Front Page Titles (by Subject) 1847 - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XIII - The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill 1812-1848 Part II
Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XIII - The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill 1812-1848 Part II
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
1847 - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XIII - The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill 1812-1848 Part II 
The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XIII - The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill 1812-1848 Part II, 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 RICHARD MONCKTON MILNES1
My dear Milnes
It would be very agreeable to me to breakfast with you on Saturday, but I cannot venture to play truant from my office to the extent which that would require.
J. S. Mill
TO SIR ALEXANDER DUFF-GORDON1
Jan. 27, 1847
My dear Sir Alexander,
I regret to hear that Mr. Austin is again suffering from illness, which has, perhaps, been brought on by the application required in writing his admirable article in the “Edinburgh”,2 and by the very natural and intelligible reaction after it was finished. In his bad health he must at least have the consolation of feeling himself useful, for the article is exactly one of those things which he can do so well, and which so few are capable of doing at all—a thorough discussion of the subject it treats of, going down to the roots and fundamentals of a matter never treated in that way before—eminently calculated not only to give clear ideas and to correct vague feelings and confused notions on that particular subject, but also to educate the minds of those who wish to study such subjects—a class that would probably be much more numerous if there were not so lamentable a paucity of such helps to them. One of the persons of greatest intellect that I have known said, after reading the article, “What a pity the same man does not, in the same manner, precisionize other and even more important questions of political morals;” and I do hope that he will now be encouraged to do so. There is really some hope of this now that he has actually finished something; for his inability to satisfy himself is the only thing except ill health which has ever seemed to me to stand in the way.
Very truly yours,
J. S. Mill
TO ALEXANDER BAIN1
27 January 1847
You will have seen by this time how far the ministry are from having adopted any of my conclusions about Ireland,2 though Lord J. Russell3 subscribes openly to almost all the premises. I have little hope left. The tendency of their measures seems to me such that it can only bring about good to Ireland by excess of evil. . . . I have so indoctrinated the Chronicle writers with my ideas on Ireland, that they are now going on very well and spiritedly without me, which enables me to work much at the Political Economy, to my own satisfaction. The last thing I did for the Chronicle was a thorough refutation, in three long articles, of Croker’s article on the Division of Property in France.4
TO GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE1
[February 22, 1847]2
Of practical conclusions there are also several from which I should decidedly differ, particularly Communism.
The use made of the word “morality” is likely to give an idea of much greater agreement with the ordinary moral notions, emanating from and grounded on religion, than I should suppose you intend. Most people do not understand by morality a subject as open to discussion as any other, and on which persons have different opinions, but think it a name for the set of opinions they have been accustomed to.
TO HENRY S. CHAPMAN1
9th March, 1847.
My dear Chapman,—
My conscience has been reproaching me for months with not having yet redeemed my promise of writing to you again, especially after having received your interesting letter of April last. But you must, I am sure, know by experience how difficult it is to keep engagements of that sort when one’s mind and time are much occupied, and when the distance of one’s correspondent and the long time requisite for an interchange of letters prevents communication from being habitual and in a manner spontaneous. To give you an idea of some of my hindrances I will just tell you what my occupations are. In the first place, a great increase of my India House business, both from the general and progressive growth of the correspondence, and also from my having the charge of a second department in addition to my own, being responsible for a branch of the correspondence which is now carried on by my brother George. In the next place I have had a book to write which will be as large a one when printed as the Logic, and which I have now (within the last week) completed, sauf the revising, or rather rewriting, which is an indispensable part of anything of importance which I write. This book is the one you had had some incorrect information about, as you thought it was to be an edition of Adam Smith, whereas it is a book to replace Adam Smith, that is, to attempt to do for political economy what A.S. did at the time when he wrote, to make a book which, while embodying all the abstract science in the completest form yet attained, incorporating all important improvements, should at the same time be essentially a book of applications exhibiting the principles of the science in the concrete. I was the more prompted to do this inasmuch as it would enable me to bring in, or rather to bring out, a great