The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Abbreviations and Short Titles
• The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill 1856-1864
• 1856
• 1857
• 1858
• 1859
• 1860
• 1861
• 1862
• 1863
• 1864

1860

431.

TO JANET DUFF-GORDON1

[Early 1860]

Dear Madam,

I have only just received your note informing me of the death of one of the men whom I most valued,2 and to whom I have been morally and intellectually most indebted. I had learned the sad news some weeks ago from the Athenaeum,3 and it was a greater shock to me as the characteristic vigour of his assumption of authorship last winter4 had made me hope that his health had undergone a decided improvement and that the termination of his career was still far distant.

I believe that few persons, so little known to the common world, have left so high a reputation with the instructed few; and though superficially he may seem to have accomplished little in comparison with his powers, few have contributed more by their individual influence and their conversation to the formation and the growth of a number of the most active minds of this generation.

For myself I have always regarded my early knowledge of him as one of the fortunate circumstances of my life.5 I am

Yours very faithfully,

J. S. Mill

432.

TO HELEN TAYLOR1

• Hotel Bedfort
• [Paris]

Jan.25 [1860]

Dearest Lily—

I got here prosperously and without once feeling cold, and have done all my business here—witness the paper I am writing on, & witness also the two numbers of the Revue des 2 mondes which they promise to send by the same post. I luckily found at the gare About’s book “La Grèce Contemporaine”2 which I read in the train during the heavy shower and when the country was not interesting—but generally I did not want to read, as I never saw the mountains look finer. All on the right, (& on the left too as we approached Lyons) were covered with snow so nearly to the very plain, that I feared I should find snow on the ground here—but I only found the most enormous mud & wet. About’s book will interest you if we go to Greece, and what he says mostly agrees so well with all I know, that I incline to trust him in what I do not know. I have bought the Flore de Dauphiné,3 a quite new one. I went into Notre Dame in passing; they have erected a flêche on the roof, in imitation of that of the Sainte Chapelle: it is not so ugly as it might have been, but they have covered the interior with their polychromatism which to my eye is by no means an improvement. The hinder half of the building is shut up, as the workmen are still on it both within & without. I am going via Calais, as the Boulogne hours do not suit; so I shall arrive early tomorrow. I am now going out to put this in the post and to have dinner. I will write again as soon as I arrive. Good bye dear. I do not half like this going away from you.

J.S.M.

433.

TO HELEN TAYLOR1

• Blackheath

Jan. 26.[1860]

Dear Lily—

I arrived here about nine this morning not at all tired, but having been ill (though not very) during the passage. It was a rough sea, and the short pitching of the steamer was trying. There had been five or six weeks of rain at Paris and it rained here up to yesterday but I found a hard white frost. As you will know by this time, Parliament met on Tuesday instead of today,2 as we thought. I was luckily able to get yesterday’s paper at the London Bridge station & so read the debate—which was as satisfactory as any debate ever is in that stupid house. I found Hadji looking pale but, I thought, with a more animated (or rather less dead) expression of countenance than usual. He seems disposed to be amiable. Puss (who seems to have entirely forgotten me) quite startled me by her size—rather bulk than stature. It may be an illusion, from having been used to a little puss & little doggy (to whom remember me) especially as the teapot also looked as if it had grown. Elizabeth3 asks to be allowed to have a woman to help her one day in the week. I assented (thinking the request moderate) and she is going to try to get M^rs Goodenough. I write this in some haste previous to going out to the ironmonger’s at Greenwich. So goodbye dear. I shall not always give you these small sheets. Ever affectionately

J.S.M.

434.

TO HELEN TAYLOR1

Saturday
Jan.28 1860

Dearest Lily—

I have not lost any time since I arrived here. I saw Coulson yesterday morning, and he advised me to see him again in a fortnight, after taking four of the pills, which he thinks will very likely be sufficient, & I should not wonder if they were, as I seem better even without taking them, and yesterday was the first evening for more than three months when I have had no signs of indigestion without having taken either magnesia or anything else. I took the first pill last night. Yesterday I saw Parker, Prescott, and Thornton. I was very glad to find that Thornton has again hopes for his poor boy—who appears to have gone through a crisis, evacuated the contents of an abscess or an ulcer in the lungs, and to be now better. India affairs, or at least India House affairs, seem even worse than appeared from his letter. He told me some instances of the ignorance & presumption of Wood2 which startled even me. From Parker I heard as usual some gossip about publications, and (of course) outpourings against the new shilling magazines, Thackeray’s3 & M^cMillan’s,4 which he describes as mere Barnum affairs,5 paying any fabulous sums to get names, while the bulk is written by the mere riff raff of the press. In proof of the first he affirmed what seems quite incredible, that they give Tennyson a guinea a line for poems i.e. for the first publication, for they do not even get the copyright. He says that T. has given one to M^cMillan, one to Thackeray, one to Once a Week,6 & that Mrs Tennyson proposed to him (Parker) that he should give one to Fraser, but P. refused, saying that it would not pay to give such a high price & that he should not like to give him less than others gave. As for M^cMillan we shall judge for ourselves what it is worth, as I have bought the three numbers and will send them to you as soon as I have looked through them (if I have time to do so). He says Kingsley has refused to write for M^cMillan or for any magazine but Fraser. He says however that K. is done up in point of health & means to rest for years to come except as regards his parish. He told me various things of the Queen’s & Prince’s civilities to K.7 and that he was given to understand he might be a Dean or something more, but that he kept to what he had said years ago, that he would take no preferment that would remove him from Eversley. I tell you any gossip I hear that may either interest or amuse you. In my “main objects in coming here” as the footman who climbed Mont Blanc said (meaning to throw a summerset on the top) I have not got on fast. With all diligence I have only read four Saturdays, and have only got through the merely provisional sorting of one of the two packets of plants. This part of the job takes much longer than I ever knew it to do before. In the Saturday I am stuck (after the intermission) by its general dénigrement of all public men & notorieties, the extreme exaggeration of its hostility to democratic changes, & by a very uniform & monotonous line of subdued jocularity in its criticisms on minor victims.8 Still it is as interesting as ever to read, malgré the oldness of the topics. I inclose a Mem. of your account at Prescott’s, extracted from your book. You will see that the balance is ample. Now touching the house—there are no visible cracks outside, all having been filled up during the summer but what has struck Ross9 is a very marked bulging of the east half of the brickwork above the darling’s window beyond the west half, which is very apparent even from the road & must be disagreeable to Ross’s feelings as a house proprietor. In your room there is a second large crack inside near the one which Suter10 saw & pronounced harmless—but this one is larger (it is just on the right side of the top of the window) & shews the west end of the house to be breaking away from the east end. Hadji thinks it may not be new since Suter saw the other but may then have been hid by the paper. The kitchen side of the house seems safe enough at present, but the cracks must have been prodigious: they have not reopened, and the wall is [shored?] up by shores near the kitchen window. I think I must have Suter to see the crack in your room. H. says that Girling10 (who professes to understand such things) declares that the brickwork of the lamed arch need not be taken down, but that an iron bar, applied I do not yet understand how, will make all perfectly safe. If what he says when I see him appears plausible, it may be well to try, and so postpone the decision on anything further till you are here. I find to my surprise that Haji is still taking music lessons. This agrees with the other signs that he is not really studying economy. Hann11 has undertaken to give black edges to the cards. I find I cannot get a Times to read, as Wray12 has none disposable except at 12 when I shall always be out: & the reading room I frequented in Gracechurch St. is given up. I must be content with the Telegraph.

[PS.] I shall soon hear from you now dear & I begin to be impatient for news of you. I have left out many things which I will put into my next. Ever aff^y

J.S.M.

[Enclosed memorandum of Helen Taylor’s account]

435.

TO HELEN TAYLOR1

• Blackheath

Tuesday Jan. 31 [1860]

Your second letter has just come, dear, your first having arrived yesterday. I need not say how glad I was to receive them. All they tell is satisfactory except the delay in the sawing, which is shameful, as the man got on considerably faster with the former one, in spite of the fêtes, and himself spontaneously told me the day before I left, that it would be done on Thursday. I do not suppose the words Concession Perpétuelle need necessarily be on the monument,2 but I do not know, and I suppose we need not decide till we can ask Pascal or somebody who does know. I was very much interested by the rose plantations and the jonquils. Here there are no signs of spring except a little green on the honeysuckle in a hedge near Plaistow. The weather is excessively wet: yesterday it rained so incessantly till late in the afternoon that I only got out late to Deptford to order potatoes. Saturday was the only really fine day and that was beautiful. I think the scenery here & that at Avignon are exactly suited to make each other more thoroughly appreciated. Here the green, the majestic trees, and the beautiful irregular shining & gleaming outline of the masses of wood, seem all the more beautiful for being so unlike the beauties of atmosphere and form at our other home. I have not been in town again since I wrote, though I should have gone yesterday but for the rain, & I shall go today chiefly to see various people at the I[ndia] House beginning with Willoughby.3 I told you I had seen Coulson. I have not yet taken my second pill, but shall take it tonight. I have hardly had a vestige of indigestion all the time till yesterday evening, when I had a good deal: the direct effect of the pill I suppose had worn itself out, & it had not yet sufficiently acted as an alterative. I could not expect that it should. The experience thus far is very satisfactory. I omitted to tell you that I was weighed the day after my arrival, & had gained some pounds since we left England. As for the plants—the mere preliminary sorting, which every former year has been done in one evening, took four of above six hours each, & the best part of yesterday forenoon: but yesterday evening I got down the first parcel of the herbarium & got on pretty well, having got half through it. I find it extremely interesting but rather bodily fatiguing, as it is any thing but sedentary work. In the “Saturday” I have just got through June. There are many things in it which I should not have liked to miss seeing, though very few that tend to raise the writers in my estimation. I have read nothing else except glancing through one number of Macmillan—which seems to me not at all worth taking. It seems both poor & dull except a tolerable political article by Masson,4 & there is an elaborate review of Tennyson’s last publication by Ludlow,5 (the sometime Christian Socialist, & writer of a bad book about India)6 making out to the writer’s entire satisfaction that the four Idyls are the most splendidly moral & impressing work of the age, chiefly on the point of conjugal infidelity. It is hardly worth sending, at most worth bringing, but Fraser has just come in & shall be sent as soon as read, for it contains Hare’s paper (under a better title).7 I shall be glad to subscribe for Spencer’s large programme of intended works,8 though I think it rather too ambitious a one. I have had a note from Bain saying that he is to be at home till the 6^th & will put off going if I cannot come before, but I must try to do so though I grudge all time taken from the reading & the plants at present. I get on well with Hadji, who is less silent than usual though he never speaks about his own concerns. I suppose Ellen9 has given him some taste for neatness, for one day when I left the room untidy I found on coming in that he had arranged everything with quite studious tidiness. He has got on a little with music & his practicing is now quite tolerable. Tell me dear directly you get tired & wish me back. I do not say ennuyé for I know you never can be that. Ever affectionately

J.S.M.

436.

TO THOMAS HARE1

• Blackheath

Feb. 2. [1860]

Dear Sir

Your bulletin of progress has followed me here, where however I am only for a short time. It is, I think, very satisfactory, and I have no fear that the plan2 will fail to make progress if a quiet agitation is kept up on the subject. I hope your paper in Fraser3 will be soon followed up by another4 of a more distinctly practical character. The effect of the present one is I think a little damaged by the introduction of so much of other people’s generalities which (especially those of Carlyle)5 are associated in most minds with anything rather than a plan admitting of actual legislative realization. The same generalities shaped in your own mind and clothed in your own language (which would not have precluded using the authority of the men as far as available) would have had the practical remedial principles much more distinctly imbedded in them and would therefore have made more of the impression which is desirable. I am feeling strongly on this point through the evidence which is always coming before us of the obtuseness of the English practical intellect when any new details are concerned, and the utter absence of Conservative principles among the professed Conservatives. Witness the reform article in the last Quarterly,6 which will not condescend even to discuss the representation of minorities. The suggestion about forming a Committee may prove useful when we have a sufficient number of the right names to put on it—which I hope we shall have by & by.

Yours ever truly

J. S. Mill

437.

TO HELEN TAYLOR1

• Blackheath

Feb. 2. 1860

Dearest Lily—

Your nice letter came by the second post yesterday, just as I was on the point of going out: three letters in three successive days. How does it happen that you get my letters regularly on the second day instead of the third? you answered my Thursday’s on Sat^y & my Saturday’s on Monday. Do the letters no longer remain a day at Paris? or does the favour of the Director abridge the delay at Avignon? Now for business. I find that, probably by my own fault, I misunderstood the point on which Girling had given an opinion, opposed to Suter’s. It was, the stability of the kitchen wall as now shored up, which G. from his experience guarantees, while S. according to Hadji wants to have a job there. The suggestion of the iron bar to support the arch above the darling’s window came from Suter, & it can, as I & also Hadji conceive it, only be put up from inside. That being the case, what had better be done? Had it better wait altogether till you are here also? Say what you think and feel as best. If needful I will have a fire in the room and remain in it all the time; which would I hope prevent mischief though not obviate the desecration about which I also feel very strongly. Doubtless the job Ross proposes can be done wholly from without, and to this we shall probably come ultimately (viz. next summer) if not to worse, for the house seems at least to be in a more precarious state than it has ever yet been. I will do, in regard to it, exactly what you think best. I do not expect any danger before, at soonest the end of another dry summer.—M^rs Goodenough is to come on Saturday. Eliz. says if she could not have had her, she, knowing your unwillingness to have a stranger, would have gone on as well as she could without. But it seems fair that she should have help once a week in the cleaning.—I have been in town once since I last wrote, doing one or two little jobs, & seeing India House people, which has brought on me the (agreeable) task of reading several very good papers of Willoughby’s. He & all I have seen are in a high state of dissatisfaction, & every fresh thing I hear of Wood shews more & more how much ground there is for it. I would rather have to do with any public affairs now than with India. There is nothing new to say about my health. I have taken the second pill & shall take the third tomorrow. I am in the middle of my second packet and of the Caryophylleae. You can trace my progress in Babington,2 the order of the families being the same. The Cruciferae alone took more than a whole evening, but they contained one or two difficult genera, having got through which, & also the troublesome Helianthemums, amounts to a considerable progress. In the Saturdays I have just finished July 16. The best service they have rendered is by being always strenuous for arming, & against Louis Napoleon, but in doing so they have become anti-French to a degree I do not like—though some of them write candidly enough too on the French people. While I am writing a Times has come from Wray with a message that I can now have one. Thanks dear for your kind feeling about it. The fact is I have been so immersed in last year’s S. Review politics that a glance at the Telegraph has generally been enough for me hitherto. Hare’s paper in Fraser3 rather disappoints me. There is nothing in it that lowers my opinion of his mind, but it is ineffective. On a subject which ought to be studiously presented in the most eminently practical light, his paper is overlaid with quotations of rhapsody from Carlyle & generalities from Maurice & Ruskin, as applicable to any other subject as to this. I have not yet read any more of Fraser, but will lose no time in doing so. I have desired Wray to post the February number of the Englishwoman’s Journal to you: I have read no more of M^cMillan yet. I found the Westminster at Galignani’s, so perhaps it would not have been stopt if it had been sent to Avignon. I do not know if I mentioned that I glanced (at Galignani’s) at the article in the Quarterly on reform.4 They made a good deal of use & mention of the pamphlet (last spring)5 though they adopted nothing of what it proposed—but they made no use of the ballot part, for though they liked the conclusion, the premises I presume were too un-Tory for them. I was struck with the de haut en bas manner in which they set aside as not worth even consideration any plan for representing minorities. What an illustration such things give of the low state of the general intellect. Is it not surprising that Conservatives have no sense or appreciation of Conservative principles? Conservatism with us means a blind opposition to change. I know no Conservatives who are really so but the Saturday reviewers whose adherence is to principles of stability & principles of unjust domination so far as now practically maintainable, but who have no mere instinctive attachment to details as they are. N. B. To shew our preference for openness I shew Haji your letters. This put me into a dilemma with the last, but on reflection I thought you would not dislike his seeing the few words about him. If I was wrong, say so. I shall see if he shews me your letters to him: if not, I shall shew no more of mine. He did not shew me M. L.’s6 letter, though he told me she had asked him to lend money.—February opened with a beautiful day of hard frost, & there has been a little snow today. Sundridge Park was lovely & Camden too in spite of the new villas. ever affectionately J.S.M.

