand. Paper bears 1827watermark.
John Sterling (1806-1844), son of Edward Sterling (1773-1847), the “Thunderer” of The Times, though a writer of some merit, is best known as the subject of Thomas Carlyle’s finest biography. After leaving Cambridge in 1827, he was associated with his college friend, Frederick Denison Maurice, in the editing of the Athenæum, July-Dec., 1828. Disciples of S. T. Coleridge, he and Maurice joined the London Debating Society “as a second Liberal and even Radical party, on totally different grounds from Benthamism and vehemently opposed to it” (JSM, Autobiog., p. 90). In two debates devoted to discussing the respective merits of Wordsworth and Byron, JSM allied himself for the first time with Sterling and the Coleridge-Wordsworthians. (See Karl Britton, “J. S. Mill: A Debating Speech on Wordsworth, 1829,” Cambridge Review, LXXIX [March 8, 1958], 418-23.) This was the beginning of the intimate friendship with Sterling, to whom JSM later said he had been more attached than he had ever been to any other man (Autobiog., p. 108). Sterling likewise testified to the value of the friendship: in a letter to his son, July 29, 1844, he wrote, “My intimacy with him [JSM] has been one of the great fortunes of my life,—though hardly—I suppose were ever two creatures more unlike than he & I” (Tuell, John Sterling, p. 69).
The occasion of this letter was Sterling’s resignation from the London Debating Society. In the first draft of his Autobiography (see Early Draft, ed. Stillinger, p. 133) JSM attributed Sterling’s resignation to an especially sharp exchange between the two of them in a debate involving their political philosophy. The resignation was followed, however, by the development of an even closer personal friendship than had previously existed. The earliest extant letter of Sterling to JSM, March 31, 1830 (King’s), is concerned with seeking JSM’s advice on assisting the Spanish rebels.
[2. ]This seems to be the only reference in an extant letter to JSM’s soul-crisis, which had its onset in the winter of 1826-27 and which is discussed in Autobiog., chap. v. Similar later disturbances, however, are mentioned in letters to Carlyle, e.g. Letter 72.
[3. ]The thought of the quotation is characteristically Ciceronian, though it has not been possible to find in Cicero’s writings a statement worded precisely in JSM’s phrasing. Cf. Cicero, De Amicitia, iv, 15; De Officiis, I, xvi, 51; and Oratio Pro Cnæo Plancio, ii, 5.
[4. ]Cf. Idem velle atque nolle, ea demum firma amicitia est (“An identity of likes and dislikes is after all the only basis of friendship”), Sallust, Bellum Catilinae, xx, 15. Cf. also this passage: “A question was started, how far people who disagree in a capital point can live in friendship together. Johnson said they might. Goldsmith said they could not, as they had not the same idem velle atque idem nolle—the same likings and the same aversions.” (James Boswell, Life of Samuel Johnson, ed. J. W. Croker [London, 1839], III, 218.)
[1. ]Addressed: A Monsieur / M. Gustave d’Eichthal. MS at Arsenal. Published in part in Cosmopolis, VI, 25-28, and in D’Eichthal Corresp., pp. 7-12.
[2. ]Eyton Tooke also corresponded with D’Eichthal; some of his letters are in D’Eichthal Corresp.
[3. ]See Letter 24, n. 6.
[4. ]An extensive debate on the subject had taken place in the House of Commons on April 13 and 14.
[5. ]English policy was in opposition to the reactionary King Miguel I, who had usurped the throne of Portugal. His young niece Maria, the legitimate Queen, was at this time in England. The Methuen Treaty had been in force since 1703. By it and a similar arrangement with Spain, Portuguese and Spanish wines had long been admitted into England at a much lower duty than French wines.
[6. ]England and France were both deeply concerned in the Russo-Turkish War of 1828-29, and later this year both participated in a settlement of it which also guaranteed the independence of Greece.
[7. ]See Letter 24, n. 5.
[8. ]Achille Léonce Victor Charles, duc de Broglie (1785-1870), liberal statesman.
[9. ]The Society, which Thomas Love Peacock nicknamed the “Steam Intellect Society,” had been founded in 1826 under the leadership of Henry Brougham to publish in inexpensive editions works on science, history, economics, ethics, and philosophy. For a good brief account of the Society’s activities, see R. K. Webb, The British Working Class Reader, 1790-1848 (London, 1955), pp. 66-73.
