Front Page Titles (by Subject) 1836 - 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:
1836 - 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 [ADOLPHE NARCISSE?] THIBAUDEAU1
Mon cher Thibaudeau—
Ce serait une chose utile à la Revue de Londres si nous pouvions y insérer un bon et amusant article biographique et critique sur Thiers.2 Ce n’est pas que ce petit fripon en vaille la peine, mais c’est que cela serait lu, chose très essentielle quand on écrit. C’est pourquoi je m’adresse à vous pour vous demander l’indication des renseignements nécessaires pour cela, et vos bons offices pour en obtenir. Ecrivez moi, je vous prie, un petit mot là-dessus, ou faites mieux, venez me voir, soit ici, soit à Kensington. J’irais vous chez vous si je le pouvais, mais il y a quinze jours que je le désire et que je ne le puis pas
tout à vous
J. S. Mill
TO SARAH AUSTIN1
I wrote to you, my dear Mütterlein, by Mr. Barry2 but owing to his unexpectedly going away without seeing his brother to whom my letter was delivered he never received it, & it was brought back to me next day—so here goes to repair it.
Thanks for your kind note. I was only confined at home for a week, by a slight stomach attack, which as they tell me & I believe, has probably saved me from a much worse one—but I fancy I resumed my ordinary amount of bodily exercise too soon, & thereby retarded the recovery of my strength, & I am still by no means completely reestablished.3 My father has had no returns of unfavourable symptoms for many weeks now, but his recovery is very slow, & I do not expect that he will quite get rid of the cough before the warm weather. He does not feel the cold much, as while it lasts he does not stir out of a room which is kept of uniform temperature—& he does not suffer from the confinement nearly so much as I should have expected. He frequently enquires about you and Mr. Austin from every person whom he thinks likely to have heard from you.
I told Chadwick of the opportunity by Mr. Barry, & as I understand several parcels went to Boulogne with him I hope C. sent what you wanted. I did not send anything except my letter, literally because I knew nothing worth sending. The books & periodicals are even worse than they were before you went away. Even the Examiner has degenerated, & grown comparatively tame & dull. Fonblanque is using himself up by writing in the Chronicle,4 the euthanasia of those who live at a greater expense than they can wisely afford—they kill themselves, or at least the best part of themselves, their minds, by demanding too much of them—“to this favour they must come” if they do no worse. The fourth number of the London Review, which is really a good number, would be better worth sending than anything else, but unluckily it was not, & is not even yet, out, thanks to the scurvy conduct of the printer. I will send it by the first opportunity I have, & if there is anything else in particular that you or Mr. Austin feel any curiosity about, tell me & I will be sure to send it.
What you say about my coming to see you is very kind of you my dear Mütterlein but I am not fit for travelling, nor yet unfit to be at the India House from which in my father’s absence I could ill be spared.
I hope Von Raumer5 is worth all the trouble you take about him—but heaven knows whether our stupid public will read or buy a book by a German gelehrte who is neither prince nor minister & whom they never heard of. My father suggested the other day that you should translate Thiers’ history—it has never been translated, & would be sure to sell.
I grieve to hear that Mr. Austin is not well, though all I have heard of him since he was at Boulogne has been favourable as compared with his health anywhere else. What does he mean to do about the Examinership?6 that is a sort of employment which probably would not knock him up, like writing—& the improvement in his circumstances with leisure & freedom from anxiety, might give him a better chance than he ever had before of being well in London.
I have nothing new to tell about Carlyle, Sterling, the Bullers, Grotes, &c.
My brother James has left Haileybury7 with very great credit, & goes to India in about a month. The rest of the family are much as usual, except Jane, who is in indifferent health. Give my love to Lucy.8 Farewell
J. S. Mill
TO THOMAS FALCONER1
[Jan. 27, 1836]
A strange fatality attends our review. I do not believe there ever was any undertaking in which every single thing which ought to be done was so regularly left undone. We advertised the number as out when it was not out,2 and to make amends (I suppose) I have not been able to find a single advertisement that made known the fact since it actually happened.3 There was no advertisement in the “Examiner” on Monday,4 nor in the “Chronicle” yesterday or to-day. It is true, as Peacock says, that “the London Review comes out surreptitiously.” I also ascertained yesterday that at least two contributors, Bisset5 and Garnier, had no copies sent to them. Bisset asked Chapman for one, and got it, and I shall give one to Garnier to-day, but for aught I know, not a single contributor has received a copy, except Peacock, who had one already. You have not answered my note enquiring whether Sterling and W. H. Smith6 have had copies.
I wish you would get a copy of the Index of Vol. 2 for Peacock, as his copy being an early one, was destitute of that appendage.
J. S. Mill.
We are the laughing stock of everybody who knows us, for our way of doing business.
TO HENRY S. CHAPMAN1
My dear Chapman,
I received your note only yesterday evening, at Kensington. I will endeavour to arrange matters with Falconer on the footing which you approve of. I quite agree with you as to what should be the limits of my own interference. The reading of proofs only devolved upon me because there were often alterations to be made after the article was already set up, and because time often pressed and it was desirable to make the alterations before sending the author his proof. We are now, however, so much in advance with our stock of articles that we need not hereafter be pressed for time as we have been hitherto.
As to any other interference on my part, it has been completely forced upon me against my will, and has been progressive with the necessity for it. When I began I counted upon Falconer’s saving me the trouble either of acting or thinking as to business matters; and for a time I left him to himself. I presently found that nothing whatever was done by him unprompted. I therefore, to my great annoyance, had to suggest everything that occurred to me, but I now found that suggesting was not enough, for the suggestions though not objected to, were never acted upon. I supposed that this was for want of remembering them, and in this way I got the habit of reminding him continually, and asking him if the things were done or not. Finally, I found on asking, that in many cases they were not done even after numerous remindings, and thus has been brought about a relation between us so distasteful to me that I never will allow it to go on. At the same time I cannot sit calmly and see the thing go to the devil for want of doing a single thing that is necessary. Every person I know is continually complaining to me of the mismanagement; our utter incapacity is become a subject of general sarcasm and jokes, and at length our printers and publishers have such a contempt for us as men of business that they will not attend to a single one of our orders. If this is the case when I am continually dunning Falconer, what would it be if I intrenched myself in my own department and let the thing go to ruin, saying it was his concern not mine? If Falconer had not been a friend, and of my own choice, and a person I like much and think very highly of, I should have spoken to Molesworth and said “find me another editor, or I give it up.” The contrary being the case, I spoke to Falconer himself, and resolved to take upon myself the trouble he ought to have saved me, and if even that had produced any tolerable management I would have let the thing go on. But as even that will not, it must be changed.