number of opinions on incidental matters, moral and social, for which one has not often so good an opportunity, and I have used this privilege as freely as Adam Smith did, and I fully expect to offend and scandalize ten times as many people as I shall please, but that is “all in a day’s work,” and I always intended to make that use of any standing I might get among publicists. I have got a certain capital of that sort by the Logic, and I now cannot too soon use it up in useful investments. That then, has been my second occupation. My third has been to write a good deal this autumn and winter on the questions of the day, especially the Irish question,2 on which people seem to me to be running mad, each more than the other. No one idea that has been started for using this opportunity to effect anything for the permanent good of Ireland has met with any favourable reception; the whole English people are rushing frantically to expend any number of millions upon the present exigency, without much caring how, and taking their revenge on the Irish gentry by the infliction of a lavish poor law which if it passes will as it seems to me render the evils of Ireland incurable except by an universal seizure of the land and expulsion of the proprietors; and almost all the men on whom one counted for resisting any such monstrosity, have thrown themselves headlong into the very midst of the stream. Roebuck, of all men in the world, is quite an active leader in the movement, and as for the first time in his public life he is enlisting his talents in support of the madness of the movement, he has suddenly made himself a person of much more importance than he ever was before, and is continually flattered by the Times, which is the real author and leader of this movement and the substantial ruler of the country. Molesworth, except that he has only made one speech3 instead of fifty, is just as bad. Lord J. Russell and Lord Lansdowne4 six weeks before the meeting of Parliament, expressed in private the strongest opinions against any such measure as the one they have now introduced. I find nobody but Senior and Grote who are true to their colours. The English Poor Law, with the strongest profession of adherence to its principle, is in fact to be thrown overboard by abolishing the Central Board and substituting a functionary who is to sit in Parliament and to be virtually a member of the Ministry. Of course every little workhouse squabble will become a Parliamentary affair, and to avoid a debate in Parliament everything will be given up. Have not these people just ordered “a day of fasting and humiliation”5 merely to escape a debate on a motion by Mr. Plumptre,6 the man who thinks that the potato failure is a punishment from Heaven for the grant to Maynooth?7 Besides this new officer will go out with every Ministry, and besides, he will never be able to get elected without giving pledges inconsistent with a faithful discharge of his duties. I have never felt so thoroughly disgusted with the state of public affairs. The only good I see likely to arise out of all these things is that I think they are sure to give a great stimulus to colonization, for Ireland will be in a state next year that will make the landlords sell the clothes off their backs to get rid of the people. But it will be a colonization wholly of Irish, and of the very worst sort; and with an outdoor relief poor law they will just set about peopling again, and will replace even two millions in half a generation. The only propitious circumstances is the great progress of free trade. Our repeal of the Corn laws is working wonders; first the great relaxation of the American tariff, next the triumphal progress of Cobden8 through Europe. Think of the French Government authorising a League (Societe des Libres Exchangite)9 and permitting public meetings and speeches. I have great sympathy too with the fine old Pope.10 I hope he has many years to live; he is much younger than Popes usually are, but unhappily they say he has had epileptic fits when a child, and has had a return of them lately. The priests will poison him if they can, as the Jesuits are said to have poisoned Ganganelli.11 O’Connell is done up,12 and probably dying, killed, I should think, by the death of O’Connellism.
Yours most truly,
J. S. Mill
TO ALEXANDER BAIN1
March 27, 1847
The people are all mad, and nothing will bring them to their senses but the terrible consequences they are certain to bring on themselves, as shown in Whately’s speech yesterday2 in the House of Lords—the only sensible speech yet made in either House on the question. Fontenelle said that mankind must pass through all forms of error before arriving at truth.3 The form of error we are now possessed by is that of making all take care of each, instead of stimulating and helping each to take care of himself; and now this is going to be put to a terrible trial, which will bring it to a crisis and a termination sooner than could otherwise have been hoped for.
TO JOHN AUSTIN1
13th April 1847.
Dear Mr. Austin,—
There is no occasion to send anything you may write to me by any circuitous channel. If I did pay postage I should not grudge it for your letters, but in fact I do not. The I.H. pays all my letters except penny post letters which everybody pays before sending.
The notice in the Chronicle,2 to which I am indebted for your letter, was, as you supposed, mine. It is really a pity that all the trouble you must have taken with the article on Centralisation should have produced nothing more than a review article.
