1852
67.
TO THE REV. HENRY WILLIAM CARR
7th January 1852.
Sir—
Want of time has prevented me from returning an earlier answer to your letter of 31st December. The question you ask me is one of the most difficult which any one can put either to others or to himself, namely, how to teach social science to the uneducated, when those who are called the educated have not learnt it; and nearly all the teaching given from authority is opposed to genuine morality.
What the poor as well as the rich require is not to be indoctrinated, is not to be taught other people’s opinions, but to be induced and enabled to think for themselves. It is not physical science that will do this, even if they could learn it much more thoroughly than they are able to do. After reading, writing, and arithmetic (the last a most important discipline in habits of accuracy and precision, in which they are extremely deficient), the desirable thing for them seems to be the most miscellaneous information, and the most varied exercise of their faculties. They cannot read too much. Quantity is of more importance than quality, especially all reading which relates to human life and the ways of mankind; geography, voyages and travels, manners and customs, and romances, which must tend to awaken their imagination and give them some of the meaning of self-devotion and heroism, in short, to unbrutalise them. By such reading they would become, to a certain extent, cultivated beings, which they would not become by following out, even to the greatest length, physical science. As for education in the best sense of the term, I fear they have a long time to wait for it. The higher and middle classes cannot educate the working classes unless they are first educated themselves. The miserable pretence of education, which those classes now receive, does not form minds fit to undertake the guidance of other minds, or to exercise a beneficient influence over them by personal contact. Still, any person who sincerely desires whatever is for the good of all, however it may affect himself or his own class, and who regards the great social questions as matters of reason and discussion and not as settled long ago, may, I believe, do a certain amount of good by merely saying to the working classes whatever he sincerely thinks on the subjects on which they are interested. Free discussion with them as equals, in speech and in writing, seems the best instruction that can be given them, specially on social subjects.
With regard to the social questions now before the public, and in which, as I gather from your letter, the working classes of your town have begun to take an interest, it seems to me chiefly important to impress on them—first, that they are quite right in aiming at a more equal distribution of wealth and social advantages; secondly, that this more equal distribution can only be permanently affected (for merely taking from Peter to give to Paul would leave things worse than even at present) by means of their own public spirit and self-devotion as regards others, and prudence and self-restraint in relation to themselves. At present their idea of social reform appears to be simply higher wages, and less work, for the sake of more sensual indulgence. To be independent of master manufacturers, to work for themselves and divide the whole produce of their labour is a worthy object of ambition, but it is only fit for, and can only succeed with people who can labour for the community of which they are a part with the same energy and zeal as if labouring for their own private and separate interest (the opposite is now the case), and who, instead of expecting immediately more pay and less work, are willing to submit to any privation until they have effected their emancipation. The French working men and women contended for a principle, for an idea of justice, and they lived on bread and water till they gained their purpose. It was not more and costlier eating and drinking that was their object, as it seems to be the sole object of most of the well-paid English artisans.
If in applying to me you hoped that I might be able to offer you any suggestions of more specific character, I hope you will attribute my not doing so to the difficulty of the subject and not to any want of will on my part.
68.
TO WILLIAM E. HICKSON
Jan. 17. [1852?]
Dear Hickson
Dies Solis and Die Solis have totally different meanings, being different cases. Dies Solis is the nominative case & signifies “the day of the Sun” or Sunday. Die Solis is the ablative case, & means “on” Sunday, as parliamentary papers are headed Die Lunae, Sabbati &c. to signify on that particular day: but Dies is what I suppose will suit your purpose.
I am not aware of anything among the Greeks corresponding to the Nundinae, nor of any Greek holidays except the very numerous festivals.
I hope you are enjoying the free disposal of your time, released from the cares & burthens of a review.
I am yrs very truly
J. S. Mill
69.
TO CLARA ESTHER MILL
[March 5, 1852]
You are certainly mistaken if you suppose that I said you had been uncivil to my wife. I said you had been wanting in all good feeling and even common civility to us. My wife and I are one.