Senior has some copies of his article,2 but his publishers made such objections to the circulation of them here, that he has scarcely been able to give any away except to foreigners. He gave me one because I wanted to review it; if you like I will lend it to you.
I am still far from well—indeed rather worse than better, and I fear I shall be unable to write anything for No. 5,3 and shall have to go into the country and give up for a time all work. I am the more anxious to have the editorship placed on a satisfactory footing that I may not feel anxious while I am away about the mode of its going on.
Will you oblige me by sending the enclosed to Liverpool.
Ever truly yours
J. S. Mill
TO HENRY S. CHAPMAN1
I have just written to Falconer to propose your being Sub-editor.2 In the way I have put it, it cannot possibly hurt his feelings. In case he should not object what salary (disinterestedness apart, for Molesworth is anxious to give you the full value of your time and labour) should you consider adequate?
Ever faithfully yours,
J. S. Mill.
We shall get the Westminster, Molesworth says—he has brought them almost to terms by giving them money in hand.5
TO SARAH AUSTIN1
My dear Mutterlein
Your letter is kind as you always are—& you know how great a pleasure it always is to me to be with you & Mr Austin. I am however so decidedly better within the last few days that I can perhaps do without going into the country at all, & certainly a few days in the country would quite reestablish me—against going so far there are therefore two reasons—the great inconvenience that even a week’s absence is to my father while absent from the India House—& that the fatigue of the journey would do me more harm at present than a very short stay would do me good—the great thing I have to do is to avoid fatigue—there is nothing the matter with me but want of tone and strength. I certainly shall not allow myself to get into bad health, & I should [have]2 gone out of town before this if it had not been for the inconvenience to my father—& you may be sure he would not have allowed me to make that a reason, if I had been seriously ill.
Pray write again & give me more news of yourself & of Mr Austin. I seldom hear about you except in the most general terms.
My father gets on very slowly—but he does get on. There is no news—as to public matters, the ministry are more popular & the radicals in better humour than at any time since the Reform Bill.
TO ALBANY FONBLANQUE1
My dear Fonblanque
Molesworth has just bought the Westminster Review to merge it in the London.2 As the sole radical review we shall surely now have a good chance of success; but we have more need than ever of good articles, that the first number after the junction may be a striking one. You have now rather more leisure, I suppose, than you had during the last year—it would be of the very greatest importance to us if you would write something for the next number. Had you been able to write for us from the commencement it might have made a great difference to us. There are very few of the good radical writers who have not written for us—but you who for popular purposes are universally allowed to be the best, have not. I wish you would.
Yours ever faithfully
J. S. Mill
So they blackballed [Fellowes?] by 47 & [Hill?] by 67.5 The radicals should blackball all Tories till they put down the conspiracy. I shall go there on purpose whenever I can & shall proclaim my intention.
TO WILLIAM JOHNSON FOX1
You know that Molesworth has bought the Westminster & that it is united with the London? That gives us a better chance of success—I should hope a very good one—but which depends entirely on our being able to make the combined review a striking one. I know that you do not like the London Review & I do not know how it is possible you should—still I hope you do not dislike it so much as to be unwilling to write in it—do not suppose that any article of yours would have the fate of Horne’s.2 There is nothing to induce one to put in his articles unless one completely agrees with them, but such articles as many of yours would be desirable for the review even if one differed from every word of them. I should differ from them occasionally, but not nearly so much as I differ in a contrary way from many which I am obliged to put in now—& I am the more desirous to throw something into the other scale.
You know I suppose that you are put upon the list of the Reform Club3 as an original member.
How striking some of your Lectures must have been to hear. I admire them exceedingly. It is a pity the first two,4 from the comparative triteness of the subject have less in them than the rest
will you5 give him this? & will you try to persuade him to do as it asks him to?
she6 is well—that is as well as she ever is—I am still out of health—
TO ALBANY FONBLANQUE1
My dear Fonblanque
I would have answered for Carlyle with the most perfect assurance on the points you mention, but as I anticipated, it does not suit him. He recommends Craik,2 late of the Printing Machine3 —of whom he says “he is a man limited, but honest, & singularly healthy & even robust, within his limits. He cannot be brilliant, but he can be decided, clear, & even emphatic. I should think him a believer with his whole heart in such policy as this present Russel-Melbourne & open to all manner of further light. The man is good tempered, courageous; can take a handsome lift of anything. If I mistake not, such an offer would be excellent news to him at present: I have not heard of him for months; which means, I fear, that he is in straits & uncertainty.”
I am delighted to hear of the Selection from the Examiner4 —many of your papers in it are too good to be let die. The selection will live as long as any such collection in our language. I am glad too for another reason—that we will have a swinging review of it in the “London & Westminster.”
Pray let me know when the question you allude to is decided & in the meantime is there anything Mr. Savage5 would write? He once offered to write for us & would have been asked to write on Orangeism then, if Molesworth had not wanted to do it himself.
I have given your message to my father & it was received as you would wish—but I think there was more need for him to send such a one to you—because you have seemed once or twice to think that when he attacked an opinion of yours, e.g. on the Pension List—he felt or thought with less estimation of you than I know he does. Now the fact I believe is that on that point of the P. List & on some others he had actually forgotten that you were of the opposite opinion—& being accustomed to find you on what he thought the right side, he instinctively concluded you were so on these points. About the Pension list if he had anybody in view it was Grote, with whom he had previously had some personal discussion about it.
J. S. Mill
If you are at the Athenæum on Monday I wish you would vote for John Sterling6 —& get anybody else you can to do so.
TO LORD WELLESLEY1
Mr John S. Mill is instructed by his Father, who has been for several months confined at home by illness, to express to Lord Wellesley his sense of the honour which his Lordship has conferred upon him by presenting him with a copy of his Dispatches,2 and to say that he will do himself the honour of writing as soon as his health permits, to make his personal acknowledgments to Lord Wellesley.
TO ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE1
2 avril 1836.
Mon cher Tocqueville,
Le London and Westminster Review No 5 L 48 vient de paraître. Votre article2 en est le principal ornement. J’ai moi-même surveillé la traduction que nous en avons fait faire, et j’espère que nous avons pu rendre vos idées avec fidélité et que nous n’avons pas absolument gâté le reste: nous avons au moins soigneusement suivi la clarté et la simplicité de votre style, que je regarde comme bien près de la perfection du style philosophique. Nous avons fait imprimer séparément quelques exemplaires de l’article, et nous nous permettons de vous en faire l’hommage; ils vous parviendront en même temps que la Revue elle-même, du moins je l’espère.