I am very glad that you should write anything whatever; but I hope especially now when your pecuniary affairs are settled in the manner you desire, that you will rather write books than reviews. An entirely unknown person, whose books no one would read, must begin by reviews, but you have written a book which, for the kind of book, has been very successful, and what you write is more likely to be read with your name than without it. A book gives much more scope than a review for your peculiar forte, the analysis of a subject down to its ultimate scientific elements. A review is not a slight thing to you; you take the same pains with it as you would with a scientific treatise, which in fact it is; & all who can be benefited by it at all would prefer to have it in a permanent form. It seems to me that reviews have had their day, & that nothing is now worth much except the two extremes, newspapers for diffusion & books for accurate thought. Every thinker should make a point of either publishing in his life if possible, or at any rate leaving behind him the most complete expression he can produce of his best thoughts, those which he has no chance of getting into any review. There are two books I have heard you speak of as projects: a continuation of “The Province of Jurisprudence” that is in fact a publication & completion of your lectures: this would be the easiest to you, so much of it being already done: the other which would be more important is a systematic treatise on morals. This last may wait long for any one with the intellect & the courage to do it as it should be done. And until it is done we cannot expect much improvement in the common standard of moral judgments & sentiments.
Of the two subjects you mention in your letter, the “province of government” is no doubt important in itself, & peculiarly a question of the present time. I have necessarily thought a good deal about it lately for the purposes of a practical treatise on Pol. Economy & I have felt the same difficulty which you feel about the axiomata media. I suspect there are none which do not vary with time, place, & circumstance. I doubt if much more can be done in a scientific treatment of the question than to point out a certain number of pro’s and a certain number of con’s of a more or less general application, & with some attempt at an estimation of the comparative importance of each, leaving the balance to be struck in each particular case as it arises. But that subject is I think tolerably safe as far as theory is concerned, for the thinking minds of the Continent & of England have fairly thought up to it & it is sure to be amply discussed & meditated upon for the next ten or twenty years. It is hardly a subject for any one who is capable of things much in advance of the time.
On the other subject, The “antecedents of the Revolution,” I much doubt if what you propose to write will do any good to those whom you hope to influence by it. I think with you that the English higher classes (of the German I know nothing) mean well, “what little they do mean” as my father said of some person. They have grown good even to goodiness, as they shew every year more & more. But also every year shews more & more their pitoyable absence of even that very moderate degree of intellect, & that very moderate amount of will & character which are scattered through the other classes but of which they have certainly much less than the average share, owing to the total absence of the habit of exerting their minds for any purpose whatever. I used to hope, as my father did (with all his democratic predilections), that when their political monopoly was taken away they would be induced to exert themselves in order to keep ahead of their competitors, but I have quite ceased to think so. If there is anything of which experience convinces me more & more it is that (beyond a certain point) facilities, as they are called, are hindrances, & that the more the path to any meritorious attainment is made smooth to an individual or a class, from their early youth, the less chance there is of their realising it. Never to have had any difficulties to overcome seems fatal to mental vigour. The doctrine of averting revolutions by wise concessions to the people does not need to be preached to the English aristocracy. They have long acted on it to the best of their capacity, & the fruits it produces are soup-kitchen and ten hours bills.
As far as I see, the influence of democracy on the aristocracy does not operate by giving them any of the strength of the people but by taking away that which was their own; making them bend with a willing submission to the yoke of bourgeois opinion in all private things, and be the slaves, in public matters, of the newspapers which they dislike & fear. I confess I look less & less to that quarter for anything good. Whatever is valuable in the traditions of gentlemanhood is a fait acquis to mankind; as it is really grounded on the combination of good feeling with correct intellectual perceptions, it will always be kept alive by really cultivated persons; the most complete parvenus now in this country have as much of it as people of family, & for its diffusion must not our real reliance be on the extension & improvement of education? I have even ceased to think that a leisured class, in the ordinary sense of the term, is an essential constituent of the best form of society. What does seem to me essential is that society at large should not be overworked, nor over-anxious about the means of subsistence, for which we must look to the grand source of improvement, repression of population, combined with laws or customs of inheritance which shall favour the diffusion of property instead of its accumulation in masses.