You flatter yourself very undeservedly if you think that either my wife, or I for her, seek your acquaintance. You had an opportunity of seeking hers if you chose and you shewed in every negative way in which it is possible to shew a thing that you did not choose. My wife is accustomed not to seek but to be sought, neither she nor I desire the acquaintance of anybody who does not wish for ours.
70.
TO MRS. JAMES MILL
March 5. 1852
My dear Mother,
I received yesterday two most silly notes from Clara & Harriet filled with vague accusations. They say that when you called at the I.H. on Monday, I “complained to you of their incivility to my wife” [& . . . no such things] Another charge is that I repeated idle gossip in a note to you last summer—this is untrue. George Fletcher called at the I.H. a day or two before I wrote that note to you & asked after my wife saying he was very sorry to hear she was not well. I asked where he heard that; he said he was told so at Kensington, & this I mentioned in my note to you: no one else had anything to do with it. This was not “gossip.”
I hope you were not the worse for your journey to the I.H.
Yrs affy
J.S.M.
71.
TO JOHN WILLIAM PARKER
March 8. 1852.
Dear Sir
You do not state on what terms you propose to take a new edition of my Political Economy? I am quite ready to begin printing the edition when we have agreed on the terms.
I am
yours truly
J. S. Mill
72.
TO JOHN WILLIAM PARKER
March 15, 1852
Dear Sir
I think that for a book so decidedly successful as the Pol. Ec. I may reasonably hope for more than £300 for the next edition, considering that I have made great additions & improvements in it. I do not think my share of the profit of the last edition was nearly what I should have obtained had I published it on my own account. Will you turn the matter over in your mind & tell me what you think of it.
I am Dear Sir
yours truly
J. S. Mill
73.
TO JOHN WILLIAM PARKER
March 18. 1852
Dear Sir
I accept your proposal for the new edition of the Political Economy.
M. Guillaumin the bookseller of Paris intends to publish a translation of the book, and I have promised that the sheets shall be sent to him as they come from the press. I have also promised them to Dr. Soetbeer of Hamburg, who has already published the first volume of a German translation.
I wish to have a copy sent to Professor Ferrari [sic] of Turin who has translated the book into Italian, & I should be glad to have three copies for myself.
Some of the first part is ready.
I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
74.
TO DR. ADOLF SOETBEER
March 18, 1852
Dear Sir—
The pressure of my occupations has left me no leisure until now to answer your letter & to thank you for the volume of your translation of my Pol. Ec. which you were so good as to send me. As far as I have had time to examine it the translation seems extremely well executed: the sense appears to be very faithfully & clearly rendered. I only regret that your time & pains were not bestowed on the edition which is now about to go to press & which I have not only revised throughout but have entirely recast several important chapters; in particular the two most important, those on Property & on the Futurity of the Labouring Classes. The progress of discussion & of European events has entirely altered the aspect of the questions treated in those chapters; the present time admits of a much more free & full enunciation of my opinions on those subjects than would have had any chance of an impartial hearing when the book was first written; & some change has also taken place in the opinions themselves. I observe that in your preface you recommend the book to your readers as a refutation of Socialism: I certainly was far from intending that the statement it contained of the objections to the best known Socialist schemes should be understood as a condemnation of Socialism regarded as an ultimate result of human improvement, & further consideration has led me to attach much less weight than I then did even to those objections, with one single exception—the unprepared state of the labouring classes & their extreme moral unfitness at present for the rights which Socialism would confer & the duties it would impose. This is the only objection to which you will find any great importance attached in the new edition; & I am sorry that your translation should place before German readers as a current statement of my opinions what has ceased to be so. You propose to give in the 2d vol. an account of the alterations in the new edition: as far as concerns the points which I have mentioned nothing less than a retranslation of the two chapters as they now stand, would enable your work to represent my opinions correctly. I shall be happy to send the sheets of the new edition in the manner pointed out by you, & the first parcel shall be made up as soon as I am able to include in it the chapter which contains the discussion of Socialism.
I am dear Sir yours very truly
75.