438.

TO THOMAS HARE1

• Blackheath

Feb. 4. 1860

Dear Sir

I received your note, and by the same post your letter from Avignon with its inclosure. I need hardly say I should be happy to hear from Mr Fawcett, and as to my occupations here I can have none more important than to aid you and him in any mode in my power. I am doubtful about the move you now propose. It seems to me of the utmost importance not to begin with the Lords or in any quarter under suspicion of Toryism. Those who wish not for the equal rights of all but for the despotism of the numerical majority will be only too ready to run down the plan as a fetch of Tory Anti Reform. It is not at all Tory, though, in the best sense, Conservative, and having also the advantage of being a strict logical corollary from the broadest principles of Democracy it ought not to throw away that advantage. If we only are unguarded enough to give any handle for representing it as anti-democratic we shall throw away all our best chances. I think we should rather strive to bring the plan and its recommendations forcibly before individuals of position and influence, & among these Lords Lyndhurst & Brougham2 hold a high rank. With respect to Lord Grey,3 if the question were, who is likeliest in the H. of Lords to see the merits of the plan, and seeing them to do his duty towards it, I should name him without hesitation, but it would be most undesirable that he should identify himself with it early, as he has got so confirmed a character for being crotchetty and unpractical, i.e. (being interpreted) for having no following, that people think they may dismiss anything at once of which he is the most prominent supporter. Any public move should, I am convinced, go to the Commons first, and should turn the Liberal side of the scheme outwards, shewing the other side afterwards.—I have received this morning a note from Mr A. F. Mayo. He says “I am happy to find that Mr Hare’s plan is becoming more talked about. Mr Dilwyn,4 M. P. for Swansea, whom I have been endeavouring to stimulate for months, has at length made a speech in public at Swansea on the subject. It is a pity that Mr Hare did not state his Act synthetically and in order at the beginning of his work.” I give this last opinion for quantum valeat. Pray consider me always at your call while I remain here. I am often in town between 12 and 4 and could call on you in York Street to talk over matters if you are there and at liberty. It is certainly very desirable to make use of the present reform discussions for agitating on so great a principle of reform. The best mode of doing it would depend on the strength we can count on. I will suggest to Mayo to communicate with you. I am not at present in the way of sounding many people. We can count on Bain, and, I should think, Helps.5 While I am writing a note has come in from Mr Fawcett. I am glad he is going to see Lord Stanley. Out of office6 Lord S. will not feel tongue tied, and his advocacy would give both Radical and Conservative support. I am also very glad to find both that Lord Grey approves and that he declines to initiate.

ever truly yours

J. S. Mill

439.

TO HELEN TAYLOR1

• Blackheath

Feb. 4. 1860

I found your letter yesterday, dear, when I came in at five o’clock, & by the same post a note from Hare, who had just heard from Parker of my arrival. I agree entirely in every word you say on that subject & shall write to him accordingly. Most of all do I agree that on no account ought the plan to be propounded under Tory auspices. This morning a note has come in from Mayo (who sent us the Law Magazine). Among other things he says “I am happy to find that Mr Hare’s plan is becoming more talked about. Mr Dilwyn, M. P. for Swansea, whom I have been endeavouring to stimulate for months, has at length made a speech in public at Swansea on the subject.” This is encouragement to go on propagandizing. Mayo also says that before I mentioned Bain’s book2 he had read it with very great approval & had been propagandizing at the Athenaeum for that too. A man with so much zeal should be kept up with. I went yesterday to Richmond to see Bain. The place is getting overrun with building, especially the high ground where the Rose hotel stands, & the whole neighbourhood of the Sheen road (I mean the one which goes down hill from opposite the Star). The space between that road & the park wall is almost entirely filled up, & Bain’s is one of the tiny houses in that slip of ground close to the park wall. He still requires crutches3 (for his stick is almost a crutch) & though he walks with it as fast as I do, he cannot keep up very long, so we had only about an hour’s walk, but the walk to & from Greenwich & between London bridge & Waterloo make up a decent day’s exercise. He is in good spirits on things in general. His first volume has sold 640 in all, & the deficit is now made up. The sale made a start on the publication of the second vol. & another start when the article in the Edin. came out. The second has only yet sold 320, but it is sure to equal the first. He has finished & is sending to Parker the first of his papers on Phrenology which are to appear in Fraser in alternate months.4 He has been staying with Grote & has seen some of his writing on Plato which from the account he gives of it must be very good, & considerably outspoken. He also says that Grote has benefitted much in health by his Surrey house & is getting, for the first time, fond of the country. Their lease in Savile Row is expiring & they do not mean to have any permanent house in town now. All this is good, as it will both prolong his life & increase the amount of work he will do. Of the six people who have the appointment of the St Andrews professor, the two clever men, Ferrier & Tulloch,5 are decidedly for Bain, which is creditable to both & quite remarkably so to Tulloch. Of the four mediocrities, two are against him, the other two doubtful, and likely I should think to vote against him. But he has a chance of a professorship at Aberdeen,6 a more important university: for when the arrangements for the union of the two Colleges there take effect,7 there will be (if all goes as is projected) a separation of the Logic from the Moral Philosophy Chair, & the former will be in the gift of the government, in which case if Lewis8 is still in office Bain considers himself almost sure of the appointment.—I send you two letters relating to M^r Austin. The first, from Miss Duff Gordon9 (whom I never saw, unless perhaps when a child) had been left for me at Prescott’s. I was glad it was from her rather than from her mother or grandmother, & answered it by another about the same length, expressing regret & respect for him & mentioning nobody else. Yesterday evening came one from M^rs Austin which seems to involve the unpleasant necessity of writing to her.10 My principal anxiety is to do as exactly as I am able what would have been done if I had still my darling to guide me, not only for the reasons which exist in all cases, but for the special one that all relations with persons should shew her to be as much present as before. I inclose for your remarks & suggestions what I think of saying.—Archdeacon Allen11 having heard that I am here, has written another letter very like the first, wishes I would visit him next summer, is thinking of going again to London on Feb. 13 for convocation & asks to be allowed to call on me to which I must of course assent. I have a letter from Hardy12 who appears to be making a search himself for M. de Gaillard,13 but as yet without success: I suppose I must write to M. de Gaillard to report progress. So much for general news. For myself, my improvement in digestion has by no means kept up to the degree it attained at first. Last night I took the third pill & will report further in next letter. I have finished Fraser—it is a goodish number & I will send it at latest on Monday: In the Saturdays I have got to August 6, & in the plants to the end of Thalamiflorae & am going to begin my great heap of Leguminosae, which I shall get quickly through as I do not think any of them will require any redetermining.—About the gilding we need not, as you say, decide yet.14 My feeling is strongly against it, as being less grave, & more gaudy & ostentatious, besides being considerably less legible. But we must consider the pros & cons. I am glad the dames were less tiresome than we feared, though their quality of mind was well illustrated by your anecdote. Even provincial women of their station in England would perhaps have been a little better. I am sorry for the man’s accident with the thorn. I hope it can be poulticed out. your ever affectionate

J.S.M.

P.S. A note has just come in from that fine fellow Fawcett, & one from Lady Duff Gordon.15 The last would make the letter too heavy & contains nothing that need affect the present question. I will write again immediately.

440.

TO HENRY FAWCETT1

• Blackheath

Feb. 5. 1860

Dear Sir

It gave me great pleasure to hear from you. One who, suffering under such a calamity as yours,2 has the heart and energy to commence a career of vigorous exertion for great public objects, must be a man of the right mould, and I am proud of being thought to have been of any use to such a man.

You have selected well the object of your present efforts. We can never do enough in pressing forward Mr. Hare’s plan, which, in my deliberate belief, contains the true solution of the political difficulties of the future. It is an uphill race, and a race against time, for if the American form of democracy overtakes us first, the majority will no more relax their despotism than a single despot would. But our only chance is to come forward as Liberals, carrying out the Democratic idea, not as Conservatives, resisting it. To become identified with Toryism would be fatal to the plan, for the Conservative is not only the least powerful, but the silliest party. It has been left behind by all its able men, and the others are daily shewing that of all politicians the Conservatives are the least alive to any real principles of conservation. It is they—it is Disraeli, the Quarterly Review, &c, who go out of their way to insult the idea of representation of minorities. It will be, as it has been through all my lifetime, that in every real pinch, Radicals have had to do duty as Conservatives, often in opposition to those they were attempting to save.

As you so clearly see, Mr. Hare, like many discoverers, has much to learn in the art of presenting his discoveries with a view to popular effect; but he seems truly anxious for advice and help, and we who did not make the discoveries must aid them in that way. I need hardly say that I shall be glad to read the paper you propose sending,3 and to give my opinion on it. I beg that I may be counted on for cooperation whenever wanted, though I am glad that the very useful task of visiting public men, for which I have decidedly no vocation, is undertaken by yourself.

To say the truth, I am rather glad than otherwise that Lord Grey,4 though approving the plan, is unwilling to move actively at present in its favour. It is important at starting to keep clear of those who have the unenviable reputatation of being crotchetty. The case is different with Lord Stanley,4 who would be the most valuable single accession we could obtain. He is reserved, and will not shew the extent of the impression which may be made, but he will take the book and study it, and some day you will see the result.

As I am often in town, and you probably are never at Blackheath, I should be happy to call on you as often as wanted instead of giving you the trouble of coming on purpose.

I am yrs very truly

J. S. Mill

441.

TO HELEN TAYLOR1

• Blackheath

Tuesday Feb. 7 [1860]

Dearest Lily—

I received your Thursday evening letter yesterday & was made very glad by hearing that you are in good spirits & that the work is proceeding satisfactorily. I will make a translation carefully & send it.2 I was in hopes that by this time you would have told me what you think had better be done about the repairs here. Yesterday while I was out a man (a builder) came on the part of Ross, without any definite message, & after looking at the outside, told Haji there was no danger: but I think Suter must look at the great crack near the window of your room. I have been waiting till I hear from you. I write but a short letter this time because I wish to inclose two notes from Fawcett which I think will interest you. I shall meet him & Hare tomorrow & as I shall also see Coulson, there will be much to write to you next morning. I have been doing better again as to health, though I have still occasionally a little acidity even while taking the mercury. I do not think I shall recover a perfectly healthy digestion quickly. My chronic ailments however slight are always a long while in going away. I took the fourth pill last night, so it is time to see Coulson. I am getting on pretty well with the plants. I have finished Leguminosae, Rosaceae & others, & of the fourth packet there remain only the stonecrops & saxifrages, both of which are rather numerous. You should see how plethoric the packets have grown, & what difficulty I now have in making their girdles meet. After next spring’s acquisitions I shall have to build my barns bigger. Of the Saturdays I have just finished Sept. 10. They are wonderfully steady in their quality in all respects. They are certainly however a proof of the influence of my writings, for besides that they are continually referring to me by name, I continually detect the influence of some idea they have lately got from the Dissertations. They must also get me plenty of readers, for they are always treating me & my influence as something of very great importance. Did you notice the death of D^r Todd?3 another great loss. I hope the Evening Mail will give a letter in the Times today from the editor of the Gazette de Nice4 who says the French papers misrepresent & suppress everything & that the anti-annexation party there & in Savoy must look to the English papers only to make the truth known. I send, by this post, Fraser, which I am ashamed to say I forgot yesterday. I saw two days ago the first flowers, being a primrose & some winter aconite: not here, but in the Christmas rose garden in the Park. The laurustinus everywhere is quite as backward as it was this day fortnight at Avignon, & there is not a crocus or a snowdrop visible. your ever affectionate

J.S.M.

442.

TO SARAH AUSTIN1

• Blackheath

Feb. 10. 1860

Dear Mrs Austin

From my remembrance of the Lectures2 I should say, without hesitation—If a bookseller will undertake them, publish them all, with only such revision as may remove needless repetitions & so far reduce the bulk. They are much more calculated for popularity than they would have been if he had, by rewriting, made them (as he would have done) more elaborate, & more difficult reading. I am persuaded that his reputation with all students of his subject would sell the book (if not too voluminous) & I am sure the book would greatly extend his reputation. But you cannot have better advisers than Sir J.R. and Sir G.L.3 I am sorry to say I have sought in vain for my copy of the Tables.4

I am yrs faithfully

443.

TO HELEN TAYLOR1

Saturday, Feb 11. [1860]

Dearest Lily—

I received your letters yesterday & today. I am very glad that you thought I hit the right mark in my answer2 to that letter. I sent it yesterday, except that for the sentence about the Tables, I had to substitute “I am sorry to say that I have sought in vain for my copy of the Tables.” It must be in some recess of the boxroom, not to be found without a general clearance. She will be able to get one from somebody else. You have very truly characterized her letter; which is like all her letters & if you saw her daughter’s you would say she has an apt pupil. Only the daughter has the grace to mention my loss though in a very inadequate manner. As it requires no answer I will not send it but bring it. I cannot translate the inscription at all satisfactorily,3 but for the mere formal purpose a general indication of the sense, even though in bad French, is sufficient. There is no reason at all against putting up the two lower blocks as soon as they are ready. I shall most likely have finished everything else by the end of my second fortnight with Coulson. I am deep in the Compositae, and though I have not yet got through half the number of packets, I am more than half through the work, as after Labiatae the new acquisitions (except the Grasses) are much more thinly scattered. In the Saturdays I am at October 29. But neither of these would keep me here, as you know. Suter has been here; the iron bar is to be outside, & he not only thinks that there is no necessity to put it up at once, but thinks it better not. The great crack in your bedroom he will send a man on Monday to stop. About seeing Hare, Fawcett, &c. you will have seen that I took your advice before I received it. The truth is that though I detest society for society’s sake yet when I can do anything for the public objects I care about by seeing & talking with people I do not dislike it. At the moment of going to do it, I feel it a bore, just as I do taking a walk or anything else that I must & ought to do when not wishing to do it. But I believe the little additional activity & change of excitement does me good, & that it is better for me to try to serve my opinions in other ways as well as with a pen in my hand. With such people as Hare & Fawcett it is a pleasure, & ranks with going to the Pol. Econ. Club (for which by the by, Fawcett asked me to propose him as a member, or rather expressed a wish to be a member & I offered to propose him, which I have done).4 Archd. Allen’s visit would be a bore, but he has written to say he is not coming to town at present. He renews his invitation very warmly. This morning the papers have Gladstone’s budget.5 It is a great success. He turns the edge of the argument about relieving the rich instead of the poor, by raising the income tax to tenpence, & he takes off the paper duty,6 & all the remaining protecting duties, making a clean sweep of all duties on manufactures, on butter, cheese, eggs &c. & leaves a number of other duties, giving for the first time a really good fiscal system. He says wine will still be more heavily taxed than beer, therefore there need be no reduction of the malt tax. The French concessions are larger & better than anybody knew of. His speech was one of principle, good throughout, & pointing out many bad effects to which I had not adverted as produced by the taxes which the French treaty takes off.7 All other wines are to have the same benefit as French. Except a little complaint from the representatives of the silk interest, nobody but the wise Mr Bentinck ventured to complain.8 They only asked for time to consider, & I have no doubt that the intending opponents find their hopes dashed. It will be supported I think zealously by all liberals. Very judiciously they mean to finish this before bringing in the Reform Bill,9 lest the enemy should defeat this by forcing them to dissolve on that.—I hope the really touching appeal to the English public from a number of Savoyards, in yesterday’s Times,10 is in the Evening Mail. There was also a good leading article on that topic.11 Mayo has written again & has sent a paper of notes & criticisms on Bain’s book of which as I told you he is a great admirer.12 I bought at the railway station to read in my journeys to & fro, a shilling copy of Emerson’s Representative Men.13 It seems to me very empty mouthing, with only a foundation of a few vague & general ideas which are right or wrong according as they are taken. Is it a pair of revolvers you want? I ask, because one hears of a pair of pistols (or as the old phrase is, a brace) but revolvers I only remember hearing of in the singular number, & I should think one of their advantages must be that there is no need for people to burthen themselves with two. We have bitter cold weather again here: it was hard frost all day yesterday, to the benefit however of my walk. I have kept my word with you in letter & spirit: according to weather I walk (at five miles an hour) for two hours or for between three & four: the only exception (not counting the days of going to town, when I have plenty of exercise) was the rainy day I told you of, when I went only to Deptford. There are now a few nice snowdrops out near the door but no crocuses. I think the Vichy water is doing me good. It is only like very pure water with a slightly pungent taste.

