1835
119.
TO JAMES MARTINEAU
[1835]
The last two pages of the concluding paper made an impression upon me which will never be effaced. In a subsequent paper of my own in the “Repository” headed “The Two Kinds of Poetry” (October, 1833) I attempted to carry out your speculation into some of those ulterior consequences which you had rather indicated than stated.
120.
TO ARISTIDE GUILBERT
Saturday
[Jan. 17, 1835]
My dear Sir
When I had the pleasure of seeing you today, I forgot to mention that I shall not be here on Monday, as I am going with my brother (who is destined for the civil service in India) to the East India College near Hertford. We must therefore defer our next conversation till Tuesday.
Yours most truly
J. S. Mill.
121.
TO JOSEPH BLANCO WHITE
26th February
1835
My dear Sir
I am truly delighted to hear that you are willing to cooperate in the new Review. There are few persons whose aid could be of so much, or nearly so much, importance to it, both with reference to its usefulness & to its success.
I do not know if you have yet seen the Prospectus. It has appeared on the cover of most of the reviews & magazines. The spirit of the review will be democratic, but with none of the exclusiveness and narrowness of the Westminster Review; & the plan adopted of individual signatures enables the various writers to indulge the liberty of individual opinion within considerably less narrow limits than are imposed by the plan of most reviews.
I will immediately send you some copies of the Prospectus under Sir William Molesworth’s cover. I suppose Senior told you that Sir William is the founder & proprietor of the review.
We hope to publish the first number by the end of March. I fear its fault will be, a deficiency of literary & other light matter & a superabundance of politics. At our first starting there is no way in which you could be of so much assistance to us as by writing some of those excellence pieces of literary criticism several of which you wrote for the former London Review; such as that on Pollok’s Course of Time, for instance. I am afraid of trespassing on your kindness & “riding a willing horse to death” but yet I cannot help saying that if you could be prevailed upon to write something of this kind, even though short, for the first number, it would be of so much importance to the review that we would gladly keep the number open for it even till the last moment.
I have not read Tocqueville’s book, but from what Senior says of it, I have no doubt of the great value to us of such a review of it as you would make. For this we can give ample time, as it could not be printed before the second number.
The editor of the review is Thomas Falconer Esq. 7 Gray’s Inn Square, a friend of mine whom I think very highly of. As I am in continual communication both with him & with Sir W. Molesworth, any letter to me answers all purposes, and I should be proud to increase our acquaintance by corresponding with you on review matters.
Believe me
Most truly yours
J. S. Mill
122.
TO JOSEPH BLANCO WHITE
2d March
1835
My dear Sir,
The objection to “Pompeii” is that Bulwer writes for the review; & it would be impossible to review it fairly without pointing out the gross blunders in scholarship & even in Latin grammar; now as no principle requires that we should point out errors of this kind in our friends, it is of no use wounding their amour-propre & depriving ourselves of their hearty cooperation.
But the other subject you mention, the works of Martinez de la Rosa, would suit the review perfectly. The prose translations which you propose will be quite sufficient.
Mr. Falconer will see this note, & if you receive it you may know that he agrees with it. I have no doubt that if he can suggest any other subject which would to him appear preferable, he will not omit to avail himself of the kind disposition which you manifest towards the review.
You have, I presume, received some copies of the Prospectus by this time
Believe me
Most truly yours
J. S. Mill
123.
TO RICHARD BENTLEY
5th March
1835
My dear Sir
I send M. Fiévée’s memorandum on the nature of his work, and a note of my own stating what I know of M. Fiévée. I should think the work might, if published in France, reckon upon a great sale in France itself, where the author does not wish to publish it himself, lest his work should be supposed to have some party object.
If Mr Bentley should wish for any further information I will give it, or obtain it from M. Fiévée, and if he thinks there would be any use in my meeting him I will (though it would be rather inconvenient) call upon him or should be glad to see him if he happened to be coming into the City.
Ever yours
J. S. Mill
[The enclosed note]
Monsieur Fiévée is one of the cleverest and liveliest French writers of the present age, as his “Correspondance politique et administrative” published in the first few years after the restoration of the Bourbons sufficiently shews. His political opinions & the general character of his mind bear more resemblance to Burke than to any other English writer; though his great experience as a man of office & business, has supplied him with much more practical knowledge of the affairs of the world than Burke had. He was much trusted by Napoleon, although Napoleon knew him to be in correspondence with the exiled family. It is well known that Napoleon’s conseil d’état was composed of all the ablest administrators in France: M. Fiévée, besides being one of his préfets, was for a long time a member of this body. M. Fiévée enjoys a very high character in France & his statements may be depended upon. His sentiments and personal connexions were mostly royalist, but he gradually became alienated from that party as he found that they could not be induced to govern in a manner suited to the wants & circumstances of the age. He has never attached himself to Louis Philippe or his government.
124.
TO ALBANY FONBLANQUE
Monday
[March(?), 1835]
My dear Fonblanque
Thanks for the ticket. Thursday does quite as well. As you so kindly permit me I will some day soon ask for an order for Lestocq; but I cannot yet say when.
I send a short paper on Swiss politics, which has been sent to me from (& is written by) Siebenpfeifer, one of the leading German radicals, & now a Professor in the University of Berne. If it suits you it can be published & I shall be happy to translate it if necessary but I suppose your subeditor now renders you independent of such help.
Molesworth I know means to send you the sheets of the London Review. I suppose you guess the authorship of the Dialogue on the Ballot. There are parts of it in which I do not wholly agree, but the speculations you allude to are not among them.
It is a great loss to the review not to have anything of yours in the first number—but if you could find time to write anything in the second, though I know how much you are occupied, your aid is too important not to be very urgently pressed for.
Ever faithfully
J. S. Mill
Bulwer will write for the 2d number & is zealously with us.
125.
TO THOMAS CARLYLE
7th March [1835].
My dear Carlyle—I will endeavour as you advise, to think as little as I can of this misfortune, though I shall not be able to cease thinking of it until it is ascertained how far the loss is capable of being repaired—or rather reduced to a loss of time & labour only—There are hardly any means I would not joyfully take, if any existed by which I could myself be instrumental to remedying the mischief my carelessness has caused—That however depends not upon me. But there is one part of the evil—though I fear the least part—which I could repair—the loss to yourself of time & labour—that is of income. And I beg of you with an earnestness with which perhaps I may never again have need to ask anything as long as we live, that you will permit me to do this little as it is, towards remedying the consequences of my fault & lightening my self-reproach. It is what you would permit as a matter of course if I were a stranger to you—it is what is even legally due to you—and to have brought an evil upon a friend instead of a stranger is already a sufficient aggravation of one’s regret, without the addition to it, of not being allowed to make even the poor amends one would make to a stranger.
If I could convince you what a relief this would be to me, & what an act of friendship—to say nothing of justice—it would be on your part I am sure you would not hesitate—Yours affectionately
J. S. Mill.
126.
TO THOMAS CARLYLE
Tuesday
[March 10, 1835]
My dear Carlyle
Nothing which could have happened, could have been at this time so great a good to me as your note, received this morning. I never thought it probable, & I wonder now how I could have thought it possible, that your answer would be different: it could not be so (gigmanity out of the question); but my anxiety made me exaggerate the chances against me.
Yes—when the thing is again done, & I have realised the feeling of certainty that another volume is there, as true & as beautiful as the former, all will be wholer than ever. I never before felt so fully the whole amount of the good of having somewhat more than one actually needs for urgent wants. That which can buy peace of conscience is precious.
You shall see or hear from me again almost immediately—but I will not take the Fête des Piques —not that I believe such a thing could possibly happen again, but for the sake of retributive justice I would wear the badge of my untrustworthiness. If however you would give me the pleasure of reading it give it to Mrs. Taylor—in her custody no harm could come to it —and I can read it aloud to her as I did much of the other—for it had not only the one reader you mentioned but a second as good. I can borrow De Stael’s Considerations easily—as my father has them. I did not think of them when I sent you other books—as there are very few facts in them—they are mostly speculations.
127.
