1838
229.
TO JOHN ROBERTSON
Saturday
[Jan. (?), 1838]
Dear Robertson
I am going to have to fight a duel on your account. I have had a half hostile, half expostulatory letter from Hayward on the subject of that passage, in the Martineau article, in reply to which I have owned the proprietorship, disowned authorship & editorship, admitted having seen the article before it was printed off, & said that I did not consider the terms “blackguardising” & “lying” as applied to any one individually but to a class to which it was made matter of complaint against certain superior men that they allowed themselves to be assimilated. I of course did not tell him either who wrote the article or who edited it, and I told him that I had ordered any letter he might send to be forwarded to me. I have not yet received his answer & perhaps shall not till I leave town which will be today, so hold yourself prepared in case he should write a letter to you.
N.B. I told him that the writer had no malice against him, & I believed had never seen him.
ever yours
J. S. Mill
If you have anything to write, direct Post Office Southampton.
230.
TO JOHN HILL BURTON
23d January
1837 [sic, recte 1838]
My dear Sir,
Pray excuse my not having sooner answered your letter, as my whole spare time and thoughts were occupied with poor Canada, about which what I have to say will be published in the L. & W. review on Saturday next.
With regard to the note or rather the passage which I propose should be appended to my preface, on reperusal I should wish that after the words “accordant with the spirit of the work itself” you would be so kind as to add “and, in Mr. Bentham, admissible” and then proceed “than what would be decorous” &c. as before. Otherwise I shall have the appearance of censuring the tone of the work, which I am very far indeed from intending. I still wish to suppress any direct mention of my name, not to prevent it from being known to the reader if he chuses to enquire about it which I know cannot be done, but because its suppression is as it were, an act of disavowal as to any appropriateness in the notes and additions to my present frame of mind, and because I do not like to perk in the face of the world in general that the person known by my name has written things which he is ashamed of, when my name has never in any instance been put to writings I am not ashamed of.
I should think Sir John Campbell’s Law Reform Acts, the orders of the 15 Judges promulgated a few years ago reforming the system of Pleading, and the Reports of the various Law Commissions, were the best authorities for the recent alterations in the law. Not being acquainted with many law books I cannot direct you to any other sources.
My notions of Mr. Bentham’s intentions with respect to the “Introduction to the Rationale” (though I confess it is but an indistinct notion) has always been that he intended to put it forth as a kind of feeler, at a time when he did not contemplate finishing the work itself for publication at an early period. My opinion is entirely adverse to publishing the Introduction at all; & if that is decided upon, the later in the collection it comes the better. I would much rather it followed, than preceded, the Rationale. Mr. Smith’s proposal appears to me prepos[terous] & from all you mention I should not suppose him to be a man to whose judgment any more deference should be paid in constructing the Edition than is indispensable. I know nothing of Mr Smith whatever except that I think I remember hearing that a gentleman of that name had been the editor of the Rationale of Reward.
Believe me Dear Sir
Yours truly
J. S. Mill
231.
TO ALBANY FONBLANQUE
30th Jany 1838
My dear Fonblanque—
I have not said or written one word to you in complaint of the extraordinary unfairness which you appear to me to have practised for some time against those radicals who oppose the present ministry—I know you never intend to be unfair, but you remember I always thought unfairness towards opponents to be one of your qualities even when you & I were on the same side in politics. It is especially in these late Canada discussions that I have thought your unfairness went beyond the bounds which in some degree confined it before. However I do not quarrel with you for this nor for your putting the last seal to your ministerialism by espousing the enmities of the ministry, & displaying personal hostility to old friends whom your new friends wish to hunt down. Perhaps if we chose to retaliate, we are not altogether without the power, but I at least never will, under whatever provocation, speak of you to the public in terms of disrespect, or even, if I can help it, of complaint. I will only, when the things you say touch me personally, point out to yourself the injustice of them, & my object in writing to you now is to do so in regard to what you say in your last number on the London Review. You have entirely misstated facts. The London Review never bestowed the name philosophical radicals upon its own writers or upon the people whom Bulwer called so in his speech. You knew at the time perfectly that it gave that name to the thinking radicals generally, to distinguish them from the demagogic radicals, such as Wakley, & from the historical radicals of the Cartwright school, & from the division of property radicals if there be any. You knew that if the London Review wished to be the review of this large body, we always considered the Examiner as the newspaper of it. You also knew that because this designation too often repeated gave a coterie air which it was felt to be objectionable, the phrase was varied, & phrases adopted to express merely those Reformers who were not professedly, Reformers only within the limits of the existing Constitution—such were the phrases thorough reformers, & so on—& yet for this very change of designation you blame the review & its writers just as the Chronicle yesterday after founding a long attack solely upon identifying me with Roebuck or with Grote, concluded by reproaching me for differing from them.