Your ever affectionate

J.S.M.

[P.S.]

With all help from Boyer’s dictionary14 I cannot find an equivalent for “earnest” for “instructor in wisdom” or for what we mean by “goodness.” If you can amend any part of it, do.

444.

TO HELEN TAYLOR1

• Blackheath

Tuesday Feb. 14 [1860]

Dearest Lily—

Your nice letter of Saturday came yesterday, but not till after I had gone out, though I staid till I thought the time for the second post had passed. I quite understand the way you are affected by spending hours in the company of such people. You do not mean to keep up both the Demoiselles & the Dames? It is a great happiness to me to be a support to you under depression, but it would be very painful to me to think that I should always continue to be the only one, as I must necessarily fail you some day & I can never be at ease unless, either by means of persons or of pursuits you have some other resource besides me, and I am sure my own darling would feel as I do. But to speak of things more germane to the present moment. Suter came yesterday & the crack in your room was filled up. Everything has thus been done which seems necessary or desirable for the moment. His man, who seems intelligent, thinks that the sinking is caused by the foundation not going down below the sand, which being washed away more & more by the landsprings, the wall goes on sinking. In what I said about the shrubs I did not mean to suggest doing anything now. I am even disposed not to have any of them propped up (for they are not actually levelled) & as for cutting them, nothing would induce me to have the dearest one’s shrubs touched without the presence of some one who understands the subject & knows what she would have liked: It is easy however if you think it desirable, to have a few stakes put in the most important places. But it cannot well be done yet for it is hard frost, with cold wind, & snow on the ground. I was caught yesterday in two snow showers. It will be a late spring in both countries evidently. The birds who had begun singing have left off, though there are great numbers of them. The other day looking out of my bedroom window I perceived five bulfinches perched on the thorn near the dining room window.—There have been two notes from Gregson. He seems to take matters very slackly: The first said that he & Cooper thought it was best to sell the securities.2 The second, in answer to an enquiry by Haji, said that he had not seen the will, but only extracts furnished by Cooper & that these satisfied him that the third share is divisible now. I tried to see him to get some explanation of this vagueness, but as he was not at home, I wrote a note to him to say that I think it important that he should see, not extracts, but the will itself, as the difference of opinion between Cooper & his principal makes it necessary to have the best evidence. Meanwhile Haji is under an impression that the consols are already divided, as he says there are £200 more to his account than would be the case otherwise. This ought not to have been done with Gregson’s consent, unless after further communication with you.—Fawcett has sent his MS. pamphlet this morning.3 It is very well done, but I can suggest some additions & a few omissions of things which would be better away, & I am writing to him to say that I will call tomorrow to talk about it. He will probably send over to Hare who is close by. I am glad you thought my advice & notions on the former occasion correct. I had not shewn Fawcett’s letters to Haji but I have shewn him this one. I have not sent Lady D[uff] G[ordon]’s letter as it is heavy, but I shall know by your next whether you would like it sent. I have got through the Compositae & am in Campanulaceae. In the Saturdays I have got into the middle of December. Although not so quick in perceiving such things as dear one was I cannot help seeing continual marks that some of the writers have taken their cue from the Liberty & the Dissertations. A very favorable notice of the Diss. in a Bradford paper has been sent,4 & there is one of the Liberty in a large quarterly review called the London Review5 which I found here, & which had got to a 25^th number without my even knowing of its existence. As to health I think I am going on very well. I seldom have any acidity now, but I do not yet feel confidence that after eight pills I shall be able to get on without medicine. I shall see what Coulson says. I do not think of seeing either Clark or Ramadge this time. The success of the Budget seems as far as I can judge to be complete.6 There is something going on about Savoy & Nice, which has induced our Government to ask Kinglake7 to put off his motion for the present. There is another notability dead, Sir W. Napier, aged 74.8 How is poor little Bruno? Another pet, little Goldie, keeps singing very loud in the kitchen. Tell me anything you would like me to bring when I come. You spoke of bulbs, & roots from Halley. It will soon be time to get them. Shall I bring Macmillan? It is hardly worthwhile if we have but a few days to stay at the little place before going our journey. I will bring the West^r in any case. Your ever affectionate

J. S. Mill

445.

TO HELEN TAYLOR1

• Blackheath

Friday, Feb. 17 [1860]

As there is no letter this morning, dear, I will write without waiting for one. Gregson writes that he has seen the will2 at Doctor’s Commons & examined it and that it bears out Cooper’s extracts, which however he is not allowed to compare verbatim. The extracts he has sent. They prove that Arthur’s3 impression is wrong, & that the time for making the division does not in any way depend on Mrs Hardy’s life or death. They do not however clear up all doubt. By the words used, the trustees, after the death of any one of the three legatees, become trustees for that one’s sons till of age, & daughters till of age or married: so that in your case & Haji’s the trust has expired. But this does not shew that it could not be kept alive by consent, unless there be something in the law which makes this impossible. I shall try to see Gregson to ask this question. But on the whole I am now rather for letting the division take effect. Now that the Birkenhead shares are commuted to Liverpool corporation bonds, I do not know that they are likely to rise by keeping. The following words are from Gregson’s note “By it (the will) it is perfectly clear that the children of M^rs Mill became entitled to the principal of one third of the residue immediately on her death. They will also become entitled to a further share on the death of either M^rs Ley or M^r Alfred Hardy without children. The will expressly required that the number of three trustees should always be kept up, which I apprehend has not been done, as I observe that the will was only proved by M^r Harman & M^r Arthur Hardy & not by M^r Booth4 the third executor. It would be proper to see that this is done in order to protect the contingent rights of M^rs Mill’s children in the remaining two thirds of the funds” or rather I should say (if at all) their right to a third of those now appropriated to M^rs Hardy.

I had a long talk on Wed^y with Fawcett. Hare was not there, but a young Cambridge friend of F. named Wilson5 was there who seems to be intelligent & a warm supporter of the plan. As we had to go over the pamphlet & discuss all points of it, there was little general conversation. I once tried to lead the talk to the subject of women, but nothing came of it. I shall however have plenty of opportunities. This morning F. has sent the MS.6 revised & I shall call on Monday to talk about it further. I have impressed on him that in the present stage the only thing that can usefully be aimed at is to get access to individual minds likely to be influential. I have discouraged sending the pamphlet to any members of parliament but select ones. I have on the other hand suggested sending it with a few words of remark to all who signed the Memorial to Lord Palmerston for an educational suffrage.7 Though that scheme was not a good one, those who signed it were mostly persons of talent or instruction, & they have all given evidence that they want something out of the common line of parliamentary reform & are alive to one of the strong recommendations of Hare’s plan. Most, no doubt, will disregard it, but if we can recruit only a few of them, it will be a great gain. F. says that Cairnes (whom he knows) is with us. Mayo has sent his remarks on Bain: they are all on one detached point, & without being striking or very good, they are worth shewing to Bain which I shall do, having Mayo’s permission. I have now read up the Saturdays within two numbers. I think they grow worse rather than better, though there are often good things of a kind one finds nowhere else. I am on the point of beginning Labiatae, & I see my way to leaving about Monday week. Haji intends going to Norwich first,8 & following in the middle or at the end of the same week. What is your opinion now about going to Greece? Do you think it would do to cross Italy? I am frightened at the thought of going round by Malta, especially at a stormy season, & I doubt too if there are any regular steamers from Malta to Corfu or Athens. The French steamers to Athens touch I think at Messina but not at Malta. I can perhaps learn this before I go. The frost here may be said to have gone though it still sometimes freezes in the night & is still very cold all day, with continual snow showers (which do not lie) & a great deal of wind. Your ever affectionate J.S.M.

446.

TO HELEN TAYLOR1

• Blackheath

Saturday Feb 18 [1860]

Dearest Lily—

I have just received your Tuesday evening’s letter. We have had nothing here comparable to the weather you describe. There has been no snow that has lain, or none of any depth, & skaiting [sic] had only just begun when the thaw came. It was a slow, cold thaw, but the weather is getting daily milder, & yesterday was beautiful. I saw yesterday in Morden road the first crocus. I wrote to you fully yesterday, & I write again today chiefly to say that Ross has been here, with his man, the same whom Haji saw. They both say that the sinking & cracks can only be finally stopped by underpinning the house at the corners. Tudor House, Ross said, was as bad, but it was underpinned & it never sank afterwards. On the other hand, Suter’s man told Haji that Powell’s2 house had been underpinned long ago & that it did not stop the mischief, which as Powell told Haji has gone so far that he means to leave the house which otherwise he would not. The man said, what I can hardly believe, that it can be done without destroying or much injuring the shrubs: only the rose on the wall nearest the corner must go: I believe there are other stems and roots of roses along the wall though the shrubs hide them. I have asked the man to send a rough estimate of the cost of doing this. The kitchen wall, in the part which has bulged out & is propped up, he says cannot be mended, but only pulled down & rebuilt. Ross, for his part, does not care whether the underpinning is done or no (he avers that there is no danger, as the wall sinks upright) but he cares very much for our having the brickwork of the arch in front taken down & replaced (though it would be evidently absurd to do this with any prospect of more sinking) & he does not seek to disguise that the reason of his caring for this is because Powell’s lease expires at Midsummer & people who see the state of our house may be deterred from taking that. So he evidently hopes to get us to do this immediately, in which he will be disappointed.—I have finished the Labiatae & shall certainly be ready to come by the time I mentioned. I am sorry to perceive by your note to Haji that you do not think they will have finished the work before the end of March or beginning of April. This settles the question against Greece, & therefore in favour of Catalonia & the Eastern Pyrenees. In the Saturdays I have overtaken Haji, having only one to read besides the one which came today. On further consideration I inclose Lady D[uff] G[ordon]’s letter. Ever affectionately J.S.M.

447.

TO HELEN TAYLOR1

• Blackheath

Tuesday Feb.21 [1860]

Dearest Lily—

Your letter of Friday morning arrived yesterday. Let me first say that there is no shop of Colt’s2 from one end to the other of Regent Street. I must therefore go again to town tomorrow & get at the Post Office Directory to trace where it is. I shall then go to the London Library & see if I can find any books worth bringing, though if it is for myself only, I do not think it much worth while. I went over yesterday with Fawcett his pamphlet3 as revised by him, and the alterations which I suggested on his revision. We seemed to agree perfectly, but Hare it seems has not yet seen it. He sent to tell Hare, who came. I like Hare more & more. I like very much the expression of his face. I inclose a note I had just before had from him. The pamphlet is to be sent about privately first & afterwards published. Hare said that Hickson has written to him saying that Rowland Hill some years ago proposed for South Australia the very principle of Hare’s plan4 & that Hickson himself had afterwards proposed it to the Commissioners on the Corporation of London, for adoption in the municipal elections there.5 This has suggested to Hare to make a push for trying the plan in that way & he is going to press it upon Ayrton.6 We had a good deal of talk on the women question. They seemed to go so thoroughly with me in feeling, that there was little or no actual discussion which would have shewn whether they enter into every corner of the subject, but it seemed to me that they will go the whole way with us. They warmly assented to my statement that all employments & positions should be open to women & that then each would fall naturally into what it turned out they were fittest for individually. It appears that Fawcett presses the subject on his friends as he does all things which he cares about, & as he noticed the way in which they seem to be afraid of doing anything in the matter for fear of ridicule, Hare said if he were in Parl^t he would bring it forward (the question of the suffrage for women, as I understood). Since I finished the Saturday I have been looking through the Reasoner, & nothing in it has struck me so much as the progress making on that question. Continually some new advocate for it is starting up. A Colonel Clinton,7 a great radical who writes letters to the Reasoner & is for plural voting, is strongly for women’s suffrage, & there is a curious document called the Belfast Resolutions, professing to have been agreed to at a public meeting at Belfast8 & signed by a Mr Scott as Chairman, in which a whole radical system of government & political economy is elaborately set forth & near the beginning is a demand that all women as well as all men shall not only be electors but eligible to Parliament. Fawcett thinks it a great thing to have had a woman (Miss Craig)9 appointed Secretary to the Social Science Association, & so indeed it is. He says it was done by a most strenuous personal canvass by Miss Parkes10 & others & that now everybody is glad of it, as the duties are done most admirably. So also at some place in the North, I forgot which of the large towns, he says that a woman was with great difficulty got chosen Librarian & that the admirable way in which the office is filled is having the most beneficial effects. Various things he says incline me to attach more importance than I did to what Miss Parkes & her set are doing. He says the E[nglish] W[oman]’s Journal increases in sale & has got into places where it was scouted at first. By the bye he said that Miss Craig got her living at Edinburgh as a needlewoman till Miss Parkes found her out, brought her to London & kept her there till she succeeded in getting this Secretaryship for her.—Politics are satisfactory. The first move against the Commercial Treaty & Budget, headed by Disraeli, was defeated last night by an unexpectedly large majority (between 60 & 70)11 though the Metropolitan members whose election depends on the publicans, are up in arms against opening of the wine licenses & Ayrton, as well as Horsman12 (now grown completely factious) spoke on the Tory side. There is to be another attempt made tonight, on the motion of Du Cane,13 member for Essex, which I hope will fail as ignominiously. The general feeling of the country as far as I can judge, seems right, & I think that a great many Tories must have abstained from voting not to drive the ministry to a dissolution. I saw Coulson yesterday. He recommends to me to take no more mercury, but quinine daily for a week & then to leave off medicine. I am very doubtful whether the mercury has done me any permanent good. Yesterday I had more acidity than I have had for some time. I shall probably have to reconcile myself to having a weak stomach & merely take care not to overload it. Perhaps the excursion may do good. But I hardly like going to Spain after what I read in the papers about the bitter feeling against England there. Still I do not suppose it will affect our comfort in a short tour. I am now here alone, Haji having just left for Norwich,14 not to be back while I remain if I go next Monday. I inclose a note from him. There will be nothing to keep me here. I have got into Monocotyledoneae & into the last but two of the fourteen packets. I do not think I shall bring a hat as I intended. In Spain & the Pyrenees a wideawake15 will do better. Even if we go to Greece I can get a hat at Avignon or Marseilles. I shall be glad to bring MacMillan. It improves a little as it goes on, & there is an article by Maurice on Macaulay,16 this month, which I like. The Social Science Association has sent a thick volume of its Transactions17 from which I find that my name is on the Council. I think I ought to write to have it taken off, especially after what I wrote to the Secretary of this very Association about the other subject.18 It is still cold here. Yesterday the frost & snow seemed to have come back. But there is nothing like what you tell me there still is at Avignon. The prospect of a very late spring makes me care much less about the retardation of a mere short excursion, our principal object having been frustrated. An Avignon winter judging from our experience is anything but what one means by a Southern one. What Gregson said about filling up the trustees turns out to be bosh, as the stock certificates he himself gave me are signed by Harman in person & by Cooper in behalf of Booth. Ever your affectionate

J.S.M.