TO KARL D. HEINRICH RAU
March 20. 1852
Dear Sir—
My occupations have prevented me until now from acknowledging the letter with which you favoured me as long ago as the 6th of February. It is not wonderful that staying but a short time in London & occupied as you were during that stay you had not time for the somewhat idle and generally very useless task of paying visits.
Though my references to your systematic work were confined to the Brussels translation, I am glad to say that I am able to read it in the original. Your writings indeed are the part with which I am best acquainted, of the German writers on pol. economy, in which as you justly surmise, I am not by any means well read. What you say of McCulloch does not surprise me. He is both prejudiced & inaccurate. I never place any confidence in the first edition of any of his books: but as the plan of most of them is good, people generally supply him with information which enables him to improve them very much in the second. His “Literature of Pol. Ec.” has however I shd think, but a small chance of making a second edition. Your plan of separating the scientific inquiry into the production & distribution of wealth, as a branch of social science, from the consideration of the economic policy of governments, appears to me both logically & didactically the best, & I have made the same separation in my own treatise. Of this I am just about to print a new edition in which among various other improvements I have entirely rewritten the chapter which contains the discussion of Socialism, & the greater part of that on the futurity of the labouring classes. I regret that the German translation of which one volume was lately published at Hamburg, was made from the previous edit., as it gives in many respects an erroneous idea of my opinions on Socialism. Even in the former editions though I stated a number of objections to the best known Socialist theories, I never represented those objections as final & conclusive & I think them of very little weight so far as regards the ultimate prospects of humanity. It is true that the low moral state of mankind generally and of the labouring classes in particular, renders them at present unfit for any order of things which would presuppose as its necessary condition a certain measure of conscience & of intellect. But it appears to me that the great end of social improvement should be to fit them by cultivation for a state of society combining the greatest personal freedom with that just distribution of the fruits of labour which the present laws of property do not even profess to aim at. To explain what I mean by a just distribution & to what extent I think it could be approximated to a practice would require more space than that of a letter. I confess that I regard the purely abstract investigations of pol. economy (beyond those elementary ones which are necessary for the correction of mischievous prejudices) as of very minor importance compared with the great practical questions which the progress of democracy & the spread of Socialist opinions are pressing on, & for which both the governing and the governed classes are very far from being in a fit state of mental preparation. It is to be decided whether Europe shall enter peacefully & prosperously into a better order of things or whether the new ideas will be inaugurated by a century of war & violence like that which followed the Reformation of Luther: and this alternative probably depends on the moral & intellectual movement of the next ten or twenty years. There is therefore abundance of occupation for moral & political teachers such as we aspire to be.
I am dear Sir
very truly yours
76.
TO PROFESSOR [HENRY?] GREEN
I[ndia] H[ouse]. April 8, 1852
Dear Sir—
I have delayed too long to acknowledge your two letters & the remittance of £120. Wishing to do the best I could for forwarding your objects in connexion with the Poona Useful Knowledge Society but knowing little about tools or the best mode of procuring them I put your letters into the hands of Mr Cowper, Professor of Manufacturing Art at King’s College, London, who was the most likely person I could think of to be able & willing to do what you wished to be done. Mr Cowper undertook to make the necessary enquiries & gave hopes that he would procure the articles themselves & in the expectation of hearing from him I continually put off writing to you. When at last I wrote to remind him I received an answer which I inclose & in which you will find the reasons he gives why more has not yet been done. I have not received the further letter which he promises but I do not like to keep you any longer without a reply. You do not I suppose wish to view some of the things until all are ready & if you have any instructions to give about the mode of sending they may very likely arrive in time to be of use.