I expected no better from the Chronicle but what is the meaning of your insisting upon identifying me with Grote or Roebuck or the rest? Do you in your conscience think that my opinions are at all like theirs? Have you forgotten, what I am sure you once knew, that my opinion of their philosophy is & has for years been more unfavourable by far than your own? & that my radicalism is of a school the most remote from theirs, at all points, which exists? They knew this as long ago as 1829, since which time the variance has been growing wider & wider. I never consented to have anything to do with the London Review but for the sake of getting together a body of writers who would represent radicalism more worthily than they did: you never could be induced to help me in this & until I could find persons who would, I could do little—but in proportion as I did find such persons I have been divesting the review of its sectarian character & have even gone this length that when Molesworth ceased to feel that the review represented his opinions I took it off his hands & am now myself the proprietor of it. In the face of this it is rather hard to be accused of ascribing all wisdom & infallibility to a set from whose opinions I differ more than from the Tories. But I cannot, because I differ from them, join like you in crying them down for sacrificing their own popularity in maintaining my opinions about Canada, & while I myself seek the radical party where it is, not where it is not, & endeavour to rest upon the general body of radical opinion in the country, I will not throw overboard the most honest men in public life for standing nobly in the breach on a great occasion. I will rather risk myself there with them even at the hazard of being accused by you of being exactly what it is my special object, my principle & also my interest to shew that I am not. And I should think much higher of your magnanimity if you did the same. Of your intentions & talents I have the same high opinion which I always had.
ever yours
J. S. Mill
232.
TO JOHN ROBERTSON
I.H. Tuesday
[Jan. 30 or early Feb., 1838]
Dear Robertson,
It seems to me that in any future communication we have with Bulwer, the points which it is our interest to make him feel, with the least possible appearance of intending to do so, are these: First, that we have the power, from our next number inclusive, either to begin preparing the radicals to support & even to call for their ministry, or to begin impressing them with the uselessness of their looking to any ministry for a long time to come: that we shall certainly take one line or the other; & it will depend upon the opinion we form of them, which: and Secondly, that our support of them will depend not only upon their embracing the policy which we think suitable to rally the body of moderate radicals round them, who are to be our party whoever is minister—but also upon our confidence in their personnel. That Ellice & Stanley (& we need not add, himself, but he will see that we see through him, which always vastly increases such a man’s respect for one) will make it their object to render the ministry a ministry of intrigans. That we need only call it that, and treat it as that, to damage it exceedingly, and that we will treat it as that if it is that. That we have no earthly objection to act with intrigans, but that we do not chuse to act under intrigans: that therefore if their ministry is made up of loose fish, & does not contain a due proportion of men who have a high character for private integrity and political earnestness, we will, even if we support their measures, attack & ridicule their persons, & then beware Messrs. Bulwer, Ellice, & even Lord Durham himself. The ways and times proper for insinuating such of these things as are to be insinuated & for stating such of them as are to be stated will present themselves to you as occasion arises.
I have written to Fonblanque as I wrote to Black, informing him of the same facts, telling him I think him excessively unfair towards us, but that no provocation shall induce me to attack him, & appealing to his love of truth not to mix us up with Roebuck, etc.
Ever yours,
J.S.M.
233.
TO ALBANY FONBLANQUE
3d Feb. 1838
My dear Fonblanque—
If my letter gave you concern you have returned good for evil, since yours has given me great pleasure. The kind feelings you express to me personally are & have always been & I am as certain as I am about any such thing, always will be, completely reciprocated on my part. With regard to imputations which you say I have cast upon you in the eagerness of advocacy, I give you my word that I never intended to cast any: one single sentence in my political article of October last, though it conveyed no imputation upon anybody, & did not allude to you in particular (while in that very article the Examiner was twice mentioned in an approving tone) was I admit, written under the provocation of an article of yours, one of those you wrote against the Spectator, & which as it appeared to me at the time did attempt to fasten imputations on an article in that paper on evidence which I thought altogether insufficient. I remember thinking at the time that if I had been personally unacquainted with you, I should have thought that article (what I am in general much slower to think of any one than people generally are) intentionally uncandid. As it was, the effect on me was to make me think that your alienation from those whom I will call the extreme radicals, had now reached the point, at which with the most complete intention on your part to be fair towards them, they could no longer expect justice from you. And this impression has been made upon me often since. If it has been made upon me, who have fought your battles so long & to say nothing of our long friendship, had to vindicate the correctness of my own judgment in thinking so highly of you as I do, it cannot be but that the same impression must have been made much more strongly upon all those, holding the opinions you attack, who are differently situated from me. This is a result which you cannot yourself wish for, & I have seen it with great pain.
In my article in the present number of the review there is only one passage in which you might perhaps suppose you were pointed to, that in which “radical writers” are spoken of—but in this instance I not only did not refer to you, but if I had mentioned you, it would have been to except you from the imputations conveyed—& if anybody should suppose that you were among the persons meant, I shall owe you a reparation which I shall not be slow to make.
I did not complain of you for calling me philosophical in a spirit of sarcasm, but for imputing to Grote, Warburton &c the assumption of a name which as far as I know, they never used, though I did; & after fixing the name on them, then applying it to the London Review as being identified with them. I am so far from being that, that I am most anxious to distinguish myself from them—but I do not think the radical cause so strong as to sustain no injury from lowering the character of such men as those I have named—& I thought this time peculiarly one at which they had entitled themselves to be upheld. I felt much disappointed at your not taking this view along with me—but I hope I need not repeat that I am quite convinced that in this as in all other parts of your conduct you act with the most perfect persuasion of your being in the right.