[P.S.]

I will bring 2 doz. sherry from Paris. We shall not, I suppose, want any tea. I have answered Guillaumin’s19 letter.

448.

TO HELEN TAYLOR1

• Blackheath

Thursday Feb. 23 [1860]

Dearest Lily—

Your Sunday evening’s letter arrived yesterday. Your report about the progress of the work seems favorable but if we do not leave before April, it would entirely negative going to Greece as far as I alone am concerned. I should arrive rather later than I did before;2 I wish to see both the places I did not then see, & those I did: we should inevitably do it more slowly; & it is impossible to stay a day later than I did, on account of the heat. Still, if you decidedly preferred that journey to any other, I should do so too, for I have no very strong attraction towards the alternatives, which are Catalonia & the Pyrenees, or some part of Italy or Sicily. If you would rather travel in Greece before trying tent life in the East, we might, next winter, go to Egypt first, & then to Greece, postponing Palestine & Syria. By that however we should lose the approach by Corfu & the Corinthian Gulf which I very much tiens to shewing you first. The same objection applies to going by Malta, for, judging by the long & detailed list of steamers in Bradshaw’s Continental, there is no steamer from Malta or Marseilles to Corfu but only to Syra & Athens. Everybody who sees Greece first by the south coast of the Morea, & Athens, is disappointed. If we go this year it will be best to start from Ancona, stay a week at Corfu, go from there to Athens, then see Attica & the Morea only, which we might do thoroughly, & then return by Italy or by Constantinople as the season, the convenience, or our inclination might determine.—I have bought your revolver. With the case, caps &c. complete it cost £5, & 50 cartridges in addition make three shillings more. It was not too heavy for me to carry home. I hope they won’t stop it at the Custom House. I believe importation of arms is prohibited, not to mention that they may think I intend to fire at the Emperor. I made up a list of books for the London Library, but it was not a very attractive one. If they send half a dozen volumes however that will probably be reading enough for the time we want it, especially as I hope to resume writing. It is again hard frost here: should it be so on Monday I shall perhaps be afraid to come. I have been, however, a good deal better these two days. In the plants I have only now the Grasses to go through, as I have not acquired this time any ferns or other cryptogams. I shall like very much to hear an account of your domiciliary visits with the ladies of the Bienfaisance. I have just been reading a manuscript essay on Strikes,3 by Fawcett: it is the best thing I ever read on the subject, with some new lights even to me, & I hope it will be published. I think we may look to him with great hopes (notwithstanding his misfortune) as one of the successors. A propos, the misfortune, according to what Hare tells me, seems to have happened under most painful circumstances. It was the effect of two stray shots from his father’s gun: only two, but one went into each eye, breaking the spectacles & no doubt forcing in the broken glass. What a sad concurrence of circumstances was necessary to make one poor man (or rather two) afflicted for life! If the coincidence had been the contrary way, would it not have been thought manifestly providential?—Everything looks well for the Budget,4 for though the Tories are making a distinct party opposition to it, they evidently cannot muster their full strength. But I am sadly afraid the Government may be forced to give up the best provision of all, that which destroys the brewers’ public house monopoly; for not only the publican interest is the most powerful, next to the attornies, in all the larger constituencies, but the Teetotallers have with their usual narrow-mindedness come up in great force & are pouring in petitions against what they call a great extension of the trade in intoxicating liquors. By the bye I believe I am very unpopular at present with the teetotallers.5 A correspondent of Holyoake complains that they misunderstand me & think me “opposed to Temperance.” I perceive Francis Newman is a leading Maine law man, & writes papers with his name in the Reasoner, in one of which he obliquely glances at me.6 I think, he, like the Saturday reviewers, is among the greatest enemies to our principles that there now are; such will mostly be found among those who agree with us on many details. After your letter I think I may authorize Gregson to consent to Cooper’s proposed sale & division. Ever your aff^te

J.S.M.

[P.S.]

Your Brighton dividend, received at Prescott’s, this time is £26.19.

449.

TO HELEN TAYLOR1

• Blackheath

Sat^y Feb.25 [1860]

I write but a few words, dear, as I shall see you so soon. I shall certainly go on Monday ev^g & consequently arrive on Wednesday by the express at midday. I have finished the plants, & done everything that requires doing, & though it freezes every night rather hard it does not freeze in the day. I am not taking any medicine, & have had very little indigestion since I wrote last. I have certainly gained a good deal by the course of medicine, & perhaps now the excursion will set me up. Your Wednesday’s letter came yesterday. I have not heard anything further of or from Ross or his man. If I had seen either of them I should have again repeated that I would do nothing till we return, there being in their opinion & in that of every one else who has been spoken to, no immediate or rather no present danger. If it is desirable to write to Ross, this can as well be done from St Véran. I do not know what you mean by Suter’s “job” as the putting up of the iron bar which was what he recommended need not in his opinion be done at present & I do not see why it should not wait till we can decide on everything at once. Gladstone has defeated the second motion of the Tories against the budget by the quite unexpected majority of 116.2 But he has been obliged to limit his measure about licensing to the sale of wine, leaving the beer question as he says to be considered hereafter as a separate subject. I cannot blame him though I am sorry.—Do not feel any anxiety about my passage for there is no wind, to speak of, here. So now dear I leave off, & shall not need to write again before the pleasant moment of seeing you.

Your ever affectionate

J.S.M.

450.

TO HENRY FAWCETT1

• Blackheath

Feb. 26. 1860

Dear Mr Fawcett

It would never for a moment occur to me, seeing what you are in other respects, to regard your loss of sight as excluding you from political life. It could only do so if it had, as in most men it would have done, thrown a damp on your wishes and aspirations. You have only to take every fair opportunity of making yourself known as a public speaker and lecturer. When you have thus proved that you are under no real disqualification, your misfortune will, I am satisfied, be very much in your favour, not only by exciting interest, and neutralizing envy and jealousy, but because it will cause you to be much more and sooner talked about. You will then, I think, have quite as good a chance of being elected to Parliament, as any other man of independent opinions.

I return the pamphlet2 by post. I like the original title best, but either is good. The addition on the back of the title page is very desirable, but instead of “interest in the improvement of the Representation” I would say “interest in improving the quality of the Representation” or, more generally, “in correcting the deficiencies of” &c. or some other and better phrase to distinguish those you address from mere Parliamentary Reformers of the old school.

Parker writes “I am just going to Cambridge, and will see Mr Fawcett and discuss with him further the ‘Strikes’paper.”3 By this I conclude he thinks you are at Cambridge.4 He does not say when he will be back, but I suppose very soon.

I have marked in pencil on the margin of the proof, a few misprints, and two or three slight alterations or additions which occur to me.

ever yours sincerely

J. S. Mill

451.

TO CHARLES DUPONT-WHITE1

• Saint Véran

le 7 mars 1860

Monsieur

C’est avec grand plaisir que j’ai reçu votre lettre du 8 février. Elle m’a suivi en Angleterre, où j’étais allé pour affaires, et si j’avais eu le temps de m’arrêter à Paris en retournant ici, j’aurais répondu à votre lettre personnellement plutôt que par écrit. Je me promets de profiter à une meilleure occasion de votre invitation aimable et amicale.

Je suis charmé que votre nouveau livre2 soit à la veille de paraître. Je le suis aussi d’apprendre que la traduction aura, à votre airs, l’avantage de l’à propos, et que l’opinion commence à pencher du côté contraire à la centralisation. Je puis le dire sans blesser vos convictions, car vous conviendrez, je pense, qu’en France l’engoûement pour la centralisation a été excessif, comme j’accorde que de notre côté de la Manche on a dormé un peu dans le fanatisme contraire. Du reste, ni votre point de vue ni le mien n’est exclusif, en notre divergence, quoique considérable, repose sur une différence de nuance plutôt que de principe.

M. Guillaumin3 me fit, il y a quelque semaines, la proposition de faire traduire le petit livre par M. Paillottet.4 Je lui fis savoir sans délai que vous aviez bien voulu charger de cette tâche. Je me suis aperçu seulement hier, par le Journal des Economistes, que M. Guillaumin avait eu l’imprudence d’annoncer sa traduction avant de me faire part de son projet. Si vous avez vu l’annonce, vous avez sans doute compris comme la chose s’est passée.

Agréez, mon cher Monsieur, l’expression de ma haute considération et de mes sentiments d’amitié.

J. S. Mill

452.

TO LORD OVERSTONE1

• Saint Véran
• near Avignon

March 25. 1860.

Dear Lord Overstone

I have just heard that M^r Hare, the Charity Commissioner, and author of the remarkable Treatise on Representation, is to be proposed to the Committee of the Athenaeum on the 27^th, for selection without ballot.2 If I could be sure that you had read Mr Hare’s book it would be quite needless, indeed I should hardly feel at liberty, to express to you any opinion of mine on the subject; but in case you have not, I venture to say that there are few books you would find better worth reading, or which are likely to give you a higher opinion of the author. My own conviction is, that Mr Hare has discovered, what the best political thinkers have rather lamented the want of, than hoped to find—an effectual and practicable mode of preventing numbers, in a popular constitution, from swamping and extinguishing the influence of education and knowledge. Whatever your opinion may be on this point, I feel sure that as a mere specimen of intellectual power applied to the great political question of the modern world, the book would amply repay in pleasure, the time spent in reading it.

Believe me
Dear Lord Overstone
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

453.

TO CHARLES DUPONT-WHITE1

St. Véran le 6 avril 1860

Mon cher Monsieur—

Je vous remercie beaucoup de l’envoi de votre nouveau livre.2 C’est un ouvrage très remarquable et qui me paraît même supérieur à celui auquel il fait suite.3 Je pense qu’il fera époque dans la grande discussion de la Centralisation. Vous ne vous attendrez pas, à coup sûr, qu’il n’y ait pas une divergence considérable entre nos opinions. Cependant (comme vous avez dit à propos du livre de la Liberté) je suis plus frappé des coincidences d’opinion que des différences: et je crois que vous eussiez dit cela avec encore plus de raison si vous aviez connu un certain manuscrit inédit que j’ai dans mon portefeuille.4 J’attends avec un vif intérêt l’introduction5 promise dans l’annonce de la Liberté. Je suis plus que curieux de voir de quelle manière vous concevrez la différence entre nos deux manières de penser. Il est au reste très convenable que le plus modéré et le moins fanatique des localistes soit présenté et commenté par le plus philosophe des centralistes.

Je n’entre pas ici dans les questions qui nous séparent et que j’espère discuter avec vous de vive voix. Vous êtes un de ceux avec qui on ne peut que gagner à comparer ses idées. Je donnerai seulement un mot d’éclaircissement sur deux points.

L’un des deux me regarde personnellement. Je n’ai jamais entendu nier l’influence des races. Vous pouvez voir dans mon article sur Michelet6 que j’admets pleinement cette influence. Dans la phrase que vous avez citée, je voulais seulement blâmer une tendance qui existe dans tous les temps mais plus particulièrement dans celui-ci (par suite de la réaction du 19^me siècle contre le 18^me), c’est celle d’attribuer toutes les variétés dans le caractère des peuples et des individus à des différences indélébiles de nature, sans se demander si les influences de l’éducation et du milieu social et politique n’en donnent pas une explication suffisante. Je ne puis comparer cette tendance qu’à l’habitude qu’avaient les peuples primitifs d’attribuer tout ce qu’on faisait, sans pouvoir dire de qui et comment on avait appris à le faire, à l’inspiration directe d’un dieu. Dans le cas dont il s’agit, savoir celui des différences de caractère entre les peuples celtiques et les peuples anglo-saxons, je crois avec vous que la race y entre pour beaucoup; mais quant à leur goût pour ou contre la centralisation, je vous demanderai si la diversité dans le développement historique de la France et de l’Angleterre dont vous avez fait une esquisse si vraie et si instructive, ne suffisait pas à elle seule comme explication.

L’autre point sur lequel je veux dire un mot, c’est celui-ci. Je reconnais pleinement la tendance que vous signalez dans la législation anglaise vers une centralisation plus grande. Non seulement je reconnais cette tendance, mais encore j’y applaudis même. Mais notez bien que ce mouvement centralisateur est plus utile que nuisible chez nous, justement parce qu’il est en opposition tranchée avec l’esprit du pays. De là il arrive que ces changements si grands en apparence, se réduisent dans la pratique à des proportions presque exiguës. Vous croyez peut-être que l’administration de la charité publique est réellement centralisée chez nous depuis la loi de 1834.7 Eh bien, il n’en est rien. L’immense abus qu’on avait fait du pouvoir local avait tellement effarouché le public qu’il est devenu possible de faire cette loi; mais il n’est pas été possible de l’exécuter: le pouvoir local a fini par regagner sa prédominance sur le pouvoir central; et celui-ci n’a pu conserver ses attributions qu’en les exerçant avec une réserve si excessive qu’elles sont restées plutôt une ressource pour des cas extrêmes qu’un ressort régulier d’administration. Il en sera ainsi pour longtemps de tout ce qu’on tentera chez nous dans le sens de la centralisation. On admettra bien l’intervention du pouvoir central comme remède héroique et passager: on ne l’admettra pas comme régime. Maintenant c’est à réfléchir si ces dictatures momentanées du pouvoir central ne remplissent pas suffisamment les conditions de votre système.—Votre tout dévoué

J. S. Mill

454.

TO HENRY FAWCETT1

• Saint Véran

April 6. 1860

Dear Mr Fawcett

I was very glad to hear from you, and was much pleased that you are going to lecture on Strikes. Your being urged to do so by Sir J. Shuttleworth,2 and his presence as Chairman,3 take away all appearance of the proceeding’s being uncalled for; and anything which tends to make you known as a public speaker without looking like a desire on your part to push yourself into notice, is useful for your ulterior views.