TO ARISTIDE GUILBERT
19th March
1835
My dear Monsieur Guilbert
You have much reason to complain of me for not writing to you sooner. The fact is, I waited too long for an answer from the Globe, which I might have had sooner if I had taken a little more trouble. I got an answer the very day before I received your letter; & I have been so busy ever since, & have had to write so many letters that I was obliged to put off yours—knowing that you were already doing whatever was right, while others perhaps were not.—First, about the Review; I considered that from the first as certain. Molesworth, the very first time I mentioned it to him, agreed at once to your being our correspondent at Paris; & since receiving your letter he is very glad that he did consent. As for terms—you said, 150 or 200 francs per month; it will be either sum, according as you understood it. Your cooperation would be cheaply purchased at either price. Only, as our review is in some degree a doubtful speculation & our funds not unlimited, I have proposed to Molesworth & I now propose to you, to make the engagement at first for three months only. At the end of that time we shall know whether we can reckon upon sufficient assistance from French contributors to make it worth while retaining a French correspondent (though of this your letter leaves little doubt) & also, whether the success we can expect at first for our review, is such as renders it unnecessary for us to restrict our expenses to the utmost. If you agree, then, we will consider you as the correspondent of the review, from the 1st of this month (March) at 150, or 200 francs as you understand it. The payment will be made at the times & in the modes most convenient to you.
We are all much delighted with all you have done for the review, & with the prospects your letter holds out. The name of Carrel has done much for us already: his speech before the Chamber of Peers has spread his fame in this country. The editor of one of our best journals, the Spectator, advises strongly that we should request Carrel’s permission to print his signature at full length. We shall be delighted to have an article on Courier from him. Half a page, of the most general kind, will be sufficient on the subject of Courier as a Hellenist; you have judged quite correctly that it is not in that point of view we wish for an appreciation of that great writer. The plan you have marked out for M. Nisard’s first article, seems very good. It is necessary to keep in mind that the English public are almost entirely ignorant that there exists a contemporary French literature; & their ideas of French writers are still those of the Voltaire period. The object therefore should be, first, in a general article, or more than one if necessary, to give a general view of the change which has taken place in French literature, & afterwards to follow this up by separate articles on separate writers. This, M. Nisard, from what I have seen of his writings, will I am convinced, do in the way best suited to us. I have seen a letter from him to his German friend, M. Garnier, which shews him to be extremely well satisfied with my letter, & I am therefore well pleased at that scène de comédie which you recollect. He expresses a wish to remain anonymous, & says that you agreed in the expediency of it—I dare say you suggested it to him, though he thinks the suggestion came from himself.
The changes in French philosophy I think I shall myself treat in the review, & shall be greatly indebted to you for all hints, & for suggesting to me all the books which I should read.
About placards, & advertisements, I will write to you again. There will be time, for the review will not appear for at least a fortnight. There will however be notices of it in some of the London papers before it appears.—We are anxious to have M. Nisard’s first article in the second number, which will be published in June. Will you therefore beg him to set about it at his earliest convenience. The same request to Carrel; except that as his article is on a special subject, & not one of a series, we need not press him to have it ready by any given time, though of course the sooner the better. As both these articles will be very interesting, we will not limit them in point of space: say if necessary 30 to 40 pages of the review: & you know our pages are much larger than those of the French reviews.—We should like to exchange our review with any French reviews which may be willing, & which you may recommend. Carrel’s offer of articles on the principal men of the Revolution is highly prized, & I will write to you again about it. We shall not want an article on the Salon this year at least; we must first prendre notre place as to Art in general. Cavaignac’s writing I am afraid will not suit England; we will say nothing to him just yet, unless you have already spoken to him. Dussard will be of considerable use to us, though at present I will not propose any article to him, as we already overflow with the sort of articles which he would write. The fact is, his line is also the line of most of us. We shall have an article on the Liberty of the Press very soon; & at all events we shall not fail to notice Carrel’s admirable speeches. Tell us how many copies you would like to have of the sheets of the review & through what conveyance.
The Globe, it seems, is not inclined to have a regular correspondent at Paris—but would willingly insert, & pay for, occasional articles written in English. You know the kind of tone which suits the position of that journal.
As for politics, my dear friend, the game is up, as we say. The Tories will remain in place. The Opposition have spoiled all by their want of spirit & courage. The day after their victory in the choice of a Speaker, they could have done anything they pleased: the prestige of strength was wholly on their side. This instead of giving them courage, made them tremble lest their small majority should escape from them: & by conceding every point to the most timid among them, lest they should lose one or two votes, they have made such perpetual demonstrations of a belief in their own weakness that instead of one or two they have lost scores. The attempt to expel the ministry has been abandoned; they now only harrass them in detail. This reproach I address to our own friends as well as to others. Grote, Clay, and Warburton have spoiled all. Roebuck & Molesworth are the only ones among our friends (Hume I do not reckon such, though I esteem him much) who have a grain of spirit or energy. Those two are staunch, & if need be we shall unfurl the banner of our review against the radicals as well as the Whigs and Tories. They are giving us du Maughin et Odilon Barrot over again. All parties are cowardly & torpid with us.
I am really grown so indifferent to all that these people do, that I cannot prevail upon myself to enter further into particulars; but you will see what we say in the review. The public mind, however, with us, is steadily progressive, & will force more & more improvements upon even a Tory ministry; for ministries, with us, always yield when they see that public opinion really requires it. We shall have either a Peel, or a Peel & Stanley ministry, for years to come, I think.
We shall be glad to have Paul de Kock from M. Barba, on the terms you mention. If the proprietors of the Histoire Parlementaire will send it to us we will promise to make it the text of our first article on the French Revolution. In general we shall be glad to receive any books which may be sent to us, though whether we can notice them will depend upon many various circumstances; but if not in the review, I can almost always, if they have any merit, get them favourably noticed somewhere. Will you thank all our friends for their kind interest in the review. The articles in the Bon Sens on England were true, & good: thanks for sending them. By the bye, do not write on the outside “for the Examiner.”
Ever yours faithfully
J. S. Mill
128.
TO THOMAS CARLYLE
Monday [March 23, 1835]
My dear Carlyle
Notwithstanding all which you said on Thursday night, I cannot feel that I have made you anything like compensation by placing you exactly in the same pecuniary state as when you began to write, the time which you have expended in writing being lost and gone, without result either to yourself or any one else, except the doubtful one of your making a better book the second time.
It would be not only more accordant with my conception of the justice of the case, but would be a much more complete relief to my conscience and in every way more pleasant to me, if you would consent to receive the sum I first mentioned or at least something intermediate between that & the smaller one. This would be a gratification to me only inferior to that of being permitted to make compensation at all.
Ever affectionately yours
J. S. Mill
129.
TO JOSEPH BLANCO WHITE
15th April
1835
My dear Sir
I have learnt to my great surprise this morning, that owing to some inexplicable misunderstanding, Crabbe has not yet been sent to you. You will, however, receive it immediately, along with your copy of the London Review and as we wish the second number to appear in June, we shall be very glad to have your article in the shortest time in which you can write it satisfactorily to yourself.
Mr James Martineau, with whom I know you are in communication, has kindly offered to review for our next number, Bailey’s excellent “Rationale of Representation”. Perhaps you would do us the favour to say to Mr Martineau that after a good deal of deliberation among the three or four persons who take most share in the conduct of the review, it has appeared to us that a subject involving so directly and comprehensively all the political principles of the review, should be retained in the hands of the conductors themselves, rather than placed in those of a contributor, however highly valued, who is not in direct and continual communication with them. But for this consideration, there is no writer for the review in whose hands we would rather see such a subject. The objections which Mr Martineau thought might be felt to his undertaking an article on Robert Hall, we should not feel to be objections at all unless he himself felt them so, or unless he would feel bound to enter into a discussion of Hall’s theological tenets, which probably he would not. In mentioning Hall, it was however, only intended to throw out a suggestion; & if Mr Martineau would either dislike that, or prefer any other subject, there is no wish to press it upon him. We are only anxious to have, at as early a period as may be convenient to him, some article from his pen. Anything similar or comparable to those admirable papers on Priestley in the Monthly Repository, would be of the greatest value to us.