The difference between us is, I suspect, as you suppose, partly in our estimation of men—& I should like very much to know better in what instances you think I err in my estimation of them. I should like this because I have been accustomed to the same charge from various people & from nobody so much as from those whom you probably think that I overestimate, & I have generally thought that the ground of this judgment of me from most of those who formed it, was, that I saw much to be valued & admired in persons whom they disliked. If I err egregiously in my judgment of men I am not at present in a way to correct my error, for hitherto my experience has generally confirmed the judgments of men, which I had formed for myself, while it has often weakened those I had formed wholly or partially on the authority of others. But I should like to compare notes with you on men, & to see who are those respecting whom we differ.
As the state of opinion in the electoral body, I do not think you would find me so unacquainted with it as you suppose. I do not think the electoral body are favourable to my views on the points on which we differ; but rather the reverse. But I think they would by this time have been so, if the principal radicals & especially yourself had taken the tone which I think ought to have been taken. There is a great deal of passive radicalism in the electoral body, but very little active, & the grounds of my present practical views, whether right or wrong, are, that if this passive radicalism is not very soon transmitted into active, it will become impossible to do so, & that if the present ministry continue, with their present line of conduct, until the Tories turn them out without aid from their own supporters, Peel & [Well]ington will come in without the Orangemen & will be supported by O’Connell & 150 of the 200 ballot men in the House. The only alternative is in my opinion, a Durham ministry within a year (or thereabouts)—or else the strongest Conservative Ministry we have had since Lord Liverpool’s, and the longer we wait for this last, the less chance there will be of making a strong Opposition. We are letting the cards slip out of our hands. This is the view by which I am guided, & I am driving for a Durham ministry. I may be wrong, but my object is to rest upon the whole body of radical opinion in the country & I grieve to find one part of it eating up another.
ever yours faithfully
J. S. Mill
234.
TO ALBANY FONBLANQUE
6th Feby 1838
My dear Fonblanque—
I was a little inclined to reproach myself for having written to you (as I have since thought) rather unkindly—but you are more than quits with me by your article last Sunday. Of that article I do not very well know what to say, because it is a new position to me, to find any assertion which I make about myself & my concerns, treated exactly as if it had never been made. Could I expect after what I said in my letter to you, or even before it, that I should have been treated through three long columns, by one who has the friendly feelings to me that you profess, as being in the most complete manner identified with some half dozen men whom I have nothing to do with, & to whose opinions you are far more nearly allied than I am. You take me moreover at a very ungenerous disadvantage, because you know that I cannot chuse the time when people whom I respect are under a cloud, to proclaim to the world anything disparaging that I may happen to think of them: I cannot cry out on the housetops, like a mean truckling coward, “do not confound me with these men, I am not of them”: nor is it my way at any time to do so: it is my conduct which must shew wherein I differ from them. You are moreover quite as unjust in making them accountable for the review as the review for them, since they do not recognise it as in any way their organ, & about that particular article not one of them was consulted, & I have no reason to believe that any one of them would approve of the course recommended in it. I shall remonstrate no further with you on the subject: if you continue henceforth to identify the review with them, you do it with your eyes open: but when I have made you, as I shall do, ashamed to go on any longer doing so, do not say you are glad to see I am changed: I shall not have changed; I shall only have spoken somewhat more of my mind than that very small portion of it which can be spoken on so small a subject as Lord John Russell, or so special a one as Canada.
You may believe me when I say that I do not in the least complain of your expressing yourself so strongly as you do on the subject of my article: that is all fair; & as, from considerations which you are not bound to share, I do not chuse to answer you publicly, I do privately. I only want however to mark two things, especially as I have not your article by me at present. One is, to shew you what I mean by saying that you are habitually unfair to opponents. You exemplify this in the very first sentence, when you describe me as proposing to turn out ministry after ministry till I get one satisfactory to some five or six members of parliament & to myself—& in this strain you continue always speaking of us as wanting to bring ourselves in. Now would not any one suppose from this, that what I was dreaming of attaining was an extreme radical ministry? would any one suppose that I could have said that the mere exclusion from the present ministry of all who were pledged against the ballot, was all that should be aimed at? You must think me very easily satisfied if you describe the present ministry minus Lord John Russell as a ministry satisfactory to me. You may think this a small thing; but it amounts to no less than fastening on an opponent what he thinks would be presumptuous & ridiculous instead of what only you think so: & it appears to me that all the ridiculousness you attribute to my suggestion, entirely arises from putting this colour upon it.
The other thing I want to shew you is, how very little calm consideration you have given to my suggestion before pronouncing such a sentence of absurdity & self conceit upon it. You assume that after the proposed vote of want of confidence, the Whigs are to resign, & sit still till a Tory ministry is formed. They are not such fools. They would not resign, but would, the very next day, move, in some parliamentary form, that the House would have no confidence in any Tory ministry. There would be ways enough of wording it. Of course I am supposing that the Court is with them, & would not seek an excuse to turn them out. Nay, I have not the least doubt that the mere fact that forty or fifty radicals were known to be ready to vote for want of confidence, would effect the desired object without an actual vote, & without their losing ten of their supporters. By “the desired object” I mean, a modification of the personnel of the ministry; not even a Durham ministry, but a Whig ministry unfettered on the finality of the reform bill.