[10. ]Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon (1760-1825), founder of the school of French socialist thought which was to be the subject of many of JSM’s letters during the next three years. For studies of his connections with the movement, see Emery Neff, Carlyle and Mill (New York, 1926); Richard K. P. Pankhurst, The Saint Simonians, Mill and Carlyle (London, ); and the unpublished Columbia University doctoral dissertation by Dwight N. Lindley, “The Saint-Simonians, Carlyle, and Mill” (1958), available from University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Mich. The best modern study of Saint-Simon is Frank E. Manuel’s The New World of Henri Saint-Simon (Cambridge, Mass., 1956).
[11. ]Auguste Comte (1798-1857), pioneer sociologist and founder of positivism, with whom JSM conducted an extensive correspondence between 1841 and 1847 (see Letters 334 ff.), though the two never met. In 1828 D’Eichthal had sent JSM a copy of Système de politique positive, which Comte had written while still a disciple of Saint-Simon and which formed the Troisième cahier du Catéchisme des Industriels (1823).
[12. ]The question had been discussed in the House of Commons on May 7, and on May 14 Lord Darnley presented a petition in the House of Lords for the extension of the English Poor Laws to Ireland in a modified form.
[1. ]Addressed: A Monsieur / M. Gustave d’Eichthal / à Paris. MS at Arsenal. Published, with minor errors, in Cosmopolis, VI, 28-32, and in D’Eichthal Corresp., pp. 13-21.
[2. ]A periodical (Oct., 1825-Dec., 1826) established after the death of Saint-Simon by his disciples, edited for the first six months as a weekly by a M. Cerclet and thereafter as a monthly by Barthélemy Prosper Enfantin.
[3. ]By various writers, including Saint-Simon, Léon Halévy, Dr. Joseph Bailly, and Charles Duveyrier, Paris, 1825.
[4. ]Evidently Comte’s Système de politique positive. See Letter 26, n. 11.
[5. ]This passage should be read in the light of Macaulay’s slashing criticism of James Mill in three successive numbers (March, June, and Oct., 1829) of the Edinburgh Review, a criticism which is also reflected in JSM’s Logic, VI, vii and viii. See also Autobiog., pp. 110-13.
[6. ]The closest approximation to this criticism of Condillac that the present editor has been able to find is in the third lecture of Victor Cousin’s Cours de l’histoire de la philosophie: Histoire de la philosophie du XVIIIe siècle (2 vols., Paris, 1829).
[7. ]See Letter 24, n. 5.
[8. ]Victor Lanjuinais (1802-1869), economist and liberal politician.
[1. ]Addressed: A Monsieur / M. Gustave d’Eichthal / à Paris. MS at Arsenal. Published, with errors and omissions, in Cosmopolis, VI, 32-38, and in D’Eichthal Corresp., pp. 22-34. D’Eichthal’s answer appears in the latter volume, pp. 39-68.
[2. ]See preceding letter, n. 8.
[3. ]Nothing came of this projected newspaper.
[4. ]See preceding letter, n. 2.
[5. ]Dugald Stewart (1753-1828), Scottish philosopher. His Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind appeared in three volumes between 1792 and 1827.
[1. ]Addressed: A Monsieur / Monsieur Gustave d’Eichthal / Place des Victoires No 5 / à Paris. Postmarks: Fevrier/15/1830/ and F/11-4. MS at Arsenal. Published, with minor errors and omissions, in Cosmopolis, VI, 348-55, and in D’Eichthal Corresp., pp. 117-30. The latter work also includes the last letter of Eyton Tooke to D’Eichthal (pp. 90-110) and D’Eichthal’s letter of Feb. 3 to JSM on Tooke’s death (pp. 111-16).
[2. ]Eyton Tooke committed suicide on Jan. 27, 1830. For a notice of the inquest, see Examiner, Jan. 31, 1830, p. 76. Henry Solly in These Eighty Years (London, 1893), I, 134-38, attributes Tooke’s derangement to what Tooke mistakenly thought was an unrequited love for Solly’s sister. See also, however, Letter 117.
[3. ]Thomas Tooke, the father of Eyton.
[4. ]In D’Eichthal’s letter of Feb. 3, 1830, to JSM. See n. 1 above.
[5. ]Evidently Tooke’s letter of Jan. 19, 1830. See n. 1.