Would you and Mr Martineau have the kindness to mention any quarters—especially public institutions & the like—to which it would be advantageous to send copies of the review. Molesworth is disposed to distribute it pretty extensively—the first number at least—as the cheapest, and most useful, mode of advertising it.
I have begun to read Tocqueville. It seems an excellent book: uniting considerable graphic power, with the capacity of generalizing on the history of society, which distinguishes the best French philosophers of the present day, & above all, bringing out the peculiarities of American society, & making the whole stand before the reader as a powerful picture.—Did you ever read Guizot’s Lectures? If not, pray do.
Ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
130.
TO ALBANY FONBLANQUE
Monday
[April 20(?), 1835]
Dear Fonblanque
Thanks for your mention of the London Review. I hope you will give us a formal article besides —as we shall have but a poor chance of success unless our friends exert themselves for us—some of them are treating us as friends usually do.
We all greatly regret that the review was obliged to appear without anything of yours in it; & we hope exceedingly that you will write something in the second number. Nothing has occurred to any of us which we should like so much, as an article on the magisterial interferences with the people. But as you are so fully occupied, we should be too happy to have anything which you could do most easily & in least time.
If you give us something, we shall have an excellent bill of fare for No 2, twice as good as No 1.
Yours faithfully
J. S. Mill
131.
TO ALBANY FONBLANQUE
[April 20, 1835]
How do you like the new Cabinet? All things considered I am very well satisfied with it—but I hope you will push them to the ballot & a few other things—they can’t stand without.
Ever yours
J.S.M.
132.
TO THOMAS CARLYLE
Saturday
[?Spring or summer, 1835]
My dear Carlyle
If you have no objection to receive the Chronicle instead of the Globe, for the next fortnight or thereabouts, I find that to be the most convenient arrangement now when the whole household except my father & myself are in Surrey & my brother still at the East India College.
If however you would rather have the Globe I can still contrive to supply you with it.
Ever yours faithfully
J. S. Mill
I shall probably be with you on Monday evening.
133.
TO ARISTIDE GUILBERT
8th May
1835
My dear Monsieur Guilbert
I yesterday, by making a casual enquiry, learnt to my extreme astonishment, that no remittance had yet been made to you. I imagined I had taken measures which had ensured its being done long ago. I have now set the matter to rights, & you will receive without delay 450 francs, for the months of March, April, & May. Pray let me know whether you have received copies of the review. They were sent, or at least orders were given for their being sent, through Black & Young, booksellers here. If you have received them I hope you have considered yourself at liberty to give them, in exchange or otherwise, whenever you thought it useful to the review to do so.
I have not written to you about the change of ministry because I knew not what to write. I fear the whigs will do as little for the people as they possibly can: all their speeches & manifestoes indicate it, except Hobhouse’s speech at Nottingham: & you will see, that even Lord John Russell’s defeat in Devonshire by the intimidation practised by the Tory squires & parsons will not make him an advocate of the ballot. Brougham, however, being excluded from office, is putting forth pamphlets & articles of very decided radicalism to the extreme annoyance of his former associates. You see how justly I described him to you.
At the late change it was well understood that the radicals as a body would not consent to take office. They thought, justly, that they had more power out of office than in it. To several members of the body (but to none of the leaders) offers were made of places, which they all refused, unless the leaders came in too. Brougham is reported to have said to a near relation of a cabinet minister “this may succeed, but it is the first time the attempt has been made to form a ministry excluding the able men of all parties.” I don’t believe this, but the mot is excellent.
Toqueville’s book, “de la démocratie en amérique” is an admirable book. Can you tell me anything of Toqueville? What is his history? & in what estimation is he held in France?
We are anxious to receive the notice you promised respecting Paul de Kock. When & how is the copy of his works, to be paid for? We persist in our intention of bringing out our second number before the end of June.—Ever truly yours
J. S. Mill.
134.
TO ARISTIDE GUILBERT
19th May
1835
My dear Guilbert
You may judge how much we have been annoyed by the neglect of the booksellers to send the copies of the review to Paris. It is one of numerous instances of such negligence which have occurred to us, proving the great difficulty of making a review succeed which is not the property of a bookseller. On receiving your letter I took immediate measures for having the omission supplied, & I hope it has been so. Pray apologize to our friends, & present copies to such of them, & of your editors & littérateurs generally, as you think ought to have it; obtaining for us in exchange, when you can, all your best periodicals.
You are aware that we do not want an article on Paul de Kock, but merely a short notice, to serve towards writing an article. The article itself is to be written by one of our English contributors, a man of great wit & learning.
I have not received Carrel’s letter. We attach great importance to having his article in our next number. You do not say anything about his autograph. I have done nothing with it as yet.
I am much disappointed that M. Nisard has been obliged to renounce an undertaking for which he was so eminently qualified. We gladly accept his offer of separate articles on Victor Hugo, Lamartine &c. but it appears to us indispensable that they should be preceded by a general article on the new French literature generally. We do not wish for a detailed history of its origin—since that would cost M. Nisard so much research—but a general character of the old, & of the new literature, could cost neither much time nor labour to the author of those admirable papers in the Revue de Paris.
I said nothing about the article which M. de Cormenin was so kind as to offer, because we should not have room for it for some time to come, & it is as well not to fix on a subject long beforehand. But his cooperation would be highly valuable to us.
As for politics—the grand struggle will be at the next registration. Peel’s speech at Merchant Tailors’ Hall speaks the voice of the whole party. The Tories will strain every nerve to get a majority in the Commons—but we shall beat them.
Yours ever
J. S. Mill.
The review is exciting great attention here, & already possesses very considerable political influence, which every number we publish will still further increase—J.S.M.
We will send you all the affiches we can spare.
135.
TO JOSEPH BLANCO WHITE
19th May 1835
My dear Sir
I should have written to you sooner, but I really could not make up my mind at once what to say about Tocqueville. I was quite ignorant of Falconer’s intention to make such a proposition to you, & I am by no means confident that I can write such an article on the book as I wish to see written. It is not a subject requiring familiarity with the politics of the day, & I am far from being convinced that the Review will not be a loser by my writing the article instead of you. However if the subject is one on which you would rather not write, & it would be a relief to you to place it in other hands, that is decisive—& there are some disadvantages in having articles which involve the political principles of the review (though this does not involve them nearly so much as Bailey’s book) written at a distance from the conductors of the review & by contributors not in daily intercourse with them & with the details of whose opinions they are not conversant. I have therefore no objection to write the article if it be your wish & Falconer’s also, for the third number.
Many thanks for your remarks, which will be of great use to me.
Our second number is full—including your article on Crabbe, which I hope the negligence of Willmer will not prevent us from having the benefit of. We confidently reckon upon some paper of Mr Martineau for No. 3. Would he review the “Second Travels of an Irish Gentleman”? It would be very important to make that book more known.
May we reckon upon your undertaking to give an account of Guizot’s Lectures?
I think our future numbers will far surpass our first—with which, though it was fully as good as I expected, on the whole I was far from being pleased.
Would you be kind enough to suggest to us any subjects on which we ought to have articles—& to Mr Martineau, any on which you think he might be induced to write.
Ever yours faithfully
J. S. Mill
136.
TO JAMES MARTINEAU
May 26, 1835.
In the opinions you express respecting a Church Establishment I entirely agree, and though some of the habitual contributors to the review still differ from us, the general tone of the review will, I have reason to hope, be that which you approve. A considerable change is, I think, taking place in the tone of thinking of the instructed Radicals on that point. Indeed, as they have (very generally) so far departed from Adam Smith’s doctrines as not to admit the voluntary principle even with respect to secular education, it would be very strange if they admitted it with regard to religious. The mistake, I think, is in applying the test to the doctrines which the clergy shall teach, instead of applying it to their qualifications as teachers, and to the spirit in which they teach. When you give a man a diploma as a physician, you do not bind him to follow a prescribed method; you merely assure yourself of his being duly acquainted with what is known or believed on the subject, and of his having competent powers of mind. I would do the same with clergymen. . . . One of the most important objects which the review could be instrumental to, would be to discredit dogmatic religion and encourage the boldest spirit of rationalism. This too is the spirit which is spreading among the young and cultivated members of the English clergy. This I know from my acquaintance with some striking instances of it. There will shortly appear a posthumous work of Coleridge (which I saw in manuscript before his death) altogether smashing the doctrine of plenary inspiration, and the notion that the Bible was dictated by the Almighty, or is to be exempt from the same canons of criticism which we apply to books of human origin.