Nous sommes aussi vos débiteurs d’une somme de 600 francs que vous toucherez chez M. Delamarre, banquier. Ce n’est pas sans honte que je vous parle d’argent et surtout d’une si faible somme lorsqu’il s’agit d’un travail comme celui dont vous avez enrichi notre recueil.
Pourrons-nous espérer que la prochaine livraison offrira à notre public la suite de ce travail?3
Vous verrez que nous n’avons pas donné à l’article (comme nous avions pensé à la faire) la forme d’une lettre, puisqu’il n’y avait ni dans le style, ni dans le fond rien qui exigeât un changement dans la forme ordinaire de nos articles de la Revue.
J’apprends de M. Gustave de Beaumont qu’il s’occupe d’un ouvrage sur l’Irlande;4 cette nouvelle m’a fait un plaisir extrême. Il me demande des renseignements; je me suis adressé à M. Cornewall Lewis pour en avoir, et j’ai appris qu’il avait déjà envoyé à M. de Beaumont tout ce qu’il jugeait utile, et notamment le livre qu’il vient de livrer au public et qui me paraît fort intéressant. Au reste j’écrirai très incessamment à M. de Beaumont.
C’est ici seulement un petit bout de lettre fait à la hâte; je vous en promets un meilleur en quelques jours.
J. S. Mill.
TO JOSEPH BLANCO WHITE1
My dear Sir
I quite agree with you as to the desirableness of striking more directly than we have hitherto done against the prevailing tendencies of English religion.2 Mr Martineau has at my request written an article on your two books, the “Second Travels” & the “Heresy & Orthodoxy” which breaks ground on the subject very well.3 It could have been ready for the 4th number, but we were obliged to omit it even from the 5th, to make room for political or literary matter of a temporary kind. It will certainly be in the next, & I will suggest to him to append something on the Hampden controversy.4 But I have long looked forward to having the same subject treated by yourself, whom from your published writings I cannot but regard as the best writer by far whom the country at present has on such topics. I hope you will think of it. We can, you see, afford you ample time, & you can yourself chuse the mode & the opportunity. It is only necessary to avoid directly expressing any opinion on points of faith or rather of dogma; that the review in attacking sectarianism may not get the character with the stupid part of the public, of being itself connected with any sect.
With regard to an article for our next number I have had some scruples about proposing anything to you so long as the article on Lamb remained pending. I never had more difficulty in making up my mind about any article than I have about that. It is an article which on many accounts it would be a great loss to the review not to insert—besides which it would be a thousand pities that all the trouble you have had about it should be lost. On the other hand I foresee that it will do us very serious injury with a large class of those who take most interest in literature & who as being friendly to the cause of movement are friendly to us—& will raise a storm about us which however ready to encounter when required by duty, I do not so much like to face on a matter on which even after all the modifications & explanations you have so good-naturedly given, I still find that my own views differ fundamentally from yours. I take it that in our estimation of the class of writers called humourists you & I should hardly ever agree5 —& that you dislike everything which has not a serious & truthful object. Do you not (I should think you did) prefer Schiller to Goethe? & do you like Falstaff & Poins—I should think not. I am obliged in these embarrassments to take a little more time for consideration.
As for any other subject, I can at present think of none but Joanna Baillie. What is your general notion of her merits? I ask this because you see we have broken ground at last on the subject of the greater poets of our age,6 & it is therefore more necessary than heretofore that we should maintain in our future judgments, a consistency with what we have said in the literary articles of this number.
I believe Schmidt-Phiseldek is a very good view of Kant.7
I sympathize in your annoyance about your house.8 How the vices of English law shew themselves in every relation of civil life.
I am slowly getting rid of my ailment. To accelerate the cure I am going for a short time to Brighton—probably on [Thurs]day.
What would you think of a historical subject? That is the kind of articles we now most want—for the first time we are at length able, though by no means desirous, to give you a holiday in pure literature. But there is a noble field open in European history which hardly any of our writers are able to tread.
I am delighted that you approve of my “Civilization.”9
J. S. Mill
TO HENRY MILL1
[Brighton, April, 1836]
There seems to be a change considerably for the better in my bodily state within the last three days; whether it will last, I cannot yet tell; nor do I know whether the place has contributed towards it, as the more genial weather of yesterday and to-day is probably the chief cause. [He then says that he will continue his stay if the improvement goes on, but is reluctant to be long absent, partly on account of his father’s illness and partly on account of his tutoring “Mary and George”. He trusts to Henry to keep him informed on the state of matters, and if he can be of any use to his father, he will forego the present advantages and trust to getting well as the summer advances.]
TO ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE1
27th April 1836.
My dear Tocqueville,
You must be surprised that I did not immediately answer your letter—& so I would, if it had not found me ill & in bed—I have been in indifferent health all the winter & have lately had a short attack of rather a sharper kind. I now write to you from Brighton where I have come to try to get well—& I am just now too tired to write in French, but for that I need not apologize to you, though I ought for the shortness of this note.—As for the delay of your second article in the Review—I am less sorry for that than I am glad of the cause—I anticipate from the continuation of “La Démocratie” a more than ordinary share of the pleasure & instruction your writings always give me—I have more to learn of the influence of Democracy on private life & individual character than of its influence on political interests & you have taught me so much on the last that I hope you will teach me still more on the first.
Your article in the review though generally considered a little abstract (as the people here say of anything which is consecutive & methodical) has on the whole been very successful here; all who have read it admire it, & its successors are likely to have a still more numerous class of readers as they will relate to circumstances of more immediate & contemporaneous interest. Though we should have liked much to have had the second in our next number, we can very well wait for it till the number after, & should accept it most thankfully however long it might be delayed. The only thing that embarrasses us is—we want to review Bulwer’s France2 & cannot do it because we cannot interfere with a subject which we wish to have entirely in your hands. Could you—I will not ask you to suspend your labours even for a day—but could you persuade Beaumont or any other judicious friend, to send us a few cursory remarks on Bulwer’s book which we might work up into an article of our own—of course not entering philosophically into the subject, as that will be so much better done by you—we only wish to do justice to what is useful & meritorious in the book, & to correct any gross errors. Do not however give yourself any trouble or gêne about this, but I am sure your friendship will not feel itself taxed by my asking your advice how we may best treat Bulwer’s book.
A letter which must have reached you immediately after writing your last will have explained to you about the 600 francs which were as much a debt as anything could be, though we were almost ashamed to offer you so mere a trifle—I will write again soon—I always say so, but this time you shall find me as good as my word.
J. S. Mill.
TO HENRY MILL1
[Brighton (May?), 1836]
[John was at Brighton for his own health during his father’s last illness; but wrote assiduously to Henry, to know whether his hurrying back would be of any use.] As to my father, tell me as fully as you can how he is, both as to his illness itself, and as to spirits, and what you think would be pleasantest to him; not what he would wish or say out of kindness to me.