It is, I dare say, very natural, that living in France, you should be much impressed with the unfavourable side of a country that has passed through a series of revolutions. The inordinate impulse given to vulgar ambition, down to even a low class, & the general spirit of adventurership are I have no doubt disgusting enough, but may not much of them be ascribed to the mere accident of the brilliant fortune of a “certain lieutenant of artillery” (as Stendhal says), & much to the habitual over-governing by which power & importance are too exclusively concentrated upon the Government & its functionaries. In England on the contrary I often think that a violent revolution is very much needed, in order to give that general shake-up to the torpid mind of the nation which the French Revolution gave to Continental Europe. England has never had any general break-up of old associations & hence the extreme difficulty of getting any ideas into its stupid head. After all, what country in Europe can be compared with France in the adaptation of its social state to the benefit of the great mass of its people, freed as they are from any tyranny which comes home to the greater number, with justice easily accessible, & the strongest inducements to personal prudence & forethought. And would this have been the case without the great changes in the state of property which even supposing good intentions in the Government could hardly have been produced by anything less than a Revolution?
I judge M. Guizot’s conduct in the Spanish affair3 as you do: he is evidently not above low tricks & equivocations, which seem to be quite excused to every Frenchman by their being for the supposed honour & glory of France.4 Guizot I wished to think better of, but after all this only brings me back, and that not altogether, to my first opinion of him, which some parts of his public conduct from 1839 downwards had modified.5
Your impression of Comte’s delinquencies is a fine instance of the growth of rumour: your informants must be either ill-informed or such exaggerators that I wonder you should have believed them. In the first place, Comte (to whom I did not give money, but Grote and Molesworth did) never wrote to Grote anything but what was perfectly convenable. He wrote a letter to me which he authorised me to shew to G. & M. if I thought fit, & I did think fit; but it contained nothing like reproaches.6 It contained a theory that, in default of the government, it is the duty of rich individuals to subscribe their money to enable philosophers to live and carry on their speculations. I do not agree in his theory.7 I thought it an instance of “the importance of a man to himself” but even with the addition of his not having economised the money previously given to him this is a totally different thing from what you have been told.
The judgment to be passed on this incident would involve the wide subject of how the degree in which a person should be judged by his own deliberate principles should be combined with one’s judgment on the principles themselves, and one’s opinion of the causes which made him adopt them.8
You ask what I think of the Irish measures. I expect nothing from them but mischief, or if any good, only through excess of evil. If you were here you would, I believe, think as I do. The Government & the public seem both alike to have quite parted company with experience & common sense. There is not one man in the H of C [House of Commons], & only two or three in the H of L [House of Lords] (Whately being one) who seem to have a single sound or rational idea on the whole subject: those from whom one had most right to expect better are just as bad as the rest. I doubt if outdoor relief would do for Ireland under any mode of administration, but as it is they are holding out to the people the most unbounded expectations, & if the poor law is to be worked without fulfilling them, the life of no guardian & no relieving officer will be worth a week’s purchase, & the country will be ungovernable except by military occupation of every village. The only good I expect is that the result must produce a strong reaction in the public mind against the present wild notions about the mode of being good to the poor.9
I expect to be in Paris shortly with the friends with whom I always endeavour to pass my holidays but it is uncertain if they will remain long enough to admit of my going to see anyone; if I do I will certainly call on you.10
Ever sincerely yours,
J. S. Mill
TO ALEXANDER BAIN1
5th May 1847
[Before arriving in London this year, I had another letter (5th May). He delays to commence rewriting his book till he sees the upshot of the Irish business.] The conduct of the ministers is wretched beyond measure upon all subjects; nothing but the meanest truckling at a time when a man with a decided opinion could carry almost anything triumphantly.
TO WILLIAM E. HICKSON1
My dear Hickson
It would not be convenient to me at present to write an article on currency. Neither could I write the article wanted just now, without a much greater knowledge than I possess or could easily acquire respecting the facts of the money market. My opinions on the general subject “with the latest additions & corrections” will come out next winter in my book.
I believe I agree with most of what you say in your note.