I have nothing further to say, except that for a person who complains of “imputations” you are very profuse of them.
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
235.
TO ALBANY FONBLANQUE
Wednesday
[Feb. 7, 1838]
My dear Fonblanque
I am glad you are not angry & I am not conscious of being so—& it is some evidence of my not being angry, that I can bear to be called so, for I have generally observed that when any one is just hovering on the verge of anger, calling him angry invariably makes him so.
You are of course not to blame if you really think, & have thought all the years you have known me, that I agree in my opinions with Grote or with any of those whom you allude to. I thought you had known me better: but if you did not, I certainly did not expect that your tone towards me would be altered merely by my writing to you a letter. What I will make you ashamed of is, having forgotten, or mistaken my opinions & feelings so long.
I cannot however admit your doctrine that one ought to treat any person or thing which one is opposed to, as it appears to the public, without regard to anything one may personally know, which places it in a different light. If I dealt in that way with you, I am sure you would have reason to complain of very gross injustice.
With regard to “the Grote conclave” there may be such a conclave, but I know nothing of it, for I have never been within the doors of Grote’s house in Eccleston Street & have been for the last few years completely estranged from that household. Surely there never was so surprising a proposition gravely advanced as that my saying that Roebuck (who was known to be the author of the former articles) was not privy to this, implied “that they were privy to it.” If those are your rules of evidence I am not surprised at any false judgment you make.
Hou can you say the Review “countenances & agrees with” those people with the single exception of the suspension of the Canadian constitution, when it has been attacking them for inefficiency & for being unequal to their position for years, & most notably in the very last number? I tell them the same things to their faces whenever I see them. Immediately after Lord J.R.’s declaration I tried to rouse them, & went to a meeting of most of the leading parliamentary radicals at Molesworth’s from which I went away they thinking me, I fancy, almost mad, & I thinking them craven. I do not except Grote, or Warburton, or Hume, all of whom were there. I except none but Molesworth & Leader, two raw boys. I assure you, when I told them in the review what I thought would be done by men of spirit & real practicalness of character I had perfect ground for feeling well assured that they would not do it. You have therefore no earthly reason for considering me “dangerous.”
I am certain that in the concluding part of your article which you say refers “exclusively to the Grote conclave” there is no human creature who would not suppose that you were pointedly & determinedly & whether I would or not, including me—i.e. the review in general, & the writer of that article in particular.
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
236.
TO THE SECRETARY OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
13th Feby
1838
My dear Sir
I do not know whether the appointment to the professorships of languages at the University College is referred by the Council to the consideration of the Professors, but if it is I hope you will excuse my saying a word to you in favour of a candidate for the Italian Professorship, Count Pepoli, a member of the Provisional Government of Bologna. I know nothing of him personally, but I can vouch for his high literary reputation & acquirements on the authority of one of the most competent witnesses living, though not a very producible one perhaps, Mazzini, the celebrated President of La Jeune Italie who appears to me one of the most accomplished & every way superior men among all the foreigners I have known, & profoundly versed in his country’s literature. As you probably have not Mazzini’s testimony before you, I have thought it but right to tell you what I have learned from him. I should consider his testimony sufficient by itself to warrant any such appointment.
Ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
237.
TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL
27 February 1838
My dear Gustave
The presents constitution of our sinking fund is this: there is no fixed appropriation of annual revenue to it, but the surplus revenue, whatever it happens to be, is always paid over to the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund (at the end of every quarter I believe) so — the amount continually varies— — last quarter (1837) is the first in — payment at all was —? —re happened to be n— that quarter, Besides u— deemed debt continues till —mption of more. This —ng fund was establish— ministry, not long after — into office: in 1831 or 1832 — amount of redeemed d— I do not know, but if you wish for the exact figures, I will procure them for you. The unredeemed debt on the 5th January 1831 was £757,486,997, besides exchequer bills £27,278,400. At present the debt is rather greater, on account of the 20 millions compensation to the slave owners, which exceeds the amount of debt since redeemed. In 1816, when the debt was at its highest, the unredeemed debt, independently of exchequer bills, was £816,311—. so that there must have b— re— in the meanwhile, — is there were redu— me £90,538,701, to — s, per contra, in — 13,759 by funding [?] — & by different operatio— of conversion, reducing the interest but augmenting the capital
If these facts are not sufficient for your purpose, write to me immediately & I will get a complete & accurate statement. You may rely upon the correctness of all I have now stated.
If I were not so extremely busy I would write you a — letter: I was very glad — from you again & — w that you wi—.
ever yours fai—
J.S.M.—
238.
TO EDWARD LYTTON BULWER
3d March
1838
My dear Sir—
I have read the Monthly Chronicle with deep interest & I hasten to make my acknowledgments to you for the feeling which prompted the very complimentary expressions with which you have accompanied your strictures on my article in the L. & W. R.