TO ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE1
15th June 1836.
My dear Tocqueville,
Many thanks for your very kind note. I would not on any consideration be the cause of your interrupting for ever so short a time, meditations so important to the world as those must be which are to give rise to the second part of La Démocratie en Amérique. We have ample time before us, as it is already too late for the July number of the review, & perhaps Beaumont will be able to finish his article in time for the 30th of September. Will you oblige me by offering to him my best thanks for his kindness in having undertaken & commenced an article of so much importance to us & my warmest congratulations & wishes for his happiness.2
There is not much happiness in our home at present. My father is sinking to his grave under a lingering pulmonary complaint—I fear there is no chance of his recovery. My own complaint does not cause me any uneasiness, it is slight, & not painful, & there is nothing serious in it but its obstinacy. It has hitherto resisted all remedies—if I should be obliged to travel, which I think not unlikely I must I fear go further off than Paris or any part of the north of France—not so much for climate as for a complete change of scene—.
I will write soon again at greater length.
Yours ever faithfully,
J. S. Mill.
TO SARAH AUSTIN1
There is nothing, that I am aware of, my dear Mütterlein, that requires the help you so kindly offer—we have been so long expecting this that most of the necessary arrangements were made, or ready to be made, at once. But you may be sure that if we do need anything which you can do for us there is no one we would more confidently apply to.
I am grieved that Mr. Austin is again ill—I thought him so well yesterday. He will receive an invitation to the funeral, but of course he will not come if he is ill or if it is inconvenient.
Your proposal about Derry2 is very kind but quite impracticable—some time hence such a thing might be beneficial to him—but now I am sure he would dislike to leave us & his younger brothers & sisters would be made quite unhappy by his absence—he is their great friend, companion and teacher. We mean to send them all to Mickleham directly—where all, especially Derry, are anxious to go. If I should be obliged to travel for a longer time than a month or two I shall take the two boys with me for the whole or part of the time.3
Ever affectionately yours
J. S. Mill
TO THOMAS CARLYLE1
My dear Carlyle My annotations, & proposed alterations in phraseology, amount as you will see, to but little; less than I expected—& you will probably think most of them trifling. My object has been to remove, when it can be done without sacrifice, anything merely quaint in the mode of expression—but I have very often not ventured to touch it for fear of spoiling something which I could not replace. The only general remark I have to make on the stile is that I think it would often tell better on the reader if what is said in an abrupt, exclamatory, & interjectional manner were said in the ordinary grammatical mode of nominative & verb—but on that as on everything else I ask nothing but that you will deal with it as you like, disregarding all my observations if you do not think them just—& in any case that you will not make the thing an annoyance to you. It is quite good enough & too good for us as it is.
Ever faithfully yours
J. S. Mill
TO CLARA MILL1
3 August 1836
One having written to W[illie] & one to H[arriet] I must write to Clara—so here goes—We are all quite as well, perhaps rather better than was to be expected. George & Henry do not seem at all struck with Paris—they are I think too young to care much about it or to be impressed by it at all. They seemed pleased with the country, & on the whole their excursion has been hitherto tolerably successful. But the only piece of thorough solid delight that George seemed to have was in meeting with a playfellow2 about his own age whom he likes & who likes him very much. Nothing is settled yet about our travelling further—it is not finally settled whether we shall go alone or with our friends here, much less when we shall go & how—the places are all taken by the diligence for nearly a week to come, & posting so far is very expensive—but we shall see. One thing seems certain—that both Derry & I can stand travelling. We have not tried any night work to be sure yet. We will write you again from Geneva.
ever affectionately yours
TO MRS. JAMES MILL1
[Nov. 4, 1836]
As we shall so soon be at Kensington there is not much to write. I have no doubt you did the best you could as to the house, & the sale;2 & as the house is taken we will stay there till we can find another that we thoroughly like—& as we do not know how long it may be first, I shall have the bookshelves put up. You may as well do it before I come unless you have any doubt how I should like it to be done. I am much the same as to health—my head is often rather bad, otherwise I am as well almost as I ever was.
TO ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE1
[Nov. 9, 1836]
Après avoir été bien près de vous en Suisse, mon cher Tocqueville, sans vous rencontrer, j’arrive à Paris et vous êtes encore à la campagne, ainsi que Beaumont, et par là je me trouve privé du plaisir de voir, pendant le très peu de jours que je reste ici, presque les deux seules personnes que je tenais beaucoup à y trouver. Je regrette beaucoup de ne pas vous voir, et j’aurais voulu vous voir à Paris—nous ne nous sommes encore connus qu’en Angleterre, et cela aurait aidé à combler le vide que laisse pour moi à Paris la mort funeste de Carrel2 —le seul homme en France, execpté vous, mon cher Tocqueville, pour qui je ressentais une véritable admiration—et cependant vous savez que j’aime les Français—la nation en général, et un grand nombre d’entre eux en particulier. J’ai à vous dire mille choses, mais avant tout j’ai à vous demander comment va la deuxième partie de la Démocratie. Je l’attends avec impatience, pour les lumières qu’elle répandra sur bien des questions dans mon propre esprit, pour le bien qu’elle fera à notre siècle et aux temps à venir, et pour l’intérêt que je porte à votre gloire. Je crains que votre voyage en Suisse, dont j’ai appris avec peine le motif n’ait dû retarder un peu la complétion de votre tâche. Moi-meme j’ai été forcé de suspendre mes travaux par des motifs de santé, et de faire un voyage en Suisse et en Italie, qui m’a fait du bien mais qui ne m’a pas guéri; mon mal pourtant n’a rien de très sérieux, c’est un dérangement local de la circulation du sang dans la partie droite de la tête; il a duré une année, c’est ma première maladie, mais elle se montre obstinée et il faut que je me résigne à la subir. Je m’y accoutume peu à peu et je crois que cela ne m’empêchera pas de travailler beaucoup cet hiver. Je suis assez content de la livraison de la revue qui a paru dans mon absence; je ne l’ai vue que chez Bennis,3 depuis mon arrivée à Paris; mais comme, moi absent, on néglige tout, il s’est trouvé qu’on a négligé d’envoyer des exemplaires à nos amis d’ici et entre autres à Beaumont et à vous; je vais écrire à Londres pour mettre ordre à cela: dans huit jours vous aurez des exemplaires. Nous aurions bien besoin de votre secours pour le prochain numero; mais si votre grand travail n’est pas encore achevé, nous ne sommes pas assez peu modestes pour vous en demander. Seulement je vous engage beaucoup à faire usage de votre influence auprès de notre ami Beaumont pour tirer de lui un article ou au moins des notes sur la “France” de M. Henry Bulwer.4 Tout en faisant de la haute philosophie historique sur la France au moyen de vos articles, nous voudrions en même temps nous trouver dans le cas de rectifier en passant les erreurs qu’on commet en écrivant sur la France, et rendre justice à ce qu’il y a de bon (et il y en a beaucoup) dans les idées de M. Bulwer. Nous ne pouvons pas faire cela sans la coopération de nos amis en France et j’ai une confiance dans les jugements de Beaumont que ne m’inspirerait nul autre à qui je pourrais m’adresser, confiance qui est due autant à son propre mérite qu’à l’étroite union qui existe entre lui et vous, union qui lui donne toujours l’occasion et l’habitude de comparer ses idées avec les vôtres. J’ai lu chez Bennis deux notices sur la Démocratie: l’une dans le Quarterly Review, qui est évidemment de Basil Hall;5 tout ce qu’il a mis de lui est pitoyable, mais heureusement il y a mis beaucoup de vous, et il parle de vous et du livre comme il le doit. L’autre article est du North American Review;6 j’attendais celui-là avec beaucoup d’intérêt pour savoir le parti que prendraient les écrivains américains sur le livre: j’ai été très content de voir que l’article est fait dans un esprit favorable; on y dit seulement que vous généralisez quelquefois un peu trop, et j’aurais voulu qu’on eût dit en quoi. A propos, j’observe que le American Quarterly Review, dans sa dernière livraison, s’élève très fortement contre le système des pledges:7 cela m’a charmé, d’autant plus que cette revue passe (n’est-ce pas?) pour être démocrate, et pas fédéraliste comme le North American.