J. S. Mill
TO AUGUSTE COMTE1
le 17 mai 1847
Mon cher Monsieur Comte
Je pense qu’il pourrait vous être intéressant d’avoir quelques renseignements sur les choses qui se passent actuellement en angleterre et en Irlande, d’autant plus qu’elles me semblent caractériser, d’une manière frappante, une sorte de crise sociale.
Vous savez que le siècle où nous sommes est celui des transactions, et surtout de la grande transaction qui se renouvelle sans cesse à des conditions variables, entre les pouvoirs anciens et les idées modernes. Vous savez aussi que l’Angleterre est le pays des transactions par excellence. Ce que, peut-être vous ne savez pas, c’est la forme particulière que revêtit aujour-d’hui chez nous la grande transaction européenne. Nous sommes entrés à plein voile dans le système du gouvernement charitable. Il y a longtemps qu’on prêche aux classes supérieures qu’elles ne remplissent plus leur mission, qu’elles sont tenues à faire quelque chose pour ceux dont le travail les nourrit, qu’elles n’ont le droit de gouverner qu’à condition d’être moralement responsables du bien-être de la société, et notamment de la classe pauvre, etc. Or, comme cette remontrance amicale leur est venue d’un côté tandis que le chartisme et le socialisme apparaissaient de l’autre, elles ont dû, quelle que fût leur insouciance, y obtempérer quelque peu, et petit à petit elles sont venues jusqu’à prendre au sérieux ces doctrines de responsabilité gouvernementale, qui, au fond, ne laissaient pas d’être passablement flatteuses à leur amour-propre d’aristocratie. Seulement, elles ont entendu cette obligation de la manière dont elles le pouvaient, c. à d. de la manière la plus facile et la plus ignoble, en la réduisant aux proportions de l’aumône. Aujourd’hui il n’est question que de donner aux pauvres; non seulement de l’argent, mais aussi, il est juste de le dire tout ce qu’on croit leur être utile, comme le raccourcissement des heures de travail, une meilleure police sanitaire, de l’éducation même, chrétienne et protestante surtout, mais sans exclusion de quelques connaissances terrestres. Il s’agit enfin de les gouvernor paternellement, et la cour, les nobles, les riches s’y disposent tout tranquillement, sans jamais se douter qu’il faille pour cela autre chose que de la bonne volonté, et en concevant le but selon la mesure de leur propre capacité intellectuelle et morale, c. à d. d’abord en fesant abstraction complète de la dignité morale de la classe pauvre. Cela est très naturel, attendu qu’ils n’ont que faire de ce sentiment pour eux-mêmes, n’ayant plus la dignité morale du passé, et n’ayant pas encore celle de l’avenir; d’ailleurs s’ils en avaient, ils ne la croiraient pas faite pour des gens pauvres, pour des ouvriers. Ensuite ils oublient complètement, ou plutôt ils n’ont jamais su, que le bien-être ne s’accomplit pas par les seules qualités passives, et qu’en général ce qu’on fait pour les personnes ne leur est utile qu’à condition de seconder seulement ce qu’elles font pour elles-mêmes. Ils se flattent que le bonheur des prolétaires dépend des riches, et ne se doutent pas qu’en définitif il dépend de l’énergie, du bon sens et de la prévoyance des prolétaires eux-mêmes; que le philanthrope le plus haut placé n’y peut rien, qu’en éclairant et en renforçant ces précieuses qualités chez les pauvres et que si au contraire il y porte attente, s’il tâche de mettre l’intervention sociale à la place de ces vertus individuelles, il devient nécessairement nuisible au lieu d’utile. Mais de cela nos philanthropes comme il faut n’ont pas la moindre idée, dénués qu’ils sont de toute connaissance approfondie et pétris de suffisance aristocratique.