I am much interested by what I know both from yourself & otherwise of your exertions to instruct & improve the natives. Everything shews them to be eminently improvable & your Society at Poona seems to be a striking example of the spirit which is abroad among a portion of them, & of the great effect which may be produced even in a short time, by well directed efforts for their improvement. I am glad that you have found my writings useful to your pupils. I have to thank you for the Bombay papers containing your series of articles on Newman’s Pol Ec. lectures. It is but a poor book as you appear to think though you treat him very civilly. I agree in most of your remarks as well as in your just appreciation of the great teachers of political economy, particularly Ricardo. Of what you say about my own book I should be happy to think that it is not too complimentary. The edition which I have just begun to print will be, I hope, a great improvement on the first & second, the chapters on Socialism & on the Future of the Labouring Classes having been so much altered as to be almost entirely new. In your review of Newman the remarks on population are the only part which I must express dissent from, for though you agree in the main with Malthus you appear to think that no one ought to be blamed for having an inordinately large family if he produces, & brings them up to produce, enough for their support: now this with me is only a part & even a small part of the question: a much more important consideration still, is the perpetuation of the previous degradation & slavery of women, no alteration in which can be hoped for while their whole lives are devoted to the function of producing & rearing children. That degradation & slavery is in itself so enormous an evil, & contributes so much to the perpetuation of all other evils by keeping down the moral & intellectual condition of both men & women that the limitation of the number of children would be in my opinion absolutely necessary to place human life on its proper footing, even if there were subsistence for any number that could be produced. I think if you had been alive to this aspect of the question you would not have used such expressions as “your wife has made you a happy father rather more frequently than you are pleased to remember.” Such phrases are an attempt to laugh off the fact that the wife is in every sense the victim of the man’s animal instinct & not the less so because she is brought up to think that she has no right of refusal or even of complaint.
I am dear Sir yrs very truly.
77.
TO FREDERICK J. FURNIVALL
April 19. [1852]
Dear Sir
In reply to your note dated the 14th I beg to say that I am unwilling to be examined before a Committee on the case of the ballast heavers, because I have not studied it, and have not formed any opinion on it. As far as I am able to judge, I should think that a registry office or general house of call for ballast heavers would be useful, by taking them out of the hands of the public house keepers, but I should not be disposed to make it compulsory on employers to apply in the first instance to the registry office. The best conducted workmen would be to be heard of there, & I would trust to that inducement. I say this however without knowing anything of the Coalwhippers Act or its effects. I am
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
78.
TO GEORGE F. HOLMES
April 29, 1852.
Sir,
Owing to the absence of the late Editor of the Westminster Review from England, your letter of March 22. only reached me by post yesterday. I lose no time in writing to say that I am not Editor of the Westminster Review and have no connection whatever with it. I saw for the first time two days ago the present proprietor, Mr. John Chapman, bookseller and publisher 142 Strand, who bought the review last year, and who has the entire control of it. The mode in which I thought I could best promote your wishes was by sending your letter to Mr. Chapman, which I have accordingly done. The article to which you refer as a specimen has not reached me: if it does, I will send that also to Mr. Chapman.
With many acknowledgments for the polite expressions in your letter
I am, Sir
Yours faithfully
J. S. Mill
79.
TO JOHN LALOR
June 27, [1852]
Dear Sir
I have been so much more even than usually occupied since your letter and its inclosures reached me that I have put off acknowledging them from day to day & am now obliged to be more concise in my acknowledgments than I should like to be. Let me first express my sincere regret at the cause of your long abstinence from writing which however great a private evil is a greater public loss.
With regard to the manner in which I am spoken of in the Preface I could not possibly have any other objection to it than that it is far too complimentary, except indeed that it is not agreeable to me to be praised in the words of a man whom I so wholly disrespect as Milton, who with all his republicanism had the soul of a fanatic a despot & a tyrant. With respect to the difference of opinion between us on the point of political economy discussed in your book you do me no more than justice in believing that I am open to evidence & argument on that & on all subjects. But your argument turning on the annual exchange of the capital of a country against the sum of its money incomes, is not new to me: I am familiar with it in Chalmers & Sismondi & though you have commented on it & popularized it I do not think you have added anything to its substance. The only new point you have made against me is in p. 57 where you say that the fall of profits cannot arise from the increasing pressure on the fertility of the land inasmuch as that pressure has for some years been more than counteracted by agricultural improvements while yet there have been all the signs of diminution of profits. To this I should answer that I do not think there has in the last dozen years been any diminution of profits, but only of interest. If I had had your book some weeks sooner I should probably have added a few pages to the corresponding chapter of the new edition of mine: It is now too late to do so in this edition.