With regard to being examined before the Committee on Strikes,4 I should not have anticipated a much more favorable answer than you received, though I should have expected a civil one. It is contrary to the theory of a Parliamentary Committee to examine witnesses on anything but matters of fact; and it is only because members of parliament are not what they are censés to be, that such a practice could ever have crept in. As it is, I have always felt that there was a sort of impropriety in it, and have avoided rather than sought to be examined on questions of argument and theory, though I have once or twice consented5 when particularly asked to do so by the Chairman of the Committee. In the case of the Corrupt Practices Committee,6 the same reasons do not apply, as inventors may always with propriety offer themselves to explain their plan.

Mr Hare’s letter in the Times7 seemed to me a very good move, and I am glad to hear from him that it has met with some response from the press. Mr Martineau’s8 is an important adhesion. If he has made up his mind to do all that he can, it will probably be found to be not a little. In your remarks on the impossibility of making any impression in the House of Commons, you must, I think, have overlooked Sir J. Pakington’s speech.9 He seemed to me to have sought an occasion for separating himself from Disraeli on the question, and to be quite ready to consider any feasible plan for the representation of minorities. I hope he has your pamphlet,10 but I would not counsel any more direct application to him. There is a great deal in leaving an idea time to crystallize.

I expect to leave Avignon in about a week, after which I must refer you to Parker for my address.

Ever yours sincerely

J. S. Mill

455.

TO THOMAS HARE1

• Saint Véran

April 6, 1860

Dear Sir

Your letter of the 29^th gave me great pleasure. It is very satisfactory that your proposals in the Times2 were so decidedly supported by the Economist,3 and received so much attention from the papers. Several passages in the leading articles of the Times have since pointed, by slight indications, in the direction we wish for.4 Notwithstanding the inaccessibility of members of Parliament to any idea which will not serve for the hustings, the situation seems to me favourable for gaining the attention of leading politicians to such a plan as yours. Did you notice Pakington’s speech?5 He ostentatiously separated himself from Disraeli, complimenting Lord J. Russell on the provision in his former bill for representation of minorities (which Disraeli had reproached him for as unconstitutional) and altogether seemed on the lookout for some unobjectionable mode of doing what your plan does in the best of all modes. The foundation is evidently laid for making an impression on his mind. But I would not recommend (unless some special opportunity offers) entering into any communication with him, beyond sending him Mr Fawcett’s pamphlet.6 We must be on our guard against the danger of making people feel bored by the subject before they understand it.

What Sir E. Lytton says is true, but not much to the purpose; as he was not asked anything but what was perfectly consistent with his remarks. He was not applied to as a minister, but as one of the leaders of opinion. An important member of parliament has it in his power to help forward materially by incidental notice, ideas with which it may not be yet time for him to identify himself as a practical statesman. And from the tone of Sir E. L’s letter7 I should not despair of his doing so in this case, though he will not commit himself beforehand.

I do not like to discourage any move in favour of the plan, but I confess I should not expect that much good could be done at present by any appeals to the inadequately represented places. Any feeling that might be excited, would be sure, I think, to turn itself into a movement for the more practical object of merely obtaining more members: while the plan would be made chiefly known by its least beneficial feature, the increased representation it would give to the large towns. I say this in ignorance of all that may have occurred to you on the other side.

I was glad to hear from Mr Fawcett that Mr Martineau promises to do his utmost in the National.8 That Review is, I believe, a good deal read by a rather advanced order of liberals; and independently of Mr Martineau’s own abilities as a reasoner and writer, he is attended by a cortège of younger men who can also use their pens efficiently. His adhesion is very valuable, and tends to hasten the time when you will be able to cite an imposing number of thinkers, differing in other respects, but agreeing in their support of your plan.

I have not yet seen the new Fraser,9 but hope to see it in a day or two. Perhaps if a good article were offered to the Westminster, it would be accepted, but it should be by a new person, if possible. If I were in England, I would try to move Herbert Spencer, but I do not know how he is affected by the plan. Have you any means of knowing?

I expect to leave Avignon about this time next week, but I shall keep Parker informed of my address.

Yours ever truly

J. S. Mill

456.

TO ALEXANDER BAIN1

S[aint] V[éran] April 11. 1860

Dear Bain—

I propose leaving Avignon in a day or two to pass a few weeks or months in the Pyrenees & in Spain—during which time as my address will be frequently changing I had better refer you to Parker for it.

I mentioned in my last letter that I had completed the first draft of the new book.2 I have read since my return here, several things which have interested me, above all Darwin’s book.3 It far surpasses my expectation. Though he cannot be said to have proved the truth of his doctrine, he does seem to have proved that it may be true which I take to be as great a triumph as knowledge & ingenuity could possibly achieve on such a question. Certainly nothing can be at first sight more entirely unplausible than his theory & yet after beginning by thinking it impossible, one arrives at something like an actual belief in it, & one certainly does not relapse into complete disbelief.

Another book I have been reading is Baden Powell’s last,4 which though much inferior to Darwin is a wonderful book for a clergyman & an Oxford professor5 to write, & remarkable as an exemplification of one form of modern theism. It is curious to see natural theology reverting to the form in which it was conceived by Aristotle6 —that it is not what cannot be predicted, but what can, that proves an intelligent agency. There is in Powell’s otherwise very consistent system an awkward gap at the point where this doctrine comes face to face with historical Xtianity. What can he mean by holding that miracles are impossible, & yet that those of the new testament may be received as matters of faith, though not of science?7 Is this last a mere saving clause, as when Voltaire said nearly the same thing?8 If so, he must intend it to be seen through, as Voltaire did. But the general tone of his mind, so unlike Voltaire’s, makes this improbable.

When you next write I hope to hear that you have quite got rid of your lameness.

457.

TO WILLIAM ELLIS

[The Letter to William Ellis originally numbered in the sequence here as from Avignon on May 1, 1860, has been transferred to the following year as Letter 488A.]

458.

TO THOMAS HARE1

• Barcelona

May 9. 1860

Dear Sir

On returning here after a tour of more than a fortnight I found your letter—and I inclose a few sentences by way of reply to your circular.2 I hope they may suffice, though they are not so good as I could wish, having been written when I was tired and somewhat pressed for time. I am very glad that Lord Grey has got his Committee.3 It enables you, with a favorable Chairman, to bring forward the whole subject with advantages which you might have waited long for.

The mention of your plan in the H. of Commons both by Bulwer4 and by Walter5 will also do good, notwithstanding the disparaging remarks of the latter. As you observe, he rather misses the matter in saying that I think a proposition has only to be logically proved in order to be universally agreed to. What I do think is that when a thing is “logically proved,” it is the duty of whoever sees that it is so, to stand up for it, whether it is likely to be agreed to or not. This, however, is a view of obligation which M.P.’s and journalists, being “of the day daily” cannot be expected to understand.

I shall be anxious to hear from you. Please direct Poste Restante Perpignan, Pyrénées Orientales, till further notice.

Ever yrs truly

J. S. Mill

459.

TO THOMAS HARE1

• Barcelona

May 9. 1860.

Dear Sir

I beg to acknowledge your letter requesting that I will state my impression respecting the causes of the much greater proportion of parliamentary electors who abstain from exercising the franchise in the large than in the small constituencies.

I am unable to answer this question from experience of my own individual feelings and conduct; since, however imperfectly any of the candidates who offered themselves may have represented my political opinions considered generally, I have not felt myself released from the obligation of voting for that one of them who had most in common with me. But so far as I can form any judgment from the probabilities of the case, and from such opportunities of observation as I have had, I should say that the causes which induce a very great proportion of voters in the numerous constituencies to neglect the exercise of the franchise, are principally two, viz.

1. In the case of the uneducated a habitual indifference to politics, unless in times of great popular excitement, or when some question affecting their class interests or feelings is at stake, or unless they expect to be, in some shape or other, paid for their votes, which they often can be in the smallest, but seldom in the larger constituencies.

2. In the case of the educated, a conviction that any candidate who, in any sufficient degree, represented their sentiments, would not have the smallest chance of being elected. And this state of things is likely, I apprehend, to be permanent, in all constituencies of which the majority are uneducated and give their votes freely; so long as, by an omission in our Constitution as iniquitous as it is impolitic, minorities are denied the right to which they are equally entitled with majorities, of being represented in proportion to their numbers.

I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Thomas Hare Esq.

460.

TO HENRY FAWCETT1

• Barcelona

May 12. 1860

Dear Mr Fawcett

I have not yet acknowledged two interesting letters from you, dated the 10^th and 17^th of April. The last I only received a day or two ago, on returning here from making the circuit of Valencia, Madrid, and Saragossa. It gave me much pleasure to hear that your lecture2 was so successful. It is a great encouragement. Respecting Mr Hare’s plan, although Massey’s3 move has come to nothing, and I suppose Capt. Gordon4 has abandoned his projected motion, there have been several incidents that are very favourable. The mention by Bulwer and even that by Walter in the H. of Commons5 will be extremely useful, and Lord Grey’s Committee with the prospect of Mr Hare’s being examined,6 is one of the most fortunate things which could have happened. I received the pamphlet7 but I am sorry to say the Globe8 miscarried. From what you say of it however, there seems to be good fortune in that quarter too. Any newspaper of good circulation which takes up the plan, stamps it in the opinion of commonplace people as at any rate not Utopian, quoiqu’en dise Mr Walter. I still think the two parties will patch up something this year!9 The Lords will alter the bill, and the Commons will accept it altered. Your list of provisions for a temporary Reform Bill is very good, but who will support it? unless Lord Stanley or Pakington take it into their heads that it would be a good compromise, and I fear even they could not carry their party with them. Jones10 I believe to be quite incapable of having a fundamentally new, and at the same time true, idea in Political Economy. His merit was that he called attention to the great variety in the tenures of land as affecting the laws of distribution.

Please direct for the present to Perpignan (Pyrénées Orientales) Poste Restante.

yrs vry truly

J. S. Mill

461.

TO JOHN NICHOL1

• Amélie les Bains
• Pyrénées Orientales

May 19, 1860

Dear Sir

Your letter of April 12 has only just reached me here, and the volume2 you mention has not been forwarded. As I expect to be in England in July I will not expose your book to the risk of loss at the little post office of this remote corner of France. When I return, I will lose no time in reading it. I regret that my absence prevented my seeing you when you were in London, but I hope that I may have at no distant time another opportunity. If, in the meantime, there is anything I can do that would serve you, my publisher Mr Parker (445 West Strand) will forward any letter. I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

462.

TO CHARLES DUPONT-WHITE1

• Ax (Ariège)

le 10 juin 1860

Mon cher Monsieur—

Votre bonne et intéressante lettre m’a suivi jusqu’à cet endroit charmant, digne d’une plus grande célébrité qu’il n’a encore acquise.

Il est vrai, comme vous dites, que l’Angleterre n’a plus à lutter contre la tyrannie ou la compression officielle, et en cela elle est sans doute plus avancée que la France—mais de même que beaucoup d’autres progrès, celui-ci promet plus qu’il ne tient. L’opinion a hérité de toutes les autres tyrannies. Son joug paraît léger, parce qu’on ne songe pas ordinairement à lutter contre lui. Il est entré dans les âmes. Tout se fait chez nous par contrainte morale. On trouve tant de petits obstacles à sortir de la voie commune en quoi que ce soit, que peu de monde le fait même en théorie, et il est presque impossible de le faire en pratique. Les classes supérieures, soit par leur position, soit par leur intelligence, n’y songent pas plus que les autres, et c’est ce qui fait que je ne fonde pas sur ces classes autant d’espérance que vous semblez le faire. Toutefois il y a en Angleterre beaucoup de choses qui semblent mortes, mais qui ne font que dormir, et qui sont capables de s’éveiller; témoin la renaissance de l’esprit militaire,2 qui peut-être ne contribuera pas peu à fausser les calculs de l’homme qui gouverne actuellement la France.

463.

TO GEORGE W. HASTINGS1

• Bagnères de Luchon

June 18. 1860

Sir

Allow me, through you, to offer my grateful acknowledgments to the Council of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, for the honour they have done me in nominating me to the distinguished office of President of the Social Economy Department for the next annual meeting of the Association.2 I am, however, under the necessity of declining that honour, as I have occupations in hand which will require all my time and attention during the ensuing autumn; and I feel assured that the Association will have no difficulty in finding some one much better qualified to preside over its deliberations than a person of my little experience in such matters. I am Sir

very truly yours

J. S. Mill

G. W. Hastings Esq.
&c &c &c

464.

TO HENRY FAWCETT1

• Blackheath

July 14. [1860]

Dear Sir

I am glad of the prospect you hold out of my seeing you next week in London. I shall be happy to meet you any day and hour that you may do me the favour to appoint.

Your pamphlet2 (which I liked very much) was so far from having miscarried, that the one you send is the third copy I have received. I am

yrs very truly

J. S. Mill

465.

TO HENRY FAWCETT1

• Blackheath

July 18. [1860]

Dear Sir

As I wish in any case to go to town one day this week to see Mr Hare I will if it suits you call on you in Norfolk Street about twelve on Friday. If I do not hear from you, I shall conclude that this arrangement will suit you.

I look forward with much pleasure to seeing you again.

Very truly yrs

J. S. Mill

466.

TO THOMAS HARE1

• Blackheath

July 18 [1860]

Dear Sir

I have been waiting to fix a time for calling on you until I heard on what days Mr Fawcett will be in town. I have just heard from him and have fixed to call on him in Norfolk Street on Friday about twelve. When I have [seen?] him I will call at your office, but if anything should make it inconvenient to you to see me then and there, have no scruple about it, as I can without inconvenience come to town any other day.

yrs very truly

J. S. Mill

467.

TO T. E. CLIFFE LESLIE1

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

Aug. 18 1860.

Dear Sir—

Your article2 has interested me very much & its main position is unshakeable, but I suspect we sh^d differ greatly on a subject into which you do not enter, that of the limitations. Though you do not say so, the whole of your reasoning seems to converge to the conclusion that all Europe (if not the whole human race) will some time or other be brought under one government. That there may one day be a kind of loose federation among the countries of Europe, & a common tribunal to decide their differences, is likely enough. But as for actual incorporation, when there is not identity of language, literature, & historical antecedents, I see no spontaneous tendency to it, nor any likelihood of its being brought about but by that which has produced it heretofore, viz. conquest, which of all tendencies we ought most to execrate.

As you asked me to do so I have made two or three brief notes on particular passages

(a) I would omit the reference to [Roussillon?].3Réunion does not in French necessarily mean reuniting but simply uniting [. . . ?]

(b) Would it not be better to omit Nice & Savoy, or at least to refer to them in a manner which would not recognize their union with France as an accomplished & irrevocable fact?4

(c) These rivers & mountains do not form any conceivable system of natural boundaries5

(d) Kilometre stones are not milestones & I doubt if St Denis is so much as four miles from Paris.6

(e) The bracketed passage is only true in a very strained sense.

The generalities of Buckle’s7 theory are very vulnerable, & I hardly think he could have held by them if any competent person had criticized them before publication. He could have afforded to part with most of them, for the premisses are much broader than was required to support his conclusions, & it is exactly in this unnecessary margin & overplus of premisses that, as it seems to me, the error lies.

468.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

[Originally an excerpt from E. T. Cook, The Life of Florence Nightingale (2 vols., London, 1914), was to appear at this point. In the course of printing, however, the full MS has been located. The complete text, correctly dated, is to be found as letter 440A in Appendix II.]

469.