137.
TO ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE
11 Juin, 1835.
Vous me demandez, mon cher Monsieur, dans quelles limites doit s’exercer la collaboration que j’ai osé vous demander en faveur du London Review. C’est une question fort naturelle, mais qu’il n’appartient pas aux rédacteurs de la Revue de résoudre. La Revue n’a pas pour but la propagation d’un système donné, d’une doctrine générale et unitaire; je n’ai pas besoin de vous dire que jusqu’ici cette doctrine est encore à créer. En défaut d’une théorie complète, les fondateurs du London Review ont désiré que cet ouvrage périodique devînt un recueil des meilleures idées du siècle, notamment en fait de philosophie politique: et dans ce but ils voudraient obtenir la coopération des plus forts penseurs et des hommes les plus éclairés de notre temps, du moins parmi ceux qui sympathisent avec les tendances dominantes du siècle. Cette seule condition est de rigueur, attendu que pour pouvoir travailler utilement avec des amis du mouvement il faut l’être soi-même.
Dans une réunion de pareils hommes il ne vous appartient pas de jouer un role secondaire. Aussi ce que nous vous demandons n’est pas une collaboration en second ordre: nous ne vous invitons pas à mettre votre talent à notre disposition pour exposer ou pour discuter telle ou telle série d’idées ou de faits. nous vous engageons à fixer, de concert avec nous, ce que sera la Revue elle-même; dans quel esprit, et sous l’influence de quelles idées, elle sera faite. La Revue a la prétention de représenter ce qu’il y a de plus avancé dans les doctrines démocratiques: c’est précisément ce que vous avez, vous-même, ou créé, ou fait ressortir avec une vigueur jusqu’ici inconnue, des faits ou des principes connus. Vous êtes donc fait pour dicter des conditions à la Revue, et non pour en recevoir d’elle. Notre vœu serait que vous vouliez bien vous joindre à nous, et vous servir de la Revue comme organe de vos opinions. Elle est déjà l’organe de ce qu’il y a de meilleur parmi nos hommes du mouvement; mais ces hommes, avec de grandes connaissances spéciales, sont, du moins la plupart d’entre eux, tellement au-dessous de votre niveau quant aux idées générales, que la direction que vous pourrez imprimer à la Revue par vos articles et par l’influence qu’exerceront ces articles sur les autres rédacteurs, décidera peut-être si ce journal servira à éclairer le public anglais sur les questions de haute politique, ou seulement à exciter l’esprit démocratique sans lui donner des principes capables de régler sa marche.
Quant aux moyens particuliers de présenter vos idées, aux questions particulières à traiter, etc., il ne nous appartient pas de vous les indiquer, encore moins d’y mettre des bornes. Un esprit comme le vôtre sait toujours ce qu’il peut et ce qu’il lui convient de faire, mieux que ne pourrait le lui indiquer même son plus intime ami. Tout ce que nous pourrons, c’est de vous dire de quoi nous avons le besoin le plus pressant. Il y a deux pays très importants à bien comprendre, ce sont la France et les Etats-Unis : nous ressentons un grand besoin d’expliquer ces pays à nos compatriotes; nous-même nous ne les connaissons pas assez pour cela et il n’y a peut-être que vous au monde qui soit capable de la faire. Ce serait déjà un cours de haute politique qu’une série d’articles de vous sur ces deux pays; vous avez assez fait vos preuves pour que nous ayons dans la justesse et dans la profondeur de vos vues, ainsi que dans leur impartialité, une confiance que nul autre écrivain ne saurait nous inspirer; vous êtes, enfin, précisément l’homme qu’il nous faut pour écrire sur ces deux pays, et s’il nous fallait désigner un sujet, c’est par là, et en premier lieu par la France, que nous vous prierions de commencer.
Veuillez, mon cher Monsieur, agréer l’hommage de mon éstime et de mon attachement.
J. S. Mill
138.
TO JOSEPH BLANCO WHITE
23d June
1835
My dear Sir
Such a letter as your last might well have called forth an earlier acknowledgment than this. I assure you if I have delayed writing to you it was not for want of sympathizing in the warmest manner in all the feelings which your letter expresses. I wish to heaven there were more persons capable of feeling & thinking in the same manner—& most earnestly do I hope that your sufferings bodily & mental may come to an end, & give you many years of tranquillity & activity at a time when such men are more than ever needed.
As for Guizot—there can be no objection whatever to making two articles provided each can be made in form independent of the other. English readers do not, I think, like articles which are ostensibly continued through several numbers of a periodical, but to the reality they do not object, only to the appearance. Therefore pray adjust it in the manner you find most convenient. I quite agree with you that only the most scanty justice can be done to the subject in one article.
I have not yet read Lord Brougham’s Discourse but the opinion of all competent judges with whom I have conversed accords with yours, which is besides in accordance with the character of his mind. He knows no subject well, having never seriously studied anything: he has more half knowledges than perhaps any man of our time, but I never could perceive that he had any complete knowledges at all, & I observe, all who really know any one of the subjects he writes about, think him a very wonderful man, but wonder why he is so unwise as to write on that particular subject.
Is there any literary subject which you would undertake for No. 3, in addition to Guizot? Forgive my encroaching upon you in this stile!
139.
TO JOSEPH BLANCO WHITE
1st July
1835
My dear Sir
I write chiefly to inform you that I am about to set out for the Rhine next Saturday, & shall not be back till the 10th of August, therefore till that time it will devolve upon Falconer to correspond with you respecting the review.
Lamb will be immediately sent—before sending Anster’s Faust we are anxious to know in what way you think of treating it—for it would seem too difficult to make an article on one of the most celebrated of Goethe’s works, without entering into a complete examination of Goethe himself, his writings & his influence—& that is so great a subject, that we must think of it, & discuss it among ourselves for a good while before we can safely embark upon it. Will you write to Falconer expressing your views & inclinations as to the matter?
The review will be published next Wednesday unless something unexpected should delay it. I am anxious to know what you think of the article “The Church & its Reform”; it is not such as you, or such as I would have written, & perhaps is too brusque in manner, but I think it will do us no discredit.
I should gladly write to you many more things but I am pressed for time. I shall read your work with great interest when I return.
Ever most truly yours
J. S. Mill
M. de Tocqueville will be at Liverpool in a few days. I suppose he has an introduction to you from Senior, but I will at all events write to him & ask him to call upon you.
140.
TO ARISTIDE GUILBERT
14th August
1835
My dear Guilbert
I yesterday remitted to Monsr Delamarre Martin Didier, a banker of Paris, for you, the sum of 870 francs, which, with about five francs overpayment last time, will about make up,
1. the 400 francs for Messrs Maurel & Blanchard
2. the 300 francs due to yourself for the months of June & July, & 150 francs for the present month
3. the 25 francs due from myself to M. Faucher for the notice on the subject of M. de Tocqueville.
When I asked you to procure notices of Paul de Kock, & Leclercq, I did not contemplate their being so elaborate as those which you have furnished nor costing so much to the review. Both works are already in the hands of a distinguished English writer, & of course we could not use, & did not wish to pay for, two criticisms of the same author: but as English reviewers are often ignorant of various things, necessary to be known in reviewing a French author, I was anxious that any particulars, the ignorance of which might expose our English reviewer to the commission of blunders, might be supplied to him from France. I do not say this by way of complaint; you did the best you could for the review, & the articles, that on Paul de Kock especially, are worth much more than we are to pay for them. I mention it only to account for your misunderstanding with Falconer. I never told him of the articles, but gave them at once to the gentleman who is reviewing Paul de Kock & Leclercq for us. The review will only pay for them when the articles are finished, & that was always my intention: but I always intended to advance whatever money might be needful from my own funds, being indemnified by the review hereafter; and this I have done by the remittance I have made to you. By applying to M. Didier you will be able to receive the money immediately.