Ecrivez-moi vite, je vous prie: je serai ici pour deux ou trois jours. Parlez-moi de votre santé, de celle de Madame de Tocqueville, de vos travaux, de vos idées sur l’état de choses actuel et de sa durée probable; parlez-moi aussi de Beaumont et enfin de ce que vous ou lui pourrez faire pour la revue.
Avez-vous vu Senior en Suisse? Vous savez qu’il est Master in Chancery8 et très content de l’être. Cela le rend plus riche et plus indépendant aussi.
Tout à vous mon cher Tocqueville.
J. S. Mill.
TO ARISTIDE GUILBERT1
22d Novr 1836
My dear Guilbert
I write to you in great haste, to say that I have this day directed Messrs Prescott & Grote & Co to remit to you £25. I presume it will be receivable at Delamarre’s as usual.
If your article2 is to be inserted in the forthcoming number, we must not only have the article itself by the 15th of December, but we must have it soon enough to be translated before the 15th of December.
With many apologies for the brevity & abruptness of this note believe me my dear Guilbert
Ever yours faithfully
J. S. Mill.
TO EDWARD LYTTON BULWER1
My dear Sir
I have just returned from an absence of nearly four months on the Continent, rendered necessary by an obstinate though in no way alarming indisposition, which has lasted for more than a twelvemonth & which together with another far more melancholy circumstance2 had obliged me during that period to put aside all occupations which could be dispensed with & among other things to leave my friend Molesworth’s review3 very much to shift for itself. Now, when I am sufficiently recovered to be able to revert to my former interests & pursuits, one of the things I am most concerned about is how the greatest value & efficiency may be given to that review—& I am sure that I speak the sentiments of all connected with it, when I say that nothing would conduce so much to either end as your hearty cooperation, if we could be so fortunate as to obtain it. I have, since my return, read your article on Sir Thomas Browne4 with an admiration I have seldom felt for any English writings on such subjects—I did not know, at the time, that it was yours, & could not conceive what new accession had come to the Edinburgh Review. I first thought it might possibly be Macaulay’s, but as I read on I felt it to be far too good for him—it has much of the same brilliancy, but not his affected and antithetical stile, & above all a perception of truth, which he never seems to have, & a genuine love of the True & the Beautiful, the absence of which in him, is the reason why among his thousands of clever things & brilliant things there are so few true things—& hardly one which is the whole truth, & nothing but the truth. I could not help saying to myself, who would look for these qualities in the Edinburgh Review? how the readers of that review must be puzzled & bewildered by a writer who actually takes decided views, who is positively in earnest, & is capable of downright admiration & even enthusiasm! I am sure your writing must be lost upon them; they are not people who can recognise or care about truth; your beautiful things will be to them merely clever things & amusing things comme tant d’autres. Among us you would at least find both writers and readers who are in earnest. I grant that you, & such writing as yours, would be nearly as much out of place in our review as it has been, as in the Edinburgh: but not, as I hope it will hereafter be. As good may be drawn out of evil—the event which has deprived the world of the man of greatest philosophical genius it possessed5 & the review (if such little interests may be spoken of by the side of great ones) of its most powerful writer, & the only one to whose opinions the editors were obliged to defer—that same event has made it far easier to do that, in the hope of which alone I allowed myself to become connected with the review—namely to soften the harder & sterner features of its radicalism and utilitarianism, both which in the form in which they originally appeared in the Westminster, were part of the inheritance of the 18th century. The Review ought to represent not radicalism but neoradicalism, a radicalism which is not democracy, not a bigotted adherence to any forms of government or to one kind of institutions, & which is only to be called radicalism inasmuch as it does not palter nor compromise with evils but cuts at their roots—& a utilitarianism which takes into account the whole of human nature not the ratiocinative faculty only—the utilitarianism which never makes any peculiar figure as such, nor would ever constitute its followers a sect or school—which fraternizes with all who hold the same axiomata media (as Bacon has it) whether their first principle is the same or not—& which holds in the highest reverence all which the vulgar notion of utilitarians represents them to despise—which holds Feeling at least as valuable as Thought, & Poetry not only on a par with, but the necessary condition of, any true & comprehensive Philosophy. I know I am writing very loosely & expressing myself very ill—but you will understand me—& as I have, through Molesworth’s confidence in me, complete power over that review whenever I chuse to exercise it, I hope you will believe, that if the review has hitherto been too much in the old stile of radical-utilitarianism with which you cannot possibly sympathize very strongly (nor I either) it is because the only persons, who could be depended upon as writers, were those whose writings would not tend to give it any other tone. My object will now be to draw together a body of writers resembling the old school of radicals only in being on the Movement side, in philosophy, morality, & art as well as in politics & socialities—& to keep the remnant of the old school (it is dying out) in their proper place, by letting them write only about the things which they understand. But this attempt must fail unless those who could assist it, will. Why should you not write, for us, a series of articles on the old English writers, similar to that on Browne? They would be quite invaluable to us: we have not among our habitual writers any who could be trusted to write on such subjects—those who would have enough of the requisite feelings & talents, have not the requisite reading. We have now, since the junction with the Westminster, readers enough to make it worth while; & readers who are in earnest, readers by whom what you write would be taken au sérieux & not as a mere play of intellect & fancy. Your writing for us need not hinder you from writing for the Edinburgh also if you like it—but I am sure you must often feel that not to be a fitting vehicle for anything not of a stationary character either in literature or politics—passe encore if you could hope by your writings to modify the character of the work itself—but that is hopeless. Now among us you could.