[6. ]D’Eichthal’s letter of Nov. 23, 1829 (D’Eichthal Corresp., pp. 39-68) rather than his letter of Dec. 1, 1829 (ibid., pp. 69-89).
[7. ]Robert Owen (1771-1858), wealthy manufacturer and pioneer socialist, sponsor of various communal experiments in both England and America, author of A New View of Society (1813-14). For JSM’s account of his and his friends’ debates with Owenites in 1825, see Autobiog., pp. 86-88.
[1. ]MS at Arsenal.
[2. ]William Ellery Channing (1780-1842), Unitarian clergyman and writer. One may conclude from Tooke’s remarks in his last letter to D’Eichthal, Jan. 19, 1830 (D’Eichthal Corresp., p. 106), that the pamphlet must have been the reprint of a Christian Examiner article of Channing’s: Remarks on the Disposition which now prevails to form Associations, and to accomplish all objects by organized masses (London: Edward Rainford, 1830). Collected editions of Channing’s works usually reprint it with the title: “Remarks on Associations.” It contains interesting anticipations of some of JSM’s views in On Liberty, particularly on the values of individuality and the dangers of the tyranny of society.
[3. ]William Burns, author of The New Era of Christianity; or, its influence on the moral regeneration of society (London, 1831). See Pankhurst, p. 43.
[1. ]MS at Kew.
For earlier evidence of what became JSM’s lifelong interest in botany see John Mill’s Boyhood Visit to France, ed. Anna Jean Mill. Over the years he contributed many notes to the Phytologist (see MacMinn, Bibliog.). A number of his notebooks containing botanical observations are in the Mill-Taylor Collection of LSE.
Henry (later Sir Henry) Cole (1808-1882), official and editor, was later a member of many commissions dealing with public exhibitions. He first became acquainted with JSM in the London Debating Society and in the summer of 1832 accompanied him on a walking tour.
[2. ]Sir William Jackson Hooker (1785-1865), botanist and director of Kew Gardens.
[3. ]The British Flora (London, 1830).
[4. ]John Ray (1627-1705), sometimes called the father of natural history in England.
[5. ]William Curtis (1746-1799), botanist and entomologist. An edition in five volumes of his Flora Londinensis, enlarged by G. Graves and W. J. Hooker, is dated London, 1777-1828.
[1. ]Addressed: Mrs John Austin / 26 Park Road. Sealed by a red seal, bearing the letters JSM. MS in the possession of Mr. Gordon Waterfield.
[2. ]When the University of London opened in 1828, John Austin, who had been appointed in 1827 to the chair of jurisprudence and the law of nations, was unable because of ill health to lecture in the first session. He began his lectures in the fall of 1829 to a large class of able students. Though an eloquent, profound, and original lecturer, he did not continue to attract students, because of his passion for accuracy and elaboration. In Nov., 1830, so few students registered that he postponed beginning the course until Jan., 1831, when eight students enrolled. He persevered for two more years but gave up lecturing after June, 1833, though he did not resign his chair untilJan., 1835. See Bellot, University College, pp. 96-102. Eventually JSM contributed part of his notes on Austin’s lectures to fill a lacuna in the MS when they were published in full.
[3. ]Thomas Brown (1778-1820), professor of moral philosophy at Edinburgh and a highly popular lecturer. The reference here is to his Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind (4 vols., Edinburgh, 1820).
[4. ]Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), judge, first professor of English law at Oxford, author of the famous and influential Commentaries on the Laws of England (4 vols., Oxford, 1765-69).
JSM is here in the Benthamite tradition in criticizing Blackstone; Bentham’s first sizable book, A Fragment on Government (1776), was an attack on the Commentaries.
[1. ]Published in part in Bain, JSM, pp. 41-42. MS not located. The portion in brackets is Bain’s summary.
JSM seems to have arrived in Paris during the week of Aug. 8; he remained until the first week of Sept. The Revolution had arisen swiftly after the publication on July 26 of reactionary ordinances which violated the Charter of 1815 by suppressing the liberty of the press, dissolving the recently elected chambers, and proclaiming a new electoral law. By July 30 the Revolution was in effect completed when Charles X revoked the new ordinances. On July 31 the Duke of Orleans, Louis Philippe, was proclaimed Lieutenant General of the kingdom, and on Aug. 2 Charles abdicated. Louis Philippe was formally offered the throne on Aug. 7, and took the oath of office as King of the French on Aug. 9.