I could mention several serious differences between us on incidental points—as where you speak of Malthus’ population theory as “tottering”, where you express your fears of some great moral change for the worse in the English character from the gold discoveries as though it were now something worthy & respectable, noble & elevated, while to me it seems that almost any change would be for the better, & especially where you say that pol. ec. unless baptized into Xtianity is a child of the devil which is quite inconsistent with any good opinion of me & my writings for in my opinion what is called Xtianity is as thoroughly a child of the devil as any extant—but I have no time to enter into these things nor would there be room for them in a letter. I am heartily glad that you have recommenced writing & I hope to see you again rendering that important service in the diffusion of valuable thoughts & sentiments which no one now writing for the periodical press is so much disposed or so well qualified to render.
I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
80.
TO LORD OVERSTONE
June 30. 1852
Dear Sir
Many thanks for your note. My young relation’s health remains the same as it has been for many years—that is, practically strong enough for work, but not apparently so, and as he was not considered fit by the medical officer last year I fear it is not likely he would be so now. It is a very considerable disappointment, and I shall be greatly obliged to you if it suits you to give us another chance at a future time.
I am Dear Sir
yrs very truly
J. S. Mill
81.
TO JOHN LALOR
July 3. 1852
Dear Sir—
My objection to the passage relating to Chalmers did not turn as you seem to suppose, on the word “baptism”. My remarks did not apply to the phraseology, but to the meaning of the sentence—to the assertion that pol. ec. unless connected with Xtianity is “a true child of the devil.” Any reader would suppose that by Xtianity was here meant belief in the Bible and on your own interpretation I must still protest against the statement that Chalmers “began” the baptism in question. I do not know any pol. economist except perhaps M’Culloch to whom the accusation you bring against all who preceded Chalmers can be attributed even by the license of caricature—& I especially reject it with respect to A. Smith, Turgot, Say, Ricardo & my father not one of whom was a believer in Xtianity & none of whom regarded pol. ec. as anything but a subordinate though necessary branch of utility or as you prefer to term it “the doctrine of human welfare.”
No men ever wrote to whom the charge of seeking in pol. ec. or in anything else a “justification of universal selfishness” or of any selfishness at all could be applied with less justice, & I cannot, on this point, accept any compliment at their expense. I confess I do not see the good that is to be done by swelling the outcry against pol. economists—or why they should be blamed because people do unjust or selfish things for the sake of money. I do not know what authority you have for saying that the clearing of Irish estates was “perpetrated in the name of pol. economy” any more than the clearing of English estates from the same motives in the time of the Tudors. But I do know that nearly all the pol. economists supported a poor law in Ireland in order to give the landlords an interest in fighting against the causes of poverty.
No doubt the opinion you have adopted respecting excess of capital must lead you to some moral (or immoral) conclusions very much opposed to those of pol. economists generally, especially the opinion that it is a virtue instead of a vice to be lavish in public & private expenditures. In this I can by no means agree with you as I think that some of the principal causes of the degraded moral state of the middle classes in this country is their absorption in the effort to make the greatest possible shew at needless & useless expense.
Respecting the point of pol. economy I do not see how Mr. Tooke’s doctrine, that prices depend on the aggregate of money incomes, at all helps to prove that increase of capital by saving lowers general prices. Whether £100 is employed in business or in personal expenditure it equally becomes part of somebody’s money income. Increase of production will not, I conceive, lower prices unless the production of money is an exception to the general increase. If it is so prices will fall, no doubt, but even then the fall of prices or what is the same thing, the increased value of money does not lower profits or incumber the markets with unsold goods: it only increases the burthen of all fixed money engagements. Neither do I believe that the time immediately preceding the fits of speculation which leads to a commercial crisis, is distinguished as on your theory it should be by a general fall of prices.
I will only add that the essay to which you make a complimentary allusion in p. 129 though written in 1830 was not published till 1836 so that your speaking of it as if it had been known & accessible in 1829 or 1830 gives an erroneous impression which I should much like to see corrected.