TO HELEN TAYLOR1

• Sandwich

Tuesday ev^g 4th [Sept., 1860]

Dearest Lily—

We have got here from Canterbury today, having spent eight hours on foot, walking and botanizing, besides seeing Canterbury Cathedral & Richborough by the way. Though these two days journeys were by far the least promising botanically speaking, of our whole route, we have found a great many plants, and though there is not yet much that is quite new to me, I have filled up an immense number of the gaps in my Kent Flora. But the greatest treat was Canterbury Cathedral. I had not the remotest idea that it was so magnificent. We must go and see it together. It is nearly as fine as the fine foreign cathedrals. The time has passed very pleasantly. Mr Irvine2 is a very agreeable companion and seems to me very sensible and right thinking and feeling on things in general; and with the novelty to me of botanizing with a good botanist & the quantity of botany I learn, no excursion that we do not make together could pass more pleasantly. Tomorrow we shall have a botanical exploration of this very rich neighbourhood, and I expect to get many novelties. We shall I suppose be at Deal tomorrow night and at Dover the next. I shall write to you either tomorrow or next day, probably the latter, as there is a great deal to be done tomorrow & I may be too tired. I am writing this previously to having a ‘meat tea’which is going to be an ordinary regimen. N. B. We were out at six this morning, for two hours before breakfast, and shall do the same tomorrow. ever dearest Lily your affectionate

J.S.M.

470.

TO HELEN TAYLOR1

• Royal George Folkestone

Thursday evening [Sept. 6, 1860]

Dearest Lily—

We arrived here at ¼ to 9 tonight, having been on our legs since ¼ past 9 in the morning, besides a short walk before breakfast. So you see we do not lose time. Yesterday and today have been splendid days of walking & botanizing; yesterday was equal in number of new plants to almost any day I ever had even on the Continent & today not very much inferior. I had no idea that Kent was so rich or that there could be such botanizing in it. What contributes as much to make it pleasant is the very great pleasure Mr Irvine takes in it. The country is all new to him and he says he never had so pleasant & altogether so successful an excursion. We expect two more equally good days at Sandgate, Hithe, &c. and in Romney Marsh. I suppose we shall stop tomorrow night at Hithe & have a walk next day before returning to town, but I will write again to tell you for certain at what hour on Saturday I shall arrive. Though the journey is so pleasant I look forward with the greatest pleasure to returning to you and resuming our home life, first at Blackheath, afterwards and better at St Véran. I do not half like amusing myself while you are not even quiet, but fatigued and bored—but I shall soon be back dear. I will not write any more now I have written this to be sure of being in time for tonight’s post, as soon as we arrived, or rather as soon as the bag arrived, which this time was later than we were, though we were so late.

ever your affectionate

J.S.M.

471.

TO HENRY FAWCETT1

• Blackheath

Sept. 9. 1860

Dear Sir

I was very glad to hear from you, and to read your MS.2 Not having seen the paper by Dr Whewell to which it replies I cannot judge how far it is a sufficient answer to the particular mode in which he puts the argument. But at all events it contains a great deal of the matter out of which the answer must be made, and I am glad that Macmillan desires a paper of the kind. I have put down a few notes which occurred to me in reading it, but there are none of them to which I attach importance except the one marked (h.)

I return the MS. by this post.

I hope you may not be disappointed in your anticipations of getting some notice taken at Glasgow3 of Mr Hare’s plan.

I am Dear Sir
yrs very truly

J. S. Mill

472.

TO FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE1

Blackheath Sept. 10, 1860

Dear Madam—

Your note should have been answered sooner, but I was from home when it arrived.

I should most willingly do my best to be of use to you in the matter which you speak of, if you think that I am a suitable person to be consulted about a work of the kind. In one respect indeed I am very well fitted to test the efficacy of your treatise,2 since I probably stand as much in need of conversion as those to whom it is addressed. If in spite of this (or perhaps all the more on that account) you would like me to read and give my opinion on it, I will do so with much pleasure.

I am very happy to hear from yourself that you did not mean to convey impressions which I still think the words of the concluding passage of your Notes are calculated to give.3 I did not myself think you could possibly mean it, since in the same passage you also seem to imply that women should not be excluded by law or usage from the liberty of trying any mode of existence open to men, at their own risk in case of failure. But as the advocates of the “rights of women” contend for no more; and are even, in general, ready to make what appear to me far too great concessions as to the comparative unfitness of women for some occupations, I do not think they can justly be accused of jargon, nor of contending that women ought to do certain things merely because men do them.

Believe me
Dear Madam
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

473.

TO WILLIAM THOMAS THORNTON1

[After Sept. 19, 1860]

Your letter of September 19 gave me much pleasure, because it contained better and more encouraging accounts of your health, and also because it said that things were likely to be made pleasanter to you at the India House by changes in the mode of transacting business.2 I shall be greatly interested by hearing more of these changes, since, as you are aware, I think that the practical goodness of a government depends, much more than is generally supposed, on the forms of business. It is a comfort to hear of any changes for the better. Unfortunately, the deteriorations in the structure of the instrument of Government in detail, which I always feared would follow from the substitution of the traditions of the Government Offices for those of the India House,3 seem to be taking place still more rapidly than I looked for. If the Council at Calcutta is to be abolished, and a Cabinet of Secretaries put in its place, as the newspapers say, and as is too probable, the change will be almost fatal: for the Members of Council are the only high administrative Officers not dependent on the will of the Governor-General, and their Minutes are the only Channel through which an independent and ungarbled opinion necessarily reaches the home authorities. The difficulties of governing India have so much increased, while there is less and less wisdom employed in doing it, that I begin to despair of the whole subject, and almost believe that we are at the beginning of the end.

474.

TO FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE1

Blackheath Sept. 23. 1860

Dear Madam—

I have read your Treatise,2 or rather the portion of it which you did me the honour of sending to me. If any part of your object in sending it was to know my opinion as to the desirableness of its being published, I have no difficulty in giving it strongly in the affirmative. There is much in the work which is calculated to do good to many persons besides the artisans to whom it is more especially addressed.3 In point of arrangement indeed, of condensation, and of giving as it were, a keen edge to the argument, it would have been much benefitted by the recasting which you have been prevented from giving to it by a cause4 on all other accounts so much to be lamented. This, however, applies more to the general mode of laying out the argument, than to the details.

With regard to the substance of the book, it is scarcely necessary to say that there is very much of it with which I am in entire agreement and strong sympathy, and when I am not, I neither have any desire to shake your own conviction, if I could suppose myself capable of doing so, nor should I regret the adoption of the same creed by any one to whose intellect and feelings it may be able to recommend itself. It would be a great moral improvement to most persons, be they Christians, Deists, or Atheists, if they firmly believed the world to be under the government of a Being who, willing only good, leaves evil in the world solely in order to stimulate the human faculties by an unremitting struggle against every form of it. In regard however to the effect on my own mind, will you forgive me for saying, that your mode of reconciling the world as we see it with the government of a Perfect Being, though less sophistical than the common modes, and not having as they have the immoral effect of consecrating any forms of avoidable evil as purposes of God, does not, to my apprehension, at all help to remove the difficulty? I tried what I could do with that hypothesis many years ago; that a Perfect Being could do everything except make another perfect being—that the next thing to it was to make a perfectible one—and that perfection could only be achieved by a struggle against evil. But then, a Perfect Being—limited only by this condition, might be expected so to form the world that the struggle against evil should be the greatest possible in extent & intensity; and unhappily our world conforms as little to this character, as to that of a world without evil. If the Divine intention in making man was Effort towards Perfection, the divine purpose is as much frustrated as if its sole aim were human happiness. There is a little of both, but the absence of both is the marked characteristic.

I confess that no religious theory seems to me consistent with the facts of the universe, except (in some form or other) the old one of the two principles. There are many signs, in the structure of the universe, of an intelligent Power wishing well to man and other sentient creatures. I could however shew, not so many perhaps, but quite as decided indications of an intelligent Power or Powers with the contrary propensity. But (not to insist on this) the will of the benevolent Power must find, either in its own incompleteness or in some external circumstances, very serious obstacles to the entire fulfilment of the benevolent purpose. It may be, that the world is a battlefield between a good and a bad power or powers, and that mankind may be capable by sufficiently strenuous cooperation with the good power, of deciding, or at least accelerating, its final victory. I know one man, of great intelligence & high moral principle, who finds satisfaction to his devotional feelings, and support under the evils of life, in the belief of this creed.

Another point on which I cannot agree with you is the opinion that Law, in the sense in which we predicate it of the arrangements of Nature, can only emanate from a Will. This doctrine seems to me to rest solely on the double meaning of the word Law, though that double meaning cannot be more completely and clearly stated than you have done. It is much more natural to the human mind to see a divine will in those events in which it has not yet recognized inflexible constancy of sequence, than in those in which it has. No doubt, this instinctive notion is erroneous; and Will is in its own nature as regular a phenomenon, as much a subject of law, as anything else; but it does seem rather odd that unchangeableness should be the one thing which, to account for its existence, must be referred to a will; Will being, within the limits of our experience, the thing of all others most liable to change. Indeed it cannot be unchangeable unless combined with omnipotence, or at all events with omniscience.

With all that you say in affirmation of the universality of Law, and in refutation of the objections on the subject of Free Will and Necessity, I need hardly say how heartily I agree.

I have made a few cursory remarks in the margin of your book, but what I have now said is the chief part of what I had to say. I do not yet return the volume because, unless what I have said of it takes away your desire to shew me any more of the book, I hope to see the remainder. If so however it should be soon, as I shall leave England for the Continent in about a week.

I have not time or space left to say much on the other subject of our correspondence.5 My opinion of the medical profession is not, I dare say, higher than yours. But it would be dealing very rigorously with the M.D.’s of whom you have so low an opinion, to expect that they should already have made any improvement in medical practice. Neither, when we consider how rare first-rate minds are, was it to be expected, on the doctrine of chances, that the first two or three women who take up medicine should be more than what you say they are, third rate. It is to be expected that they will be pupils at first, & not masters. But the medical profession like others must be reformed from within, under whatever stimulus from without; & it surely has more chance of being so, the more the entrance to it is widened. Neither does the moral right of women to admission into the profession, at all depend on the likelihood of their being the first to reform it. On this point, however, we are agreed.

I am Dear Madam
very sincerely yours

J. S. Mill

475.

TO FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE1

• Blackheath Park

Oct. 4 1860

Dear Madam—

I should have been very sorry to miss reading the sequel of your book.2 If when I had only read the first volume I was very desirous that it should be published, I am much more so after reading the second, as the exhibition it contains of what life is in this country among the classes in easy circumstances, being so earnestly and feelingly, and many parts of it so forcibly done, and so evidently the result of personal observation is at once a testimony that ought not to be lost, & an appeal of an unusually telling kind on a subject which it is very difficult to induce people to open their eyes to. And though the things into which are put the best of one’s heart & mind never do all the good which, to one’s own feelings, seems to lie in them, few books have a better chance than this of doing some good, and that too in a variety of ways. I should not feel any doubt about it if the book were published with your name. Indeed, the mere fact that these are the opinions of such a woman as all the world knows you to be, is a fact which it would be of as much use to the world to know, as almost anything which could at this time be told to it.

I have seldom felt less inclined to criticize than in reading this book; and moreover I have said in my former letter the substance of nearly all the criticism I should have to make. There is however a new point of difference between us, sufficiently a matter of principle to be worth mentioning to you. In one, and only one of your inferences from the doctrine (improperly called) of necessity, I do not agree; it is when you say that there ought to be no punishment (only reformatory discipline) and even no blame. It seems to me that on the principles of your Treatise, retaliation from others for injuries consciously and intentionally done them, is one of these natural consequences of ill doing, which you yourself hold to be the proper discipline both of the individual and of the race. With many minds, punishment is the only one of the natural consequences of guilt, which is capable of making any impression on them. In such cases, punishment is the sole means available for beginning the reformation of the criminal; and the fear of similar punishment is the only inducement which deters many really no better than himself from doing acts to others which would not only deprive them of their own happiness, but thwart all their attempts to do good to themselves & others. With regard to the legitimacy of resentment: a thoroughly evil will, though I well know that it does not come into existence without a cause, seems to me not the less on that account an object of aversion; and a strong indignation against wrong is so inseparable from any strong personal feeling on the subject of wrong and right, that it does not seem to me possible, even if desirable, to get rid of the one, without, to a great degree, losing the other. I write these things for your consideration, and not as pretending to lay down the law on the subject to any one, much less to you.

My address while abroad will be Saint-Véran, près Avignon, Vaucluse, France, and I am very far from wishing that you should do as Frederic’s General said he would.3

I have returned your Treatise today by the Book Post. I am

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

476.

TO PASQUALE VILLARI1

• S. Véran

6 Nov. 1860

Mon cher M. Villari—

Voici bien longtemps que je n’ai pas reçu de vos nouvelles quoique ce soit moi qui ai écrit la dernière lettre. Ce m’est toujours un grand plaisir d’avoir une lettre de vous et je le désire d’autant plus car dans un temps comme celui-ci,2 on ne sait jamais à quel endroit un patriote Italien peut s’être porté ni dans quelle situation il est. Je voudrais aussi m’entretenir avec vous sur les grands événements de cette année. Vous aviez bien prédit l’année passée que les Italiens feraient aujourd’hui de plus grandes choses qu’en 1848, bien que celles-là suffisent assurément pour la gloire éternelle de ceux qui y ont pris part. Vous avez le droit d’être fier de votre pays: aussi est-il, comme vous voyez admiré par l’Europe et les Anglais même qui sont difficiles en cette matière le reconnaissent comme digne d’être libre. Il est vrai que ceux, qui ont tout préparé pendant dix ans, qui ont entretenu le feu sacré par les seuls moyens alors practicables, Mazzini et ses amis, n’éprouvent pas encore la justice qu’ils méritent.3 Cela était inévitable, et ils ont, je crois, assez de grandeur d’âme pour s’y résigner. Je sais par ma propre expérience, ayant toujours avoué sur bien des sujets des opinions qu’on appelle extrêmes, que ce sont ceux-là qui font accepter par les gens de la foule les opinions avancées immédiatement praticables, en leur donnant la satisfaction de se croire dans le juste milieu, et d’avoir d’autres sur qui se décharger du reproche d’être des exaltés ou des exagérés. Maintenant l’avenir est à vous, pourvu toutefois que vous ne provoquiez pas un conflit prématuré avec l’Autriche,4 dans des conditions où vous ne pourriez vaincre que par l’appui d’une puissance étrangère. Peutêtre le prix que cette puissance a exigé de son intervention en 18595 a été presque vrai bonheur pour l’Italie, en la dégageant de tout lien de reconnaissance et en ôtant à un monarque absolu l’influence que, plus désintéressé en apparence, il eût obtenue sur l’esprit public de votre pays. C’est à l’œuvre d’organisation que je vous attends maintenant. Il y aura de grandes difficultés à la fusion de tant de peuples, tous Italiens, mais différents par leurs antécédents et par leurs mœurs; et de plus grandes encore à la profonde rénovation morale dont la population de la moitié méridionale de l’Italie a besoin. Mais vous avez aussi de grandes ressources dans l’enthousiasme général, dans le prestige d’un grand homme,6 dans celui d’un roi fidèle à la liberté,7 et surtout dans le génie Italien qui à aucune époque n’a manqué quelque déplorable que fût d’ailleurs la situation. L’année prochaine sera pour ceux qui pensent, un chapitre de l’histoire tout aussi intéressant que celle qui vient de s’écouler. J’ai grande confiance dans le bon sens dont la partie avancée de l’Italie a fait preuve dans les circonstances présentes, et dans la haute capacité gouvernementale qui a toujours été moins rare en Italie qu’ailleurs.