[2. ]Probably Jean Baptiste Say rather than his son Horace Emile Say (1794-1860), also an economist.
[3. ]André Marie Jean Jacques Dupin (1783-1865), called Dupin aîné, a cautious participant in the overthrow of Charles X, was too much attached to the cause of Louis Philippe to suit the republicans.
[4. ]Jacques Charles Dupont (de l’Eure) (1767-1855), liberal statesman, member of the Chamber of Deputies from 1817 to 1848. He was appointed Minister of Justice by the new government, but after struggling in vain against the reactionary tendencies of the new dynasty, resigned his post before the end of the year.
[5. ]Louis Adolphe Thiers (1797-1877), historian and statesman, then virtually at the beginning of his long political career, which culminated in the Presidency, 1871-73. In Jan., 1830, with Armand Carrel and François Mignet he had founded the National newspaper, which supported the liberal opposition to Charles X’s government. He favoured constitutional monarchy rather than a republic, however, and played a major role in publicizing and advancing the claims of Louis Philippe to the throne.
[6. ]Aide-toi, le ciel t’aidera, a political society formed during the Restoration to combat reaction and foster liberal ideas. Among its members were Barrot, Béranger, Carrel, Duchâtel, Guizot, Lafayette father and son, and J. B. Say. See also Letter 36.
[1. ]Published, but with no identification of authorship, in the Examiner, Aug. 29, 1830, p. 547, as one of three letters on the “State of the Public Mind and of Affairs at Paris.” A prefatory note was appended: “We have been favoured with copies of the following letters from two gentlemen, whose knowledge, ability, and exalted principles, induce us to attach great value to all their opinions and statements. The importance of the subject matters treated in the letters, and the close insight they give us of the state of affairs at Paris, have induced us to insert them entire, though we thus somewhat transgress the space usually allotted for political disquisition.”
The two gentlemen were undoubtedly John Arthur Roebuck and JSM. Evidence for this identification may be found in the present editor’s article, “JSM: Letters on the French Revolution of 1830,” Victorian Studies, I (Dec., 1957), 137-54. The MS has not been located.
[2. ]Louis Gaspard Amédée Girod (de l’Ain) (1781-1847), Orleanist politician, under the new government Prefect of Police in Paris from Aug. 1 to Nov., 1830. His speech to the workers referred to was made on Aug. 16.
[3. ]Jacques Laffitte (1767-1844), financier and statesman. His house in Paris had been virtual headquarters of the moderates who gained control of the Revolution. Although one of the leaders in the movement to place the Duke of Orleans on the throne, he was within a year bitterly regretting that action. On Nov. 3, 1830, he became President of the Council of Ministers but in March, 1831, he was ignominiously ousted.
[4. ]The aged Lafayette (he was seventy-three), who assumed command of the National Guard, was the one leader of the liberal forces who by his tremendous prestige and popularity might have been able to establish a republic. Though his sympathies were republican, he was gradually persuaded to accept as then safer for France what he hoped would be a “popular throne, in the name of the national sovereignty, surrounded by republican institutions.” His public acceptance of Louis Philippe on the balcony of the Hotel de Ville on July 31 ended the hopes of the republicans and clinched the throne for Louis Philippe. In the following Dec., Lafayette, having served his purpose for the King, was ousted from the command of the National Guard. His son, Georges Washington Motier de Lafayette (1779-1849), a member of the Chamber of Deputies, had been away from Paris during the “Three Days” of the Revolution, but returned on Aug. 1.
[5. ]Benjamin Constant de Rebecque (1767-1830), influential writer and liberal politician. Lafayette had written him on July 26: “A terrific game is being played here. Our heads are at stake. Bring yours along.” Although in failing health, Constant drove at once to Paris and participated in the deliberations of the leading deputies. In August he was appointed President of the Legislative Committee of the Council of State. Louis Philippe gave him 200,000 francs to pay his debts.
[6. ]Casimir Périer (1772-1832), financier and statesman, a moderate liberal who had at first tried to mediate between the liberals and the throne, had been a member of the provisory commission of five during the Revolution, and had only reluctantly accepted Charles X’s dethronement and Louis Philippe’s elevation. He succeeded Laffitte as head of the ministry in March, 1831.
[7. ]Letter 36 not 35.
[1. ]Printed, like the preceding letter (see n. 1), in the Examiner, Aug. 29, 1830, pp. 547-48. MS not located.