I am yours very truly
J. S. Mill
82.
TO KARL D. HEINRICH RAU
July 7. 1852.
Dear Sir—
Your letter of 5th April has remained very long unanswered, but you are too well acquainted with the inevitable demands on time produced by the combination of literary & official employment, to need any other explanation of my silence. I regret that I am not able to give you the information you desire respecting cooperative associations in England. You appear however to be in communication with some of those who have taken part in the very insignificant attempts of the kind as yet made in this country, & they can doubtless tell you all that is to be told. Much could not be done while the law of partnership remained what it was up to a few days ago. According to that absurd law, the managing members of an association being joint owners of its funds could not steal or embezzle what was partly their own, & could not be made criminally responsible for any malversation; & the only civil tribunal which could determine disputes among partners was the Court of Chancery. You doubtless know enough of England to understand that the word Chancery is a name for litigation without end & expense without limits. In the Session of Parliament just closed an act has been passed, called the Industrial & Provident Partnerships Act, by which cooperative associations will in future be able to obtain a comparatively cheap & easy decision of differences & this removes a great obstacle to their formation & success. It will now be seen whether any considerable number of the English working people have the intellect and the love of independence to desire to be their own masters, and the sense of justice & honor which will fit them for being so. I am sorry to say my expectations at present are not sanguine. I do not believe that England is nearly as ripe as most of the Continental countries for this great improvement. The ownership of the instruments of labour by the labourers, can only be introduced by people who will make great temporary sacrifices such as can only be inspired by a generous feeling for the public good, or a disinterested devotion to an idea, not by the mere desire of more pay & less work. And the English of all classes are far less accessible to any large idea or generous sentiment than either Germans, French or Italians. They are so ignorant too as to pride themselves on their defect as if it were a virtue, & give it complimentary names, such as good sense, sobriety, practicalness, which are common synonyms for selfishness, shortsightedness, & contented acquiescence in commonplace. In France the success of the associations has been remarkable, & held out the brightest prospect for the emancipation of the working classes; but these societies are likely to share the fate of all other freedom & progress under the present military despotism. Many of the associations have already been suppressed & the remainder, it is said, are preparing to emigrate.
My wife & I regretted that we were absent from home when your daughter was staying in the neighbourhood of London, & were therefore unable to have the pleasure of calling on her. There are two or three subjects touched on in your letter on which I should be glad to say something if time permitted. But I have so much to do & so many letters to write that I must beg you to excuse me for stopping short. I am Dear Sir
yrs very truly
83.
TO HARRIET MILL
July 13, 1852
My dearest Wife
Though I am persuaded it is unnecessary for any practical purpose, it will be satisfactory to me to put into writing the explanation of an accidental circumstance connected with the registry of our marriage at the Superintendant Registrar’s Office at Weymouth on the 21st of April 1851.—Our marriage by the Registrar Mr Richards was perfectly regular, and was attested as such by Mr Richards and by the Superintendant Registrar Mr Dodson, in the presence of both of whom, as well as of the two witnesses, we signed the register. But I was not aware that it was necessary to sign my name at full length, thinking that as in most other legal documents, the proper signature was the ordinary one of the person signing; and my ordinary signature being J. S. Mill, I at first signed in that manner; but on being told by the Registrar that the name must be written at full length, I did the only thing which occurred to me and what I believe the Registrar suggested, that is, I filled in the remaining letters of my name. As there was not sufficient space for them, they were not only written very small and close, but not exactly in a line with the initials and surname, and the signature consequently has an unusual appearance. The reason must be at once apparent to any one who sees it, as it is obvious that J. S. Mill was written first, and the remainder filled in afterwards. It is almost superfluous to say that this is not stated for your information—you being as well aware of it as myself, but in order that there may be a statement in existence of the manner in which the signature came to present this unusual appearance. It cannot possibly affect the legality of our marriage, which I have not the smallest doubt is as regular and valid as any marriage can be: but so long as it is possible that any doubt could for a moment suggest itself either to our own or to any other minds, I cannot feel at ease, and therefore, unpleasant as I know it must be to you, I do beg you to let us even now be married again, and this time at church, so that hereafter no shadow of a doubt on the subject can ever arise. The process is no doubt disagreeable, but I have thought much and anxiously about it, and I have quite made up my mind that however annoying the fact, it is better to undergo the annoyance than to let the matter remain as it is. Therefore I hope you will comply with my earnest wish—and the sooner it is done the better.