Si cette lettre vous parvient, donnez moi je vous prie, de vos nouvelles et croyez toujours à mon dévouement et à ma véritable sympathie.

477.

TO FREDERICK J. FURNIVALL1

• Saint Véran
• near Avignon

Dec. 10. 1860.

Dear Sir

I would with great pleasure accede to your proposal with respect to a reprint of the chapter on the Futurity of the Labouring Classes for separate sale,2 if it rested with me to do so. The current edition however of the Pol. Economy is the property of the publisher Mr Parker, and he alone has the power of authorizing what you propose. Your application therefore should be to him, unless you prefer waiting till the present edition is out of print, which it is likely to be, I believe, in a few months. I propose making some additions to the chapter for another edition,3 so as to bring up the facts of Cooperation to the latest date, and if I have anything to say worth saying in the way of advice to Cooperators, that will be, I think, the most suitable occasion.

I am very glad to hear such good news of the progress of Cooperation. The publicity given to the brilliant results of the Rochdale and Leeds experiments, by Mr Holyoake’s book,4 Mr Bright’s speech,5 and otherwise, was likely to encourage others to do the same. I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

478.

TO CHARLES DUPONT-WHITE1

• Saint Véran, Avignon

le 24 Décembre 1860

Mon cher Monsieur

Votre lettre m’est parvenue en même temps que la traduction,2 et si j’ai un peu tardé à y répondre, je vous prie de n’en accuser que mes occupations, car je ne cesse pas de travailler à de nouveaux écrits.

Je ne connais pas de traduction où l’on se soit plus consciencieusement occupé de rendre le sens de l’auteur, non seulement dans toute son exactitude mais dans toute sa force. Cela vaut infiniment mieux qu’une paraphrase fidèle et élégante mais plate, et je vous en sais on ne peut pas plus de gré. Il y a tout au plus cinq ou six endroits où il y a eu de légers malentendus sur le sens de telle ou telle phrase, que je dois attribuer à un défaut de clarté dans l’expression, et qui, du reste, sont très peu importants. Il n’y a que la division en alinéas qui laisse à désirer, et je devine que je dois m’en prendre là dessus à l’imprimeur.

Quant à la préface, j’avais senti qu’elle devait être surtout une critique. Est-il besoin de dire que non seulement je ne m’en plains pas—mais que je l’eûsse au besoin provoquée? Les termes flatteurs dont vous vous servez à mon égard suffiraient pour contenter un amour-propre beaucoup plus exigeant que le mien, et le fait même qu’avec les divergences que vous indiquez, vous avez assez bonne opinion de l’ouvrage pour prendre la peine de le traduire, est lui-même un compliment qui en vaut bien d’autres. Je trouve, au reste, que les grandes reserves que j’ai faites pour les cas où l’on se sert de sa liberté d’une manière nuisible aux autres, répondent suffisamment à une grande partie de vos observations. Je me sens un peu tenté de prendre ma revanche en rendant compte dans quelque revue anglaise de vos deux ouvrages.3 Les questions qui ne peuvent se vuider que par de grandes concessions de part et d’autre, sont celles qui gagnent le plus à une discussion assez prolongée pour devenir serrée.

J’espère, mon cher Monsieur, que nous pourrons causer sur ces matières et sur d’autres en peu de temps, car je me rends en Angleterre au mois prochain. Ce ne sera pas avant le jour que vous désignez pour votre départ de Fontainebleau, mais selon toute probabilité ce sera bientôt après. En attendant donc de vous retrouver à Paris, croyez bien à la sincérité de mon estime et de mon dévouement.

J. S. Mill

479.

TO HENRY FAWCETT1

• Saint Véran

Dec. 24. 1860

Dear Mr Fawcett

I was unwilling to write to you while all your time and thoughts were required for the contest in Southwark,2 and I have not had time to write any letters since the election until today. I shall be most desirous to hear from you vivâ voce when I come to England, all that there must be to tell. At present I only know what I have read in the Times,3 or rather in the Evening Mail.4 From that, although evidently not favourable to you, I can see that a great point has been gained, that you have made a very favourable impression generally, and that people are familiarized with the idea of you as a candidate. The compliments paid you, and the great support you received, will tell much more for you at any future election, than the preference given by the majority to a more known man5 will tell against you. He little deserves the preference, for his public conduct has always seemed to me anything but honorable to him. Still it is some credit to the Southwark people to have preferred a celebrity, though a second or third rate one, to a local or pothouse candidate, and to have elected him free of expense. You must have done considerable good by standing on the footing of no expenses,6 and going about speaking to them in the way you did. I was all the while wishing greatly that I could have helped you, but I have no power of helping anybody with electors. You will be your own best helper if you go on making yourself known by well-considered writings. I shall like much to see the articles you mention in your last letter.7 I left England at the very beginning of October without having seen Macmillan for that month, but when I return I will make a point of seeing all the numbers which contain anything of yours.

I have not been idle since I came here. I have two things finished,8 one of them a considerable volume and have made good progress with a third.9 I wish, when I leave this world, to carry as few of my thoughts away with me as I can; therefore I go on writing even what I do not mean to publish at present. I expect to be in England soon after the middle of January, when I shall hope for an early opportunity of seeing you.

yrs very truly

J. S. Mill

480.

TO THOMAS HARE1

• Saint Véran

Dec. 24. 1860.

Dear Sir

I am surprised to find on referring to your letter, how long I have suffered it to remain unanswered. I received your paper in the Statistical Society’s Journal,2 and was very much pleased with it. On the point raised by Mr Hickson I do not exactly recollect all the reasons he gave. I think the chief of them was, that if a voter was allowed to put down an indefinite number of names, he would generally put the latter part of his list at random, or insert the name desired by anybody who asked him. I do not think this argument valid against such strong reasons as those which tell the other way; but it seems worth considering, not with a view of limiting the contingent votes to a small number, but perhaps of limiting them to tens instead of hundreds. All that occurs to anybody on the details of the subject is worth bringing before you as a suggestion for your judgment. It is necessary to look forward to many unfavorable contingencies, for the purpose of contriving the best means of obviating them. For all means will be used to thwart the benefits of the plan. Political parties, as they now have their candidates, will then have their lists of candidates, to catch the contingent votes. These they will make as long as the law allows, putting the names in the order of their importance to the party: and it is a question whether the unlimited number of votes does not give an advantage to the mere party voters who will vote for the whole list of the party, over the independent thinkers who, besides that they will be divided among themselves, will only find a limited number for whom they can vote with thought and conscience. Does not this seem worth thinking of? I have little doubt that whatever your ultimate judgment may be on the matter, you will have sufficient reason for it. I am

very truly yours,

J. S. Mill

481.

TO WILLIAM THOMAS THORNTON1

[1860]

[Here is an interesting remark in a letter to Thornton, in 1860. Thornton had been to see Oxford, and Mill recalls his own visit twenty years before, and says—]

In that same holiday2 I completed the first draft of my Logic, and had, for the first time, the feeling that I had now actually accomplished something—that one certain portion of my life’s work was done.

[1. ]MS not located. Published in Janet Ross, The Fourth Generation (London, 1912), pp. 73-74.

Janet Ann Duff-Gordon, later Mrs. Henry Ross (1842-1927), granddaughter of John and Sarah Austin, writer of reminiscences and works on Italy.

[2. ]John Austin died on Dec. 17, 1859.

[3. ]Athenaeum, Dec. 31, 1859, p. 890.

[4. ]A Plea for the Constitution (London, 1859) which JSM had reviewed in “Recent Writers on Reform.” See Letter 358, n. 3.

[5. ]Mrs. Ross notes the lack of any mention of Mrs. Austin, from whom JSM had been estranged for a number of years: “I saw that the evidently intentional slight cut her to the heart.” See JSM’s characterization of her in Jack Stillinger, ed., Early Draft, pp. 147-48. This characterization was omitted in the final version of the Autobiog.

[1. ]MS at LSE. Envelope addressed: Mlle Taylor / chez M. J. S. Mill / à Saint Véran / près Avignon / Vaucluse. Postmarks: PARIS / 8 / 25 / JANV / ?, and AVIGNON / 26 / JANV / 60.

[2. ]Edmond François Valentin About (1828-1885), French writer and journalist, author of La Grèce Contemporaine (Paris, 1854).

[3. ]Auguste Mutel, Flore du Dauphiné . . . (2d ed., 2 vols., Grenoble, 1848).

[1. ]MS at LSE. Envelope addressed: Mlle Taylor / chez M. J. S. Mill / à Saint Véran / près Avignon / Vaucluse. Postmarks: LONDON / X/ JA26 / 60, and ??? / 27 / JANV / 60; and AVIGNON / 28 JANV / ???

[2. ]The opening of Parliament took place on Jan. 24. The debate was on the Queen’s speech from the throne.

[3. ]Their housekeeper.

[1. ]MS at LSE. Envelope addressed: France / Mlle Taylor / chez M.J.S.Mill / à Saint Véran / près Avignon / Vaucluse. Postmarks: LONDON / X / JA28 / 60 and AVIGNON / 30 / JANV / 60.

[2. ]Sir Charles Wood, later 1st Viscount Halifax (1800-1885), statesman, secretary of state for India, 1859-66.

[3. ]W. M. Thackeray was the first editor of the new Cornhill Magazine, begun this year by Smith, Elder and Co.

[4. ]Macmillan’s Magazine, edited by David Masson, first appeared in Nov., 1859.

[5. ]P. T. Barnum (1810-1891), the American showman, had lectured in St. James’s Hall, London, in 1858 on “The Science of Money-Making, and the Philosophy of Humbug.”

[6. ]A magazine begun in July, 1859, under the editorship of Samuel Lucas, by Bradbury and Evans as a rival to Charles Dickens’s new magazine All the Year Round.

[7. ]Charles Kingsley had been appointed chaplain to the Queen the preceding year, and in 1860 he became professor of modern history at Cambridge.

[8. ]For a study of the periodical, see Merle M. Bevington, The Saturday Review, 1855-1868 (New York, 1941).

[9. ]Owner of the house that JSM leased.

[10. ]A builder.

[11. ]Probably Hugh Curry Hann, stationer of Gray’s Inn Road. After the death of his wife for several years JSM used black-edged stationery.

[12. ]News-vendor.

[1. ]MS atLSE. Envelope addressed: France / Mlle Taylor / chez M. J. S. Mill / à Saint Véran / Avignon / Vaucluse. Postmarks: LONDON-S.E. / 2 / JA 31 / 60, and AVIGNON / 2 / FEVR. / 60.

[2. ]For his wife’s grave.

[3. ]Sir John Pollard Willoughby (1799-1866), in the Indian service, 1817-51; member of the Council of India, 1858-66.

[4. ]“Politics of the Present, Foreign and Domestic,” Macmillan’s, I (Nov., 1859), 1-10.

[5. ]J. M. Ludlow, “Moral Aspects of Mr. Tennyson’s ‘Idylls of the King,’” ibid., pp. 63-72.

[6. ]British India, its races and its history, considered with reference to the mutinies of 1857; a series of lectures (2 vols., Cambridge and London, 1858).

[7. ]See Letter 427, n. 4.

[8. ]Early in 1860 Herbert Spencer sent to friends a programme of a System of Philosophy, to be issued in periodical parts, under the headings “First Principles,” “The Principles of Biology,” “of Psychology,” “of Sociology,” and “of Morality.” The programme as publicly announced in the spring of 1860 is reprinted in Spencer’s Autobiography (2 vols., New York, 1904), II, Appendix A, 557-63.

[9. ]Ellen Gurney (d.1864), sister of Dr. Cecil Gurney of Nice. She and Algernon Taylor were married in Oct., 1860.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[2. ]For proportional representation.

[3. ]See Letter 427, n. 4.

[4. ]Thomas Hare, “Representation of every Locality and Intelligence,” Fraser’s, LXI (April, 1860), 527-43.

[5. ]Hare’s Feb. article contains a great many quotations, including over a dozen from Carlyle and a few from JSM, Maurice, Ruskin, and others. See Letter 437.

[6. ]“Reform Schemes,” QR, CVII (Jan., 1860), 220-66. Its author has been identified as Spencer H. Walpole.

[1. ]MS at LSE. Envelope addressed: Mlle Taylor / chez M. J. S. Mill / à Saint Véran / Avignon / Vaucluse. Postmarks: LONDON / X / FE2 / 60 and one illegible.

[2. ]Charles Cardale Babington (1808-1895), botanist and archaeologist, and author of Manual of British Botany, containing the flowering Plants and Ferns arranged according to Natural Orders (London, 1843).

[3. ]See Letter 427, n. 4.

[4. ]See preceding Letter, n. 6.

[5. ]His Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform.

[6. ]Probably Helen’s cousin, Marianne Laing.

[1. ]MS at Brit. Mus.

[2. ]Cf. Letter 389.

[3. ]The 3rd Earl Grey; see Letters 346 and 347.

[4. ]Sic. Lewis Llewellyn Dillwyn (1814-1892), proprietor of a pottery in Swansea, MP for Swansea 1855-92.

[5. ]Arthur Helps; his Friends in Council, 2nd Series (2 vols., London, 1859) is quoted by Hare in his Feb. Fraser’s article, p. 201 n. See Letter 427, n. 4.

[6. ]Lord Stanley had been secretary of state for India in the Derby ministry which resigned in June, 1859. See Letter 334, n. 3.

[1. ]MS at LSE. Envelope addressed: France / Mlle Taylor / chez M. J. S. Mill / à Saint Véran / Avignon / Vaucluse. Postmarks: LONDON / X / FE 4 / 60 and PARIS A MARSEILLE / 5 / FEVR 60 and AVIGNON / 6 / FEVR / 60.

[2. ]See Letter 342, n. 2.

[3. ]See Letter 404, n. 2.

[4. ]See Letter 415, n. 17.

[5. ]John Tulloch (1823-1886), theologian, principal of St. Mary’s College, St. Andrews University, from 1854.

[6. ]Later this year Bain was appointed by the Crown to the new chair of Logic and English at Aberdeen.

[7. ]The University of Aberdeen was created on the amalgamation of the two colleges, King’s and Marischal, by the Scottish UniversitiesCommission of 1858.

[8. ]Sir George Cornewall Lewis, then home secretary.

[9. ]Janet Duff-Gordon. See Letter 431, esp. n. 5.

[10. ]Letter 442.

[11. ]John Allen (1810-1886), archdeacon of Salop, 1847-86.

[12. ]Possibly Thomas, later Sir Thomas Duffus Hardy (1804-1878), or his brother William, later Sir William Hardy (1807-1887), both antiquaries and archivists associated with the Record Office.

[13. ]Possibly Léopold de Gaillard (1820-1893), publicist and politician, who had connections with Avignon.

[14. ]Probably refers to the monument for Harriet.

[15. ]Lady Lucie Duff-Gordon (1821-1869), daughter of John and Sarah Austin, writer and translator like her mother.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[2. ]See Letter 418, n. 4.

[3. ]Mr. Hare’s Reform Bill, Simplified and Explained (London, [March] 1860).

[4. ]See Letter 438.