Do pray think of it & tell me the result of your thought. The time is evidently approaching when the radicals will once more be a distinct party & when people will look to the review as their organ—& much will depend upon its being an organ which represents the best part of them and not the narrowest & most repulsive.
Ever yours faithfully,
J. S. Mill.
TO EDWARD LYTTON BULWER1
My dear Bulwer—Accept my best thanks for the kind expressions in your letter. Nothing could be more gratifying to me than the whole tone of it & I could not be so unreasonable as to ask, under the circumstances you mention, for any greater degree of immediate cooperation than that which you so kindly offer. I have been long looking for your work on Athens,2 & rejoice in the prospect of its being out so soon. If it be not delayed longer than the time you mention we may perhaps hope for something from you for our April number? Everyone who writes criticism worthy the name, must write it as you say “slowly & with great labour” for it is precisely, of all things, that which it is most difficult to write well, & which is least supportable when slovenly—but a greater number & variety of important truths, (truths too with their application annexed) may be thrown into circulation in that way than in almost any other mode of writing. Though I shall in common with most people lose a great deal of pleasure when you leave off writing romances, it is still very good news that you are looking forward to an early time at which your powers will be devoted—I will not say to nobler, or more important objects, for Politics are not intrinsically nobler, & as usually pursued are far less noble than Art, but at least to objects of more pressing exigency, & where there is a wider field of usefulness open just at the present time. Nobody can doubt that whenever you do make politics & the things which are to be effected through politics, your principal object—& pursue that object with the energy & perseverance which you have so conspicuously shewn in the application of the same powers to other objects—there is a place reserved for you in the political history of this country which will not be a humble one.
If you do not find the atmosphere of the L. & W. Review more & more congenial to you it will not be my fault. Even at present when bad things are put in, it is not because they are liked, but for want of better—your aid, to whatever degree afforded, much more if (may I say, when) it may hereafter be habitually afforded, would of itself supersede, & displace much that it would be very desirable to see displaced. It would also conduce extremely to the success of the review, but the great thing is that it would conduce, more than any other literary assistance I can think of, to render the review what it is not now even in the slightest degree, an organ of real literary & social criticism.
What you say of the radi[cal]s3 is too true—but I think they are, now, bestirring th[em]selves in all quarters—& as their jealousy is, I think, chiefly the natural carping of those who do nothing against all which is done, as they grow more active they may shake it off. The most active among them are the least capable of jealousy even now. I think they would all follow a good leader & would not be jealous of one whose power they felt & saw to be exerted in their behalf. They are really sincere men, & would value a man who worked vigorously in the cause.
Ever yours faithfully,
J. S. Mill.
TO SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH1
3rd December 1836
I send you some more of your article.2 Do not be frightened at the number of pencil marks. This part bears the proof of being more hastily written than the preceding part. The ideas are not presented in so lucid an order. My suggestions will do something to do this: but you probably could do more.
You have, I believe, an article of Bisset’s on the Universities: is it good for anything? would you send it for me to see?
I want your permission to propose you for the Political Economy Club. What think you of it?
J. S. Mill.
TO DAVID BARCLAY1
The chief points are the time and place of his birth; who and what his parents were, and anything interesting that there may be to state about them: what places of education he went to: for what professions he was educated. I believe he went through a medical course, and also that for the Church, and I have heard that he was actually licensed as a preacher, but I never heard him say so himself, and never heard of it till after his death. I do not know whether it is true or not; perhaps you do. How long did he remain at the University, or prosecute his studies for the Church? The history of his connection with the late Sir John Stuart.2
TO THOMAS CARLYLE (see page 743)
[1. ]MS in the possession of Arthur Pforzheimer, Bookseller, 26 East 56th Street, New York City, in March, 1944.
[2. ]No such article appeared.
[1. ]Addressed: Madame / Madame Austin / à Boulogne-sur-Mer. Postmark: Boulogne-sur-Mer / 10 / [. . . .] / 1836. MS at Yale.
[3. ]This is the first indication in the extant letters of the onset of the serious illness that was to afflict him for much of the rest of the year and to leave him with permanently impaired health. In April his physician ordered him to Brighton to recuperate, and at the end of July the East India Company gave him a three months’ leave of absence to seek health in travel on the Continent.
[4. ]The Morning Chronicle.
[5. ]Mrs. Austin’s translation with H. E. Lloyd of Frederick L. G. von Raumer’s England in 1835 (3 vols.) was published in March, 1836.
[6. ]Austin evidently declined the position, for later that year he accepted an appointment with Sir George Cornewall Lewis to investigate the government of Malta.
[7. ]The East India College there.
[8. ]Mrs. Austin’s daughter, later Lady Lucy (or Lucie) Duff Gordon (1821-1869).
[1. ]From copy in the possession of Professor J. M. McCrimmon, University of Illinois. The dating is based on the remarks about the advertising of the London Review (see notes 2, 3, 4).
[2. ]An advertisement in the Examiner for Dec. 27, 1835, p. 830, announced that the Review would be published on Dec. 31.
[3. ]The Examiner for Jan. 17, 1836, p. 46, announced that the Review would be published on Jan. 18.
[4. ]Really Sunday. The Examiner for Jan. 24 carried no advertisement of the Review, but the Jan. 31 number, p. 80, announced it as published.
[5. ]Andrew Bisset (1803-?), barrister and historian.
[6. ]William Henry Smith (1808-1872), philosopher and poet, writer for Blackwood’s Magazine.
[1. ]From a copy in the possession of Professor J. M. McCrimmon.
[2. ]Nassau Senior, An Outline of the Science of Political Economy. This was first published as the article on political economy in the Encyclopædia Metropolitana, 1836, and a few copies were struck off for private circulation (see Marian Bowley, Nassau Senior and Classical Economics [London, 1937], p. 340). JSM seems not to have carried out his intention of reviewing Senior.
[3. ]He did contribute, however, two articles to this number (April, 1836) of the LWR: “Civilization,” pp. 1-28, and “The State of Politics in 1836,” pp. 271-78.
[1. ]From copy in the possession of Professor J. M. McCrimmon.