La tendance que je viens de caractériser, et qui se signale depuis plusieurs ans d’une manière croissante, arrive aujourd’hui à une expérience décisive, amenée par la disette irlandaise. Cette île malheureuse, victime si longtemps de la tyrannie et de l’intolérance anglaises, dont maintenant elle n’a plus à se plaindre, semble destinée à être victime encore une fois de notre philanthropie. Vous connaissez le déplorable état industrial de ce pays, partagé entre une multitude démesurée de paysans paresseux et affamés, et un petit nombre de grands propriétaires insouciants et la plupart endettés, qui tirent du sol tout ce qu’il peut rendre, en rançonnant les paysans non pas par la force brutale mais par la concurrence effrénée de ces malheureux, toujours prêts à promettre plus que la terre ne produit. Depuis longtemps ce fléau est signalé à l’opinion publique: les Anglais reconnaissent le mal, ils désirent y remédier, mais ils y ont toujours échoué devant leur propre incapacité politique et sociale; n’ayant d’autre idée d’amélioration générale que celle de faire entrer tous les pays dans le système anglais, tant politique qu’industriel, tandis que ce système est tout à fait impropre à l’Irlande. C’est un grand malheur pour l’Irlande que de se trouver sous la domination d’un pays tout exceptionnel, et dont les principes ne sont en toute chose que la généralisation de l’exception, tandis qu’elle appartient, elle, au type normal européen, et que ce sont des idées continentales qu’il lui faut. Pour tout autre penseur qu’un anglais, le remède est clair, c’est le système de la petite propriété convenablement modifiée. Il faudrait assurer aux propriétaires actuels, en rente fixe, le revenu net de leurs terres, en laissant la terre elle même à la disposition absolue des cultivateurs. Avec cela on aurait probablement en peu de temps, une production triple ou quadruple de celle d’aujourd’hui, et une population aussi laborieuse, aussi prévoyante, et aussi indépendant que les paysans français. Or, les anglais ne comprennent rien à ce système; ceux qui croient en savoir quelque chose, et c’est le plus petit nombre, sont remplis des idées les plus fausses. Ils n’ont jamais pu concevoir d’autre amélioration en Irlande que d’en faire une autre angleterre, c. à d. un pays à grande culture, avec une population de laboureurs salariés. Or, sans rien préjuger sur l’avenir lointain de l’humanité, il est certain qu’aujourd’hui en Irlande ce système-là ne vaut rien. En le supposant même possible avec le caractère Irlandais, il entraînerait la suppression de la presque moitié de la population ouvrière actuelle. Ne pouvant donc pas réaliser cette heureuse idée, que fait-on? On jette à l’Irlande une loi des pauvres. On décrète que la population ouvrière tout entière vivra d’aumône. On lui promet au moins que tous les indigens auront de l’aumône autant qu’il leur en faut, et les indigens c’est toute la population agricole.
Pour moi je ne vois de cette loi d’autre résultat probable pour l’Irlande que celui de réduire tout le monde au niveau de la misère générale, après quoi je m’attends à une dissolution sociale complète. Lorsqu’on aura passé par d’affreux malheurs, il faudra procéder à la reconstitution de la société, du sein d’une désorganisation totale, sans une idée constructive quelconque, et après avoir fait prendre au peuple des mœurs essentiellement anarchiques, car je ne connais pas de gouvernement possible là où la majorité a pris l’habitude de demander à grands cris la subsistance et le bonheur aux autres au lieu de les chercher par elle-même. Certes, on n’a pas eu de pareilles idées en 1793, et on n’a aujourd’hui chez les communistes rien d’aussi profondément anti-social. Ce qui en sortira, impossible de prévoir. J’y vois pour seule consolation, une réaction certaine contre le système du gouvernement charitable. On aura une grande preuve expérimentale de cette vérité qu’on ne peut pas traiter l’ouvrier comme on traite le bétail, c. à d. le faire travailler pour les autres en lui donnant une bonne nourriture et un bon gîte. Cela n’était possible que lorsqu’on y ajoutait le fouet. On ne peut pas plus en industrie qu’en autre chose, faire marcher l’ancien système en lui ôtant l’un après l’autre tous ses moyens d’action.
tout à vous
J. S. Mill
TO WILLIAM E. HICKSON1
16th June 1847
My dear Hickson
I send you a short review of a political economy treatise—written by my youngest sister,2 who is a student in political economy and who wishes to take the chance of your thinking the paper fit for insertion. It is the first attempt of a beginner in writing for the press & you will not therefore expect anything very brilliant. I am able to countersign the political economy of the article. In other respects & indeed in all respects you will of course exercise your own judgement. The writer has no such great opinion of her own performance as to be astonished at a decision in the negative, but I do not think the paper will do you any discredit, or I would not have undertaken to propose it to you.
ever your truly,
J. S. Mill
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
My dear Chadwick
After much consideration I have come to the decision that my best course will be to sell the certificates if I can get 20 per cent for them. But I do not know how to effect this unless you will kindly manage it for me. If you would have no objection to ask your correspondent to dispose of £6000 more of the certificates, if it can be done on the same terms as yours, you would confer an obligation on me & I would in that case send you the certificates in time to be sent over by the packet on the 4th.