I agree entirely in the greater part of the views set forth in the first article of the Monthly Chronicle, & especially in the general character you have given of the policy suited to the middle class. On the points in which I differ from you, or perhaps I should rather say, on which I would add to or qualify what you say, there would be much to be discussed between us at a suitable time & place. But I am much more desirous at present to express my great delight at the complete recognition which I find in that article, of its being advisable for the moderate radicals to form themselves openly & avowedly into a distinct body from the whigs—to shake off the character of a tail—& to act together as an independent body. My only quarrel with the parliamentary radicals has hitherto been, that they have not done this, nor seemed to see any advantage in doing it. But whenever I see any moderate radical who recognizes this as his principle of action, any differences which there can be between me & him cannot be fundamental, or permanent. We may differ as to our views of the conduct which would be most expedient at some particular crisis, but in the main principles of our political conduct we agree.
I have never had any other notion of practical policy, since the radicals were numerous enough to form a party, than that of resting on the whole body of radical opinion, from the whig-radicals at one extreme, to the more reasonable & practical of the working classes, & the Benthamites, on the other. I have been trying ever since the reform bill to stimulate, so far as I had an opportunity, all sections of the parliamentary radicals to organize such a union, & such a system of policy: not saying to them, Adopt my views, do as I bid you—but, Adopt some views, do something. Had I found them acting on any system, aiming at any particular end, I should not have stood upon any peculiar views of my own as to the best way of attaining the common object. The best course for promoting radicalism is the course which is pursued with most ability, energy, & concert, even if not the most politic, abstractedly considered, and for my own guidance individually, my rule is—whatever power I can bring in aid of the popular cause, to carry it where I see strength—that is, where I see, along with adequate ability & numbers, a definite purpose consistently pursued. Therefore if I find all that among you—& if I do not, I am quite aware that I shall find it nowhere else—you will find me quite ready to cooperate with you, if you think my cooperation worth having. I am no “Impracticable,” & perhaps the number of such is smaller than you think. As one of many, I am ready to merge my own views, whatever they may be, in the average views of any body of persons whom I may chuse to ally myself with: but not unless I have full opportunity of bringing my own views before the body, & giving to those views any degree of influence which their own intrinsic character may obtain for them, over its collective deliberations. You cannot wonder that having always been obliged to act alone, I act in my own way. As long as that is the case, I must struggle on, making mistakes & correcting them, doing the best I can under all the disadvantages of a person who has to shift for himself—& raising up allies to myself, where & how I can, as I have already done & am doing with a success that shows that I cannot be altogether in a wrong way. You have seen, in Robertson, no bad specimen, I think, of my practicalness in finding men suitable to my purpose. But enough of this.
Robertson requests me to put you in mind of his request to you, in which I most heartily join, on the subject of an article for our next number (a propos of Knighton, the “Diary,” &c.) on the social influence &c. of the Court. Such an article from you, would be a great treasure to us, & specially valuable in our next number as it is the best time of the year for such a subject.
Ever yours truly
J. S. Mill.
239.
TO EDWARD LYTTON BULWER
5th March
1838
My dear Sir
In answer to your question as to what I would be ready to do if my friends, as you call them, will not consent to what I think reasonable,—if a party can be formed, for the Durham policy, including such men as yourself & those whom you mention, & pursuing its objects by means which I think likely to be effectual, even though not exactly those I should myself have preferred—I am ready to give such a party all the aid I can, & as a necessary consequence, to throw off, so far as is implied in that, all who persevere in conduct either hostile to the party, or calculated to diminish its strength. But I do not think that any liberal party, out of office, can be strong enough to beat the Tories, without a degree of popular enthusiasm in its favour, which could not be had without the support of some of the men who, in the same proportion as they are thought impracticable, are thought honest. I have a personal knowledge of the men, far exceeding any which I believe you have, & from that knowledge I have no doubt that such a party as I am supposing could carry with it all of those men who are worth having, if in the first place real evidence is afforded them that popular objects, to the extent of those to which Lord Durham is pledged to are sincerely pursued, & if, secondly, their amour propre is not irritated by personal attacks—such for instance as that in the Chronicle of this morning, or some recent ones in the Examiner. I think such attacks good policy in the Whigs, but in the moderate radicals as bad tactics almost as Thompson’s insane conduct in Marylebone, though I admit there are considerable palliations both for the one & the other. Both on public & private grounds I am not only precluded from joining in such attacks, but must defend them against any such, & I must do so all the more, in proportion as I separate myself from them in my political course. The October number of the review was the first in which I systematically advocated a moderate policy, and it was consequently the first in which I personally complimented the extreme politicians. The Canada question then in an evil hour crossed the path of radicalism, & my difference of opinion from you on the course of conduct required by Lord John Russell’s declarations made me again apparently one of them; which I regretted at the time, but could not help. But I have never swerved from my intention of detaching the review, and myself, from all coterie or sectarian connexion; & making the public see that the review has ceased to be Benthamite; & throwing myself upon the mass of radical opinion in the country. All this I determined to do when I had no hope of a radical party in parliament—& if such a party be formed I would of course prefer to ally myself with, rather than run a race against it for the moderate radicals. I could only enter into such a party as a representative, in it, of opinions more advanced in radicalism than the average opinions of the party—but, in my idea of the principles on which such a party ought to be constituted, it cannot do without the support of persons considered ultra in opinion, provided they are not impracticable in conduct.