Your
J. S. Mill
84.
TO LORD OVERSTONE
Aug. 19. 1852
Dear Sir
On my return from a month’s excursion in North Wales I find your note and card. Pray accept our best thanks for your and Mrs Norman’s kind invitation to Bromley, but which we could not have had the pleasure to accept. We find it impossible to give up the time required by general society and therefore are obliged to decline many invitations which would otherwise be very agreeable and to limit ourselves to a small circle of the same opinions and pursuits with our own.
I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
85.
TO [GILBERT URBAIN GUILLAUMIN?]
le 16 Sept. 1852
Monsieur
J’ai averti l’éditeur des Principes d’Economie Politique que les deux feuilles dont il est question dans votre lettre ne vous avaient pas été remises, et j’espère que maintenant elles sont entre vos mains. Je vous remercie de l’envoi que vous voulez bien m’annoncer de la 4me partie du Dictionnaire dont je suis déjà redevable de la 1re et de la 2me partie.
Quant aux renseignements biographiques que vous me demandez, je suis né à Londres, le 20 mai 1806. J’ai été reçu dans les bureaux de la Compagnie des Indes en mai 1823. Voici la liste des livres que j’ai publiés:
A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive. 2 vols 8vo. 1843 (3me éd. 1851).
Essays on some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy. 1 vol. 8vo. 1844.
Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy. 2 vols. 8vo. 1848. (3me éd. 1852).
Sans compter de nombreux articles de revues, de journaux etc. dont je présume que vous ne désirez pas l’indication.
Agréez, Monsieur, l’expression de ma considération amicale.
J. S. Mill
(John Stuart Mill)
86.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN
Oct. 7. [1852]
Dear Sir
The sheets you sent are of no use for my purpose, which was to give away, as they are not separate copies but contain part of another article—& being useless I return them, with the exception of one copy; but I do not think it worth the expense of reprinting.
I am yrs very truly
J. S. Mill
87.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN
Oct. 9. [1852]
Dear Sir
I am much obliged by your note and offer of fresh copies, but it being now late to send them away, I prefer to dispense with copies altogether.
I am yrs very truly
J. S. Mill
88.
TO LORD OVERSTONE
Nov. 23 [1852]
Dear Lord Overstone
The tables appended to the inclosed official memorandum from the Statistical Department of the India House contain the best information we can give on the three points on which you made inquiries. As I expected the balance of trade against India is much greater than the million & a half you mentioned—but the explanation is, the remittances for the £800,000 dividends on India stock, the expense of the home establishments, furlough allowances, pensions, stores sent from this country &c. You will see that this “tribute” paid by India does not drain India of the precious metals, as the imports of them into India vastly exceed the exports. About the trade with Persia we know nothing except so far as it passes through Bombay—as probably most of it does.
The inclosed explanatory note is from the chief of the Statistical Dept. I am
Dear Ld Overstone
yrs very truly
J. S. Mill
89.
TO LORD OVERSTONE
Nov. 29 [1852]
Dear Lord Overstone
Having shewn your note to Mr Thornton I have since received a letter from him which I inclose. The circuitous mode of remittance through China seems to explain the anomalies. India does not export to England more merchandise than she receives, but she exports to China several millions worth of opium without return.
All the facts in the tables are at the service of any one to whom you may wish to communicate them.
Ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
90.
TO GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE
Dec. 21. [1852?]
Dear Sir
I shall be very happy to see M. Vauthier, and to further his objects in any way I am able—though as to the Political Economy I shall be obliged to dissuade him, a publisher at Paris having a translation nearly ready with my authorisation.
I am Dear Sir
yours faithfully
J. S. Mill
Titles (by Subject) 