[2. ]The original bears a note by H. S. Chapman: “Memo: No communication ever received from Falconer.”
[3. ]Roebuck’s series, Pamphlets for the People, ended with the number for Feb. 11, 1836. See Letter 140, n. 8.
[4. ]Molesworth, Roebuck, and J. T. Leader were projecting a new radical paper on which Chapman was to be engaged. Professor McCrimmon possesses a copy of an unpublished letter from Molesworth to Chapman, dated March 3 , which begins: “Roebuck has I presume informed you that we shall establish a paper—success to us—. Leader expects you on Saturday at two o’clock when all will be arranged.” The plan apparently did not materialize at this time, but Molesworth, Leader, and others established a weekly newspaper The Guide in 1837 (see Letter 415, n. 2).
[5. ]The merger of the London Review and the Westminster Review became effective with the April, 1836, number. See Letter 165, n. 2.
[1. ]Addressed: Madame / Madame Austin / à Boulogne sur Mer. Postmarks: ANGLETERRE / PAR / CALAIS; BOULOGNE-SUR-MER / 19 / F36 / 184; UR MER / 1836 / (61); BOULOGNE. MS at King’s.
[2. ]Page torn.
[1. ]Part published in Life and Labours of Albany Fonblanque, ed. E. B. de Fonblanque (London, 1874), pp. 39-40. MS at LSE. Bears pencil mark, 1834, but internal evidence establishes early 1836 as the proper date.
[2. ]Molesworth paid the proprietor of the Westminster £1,000. The Examiner on March 20, 1836, p. 192, carried an advertisement announcing the merger. The first issue of the London and Westminster Review was that for April, 1836.
[3. ]A review of The Fudges in England (London, 1835) by Thomas Brown the Younger (i.e., Tom Moore, the poet), WR, XXIV (Jan., 1836), 79-92.
[4. ]Probably Marmion W. Savage (1803-1872), Irish journalist and novelist, editor of the Examiner, 1856-59.
[5. ]The reference is to an election of members to the Athenæum, to which both JSM and James Mill, as well as Fonblanque, belonged (see T. Humphry Ward, History of the Athenæum, 1824-1925 [London, 1926], pp. 41-42). The names are barely legible, but the conclusion seems warranted that the blackballed candidates were Robert Fellowes (1771-1847), philanthropist and liberal, and Matthew Davenport Hill, QC (1792-1872), reformer of criminal law.
[1. ]But addressed: Miss Flower / 5 Craven Hill / Bayswater. (Note postscript.) Eliza Flower lived in Fox’s home. Postmarks: T. / Leadenhall, and 2 AM 2 / FE 23 / 1836. Published in Garnett, p. 183, except for postscript. MS at King’s.
[2. ]Richard Henry, or Hengist, Horne (1803-1884), miscellaneous writer and poet, took over the editorship of the Monthly Repository from Fox in July, 1836, and conducted it until July, 1837, when Leigh Hunt became editor.
[3. ]Established in 1836 under the leadership of such reformers as Edward Ellice and Sir William Molesworth.
[4. ]Fox’s Finsbury Lectures were published separately from time to time between 1835 and 1840. The first two were: No. 1. “The Morality of Poverty”; No. 2. “Aristocratical and Political Morality.” The Examiner for Jan. 3, 1836, p. 16, announces the sixth, “On the Morality of the Press,” and lists the previous five.
[5. ]Eliza Flower.
[6. ]Mrs. Taylor.
[1. ]MS at LSE. Dated by the passage quoted in first paragraph from Carlyle’s letter, dated Thursday [Feb. 26, 1836], in A. Carlyle, pp. 120-21.
[2. ]For what Carlyle in his letter calls “the Lichfield Editorship.” George L. Craik (1798-1866), journalist and literary historian.
[3. ]The Printing Machine; or Companion to the Library and Register of Progressive Knowledge (3 vols., London, 1834-35) had merged with Leigh Hunt’s London Journal (2 vols., 1834-35) in 1835, but the combined Leigh Hunt’s London Journal and the Printing Machine survived only until Dec., 1835.
[4. ]Published by Fonblanque with the title England under Seven Administrations (3 vols., London, 1837). JSM reviewed it, LWR, XXVII (April, 1837), 65-98.
[5. ]See Letter 165, n. 4.
[6. ]According to the secretary of the Athenæum, the name of Sterling was entered as a candidate for membership, but his name was subsequently withdrawn and not brought forward for election.
[1. ]MS in Brit. Mus.
[2. ]The Dispatches, Minutes and Correspondence of the Marquess Wellesley During his Administration in India, ed. M. Martin (5 vols., London, 1836-37).
[1. ]Published in Mayer, pp. 307-8. MS in Tocqueville archives.
[2. ]“Political and Social Condition of France,” LWR, XXV (April, 1836), 137-69. Reprinted in Mayer, II, 1.
[3. ]The hope was unfulfilled. Tocqueville contributed no more to the Review; for the next four years he was too much occupied with the concluding volumes of his work on democracy.
[4. ]Eventually published as L’Irlande sociale, politique et religieuse (2 vols., Paris, 1839).
[1. ]Addressed: Revd Blanco White, Upper Stanhope Street, Liverpool. Franked by Wm. Molesworth. Postmark: 9AP9 / 1836. MS in Liverpool University Library. In reply to White’s letter of April 4, 1836, in Thom, II, 208-9.
[2. ]White had written (Thom, II, 208): “It appears to me, that our Review avoids too much a direct collision with the mischievous system of religion, which the State supports. You—the leaders—are too much away from the mass of bigotry and superstition existing in the country, and, as it were, disdain the subject. . . . The Theologians should be routed: the evil they are doing is immense.”
[3. ]See Letter 135, n. 5.
[4. ]Both Evangelicals and Tractarians joined in protesting Lord Melbourne’s appointment in 1836 of Renn Dickson Hampden (1793-1868) as Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, because of the unorthodox views he had expressed in his Bampton Lectures of 1832. See R. W. Church, The Oxford Movement, 1833-1845 (London, 1891), chap. ix.
[5. ]JSM had apparently raised earlier questions of White’s treatment of Charles Lamb’s humour in an article proposed for the Review. On Feb. 7, 1836, White wrote (Thom, II, 183): “I certainly thought that the observations from which my disapprobation of Lamb’s style of humour proceeds, were more generally received than your remarks imply. I ought, however, to have remembered that there is a set of very able men, writing constantly as critics, whose principal fund of humour arises from the roystering, (I use their own descriptive word,) carousing, eating, and drinking spirits, which they take a pleasure to bring out before the public. . . . Their humourous writing is a kind of Row. It is unquestionable that much of the talk which you find, especially in Blackwood, would be impertinent and coarse in refined company; how then can it be tolerable when addressed to the public? I cannot bear Fielding in many parts of his works, though I greatly admire his talent.”