With regard to Molesworth’s motion, we shall so soon know what comes of it, that there is little use in speculating about its probable effects, for the next two days I shall only say, that I neither counselled it nor knew of it till the notice was given; and when I first heard of it, disapproved of it. The position I have since taken about it is a sort of neutral one. I feel quite unable to foresee whether in the end its consequences will be good or bad. But one of those consequences, the division of the radical body, I feel all the evil of, & I regret much that such a union as we are discussing, earlier adopted, did not prevent such a division from arising. In the present state of matters, were I to urge Molesworth to turn back, I should only compromise my influence wi[th] him, without attaining the object. The division thus brought to a [cri]sis, some new state of things will arise, which we must work [to] the best ends we can.
Thanks for your kind expressions about the Westminster. I need hardly say how much I value your assistance as a contributor & I shall be much disappointed if an article which would be of peculiar value to the review at present, should, from the engagements you mention, be unavoidably lost to it.
I shall set about my political article for the next number the moment I have made up my mind what the relations of the review are likely to be to parties in parliament.
ever yours faithfully
J. S. Mill.
240.
TO LEIGH HUNT
11th May
1838
My dear Sir
Mr. Robertson, who goes out of town today for a few days, requests me to remind you of the proposition he made to you concerning an article on the Tower of London —which I hope it will not be inconsistent with your engagements to undertake. The subject is attractive, & treated by you, would be excellent for the light readers & would add to the sort of reputation we most want & are only beginning to acquire.
Robertson tells me you have a copy of Mr. Milnes’ volume of poems: if you are not needing it for a day or two, would it be too much to beg the favour of a sight of it? Something relating to the next number of the Review may depend upon the opinion we form of it—if left at Hooper’s or sent by omnibus or parcel company to the I.H. I should receive it.
Ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
241.
TO JOSEPH BLANCO WHITE
17th May 1838
My dear Sir
I have been extremely concerned to hear from your friend Mr Thom the form which your complaints have assumed & the increase of your infirmities. It grieves me to think that living alone as you do & at such a distance from most of your friends, they cannot know how you are attended, & have it little in their power to do anything that might promote your comfort. I do hope you will consider me as one of those whom it would most gratify to be of any use to you or to shew in any way my deep respect & regard for you. Pray do not hesitate a moment in letting me know of anything you need, & I should consider it a great favour if Mr Thom or some other friend would now & then write me word to tell me how you are.
It was hardly needful to ask permission of the review for the publication of the article which you were so kind as to write for us—we cannot of course derive anything but pleasure from seeing it in print & in the hands of every one who can be induced to read it, & I regret much that we could not with safety to the circulation of our review, make it the vehicle for sentiments so much bolder than any large class of readers can yet bear.
I have not yet thanked you for your notes on the Oxford Theology & on Sewell’s article. We have not yet been able to take up the subject, but we hope to do so in our October number, & both those notes & those on Oxford itself will be of great assistance to us in treating those subjects which are of a kind that is more & more superseding in importance politics & everything else.
I assure you it is only my multiplied & multiplying occupations & cares that prevent me from being a much less infrequent correspondent of yours—they prevent me indeed from writing almost any letter without some special object—but to be of any use to you is an object for which I should easily find time.
Ever faithfully yours
J. S. Mill
242.
TO JOHN ROBERTSON
[June or July, 1838(?)]
Dear Robertson,
I cannot bestow upon Bulwer’s article any milder name than despicable, & nothing could reconcile me to inserting it in any shape but the absolute impossibility of finding any substitute for it in time. I have drawn my pen through some of the stupidest & most conceited things, and sent the rest to press—and God grant that nobody may read it, or that whoever does, will instantaneously forget every word of it.
Ever yours
J. S. Mill.
243.
TO JOHN ROBERTSON
[July (?), 1838]
Dear R.,—
I shall not be in town this evening, but will meet you at Hooper’s to-morrow. I wish you would verify two queries of mine in the second sheet of Montaigne. You will see them in a corrected proof which I have returned to Reynell’s, and from which, when that is done, it may be printed off. S[terling] has overlooked some bad mistakes.
I send the Arctic with my corrections. They relate solely to small matters, but I do not think you are aware how often your sentences are not only unscholarlike, but absolutely unintelligible, from inattention to ambiguities of small words and of collocation. This article is a splendid instance of it.
Simpson has made all his corrections in such a manner that the printers are sure not to attend to them, but I have left this to you to remedy when you have determined how far to adopt them.
J. S. Mill.
If we are much above our fourteen sheets, I think H.M. ought to wait till October. It will do as well then, if not better, and I am very anxious to save expense of that kind.
244.
TO HENRY COLE
Friday evg.
[July (?), 1838]
Dear Cole,
It was provoking that they did not get the revise ready for you, nor did I get mine till about six o’clock & I have been obliged to return it finally corrected for the press.