[2. ]Count François Horace Bastien Sebastiani (1772-1851), Minister of the Navy in the new government, and later Minister of Foreign Affairs. Like Périer, he had been reluctant to make the break with King Charles.
[3. ]Count Etienne Maurice Gérard (1773-1855) had been one of Napoleon’s favourite generals and was long an opponent of the Bourbons. He co-operated closely with Lafayette during the Three Days. Despite JSM’s statement he seems not to have been made a marshal until the following year.
[4. ]François Pierre Guillaume Guizot (1787-1874), historian and statesman. Though a former president of the Society Aide-toi and a leader of the liberal opposition to the government of Charles X, he sought a middle way between absolutism and democracy. On July 27 he had been called upon to draft the protest of the deputies against the ordinances which had provoked the Revolution. He has been called the champion of “a monarchy limited by a limited number of bourgeois.” From Aug. to Nov., 1830, he was Minister of the Interior in the new government and thereafter held various posts; from Oct., 1840, to the fall of Louis Philippe in the Revolution of 1848, he was the master spirit of the government. JSM later came to regard Guizot as a great thinker and writer (see Letters 282 and 304).
[5. ]Baron Joseph Dominique Louis (1755-1837) held the portfolio of finance until Nov., 1830.
[1. ]Addressed:James Mill Esq. / East India House / London / Angleterre / . Postmarks: 28 / AOUT / 1830 and AU 31 / 1830. MS in the Charles A. Brown Collection in the University of Rochester Library, Rochester, N.Y. First published in Victorian Studies, I (Dec., 1957), 137-54.
[2. ]Charles Marie Tanneguy, comte Duchâtel (1803-1867), one of the founders of the Globe, later held various ministerial posts.
[3. ]Sir Robert John Wilmot-Horton (1784-1841) had published in four series An Inquiry into the Causes and Remedies of Pauperism (London, 1830), the third series of which contained a correspondence with Duchâtel.
[4. ]George Grote had been in Paris in the spring of 1830 and had been introduced to the Lafayette circle. On July 29 he opened a credit with his banker at Paris (Jacques Laffitte) for £500 for the use of the committee directing the revolutionary cause at the Hôtel de Ville (see Mrs. Grote, The Personal Life of George Grote [London, 1873], pp. 63-65).
[5. ]Camille Hyacinth Odilon Barrot (1791-1873), liberal politician, had joined the National Guard and taken active part in the Revolution. He served also on the committee appointed to usher the deposed King out of the country.
[6. ]The reactionary ministry of Jean Baptiste Seraphin Joseph, comte de Villèle (1773-1854), lasted from 1822 to 1827.
[7. ]Pierre François Audry de Puyraveau (1773-1852), industrialist and politician, who actively supported Lafayette in the Revolution. On July 28 he contributed muskets to the revolting workers.
[8. ]Following a dinner on Aug. 16 at the London Tavern to honour the people of Paris for their part in the Revolution, Beevor and James Paul Cobbett (1803-1881), son of William Cobbett (1763-1835), the well-known radical writer and politician, were sent to Paris as “Ambassadors of the Reformers of England” to present an “Address to the brave people of Paris.” The presentation was made on Aug. 23 at the Hôtel de Ville with Lafayette and a deputation of the National Guard in attendance (see The Times, Aug. 27, 1830, p. 2). Beevor’s and James Cobbett’s speeches were later printed in Cobbett’s Weekly Political Register, Sept. 11, 1830, pp. 342-45. Cobbett radicals and Benthamite radicals were always scornful of each other.
[9. ]John Bowring on Aug. 28 also made a presentation of English addresses to the people of Paris at the Hôtel de Ville in the presence of Lafayette and the Prefect of Paris. Bowring, however, represented a different group of English reformers from Cobbett’s followers. Bowring bore an address from a dinner on Aug. 17 (one night after Cobbett’s dinner) at the London Tavern, at which were present such men as Henry Warburton, MP, Joseph Hume, MP, George Grote, and James Silk Buckingham. The Times reported this dinner at length on Aug. 18, p. 5. Bowring, though an intimate of Jeremy Bentham, was never highly regarded by either James or John Mill.
[10. ]James Murray (d. 1835), Foreign Director of The Times.
[1. ]MS at Kew.
[2. ]Sir James Edward Smith (1759-1828), founder of the Linnean Society and author of English Botany (36 vols., 1790-1814), and English Flora (4 vols., 1824-28).