How do you like our second number? It is well liked here, but has not yet acquired a large circulation, & its progress is so slow that we are obliged to economize our funds as much as possible. I consequently do not like to recommend to Sir William Molesworth to be at any further expense for a Paris correspondent. We originally hoped for some sale at Paris & for considerable aid from the Paris literary men of our own way of thinking: but we do not seem likely to have any sale at all, nor any literary assistance of much importance except from M. Nisard, even if we succeed in obtaining his. I feel myself very strictly accountable for the expenditure of funds which are not my own, & as Sir W. Molesworth is only willing to risk a limited sum on this experiment, I should regret much if that sum were not made to go as far as possible.
We have not yet received any French newspapers or reviews in exchange for our review: have you been able to effect any exchanges?
Will these odious laws against the press pass? & if they do, will any person of the least public spirit or love of freedom, consent to live in France under them?
Our Lords will pass the corporation bill, with modifications, very bad in themselves, but leaving much good. They will not pass the Irish Church Bill. Have you taken notice of the numerous public meetings, & how the speeches & petitions almost always declare the House of Lords a nuisance.
Have you seen any of Roebuck’s pamphlets? They now sell 10,000.
Ever yours
J. S. Mill
141.
TO JOSEPH BLANCO WHITE
28th August
1835
My dear Sir
I have now been about a fortnight returned from my continental excursion, but have been too much occupied in various ways to be able to write to you before: & I must now for the same reason cut this note very short.
I write in the first place to say how exceedingly pleased I have been with your pamphlet on Heresy & Orthodoxy. It seems to me one of the most efficient protests which have been made in our time against the doctrine which has been the bane of Xianity, the doctrine that religious duty consists in the reception or adoption of a particular set of opinions, & not in the state of the affections & will.
In the next place, as we are obliged to think seriously now about our third number, we are anxious to know whether we can expect from you either the paper on Guizot, or any literary article, which, as we are scant of such articles for this number, would be particularly precious.
You mentioned Lamb’s Specimens of early English Dramatists as a subject—have you written anything upon it?
Believe me
Ever yours
J. S. Mill
Pray inform me particulars of the state of your health.
142.
TO ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE
[Sept., 1835]
My dear M. de Tocqueville,
I write in English because it takes me so much more time to write in French. To you who understand English so perfectly I need not apologise.
Your letter was most grateful to me on every account—for the expressions of personal friendship, which I hope I shall never deserve to forfeit—& which I trust I may some day have it in my power to prove to you how deeply I value. Next to that I was most delighted with the sure prospect your letter affords of our obtaining from you a cooperation which, while it would be of the greatest importance to the London Review would probably do more good in this country than the London Review itself; for, while a strong & general desire has of late years grown up here, to know something about France, there is as yet no source from which knowledge can be drawn. We have not so much as one readable history of the Revolution; & not our people merely, but our politicians & publicists, know about as much of France as they do of Timbuctoo. They do not even know the titles of the most celebrated books, or the names of the most celebrated men. Hardly any, even instructed Englishmen . . . even looked . . . [at] Paul Louis Courier, or Guizot’s lectures, or Thiers’ history. I do not think there are two hundred who if you spoke to them of these works would not be obliged to ask what they were. Therefore you see, my dear M. de Tocqueville, you need [not] be afraid of being tedious, or telling a twice told tale, if you write to the English about what France was before the Revolution. I should ask you to do so, even if it were not necessary as a preparation for understanding the France of the present day. In itself it is a matter most necessary to be set forth & interpreted to the English. And besides, if the mere facts, the mere husk of the ancien régime, were ever so stale to us, it would come fresh & with all the colours of youth out of your hands; for the oldest thing seems new when shewn as you shew it, in all kinds of previously unsuspected relations to all the other things which surround it.
Either the form of letters, or that of articles, would suit the plan of our review; perhaps that of letters, which you suggest, would be best, as leading the reader to feel that each paper is part of a series. Do not restrain yourself in space. We can afford you on an average between 30 & 40 pages of each number, & a page of the L.R. is equal to at least two of your book.
Almost everybody here thinks that the ministers, & the House of Commons, have shewn a deplorable want of energy & courage in the contest with the Lords. It is not that. . . . However . . . the Lords & the Tories are the sufferers, in this instance. You can hardly conceive how the tone of the public about them is changed since I last saw you. Six months or a year ago, everybody would have been satisfied with a fournée of peers; now nobody mentions, or thinks of such a thing; everybody is full of the necessity of an absolute reorganization of the House: & by this time next year everybody will be for abolishing it, (at least as a hereditary & aristocratic body) altogether.
What you say of the probable effect of these . . . laws against the Press, is encouraging, & in itself . . . highly probable. I know, too, that Carrel thinks . . . as you do on the subject—& him I conceive to be, next to you [the] best authority I know on the state of France. He has been desirous to moderate his tone, & this gives him an opportunity of doing so without loss of influence.
I have nearly finished a review of your book [for the] L.R. The chief merit of it will be in the extracts: if I [have] succeeded in introducing them so as to excite attention to them I have done all I have aimed at. My article will be, as you [will] see, a shade or two more favourable to democracy than your book, although in the main I agree, so far as I am competent to judge, in the unfavourable part of your remarks, but without carrying them quite so far. The third number will appear in a fortnight & we shall endeavour to bring the fourth out in December, in which we hope to have your first article. Apropos, did M. de Beaumont. . . .
Ever, my dear M. de Tocqueville, yours faithfully,
J. S. Mill.
Pray make my kindest remembrances to M. de Beaumont. I will write to him very soon.
Is there a chance of your writing anything about Ireland for the French? It would be very instructive.
J.S.M.
143.
TO THOMAS FALCONER
Saturday
3d Oct. [1835]
My dear Falconer
I write to report progress. D’abord I wish you would by the first post, write to Pringle, to say that from the length to which some of our articles have gone, & the great quantity of matter not acceptable to light readers, which the number will contain, we are obliged to put off his article to No iv. which is the less to be regretted as matter of the kind will be likely to be more read then than now. You may add (if you will venture to do so on my testimony) that the article is very good, & will be useful to us.—I want him to receive the first notice of the postponement from us, & not from the advertisement.
We shall be out next week. The only matter not sent to press is my Postscript (which I think you will like) & the last half of Buller’s article, which he promised shd have been here yesterday. What we have of it is very good, & pleasantly written. On the whole it is a good number. We shall rather exceed our 16 sheets, though we must omit the Nebulae. By the bye, Nichol sent to me by post the first sheet of the Nebulae, saying that an accident had rendered his MS. illegible & that he was obliged to recopy it: & would send by every post one sheet, using thereafter alternately Grote’s & Roebuck’s frank: consequently I have received no more, both being out of town. But as we have not room for it, that is of no consequence.
Chapman goes on very well.
Molesworth wants to write on Orangm. & I should like him to do so, but as the Atlas man wants the same thing, & as it may be good to have a friend in the Atlas—will you tell me how I can manage to get a sight of some numbers thereof, that I may see how he writes.
Nichol says his mode of treating the subject, being scientific & a priori, will not interfere with Wakefield’s.
We are to print 1000 of Law Reform & sell it for 6d. That was Chapman’s ultimate opinion. We must distribute it very largely. Could not you send some to the agents for the Political Pamphlet?
I have set on foot a greater quantity of advertising than usual, as people complain of our not being advertised enough.
Ever yours
J. S. Mill
144.
TO JOHN PRINGLE NICHOL
7th October, 1835.
My dear Nichol,
In consequence, I suppose, of Grote’s and Roebuck’s absence from town, I have received no part of your article on “Nebulae” except the first sheet, which you sent to me direct. This, however, is of the less importance, as the unexpected length of some other articles would at all events have compelled us to omit it from this number. We will have it set up as soon as we receive it, and send you a proof—for we mean to bring out No. 4 in December. I hope your article on “Chalmers” will be ready by that time. The one on “Quetelet” would in that case be better postponed.