We have said all that Jackson wanted, in his note which I return herewith. We have also put in Branston’s name beside Vizetelly’s & have adopted several of your minor suggestions. I did not on consideration think it worth while to say anything more about [handbills?], when there was nothing to talk of but initial letters—nor to give a statement of the publications for which Orrin Smith inquires, when our illustrations & the list annexed to them already do it sufficiently. Jackson’s case was different, as he was passed rather slightly over. But Smith I am sure has nothing to complain of now.
I have put X (by itself) as the signature at the end.
Ever yours,
J. S. Mill.
245.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT
12th Septr 1838
My dear Sir
According to Sterling’s directions I send the proof of his very interesting article to you—having first made two or three alterations which he desired me to make. There is one further alteration which I asked him to consent to, but my letter did not reach Hastings till he had left it—& as he gave you full power to make alterations I venture to submit the expediency of doing so in this instance, to your judgment. The questionable point is, the intimation that Simonides may possibly have had some supernatural monition at the feast of Scopas. I know all that may be said in favour of such a supposition—I know that Dr Johnson believed in ghosts, & Wesley said he could not positively refuse his belief to the convulsionnaire miracles at Paris. But these reasons do not at all convince me, & if it be necessary to stand up against the almost unanimous opinion both of the believing & unbelieving world, (who would agree in considering it impossible that a miracle should have been wrought in the name of false gods) I should like it to be on some occasion which required it & on which my own convictions went with it.
I do not feel that I am at liberty to make any alteration myself, but you are, & to your discretion I refer it.
I shall be out of town for the next four weeks, during which time please direct to John Robertson Esq 13 Pall Mall East instead of me—& believe me
Most truly yours
J. S. Mill
246.
TO SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH
October, 1838.
[In a later letter from John Mill to Sir William, October 1838, there is a passage about a sum of £17 which Mill said was on “every account” Molesworth’s and he adds:] If you get it, let Woolcombe know that he may include it in the statement of your disbursements for the Review, which I am sorry to say it goes but a little way to liquidate.
247.
TO JOHN ROBERTSON
2d October 1838
My dear Robertson
I duly received your letter, but I had so little to say in answer to it that I delayed from day to day until now in conscience I cannot delay any longer writing to tell you not to address any more letters to Torquay. I hope the one I received is the only one you have sent there, but as I left that neighbourhood two days ago I may perhaps have missed one. I am now going to Weymouth where I expect to stay about a week and shall be in town about the 15th as I intended.
I have been thinking very little about the review but a good deal about my Logic, of which I have, since I left town, completely planned the concluding portion & written a large piece of it which I hope I shall add to during my stay at Weymouth. I have also read the third (newly published) volume of Comte’s book, which is almost if not quite equal to the two former. This is much pleasanter work than planning the next number of the review—for which I have not a single idea beyond what we had when we last talked on the subject. Our not coming out in October is of no consequence at all, for people will hardly say after our last brilliant number and our second edition, that the review is dropped.
I have seen scarcely any newspapers, and none which contain reports of the Palace Yard meeting. Those particulars about the arming are very ominous of important results at no long distance, but I cannot see in the menacing attitude of the working classes anything to prevent a Tory ministry and the middle classes are still very far indeed from the time when they will cry Concede—they will be much more likely to cry Resist!
Your idea about Mazzini’s article seems to me good. If Carlyle cannot take to either of the subjects we had in view for him we must be thankful for anything he can take to. I am sorry James Martineau has given up the Catholic subject. What answer have you given to Lucas? As for the American Slavery article I think it a good subject for making the number interesting and saleable & as more likely to be well treated by H.M. than [any] subject on which she has yet written for us, [but] it must be a condition that she shall not be sentimental, which she has more tendency to than any other writer we have. You do not think of it for this number I believe. I cannot judge of the other two subjects you mention & as I said before I have not a single idea of my own—& am too glad at not having to think on the subject for a fortnight yet to come.
I am sorry you have been unwell—I have not been quite well myself, but am getting better. It was only a cold.
Ever yours,
J. S. Mill.
P.S. I think we are bound to give some answer to the Globe man, driveler or not. I have no doubt he is a driveler or in the hands of drivelers on that subject.
248.
TO SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH
[Oct. 19, 1838]
The present turn in Canada affairs brings Lord Durham home, incensed to the utmost (as Buller writes to me) with both Whigs and Tories—Whigs especially, and in the best possible mood for setting up for himself; and if so, the formation of an efficient party of moderate Radicals, of which our Review will be the organ, is certain—the Whigs will be kicked out never more to rise, and Lord D. will be head of the Liberal Party, and ultimately Prime Minister.
I am delighted with Buller; his letters to his father and mother and to me show him in a nobler character than he ever appeared in before, and he and Wakefield appear to be acting completely as one man, speaking to Lord D. with the utmost plainness, giving him the most courageous and judicious advice, which he receives both generously and wisely. He is the man for us, and we shall have him and make a man of him yet. . . . There is a great game for you to play in the next session of Parliament. Buller has the best cards in the House of Commons, and I think he will play them well, but yours are the next best. As for me, this has awakened me out of a period of torpor about politics during which my Logic has been advancing rapidly. This winter, I think, will see me through the whole of it except the rewriting.
—Yours most truly,
J. S. Mill
249.
TO SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH
Nov. 14, 1838.