[6. ]In an article, “The Poets of our Age, Considered as to their Philosophic Tendencies,” signed D., in the April number of LWR, pp. 60-71.
[7. ]Conrad Friedrich von Schmidt-Phiseldek, Philosophiæ criticæ secundum Kantium expositio systematica (2 vols., Hafniae, Altonae, 1796-98).
[8. ]White had written (Thom, II, 209): “I have had to learn experimentally the abominable state of the law in regard to landlord and tenant. . . . But I opened my eyes to the danger after I had put myself into the power of the landlord.”
[9. ]The leading article in the April, 1836, number of his Review, pp. 1-28.
[1. ]Excerpt published in Bain, JSM, p. 43. MS not located. The portion in brackets is Bain’s summary. JSM had been sent to Brighton to recuperate from a severe illness (see Letter 160, n. 3).
[1. ]Published in Mayer, pp. 310-11, in reply to Tocqueville’s of April 10, ibid., pp. 308-9. MS in Tocqueville archives.
[2. ]See Letter 113, n. 2. The request for help from Beaumont proved unavailing, but eventually Tocqueville sent notes on Bulwer’s book, which are printed in Mayer, pp. 318-24. No review of the book appeared in the Westminster, however.
[1. ]Excerpt published in Bain, James Mill, p. 409. MS not located. Bracketed portion is Bain’s introduction to the excerpt.
[1. ]Published in Mayer, pp. 312-13, in reply to Tocqueville’s of June 5, ibid., pp. 311-12. MS in Tocqueville archives.
[2. ]Beaumont was to marry Clémentine de Lafayette, grand-daughter of the General, on June 29.
[1. ]MS in collection of autographs formed by Mrs. Richard Ford, sister of Sir William Molesworth. Collection in 1945 in possession of Sir John Molesworth-St. Aubyn, Pencarrow, Washaway, Bodmin, Cornwall. The letter is on black-edged notepaper, undated, but was apparently written very shortly after the death of James Mill on Wednesday, June 23, 1836.
[2. ]The family’s name for Henry Mill.
[3. ]Ordered away for three months by his physician, JSM at the end of July took his two younger brothers Henry and George to the Continent.
[1. ]MS at NLS. Published in Elliot, I, 100, but dated as probably of 1835 and annotated as referring to the MS of the French Revolution. Carlyle’s letter of Friday, July 22, 1836 (in A. Carlyle, pp. 133-35), however, is clearly an answer to this. The MS discussed is that of Carlyle’s article on Mirabeau, which appeared in LWR, XXVI (Jan., 1837), 382-439. For Carlyle’s scornful reception of the corrections, see Thomas Carlyle: Letters to His Wife, ed. Trudy Bliss (London, 1953), pp. 112-13.
[1. ]MS at LSE. Addressed: Mrs. Mill / Kensington / London / Angleterre /, but latter three lines have been crossed out and Mickleham / Surrey substituted. Postmarks: BIRFA . . . / 4 / A . . . / 183 . . .; LONDON / 6 / AUG / 1836; and 10FN10 / AUG / 1836. Published, with minor variations, in Hayek, pp. 101-2.
[2. ]Mrs. Taylor’s son Herbert.
[1. ]MS at LSE. Addressed: Mrs. Mill / 18 Kensington Square / London / Angleterre. Postmarks: PARIS / 4 / NOV / 183 . . . and LONDON / 7 / NOV / 1836. Appended to a letter from Henry Mill to his sister Wilhelmina.
[2. ]After the death of James Mill the family disposed of the house in Vicarage Place, Church Street, Kensington, in which they had lived since 1831, and moved to a smaller house in Kensington Square.
[1. ]Published in Mayer, pp. 299-301. There dated Nov. 9, 1835, but JSM was not in France in 1835 though he was in 1836. For other evidence that the date should be 1836, see notes below. Also, Tocqueville’s letter of Nov. 19, 1836 (Mayer, pp. 313-16), appears to be a reply to this. MS in Tocqueville archives.
[2. ]Carrel died on July 24, 1836, as the result of a duel with Emile de Girardin.
[3. ]George G. Bennis.
[4. ]See Letters 113, n. 2, and 172, n. 2.
[5. ]QR, LVII (Sept., 1836), 132-62. Basil Hall (1788-1844), naval officer and writer of Tory views.
[6. ]North American Rev., XLIII (July, 1836), 178-206.
[7. ]“The Rationale of Political Representation,” American Quar. Rev., XX (Sept., 1836), 174-216.
[8. ]Senior had received the appointment on June 10, 1836.
[9. ]Sic, but see n. 1 above.
[1. ]Addressed: Monsieur / M. Aristide Guilbert / 47 Rue de Joubert / à Paris. Postmarks: LONDO... / 22 NOV 1836 / and ANGLETERRE PAR CALAIS / 24 NOV 1836. MS at King’s. Printed in Morrison, p. 257.
[2. ]The Jan., 1837, LWR contains no article that can be attributed to Guilbert.
[1. ]MS in the possession of Bulwer’s great-grand-daughter, Lady Hermione Cobbold, Knebworth House, Knebworth, Herts. Collated by Dr. Eileen Curran, of Colby College. Published in Elliot, I, 102-5, and, with several omissions, in Earl of Lytton, Life of Edward Bulwer, First Lord Lytton (London, 1913).
[2. ]The death of his father in June, 1836.
[4. ]ER, LXIV (Oct., 1836), 1-35.
[5. ]James Mill.
[1. ]Addressed: Edw. Lytton Bulwer Esq. M.P. / Reform Club / Pall Mall / to be forwarded. Postmark: 7NE[?]7 / NO 29 / 1836. MS in the possession of Lady Hermione Cobbold. Collated by Dr. Eileen Curran. Published in Elliot, I, 105-6.
[2. ]See Letters 147, n. 8, and 206, n. 4.
[3. ]Paper torn.
[1. ]MS in 1945 in the possession of Sir John Molesworth-St. Aubyn.
[2. ]Probably “Terms of Alliance between Radicals and Whigs,” LWR, XXVI (Jan., 1837), 279-318.
[1. ]Excerpt published in Alexander Bain, James Mill, p. 11 n. MS not located.
[2. ]Sir John Stuart (originally Belsches), of Fettercairn (1753-1821), James Mill’s early patron, for whom he named his eldest son. Two others of the Mill children were named for this family: for Lady Jane Stuart, and for her daughter, Wilhelmina, who became the wife of Sir William Forbes.