You will, I think, like No. 3; and No. 4 will be excellent. De Tocqueville has promised us a set of articles containing all that he knows and thinks about Maree. Grote has promised one on “Greek History;” and we have many other good articles, either ready or in prospect. But we are particularly anxious for the one on “Chalmers.”
I shall read Combe’s book with a pleasure increased by receiving it from you. Phrenology, no doubt, may be to a certain extent reconciled with analytical psychology, that is, if it can be discovered that certain nervous peculiarities, affecting the kind or the intensity of our sensations, have to do with peculiar conformations of the brain. Thus, for instance, what they say about their “organ of amativeness” has some foundation, because we know that nymphomania can be traced to inflammation of the cerebellum. It is, I believe, ascertained that the nerves of external sense terminate mostly, if not wholly, in the cerebrum, those of internal in the cerebellum and spinal marrow. What or how much can be inferred from this I do not know. But the difficulty I feel in limine about phrenology is the insufficiency of the induction. I do not believe in anybody’s judgments of the characters of individuals from anything the public ever know of their history. Besides, many of the skulls they argue from are not sufficiently authenticated as belonging to the persons to whom they ascribe them; e.g., the skull of Raphael—when his tomb was lately opened his real skull was found there. I can easily imagine, however, that fine perceptions of sight may be connected with peculiarities of the optic nerve, probably continued into the adjacent parts of the brain, and so on. My opinion on the subject is not that of a competent judge, but I will read Combe without prejudice, and tell you my opinion of what he makes out.
Touching my outward man, which I wish much I could show you in propriâ personâ, if I can get any competent person to describe me to myself, I will give you the benefit. I do not know anybody that I am like, and am neither able to describe my own physique nor that of anybody else.
We print one thousand separate copies of an article of my father’s on “Law Reform” —the best popular paper ever written on the subject. We sell it for 6d. How many can you dispose of usefully by distribution? and do you think Mr. Tullis can sell any?
I will write again soon.
Yours faithfully,
J. S. Mill.
145.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT
13th October
1835
My dear Sir
I have not had time before now, to fulfil my undertaking on the subject of the book I wrote to you about. Neither have I now time to write anything elaborate on the matter—but if a rather slight article would suit you, combining the trumpery book in question, with another called “Thoughts on the Ladies of the Aristocracy by Lydia Tomkins” & made up, in considerable part, of extracts from the latter, I think I should now have time to undertake it.
Will you oblige me with a speedy answer & believe me
Ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
146.
TO JOHN MURRAY
13th October, 1835
Mr. John Stuart Mill presents his compliments to Mr. Murray, & begs to inform him that he is authorized (through a common friend) by the well known French writer M. Fiévée, to propose to Mr. Murray the publication of a work which he has prepared for the press containing the particulars of his conversations & confidential communications with Napoleon during a series of years.
Mr. Fiévée is doubtless well known to Mr. Murray, as not only one of the cleverest & most spiritual writers but one of the most experienced & most practical politicians in France. Although Napoleon knew him to be a decided royalist, & a correspondent of the exiled Bourbons, he made him not only a member of his conseil d’état (a body to which none but men of great & tried capacity were admitted) but also, as is well known, consulted him confidentially on many of the transactions of his reign. There is more to be learned of Napoleon’s system of government from M. Fiévée’s Correspondence politique et administrative (published soon after the restoration) than from almost any other work; & the publication which he has now in contemplation must be still more valuable and interesting.
M. Fiévée’s tone of thought & political opinions at the time when his Correspondence appeared, were very like those of Burke. He became more & more alienated from the royalists as they, having more & more chance of keeping in power, clung closer & closer to Napoleon’s monstrous centralisation system of which M. Fiévée has always been a most decided and efficient enemy.
If Mr. Murray should be inclined to undertake the publication of the work, M. Fiévée will immediately send the manuscript, and place himself in direct communication with Mr. Murray.
147.
TO THOMAS CARLYLE
17th October 1835
My dear Carlyle
If I had not promised to write to you I think I should hardly have written; for I have scarcely a simple fact to communicate, and as for sentiments and speculations one is not so desirous to communicate those by letter when one has and expects to have ample means of doing it by word of mouth. The only event in my history, of the slightest interest to you, which has occurred since you went away, is the coming out of the 3d number of the London Review; whereby I have a little breathing time before I am obliged to busy myself about another. I cannot yet tell you either how the number is selling or how it is liked, but I expect a [. . .] that those who read it, who I fear will not be many, will like fully better than it deserves. I hope I shall soon write something for it myself, much better than anything I have written in this number.
Buller is now in town, on his way to the Exeter sessions, and is in capital health and spirits. I have no news to tell of anyone else—almost everybody is out of town, and of those who are here I have seen scarcely anything.
I suspect you must be nearly confined to indoor pleasures in Dumfriesshire now, for there can be little comfort in ranging the moors with such weather as we have had, of which you have probably had an enlarged edition. You have the good fortune at any rate to be free from newspapers: you have heard nothing about Don Carlo’s [sic], nor about O’Connell’s dining with Lord Mulgrave, nor the enormity of his calling the Duke of Cumberland a “mighty great liar,” and you have remained a stranger to the infinite quantity of railroad projects which fill all that part of each day’s newspaper which is not engrossed with the above topics. There has been nothing endurable but an article or two of Buller’s in the Globe, and I fancy he will not write much more, in that newspaper at least.
Perhaps, by the bye, you did not see, before you went away, the announcement that Bulwer is to publish a History of Athens —what will this world come to! but I much wonder what it will be like.
Louis Philippe threatens to interdict even English papers which attack his government. I should much like to know what old Sieyes thinks of the present state of France. That man’s thoughts must be worth knowing. Austin’s brother who has been travelling in France says that all the people he conversed with at inns &c. though many of them disapproved of the conduct of the government, yet insisted on the necessity of standing by it, for fear of worse—he also says that the Govt people are trying to revive the anti-English feeling—& that one can see in their newspapers. They are adopting all Napoleon’s maxims of internal policy—but one could see all this in Thiers’ book. What a curious page all this is in the history of the French revolution. France seems to be désenchanté for a long time to come—& as the natural consequence of political disenchantment—profoundly demoralized. All the educated youth are becoming mere venal commodities.
Grant desires to be remembered to you. I have nothing else worth saying till we meet, which will be I suppose in a fortnight or so—.
Ever affectionately
J. S. Mill.
This letter would not be worth paying for so I have taken care to procure a frank.
148.
TO ARISTIDE GUILBERT
19th October
1835
My dear Guilbert
I have delayed writing to you so long, hoping that I might be able to tell you by what means the Review will be sent to you—but unhappily I cannot yet tell you. As for Bennis, I have tried him, & know that he cannot be relied on. A parcel which was delivered to him in Paris for me, did not reach London till three months after. However we will employ him if we find we can do nothing better.
I am well acquainted with M. Fiévée’s writings & have a very high opinion of him. I have written to Mr Murray, whom you know of course by name, proposing to him to publish M. Fiévée’s work; & I expected to have had his answer before this; but it has not yet come.
I send herewith, letters to M. de Cormenin, M. Garnier-Pagès, & M. Nisard, as well as to another friend of mine, M. de Beaumont. In the letters to the first three I tell them that you will give them copies as soon as they reach you: to M. Nisard the last number, & the present, to the others a complete set.
I will write to y[ou] again almost immediately.
Believe me
Yours faithfully
J. S. Mill.
149.
TO JOSEPH BLANCO WHITE
21st October
1835
My dear Sir
I have been thinking for some days past what subject I could propose to you for a literary article, but almost every thing lately published is so worthless that there is much difficulty in finding a dignus vindice nodus. I have been able to think of nothing better than the republication of Charles Lamb’s own works. Is there not matter for some good & curious articles in Spanish literature? If you would give us specimens & criticisms of the principal Spanish authors, or articles on Spanish history, I think they would be interesting to the public and one is obliged to go abroad now for subjects for the literary critic.