Dear Molesworth,—
What think you of all this rumpus in Canada? I find all the Whigs and Moderates here blame Lord Durham for the Proclamation, and he has already the greater part of the real Radicals against him for the Ordinance. But I think the Liberal party in the country generally is with him. I mean to stand by him, as my letters from Buller and Rintoul’s from Wakefield convince me that he was quite right in resigning, and that he comes home fully prepared (if the damned pseudo-Radicals do not get round him and talk him over) to set up for himself. For the purpose of acting at once upon him and upon the country in that sens I have written an elaborate defence of him, which will be published in the Review next week, and will be in the newspapers before that. I hope exceedingly that you will approve of it, for if this man really tries to put himself at the head of the Liberals, your standing by him will do a world of good[. . . .] Write to me sometimes to say how you are[. . . .] Ever yours,
J. S. Mill
250.
TO JOHN ROBERTSON
13, Pall Mall, East, Monday.
[Nov., 1838]
Dear Robertson,
The inclosed is from Bulwer, and is exactly what we would expect from him. In the meantime Rintoul has shown me a letter from Wakefield, enthusiastic about Lord Durham, and full of the predictions respecting him which we most wish to see realized, though in general terms.
There is no concealing from ourselves that there is almost an equal chance of Lord D. acting either way, and that his doing the one or the other will wholly depend upon whether Wakefield, we ourselves, and probably Buller and his own resentment, or Bulwer, Fonblanque, Edward Ellice, the herd of professing Liberals, and the indecision and cowardice indigenous to English noblemen, have the greatest influence in his councils.
Give us access to him early and I will be d—d if we do not make a hard fight for it.
Ever yours,
J. S. Mill.
251.
TO MRS. JAMES MILL
28th Decr 1838
Dear mammy
Please send the first page of this scrawl to Robertson —it saves double postage.
I am about as well, I think, as when I left London. I had a wretched passage—for want of water the boat could not get into Boulogne till half past two in the morning—it set off at ½ past eight & spent the whole 18 hours in going as slowly as it could. My already disordered stomach stood the sickness very ill & I arrived very uncomfortable & was forced to start for Paris a very few hours afterwards. The first day I was uncomfortable enough, but as the effect of the sea went off I got better & arrived at Paris after 30 hours of the diligence much less unwell than I thought I possibly could. Unless I could have got to Marseilles by the 30th it was of no use getting there before the 9th so I do not start till Sunday morning & shall not travel any more at night, but post to Chalons (expensive as it is) & then go down the Saone & Rhone to Avignon. Letters put in the post on the 2nd directed to M. J.S. Mill Poste Restante à Marseille France, will be sure to reach me in time. After that direct Poste Restante à Pise, Italie.—I cannot tell if I shall have time to write to you from Marseille but I will endeavour. The weather has not got very cold yet & I dare say I shall get into the mild climate first.
They call England’s a bad climate but the north and east of France have certainly a worse. What I most dread is the sea passage from Marseille to Leghorn—seasickness is so bad with me now. Love to all—
yours affectionately
J. S. Mill
252.
TO JOHN ROBERTSON
[Paris,] 28th December, 1838.
Dear Robertson,
The steamboat by which I shall go from Marseilles does not leave till the tenth; therefore you may direct to me there as late as the 2d, or you may risk even the 3d, if there be any reason for it.
Use Browning’s means of conveyance as much as you can, but if he sends Sordello we must not let him suppose that we can promise a review of it in the February number.
I cannot, on looking forward to my movements, and the time it will take before I feel settled enough to write, feel it at all likely, if even possible, that I can do more than the organization in time to send you for publication in February. When we asked him for Sordello, it was in hopes of finishing it before I set out.
If it must be reviewed in the February number, somebody else must do it; and perhaps that it best, at any rate, for I cannot honestly give much praise either to Strafford or Paracelsus. Yet I do not know whom we could get to do it.
Is the account I have seen copied from the English papers of Lord D[urham]’s Canada plans authentic? They seem good mostly, but the notion of a separate colonial office for North America seems rather foolish in itself (as if, instead of curing the defects of the whole system, we were to try to get one set of colonies excepted from it) and quite unpractical to propose, because impossible to carry out, or even to make acceptable to anybody.
The idea of adding British America to the Queen’s title is laughably pedantic and absurd, and the notion of giving the colonies representatives in the H. of C. cannot be entertained by anybody who has one grain of statesmanship in his head.
I do hope the report will contain no such nonsense, and if you think there is the slightest chance of it pray tell me, that I may write strongly to Buller against it.
I have inquired yesterday morning and this morning for letters, but found none. I doubt not I shall find some from you (if not from other people) at Marseilles.
Yours ever truly,
J. S. Mill.
Write fully to me on the reception Lord D.’s plans meet with, if these be his plans, and the sort of attacks made on them.
Write long letters and often,—you will have so much to write about. Your letters will be a great pleasure to me, as I expect from them the particulars of a game well played in which I have a deep stake.
J. S. Mill.
- ‘Asleep and naked as an Indian lay,
- An honest factor stole a gem away;
- He pledged it to the knight—the knight had wit,
- So kept the diamond—and the rogue was bit.’ ”
Titles (by Subject) 