I have found the printed Case & I will give it my best attention.
ever truly yours
J. S. Mill
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
My dear Chadwick
I have read this letter2 carefully through twice & I have nothing to suggest for the improvement of it except the correction of numerous clerical errors—these I have either corrected in pencil, or made a mark opposite to them when I was unable to supply the correction.
I should have returned it sooner, but not having had a pencil with me when I first read it, I waited till I had time to read it again.
ever truly yours
J. S. Mill
Such a letter ought to satisfy any statesman of his good fortune in having the writer of it at his disposal—but whether any of these men have sufficient brains to appreciate brains in another, remains questionable.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
My dear Chadwick
You have a most powerful case in your own defence & against the Commissioners—reinforced with great effect by Tufnell’s letter.2 There are only two things which I can suggest: first, that you should dwell more on the point which Lord J. R. the other day laid almost exclusive stress upon as an accusation against you. viz. your telling the Asst Comrs that their representations of abuses would be far from welcome3 (N.B. I have no doubt you told them in that respect the exact truth) & secondly a careful revision of the composition. The long paper4 in particular is full of unfinished & ill constructed (sometimes ungrammatical) sentences—this is evidently owing in many cases, but not always, to incorrect copying.
I am extremely obliged both to you & to Mrs Chadwick’s relation for your kindness about the certificates.5 With regard to the power of attorney, as some of the certificates belong not to me but to my sisters, do you suppose they must all give powers of attorney (which would be difficult, they are so scattered, & some of them out of England) or is it sufficient that I, being empowered though not formally, by them to dispose of their certificates, should give a single power of attorney for the whole lot?
As I suppose you went through the same formalities in your own case, you can also tell me in what manner the Lord Mayor is to attest the power. The letter you sent me is worded as if the Lord Mayor had personally to appear before the Consul.
yours ever truly
J. S. Mill
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
My dear Chadwick
Many thanks. I will do as you direct.
I have received the Settlement Evidence2 & have read a great part of yours with pleasure & admiration. It will be of much use to me. I differ from you as yet only on one (not fundamental) point.
J. S. Mill
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
My dear Chadwick—
The enclosed speaks for itself & I have written it on a separate paper that it may more conveniently be sent to Mr. Stuart2 if you see no objection. I should have spoken to you about it when I saw you, as well as renewed my thanks to you & Mrs Chadwick, if I had found you alone—but you will easily understand that I did not wish to admit any other persons to unnecessary confidences on my money affairs or those of my relations.
ever your most obliged
J. S. Mill.
TO JOHN WILLIAM PARKER1
My dear Sir
I write this note to introduce to you Miss Hall,2 who being unacquainted with the name of the present editor of Fraser’s Magazine but understanding that you are now the publisher, is desirous of addressing herself to you on the subject of a contribution to the Magazine. I was well acquainted with her mother, the late Mrs. Hall, for whom I had a great respect & who had contributed several things to Fraser’s Magazine in the time of Dr. Maginn.
Very truly yours
J. S. Mill
TO JOHN WILLIAM PARKER1
My dear Sir
When I wrote to you hastily the other day about the Political Economy proposing that the conditions of our agreement should be the same as for the Logic, I had not referred to the agreement itself, & I did not know what I find to be the fact, that our engagement for the Logic was for all future editions. In the present case I do not wish to bind myself for the future, but to engage only for one edition, leaving the question entirely open as to future editions in case they should be wanted. This is the more reasonable, as there cannot this time be any considerable risk of loss, since the present book being on a popular subject is pretty sure to sell as many copies as will pay its expenses. It would probably be much more to my advantage to publish the Political Economy on my own account, which I am quite ready & disposed to do, if the publication of a single edition at half profit should not be agreeable to you.