Your article on Guizot is excellent as far as it goes but something seems still wanting to give a complete notion of the nature & value of Guizot’s historical speculations. I will not ask you to take in hand again a subject of which I do not wonder that you should be tired, but if you would permit me, I should like much to add, mostly at the end of the article, a few more observations & specimens—especially that noble analysis of the feudal system in Lecture 4 of the first volume. The whole should then be submitted for your approval, either in MS. or in type. If you consent to this do not trouble yourself to write only on purpose to say so as I shall consider silence as consent.
Your remarks in your last letter respecting the conduct of persons in the position of Bishop Coplestone are profoundly true & admirably expressed.—I think you mention that you have not read the article which the Archbishop complained of—if you have time to read it, I should much like to know your opinion of it.
I hope you have duly received No. 3. If not, apply at once to Willmer for it, and make him send one to Mr Martineau likewise. You had better always apply to W. at once for books as we cannot depend on our publishers. They have too much to do.
Ever truly yours
J. S. Mill
150.
TO ARISTIDE GUILBERT
30th October
1835
My dear Guilbert
I wrote to you a few days ago through M. Fillonneau, sending at the same time letters to MM. de Cormenin, Garnier-Pagès, and Nisard. I had written a short letter to M. Nisard some time before.
I now write to say that 20 copies of No 3 & some copies of Nos 1 & 2 of the London Review have been sent to Galignani in a packet addressed to you. I have made enquiry respecting the non-arrival of the copies of No 2, & I find that (while I was in Germany) they were sent, not to Baillière but to Galignani, viz. 20 copies for sale, 8 addressed to you, a copy addressed to Carrel & another to M. Nisard. If you find any difficulty in getting the packets with your name & address on them from Galignani write to me directly. They have arrived at Paris or they will soon arrive. The parcel from Messrs Baldwin & Cradock booksellers, Paternoster Row.
When they reach you would it be too much to request the favour of you to give copies to those who ought to have them? in particular Carrel, Nisard, MM de Cormenin, Garnier-Pagès, Charles Comte, Odilon-Barrot, Alexis de Tocqueville (Rue de Verneuil No 49) Gustave de Beaumont (rue du Bac, no 36 bis) Dussard (rue Richer No 22) & any other persons or periodical works whom you may select. I wish you would also give copies of all the three numbers to M. Gustave d’Eichthal, Rue Lepelletier No 14 & to M. Fiévée.
I mentioned in my letter that I had written to Mr Murray, one of our leading booksellers, respecting M. Fiévée’s work. I am much astonished at not having yet received an answer from him. If I do not speedily, I shall apply to another bookseller. The little essay which you sent by Madame Foulon, is very good, it seems designed as an introduction to a set of Exercises: were the Exercises ever completed? If so, I think you should publish them here & I have little doubt of their success. For separate publication the essay would require some alterations, & would suit various other periodicals better than the London Review. But I could probably procure its insertion somewhere.
You said once that the proprietors of the “Histoire parlementaire de la révolution” would be willing to send us that work if we would undertake to notice it. I already have it from the commencement to the close of the Constituent Assembly. If the proprietors would promptly send all the following volumes, & would continue to send the remainder, I will undertake that it shall be noticed, not only in the London Review but in other works. I say promptly, because if they do not send it I must buy it and then I shall not take any trouble to get it noticed.
Our third number is much more generally liked, I find, than our second.
Yours ever faithfully
J. S. Mill.
151.
TO ARISTIDE GUILBERT
11th November
1835
My dear Guilbert
Mr Murray, the bookseller, is unluckily out of town, & the only answer I have been able to get from his son, is a recommendation to M. Fiévée to send the manuscript for Mr Murray to see. I think it would be advisable to send it, or at least part of it, as I am, myself, quite convinced that it will suit Mr Murray, but in case it should not, I could then apply at once to some other bookseller.
Have the copies of the London Review No 3, which were sent to you through Galignani, yet reached you? Pray enquire for them & let me know. I do not know exactly on what day Messrs Baldwin & Cradock sent them—but they were addressed to you, at your own residence, Rue de Joubert No 47.
M. Nisard has positively promised an article on Victor Hugo for the next number. The letter he wrote to me on the subject amused me extremely—it quite corresponded with the character you gave him.
Our politics are in appearance sleeping—the ministry doing all they can to stop the discussion on the reform of the peerage—& they have succeeded, with respect to the daily newspapers—but not as to the weekly, or the country papers—& public opinion has in reality, fully decided the question, as you will see in a year or two.
Ever yours
J. S. Mill
152.
TO ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE
19 novembre 1835.
Permettez-moi, mon cher M. de Tocqueville, de vous adresser les plus vives félicitations sur l’événement que M. de Beaumont m’a annoncé dans sa lettre du 8 de ce mois. Puisse-t-il réaliser tous vos vœux et vous assurer le bonheur que vous méritez si bien et qui échappe si souvent à ceux qui, dans notre temps, et peut-être de tout temps, se sont occupés de faire quelque chose pour le bien de l’humanité.
Comme il se peut très bien, par la négligence des libraires, que vous n’ayez point encore reçu l’exemplaire qui vous était destiné du London Review, je vous en envoie un autre, accompagné d’un exemplaire de mon article sur la « Démocratie en Amérique » que je soumets à votre bienveillante critique, en désirant vivement de votre amitié la communication de toutes les observations qui pourront naître dans votre esprit des doutes que j’ai exprimés sur une petite partie seulement de vos conclusions. Je suis loin d’avoir des idées fixes sur les questions dont il s’agit, et je suis avide de tous les renseignements qui pourraient m’aider à en former, et que personne autant que vous n’est dans le cas de me donner. Si je me trompe dans quelques-unes de mes observations, je le regrette d’autant moins que les lecteurs du London Review ne sont guère encore capables d’accueillir des opinions plus conformes aux vôtres que celles que j’ai exprimées, et je pourrai, avec le temps, rectifier mes erreurs.
Vous pensez bien que je ne veux pas, dans les circonstances présentes, vous importuner au sujet des articles que vous voulez bien destiner au London Review. Je vous dirai seulement que nous nous sommes décidés à ne faire paraître la 4e livraison que le 31 décembre, ce qui nous permettrait d’attendre plus longtemps un article dont il nous serait si avantageux d’enrichir cette livraison.
Croyez toujours, mon cher M. de Tocqueville, à ma haute estime et à mon amitié dévouée.
J. S. Mill.
153.
TO HENRY S. CHAPMAN
Monday.
[Nov., 1835]
Dear Chapman,—
I send two articles which should be set up directly. One by J.R. and another (the one on Guizot which I have, I think, with tolerable success) manufactured from a so-so article into a good one. If they cannot print from the pencil I wish you would get somebody to put my alterations into ink.
Let me have proof as soon as possible of both these and of the “Aristocracy” in which my father wishes to make some corrections.
I shall have an opportunity in a day or two for Mrs Austin, and I will send her one of my copies.
Yours ever,
J. S. Mill.
154.
TO JOSEPH BLANCO WHITE
24th November
1835
My dear Sir
I have now the pleasure of sending you a proof of the article on Guizot, in which I hope you will point out every, the smallest, thought or expression to which you in the slightest degree object, & will make any suggestions for the improvement of the article, which may occur to you. I think it will be very interesting & instructive & it is a kind of article which the review much wanted.
Perhaps the few remarks which I have inserted near the beginning of the article, respecting M. Guizot’s political conduct, are not sufficiently in the tone & spirit of the rest of the article—if you think so, pray cancel them & substitute anything which you prefer—but it strikes me that something on that topic was wanted in that place.
I return, at the same time, a few pages of your MS. which I was obliged to omit in order to make room for what I added & to render the general character of the article less discursive.
Joanna Baillie is just about to publish three more volumes of plays: would that not be a good opportunity for a review of her? She has never been properly reviewed. If you think so, I will undertake it, we will get them from the publisher & send them to you.
Ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
Let me hear from you soon respecting your health.
155.
TO ARISTIDE GUILBERT
5th December
1835
My dear Guilbert
I think precisely as you do about M. Nisard’s article. We shall insert it, almost unaltered.
We have also the promise (but do not mention this) of several articles on French society & civilization by M. de Tocqueville, author of “La Démocratie en Amérique.”
These articles & those of M. Nisard, are likely so much to increase the interest taken in the review in France, that we certainly ought to have a regular agency at Paris, & that of M. Paulin is the one we should desire above all others. I do not however quite understand his conditions. Are the 600 francs you mention, 600 francs per month? If so, the expense is greater than we can afford; & we can hardly hope for advertisements enough to pay that expense when the tax on advertisements is deducted. And in regard to our “good offices for the books published by him” an English review which is more political & philosophical than literary, & does not notice, even English books unless they fall in its way while writing for some other purpose, could hardly, even with the best inclinations, engage to notice every book published by a particular house at Paris—neither could we undertake to notice any book with praise unless we thought the praise merited; but perhaps all that is meant is, to notice it in the advertising sheet—that we will readily do, though we shall have to pay taxes for all such notices as advertisements.
Let me hear from you again immediately on this subject.
I will get a written authority for your receiving the books from Galignani. I sent 20 copies of No 3. by M. Fillonneau.
I have not heard further from Mr Murray—I wait for M. Fiévée’s note descriptive.
Ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
156.
TO ARISTIDE GUILBERT
9th December
1835
My dear Guilbert
I suppose you have seen Falconer’s brother & that he has told you all about Paulin. His name will appear as Agent on the cover of the forthcoming review, & I will thank you to conclude with him on the terms he proposes. It will be as well to have a written agreement merely as a memorandum for both parties. It will suit us best to pay the money four times a year, 250 francs on the publication of each number. Will you likewise request M. Paulin, as our agent, to expend a sum not exceeding 125 francs in advertising the present number. I will remit to you the money both for M. Paulin & for M. Nisard to any banker you may name, or we can remit it to M. Paulin that we may not give you trouble now when we have a paid Agent. Unless M. Paulin names some other banker—we will remit to M. Didier as before.
The fourth number is not yet out, owing to extreme misbehaviour on the part of our printer, which we shall not suffer to be repeated. Falconer has some arrangements in view at Dover & Calais by which we may ensure the rapid conveyance of our copies to Paris. We will send 30 copies to M. Paulin as soon as possible after the review appears. Should we send 30 copies only or 30 for sale in addition to, how many? for contributors, & exchanges.
M. Paulin is at liberty to sell them at any price (not lower than three francs) which he thinks most advisable, with a view as well to the reputation of the review as to its pecuniary profit.
Immediately on receiving M. Fiévée’s paper, I forwarded a copy of it to Murray, from whom I have not yet received any answer. If one does not come soon, I will wit[hout] further delay, try an[other] bookseller.
How goes on “le Progrès”?
I suppose you hear sometimes of or from Mad. Foulon—I have done all I could for her, & I think Mrs Hume or Mrs Grote will be of some use to her if she should not, as there is reason to hope, attain her object without them.
Ever truly yours
J. S. Mill.
157.
TO ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE
11 Décembre, 1835.
Mon cher ami,
Quand votre lettre est venue j’étais au lit et souffrent par une maladie dont je suis maintenant complètement rétabli. Votre lettre m’a causé la plus vive satisfaction. Rien ne pouvait m’être plus flatteur que l’approbation que vous avez donnée à mon article. Tout ce que j’ai dit, je l’ai senti, et j’aurais pu dire davantage sans dépasser l’admiration que je ressens pour votre ouvrage et pour son auteur. Quant à la discussion que j’ai ouverte avec vous sur plusieurs points, ne croyez pas que j’aie une conviction pleine et parfaite sur ces questions. Je les regarde certes comme très susceptibles d’une discussion ultérieure, et vous êtes, mon cher Tocqueville, un du très petit nombre de ceux avec une pareille discussion pourrait mener à quelque chose. J’en attends avec impatience l’occasion.
Je regarde avec vous la distinction entre délégation et représentation comme capitale. Ce n’est pas d’aujourd’hui que je tâche de la mettre en avant. Déjà en 1830 j’ai vivement soutenu dans l’Examiner la même opinion; et en 1832, époque où l’on discutait beaucoup ici le mandat impératif, M. Fonblanque eut assez de patriotisme pour imprimer dans un journal deux longs articles de moi, qui offensèrent beaucoup le public radical et lui fit perdre plusieurs de ses abonnés. Mon père, qui au reste est beaucoup plus démocrate que moi, partage très décidément la même opinion, seulement il pense avec une certitude que je suis loin de partager au même degré, que le peuple confondra rarement cette distinction.
Je n’ai senti aucun étonnement de ce que votre premier article ne nous soit pas encore parvenu. On ne peut pas faire vite, et faire aussi bien que vous faites; et ce sentiment consciencieux, qui vous empêche de faire les choses à demi, je l’éprouve moi-même; traiter un sujet moins bien que j’aurais pu le traiter, c’est une nécessité à laquelle je suis forcé quelquefois de me soumettre mais je la subis toujours avec une peine extrême. Si nous avions pu faire connaître publiquement votre nom, cela nous aurait été très utile, je crois même que cela aurait décidé le succès matériel de la revue, car vous êtes maintenant assez connu ici, et pas trop connu, pour que votre apparition dans une revue anglaise piquât vivement la curiosité publique par le double attrait du mérite reconnu et de la nouveauté. Cependant les raisons que vous me donnez sont trop fortes pour que je tâche de vaincre votre répugnance. Nous userons de votre permission en laissant percer votre nom. La prochaine livraison doit par des raisons d’affaires se publier le 31 de ce mois, par conséquent elle devra paraître sans votre article à moins qu’il ne soit déjà fait. C’est une perte pour nous, mais nous sommes consolés un peu par la réflexion que notre marché avec le Westminster Review n’est pas terminé encore et le sera probablement avant la livraison d’Avril. Votre article obtiendra par là dès le commencement une publicité plus étendue.
Rien ne me serait plus agréable que de faire un voyage à Paris et de vous y voir—Hélas! je suis lié pieds et mains pendant onze mois de l’année et il me faut attendre jusqu’ à l’été prochain, alors je serai peutêtre à Paris au moins plusieurs jours.
Tout à vous de cœur, mon cher ami, je vais signer ma lettre quoique vous n’ayez pas signé la votre.
J. S. Mill.
Mille amitiés à Beaumont. Je n’ai pas encore une réponse de M. Crawford.
158.
TO ARISTIDE GUILBERT
26th December
1835
My dear Guilbert
I was just writing to you when I received your note. I am most happy to hear of the journal you are about to establish & of the excellent plan on which it is to be carried on. I am concerned that the popular party should now use les intérêts matériels as one of their main levers. “Il faut arriver à la république par les épiciers.” You can with the more propriety announce yourself as a writer in our review, as your observations on l’épicier will appear in the present number as part of an article on that personage.
I shall advise the proprietor of the review to accept M. Paulin’s proposition. In the meantime write directly & tell me—considering the interest likely to be excited by M. Nisard’s article—how many copies you would advise us to send—& what advertisements to insert in the Paris journals—& what you think would be the cost, & in what way the copies would get to Paris quickest & at what price you would advise that they should be sold.
Falconer would have sent the order upon Galignani, by his brother who has just gone to Paris, had he not set out in an unexpected hurry. Falconer told me some days ago that he would send it by letter to his brother at Paris, & I trust he has done so.
Was it 300 francs per sheet that you agreed were to be paid to M. Nisard? We will send the money either to him or to you, through any banker that you may prefer.
I have been waiting for M. Fiévée’s paper—rather impatiently as our publishing season is approaching. There was no use in speaking again to Murray, or to any other bookseller, till the paper arrived. I am glad it is so soon coming.
Our forthcoming number will be far the best we have yet published, & will greatly eclipse all the other reviews. We have three articles on France: one on Guizot’s Lectures, one on l’Epicier & the one on Victor Hugo.
I shall probably be able to send a positive answer to M. Paulin on Monday. In the meantime as we publish next Thursday without fail, pray write directly.
I shall write to M. Nisard on Monday—I have myself translated his article.
Ever truly yours my dear Guilbert
J. S. Mill.
Titles (by Subject) 