[1. ]MS at LSE. Envelope addressed: France / Mlle Taylor / chez M. J. S. Mill / à Saint-Véran / Avignon / Vaucluse. Postmarks: LONDON / X / FE / ?? / 60 and PARIS / ?? / FEVR / 60 and AVIGNON / 9 / FEVR / 60.

[2. ]Of the inscription for the monument to Harriet.

[3. ]Robert Bentley Todd (1809-1860), leading physician; professor of physiology and anatomy at King’s College, London; writer on medical science.

[4. ]The Times, Feb. 7, 1860, p. 10.

[1. ]MS draft at Yale.

[2. ]JSM had been a regular attendant of John Austin’s lectures on jurisprudence at the University of London, 1829-33. See Earlier Letters, Nos. 32 and 40. Mrs. Austin published a second edition (1861) of her husband’s The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1st ed., London, 1832). She also edited and published from his lecture notes his Lectures on Jurisprudence (2 vols., London, 1863). See also Letter 576.

[3. ]Sir John Romilly, later 1st Baron Romilly (1802-1874), and Sir George Cornewall Lewis had both attended Austin’s lectures.

[4. ]In her Preface to the second ed. of The Province of Jurisprudence Mrs. Austin refers, on pp. xxiv-vi, to a set of tables Austin had printed “for distribution to the gentlemen of his class.” The results of her efforts to reconstruct these from notes were published in the second volume of her edition of Lectures on Jurisprudence. In the 4th ed. (London, 1873) of Lectures, Tables and Notes appear in vol. II, pp. 950-1022.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[2. ]The preceding Letter.

[3. ]For his wife’s monument. See Letter 441.

[4. ]Fawcett was elected to the Club in 1861.

[5. ]His first budget as chancellor of the exchequer in Palmerston’s government.

[6. ]This measure was later defeated in the House of Lords, but was accomplished in 1861.

[7. ]The budget was combined with a proposal for a commercial treaty with France.

[8. ]George William Pierrepont Bentinck (1803-1886), MP for West Norfolk, 1852-65 and 1871-84, protested against moving too hastily.

[9. ]On March 1.

[10. ]Feb. 10, p. 10.

[11. ]Ibid., p. 7.

[12. ]See Letter 439.

[13. ]First published in 1850.

[14. ]Which one of the many editions, revisions, and abridgments of the English and French dictionary originally prepared by Abel Boyer (1667-1729) is not known.

[1. ]MS at LSE. Envelope addressed: France / Mlle Taylor / chez M. J. S. Mill / à Saint Véran / Avignon / Vaucluse. Postmarks: LONDON-S.E. / X / FE 14 / 60 and AVIGNON / 16 / FEVR / 60.

[2. ]Evidently securities inherited by Helen and Algernon Taylor from the portion of the Hardy estate that had been settled upon their mother.

[3. ]See Letter 440, n. 3.

[4. ]The notice in the Bradford Review, Feb. 11, 1860, p. 6, praised the Dissertations as “some of the best speculative writing of our time.” Accompanying the notice was a section of “Suggestive Passages from Mill’s Essays.” “Their author is evidently a man of broad sympathies, of warm emotions, and of refined taste. . . . His humanity-loving nature exhibits itself in every essay.”

[5. ]XIII (Oct., 1859), 270-75.

[6. ]See preceding Letter.

[7. ]Alexander William Kinglake (1809-1891), historian and traveller; MP for Bridgewater, 1857-68. On the preceding evening in the Commons Lord Palmerston had asked Kinglake to postpone a motion with reference to threatened French annexation of Savoy and Nice. Kinglake bitterly opposed the annexation in a speech in the Commons on Feb. 28.

[8. ]Sir William Francis Patrick Napier (1785-1860), soldier, author of History of the War in the Peninsula and in the South of France . . . (6 vols., London, 1828-40), and The Conquest of Scinde (2 vols., London, 1845).

[1. ]MS at LSE. Envelope addressed: France / Mlle Taylor / chez M. J. S. Mill / à Saint Véran / Avignon / Vaucluse. Postmarks: LONDON / X / FE 17 / 60 and AVIGNON / 19 / FEVR / 60.

[2. ]Of Thomas Hardy (ca. 1775-1849), father of Mrs. Mill.

[3. ]Whether Arthur Ley, husband of Harriet’s sister Caroline, or Arthur Hardy, brother of Harriet, is not known.

[4. ]Neither Harman nor Booth has been otherwise identified.

[5. ]Edward Wilson (1830-1895), barrister.

[6. ]See Letter 440, n. 3.

[7. ]See Letter 296.

[8. ]No doubt to visit his fiancée, Ellen Gurney.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[2. ]JSM’s neighbour.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[2. ]Probably Colt’s firearms shop, at 14 Pall Mall, near the intersection with Regent Street. Helen had asked for a revolver. See Letters 443 and 448.

[3. ]See Letter 440, n. 3.

[4. ]Sir Rowland Hill (1795-1879), best known as the inventor of penny postage. In 1839, as secretary of the colonization commission of South Australia, Hill had recommended the adoption in the colony of proportional representation in municipal elections. The plan, a simpler one than Hare’s, was first used in Adelaide, South Australia, in 1839. The recommendation is reprinted from the Third Annual Report of the Colonization Commissioners for South Australia, 1839, in C. G. Hoag and G. H. Hallett, Jr., Proportional Representation (New York, 1926), p. 169.

[5. ]In an article, “The Corporation of London and Municipal Reform,” WR, XXXIX (May, 1843), 496-586, the writer (almost certainly Hickson, then editor of WR) recommends for London Hill’s proposal for representation of minorities (p. 570).

[6. ]Acton Smee Ayrton (1816-1886), barrister, MP for Tower Hamlets, 1857-74.

[7. ]Col. Henry Clinton, of Royston, Herts., a frequent contributor to the Reasoner, and author of pamphlets on parliamentary reform.

[8. ]Resolutions adopted at a public meeting of the Friends of Human Rights, in Belfast on Feb. 21, 1859. One John Scott was Chairman. See the Reasoner, XXIV (May 8, 1859), 147. See also “Political Science at Belfast,” SR, March 5, 1859, pp. 271-72, and “Belfast and the Saturday Review,” Sp., March 19, 1859, p. 317.

[9. ]Isa Craig, later Mrs. John Knox (1831-1903), poet and story-teller.

[10. ]Bessie Rayner Parkes, later (1867) Mme Elizabeth Rayner Belloc (1829-1925), daughter of Joseph Parkes, great-granddaughter of Joseph Priestley, mother of Hilaire Belloc; founder and editor of the Englishwoman’s Journal; writer; active in the economic section of the NAPSS.

[11. ]The vote in the Commons on Feb. 20 was 293 to 230.

[12. ]Edward Horsman (1807-1876), MP for Stroud, 1853-68; for Liskeard, 1869-1876.

[13. ]Charles, later Sir Charles, DuCane (1825-1889), then MP for North Essex, 1857-68; later (1869-74) governor of Tasmania. DuCane’s motion, presented on Feb. 21, was defeated on Feb. 24 by a majority of 116.

[14. ]See Letter 445, n. 8.

[15. ]A soft felt hat with low crown and broad brim.

[16. ]“Lord Macaulay,” Macmillan’s, I (Feb., 1860), 241-47.

[17. ]For 1859.

[18. ]Possibly Letter 296.

[19. ]Gilbert Urbain Guillaumin.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[2. ]In 1855 he had arrived in Athens on April 18; he left Greece at the end of May.

[3. ]Published as “Strikes: their Tendencies and Remedies,” WR, n.s. XVIII (July, 1860), 1-23.

[4. ]See Letter 443, n. 5.

[5. ]Largely because of his unfavourable remarks on the Maine (prohibition) law in On Liberty. See the review [by J. Dawson Burns (1828-1909)], “Liberty and Mr. John Stuart Mill,” in Meliora, II (1859), 83-93, separately reprinted as Liberty and the Liquor Traffic, a reply to Mr. John Stuart Mill. Meliora was published by the United Kingdom Alliance, founded in 1853, “to procure the total and immediate legislative suppression of the traffic in intoxicating liquors as beverages.” Burns was the first secretary of the Alliance and for many years the London superintendent.

JSM’s, Newman’s, and others’ views on the Maine law were discussed in “Intemperance; its Causes and Cures,” National Rev., X(Jan., 1860), 107-43.

[6. ]“Professor Newman on the Maine Law,” Reasoner, XXIV (July 17, 1859), 228-29. Holyoake appended to the article a statement in which he reiterated his support of JSM’s position.

[1. ]MS at LSE. Envelope addressed: France / Mlle Taylor / chez M. J. S. Mill / à Saint Véran / Avignon / Vaucluse. Postmarks: LONDON / X / FE 25 / 60 and AVIGNON / 27 / FEVR / 60.

[2. ]On Feb. 24.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[2. ]See Letters 440, n. 3, and 444.

[3. ]John W. Parker, Jr., editor of Fraser’s, did not publish Fawcett’s paper on strikes; see Letter 448, n. 3.

[4. ]After his accident Fawcett made Cambridge his headquarters; he lived at Trinity Hall at this time.

[1. ]MS in 1966 in the possession of M. Pierre-Sadi Carnot of Paris.

[2. ]La Centralisation (Paris, 1860).

[3. ]Gilbert Urbain Guillaumin, publisher.

[4. ]Prosper Paillottet (1804-1878), political economist, co-author with Frédéric Bastiat of Dictionnaire de l’Économie politique (Paris, 1852) and editor of Bastiat’s works.

[1. ]Text from photocopy supplied by Dennis O’Brien, Queen’s University, Belfast, of the original in the papers of Lord Overstone.

[2. ]JSM had been a member of the Club since 1830. Hare subsequently did become a member.

[1. ]MS draft at Leeds. Published in Elliot, I, 234-36.

[2. ]See Letter 451, n. 2.

[3. ]L’Individu et l’Etat (Paris, 1857).

[4. ]Probably Rep. Govt., published the following year.

[5. ]Dupont-White’s introduction to his translation of On Liberty.

[6. ]“Michelet’s History of France,” ER, LXXIX (Jan., 1844), 1-39; reprinted in Dissertations, Brit. ed., II, 120-80, Am. ed., II. 198-259.

[7. ]The Poor Law of that year.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[2. ]Sir James Phillips Kay-Shuttleworth (1804-1877), politician and founder of English popular education. He had served as chairman of the Committee on Trades’ Societies appointed by the NAPSS in Oct., 1858. The committee’s report was presented at the fourth annual meeting of the Association, at Glasgow, Sept. 1860, and published with the title, Trades Societies and Strikes (London, 1860). Fawcett was a member of the committee. Kay-Shuttleworth had been impressed with Fawcett’s paper, “The Theory and Tendency of Strikes,” presented at the meetings of the NAPSS at Bradford in Oct., 1859 (see NAPSS, Transactions, 1859 [London, 1860], pp. 635-40).

[3. ]Sir James had invited Fawcett to address a meeting of workmen on April 5 at St. Martin’s Hall on “Political Economy and the Tendency of Strikes.” See The Times, April 6, 1860, p. 10.

[4. ]A parliamentary Select Committee on Masters and Operatives appointed in March to study the best means of settling labour disputes. Fawcett appeared before the committee on April 24; his testimony appears on p. 95 of the committee’s report published on May 15, 1860.

[5. ]In 1850, JSM had given evidence before a Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Savings of the Middle and Working Classes; in 1852 before a Select Committee on the Income and Property Tax; and in 1857 before a Select Committee on the Bank Acts. In 1861 he again gave evidence before a House of Commons Committee on Income and Property Tax. His evidence before these committees is reprinted in Collected Works, vol. V.

[6. ]A Select Committee appointed by the House of Commons on Feb. 15, 1860, to inquire into the operation of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act of 1854.

[7. ]“The Reform Bill,” The Times, March 15, 1860, pp. 10-11.

[8. ]James Martineau was editor of the National Review.

[9. ]Sir John Somerset Pakington, later (1874) 1st Baron Hampton (1799-1880), Tory MP for Droitwich, 1837-74, in his speech in the Commons on the Representation of the People Bill, on March 22, 1860, had praised Lord John Russell for his attempt in 1854 to provide for representation of minorities. Disraeli earlier in the session had attacked Russell for supporting such representation. See next Letter.

[10. ]See Letter 440, n. 3.

[1. ]MS at LSE. Envelope addressed: Angleterre / Thomas Hare Esq. / 8 York Street, / St. James’s Square / London. Postmark: AVIGNON / 6 / AVRIL / 1860.

[2. ]See preceding Letter, n. 7.

[3. ]“The Reform Bill and Mr. Hare’s Proposed Clause,” Economist, XVIII (March 17, 1860), 277-78.

[4. ]See especially a leader for March 23, p. 9.

[5. ]See preceding Letter, n. 9.

[6. ]See Letter 440, n. 3.

[7. ]Presumably a letter to Hare from Edward Lytton Bulwer-Lytton, MP for Hertfordshire, in response to a request for support of Hare’s plan. For the result, see Letter 458.

[8. ]See preceding Letter.

[9. ]Containing Hare’s “Representation of Every Locality and Intelligence,” Fraser’s, LXI (April, 1860), 527-43.

[1. ]MS draft at Leeds. Published, with omissions, in Elliot, I, 236-37.

[2. ]Utilitarianism. See Letters 415, n. 6, and 421.

[3. ]Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection . . . (London, 1859).

[4. ]Baden Powell, The Order of Nature considered in Reference to the Claims of Revelation (London, 1859).

[5. ]Powell (1796-1860), was Savilian Professor of Geometry at Oxford, 1827-60. For JSM’s appreciative comments on Baden Powell’s Essay on the Inductive Philosophy, see Logic (8th ed.), I, 424 n; II, 99 n-100 n (both passages added in the 4th ed., 1856).

[6. ]The closest parallel located is in the fragments of Aristotle’s On Philosophy: cf. The Works of Aristotle, Oxford translation, ed. Sir David Ross, vol. XII, Select Fragments, pp. 84-86, Frags. 12a, 12b, and 13 of On Philosophy, Metaphysics,a, 1075a 11 ff., also contains the statement that the universe is “orderly”; cf. W. Jaeger, Aristotle, trans. by R. Robinson (Oxford, 1948), p. 388.

[7. ]See The Order of Nature, Essay IV, “Theological Views of Miracles,” sec. II, “General Argument from the Belief in Miracles.”

[8. ]Cf. Voltaire, Œuvres Complètes, vol. XXXVII, Dictionnaire Philosophique, vol. V (Paris, 1819), pp. 295-319, esp. sec. IV, pp. 308-19, “de ceux qui ont eu la témérité impie de nier absolument la réalité des miracles de Jésus Christ.”

[1. ]MS at Brit. Mus.

[2. ]See accompanying letter to Hare, same date. Perhaps for use in Hare’s testimony before Earl Grey’s committee, mentioned below.

[3. ]A Select Committee in the House of Lords to institute an inquiry on amendments to the Representation of the People Bill. Earl Grey introduced the motion for his committee on March 1, and the committee was finally approved on April 19, 1860. Hansard, CLVII, cols. 1920-74. Letters of Grey to Hare of April 24 and May [16?], 1860, on the subject are in the Brit. Mus.

[4. ]Sir Edward Lytton Bulwer-Lytton, in his speech on the Representation of the People Bill, April 26, 1860. Hansard, CLVIII, cols. 143-66.

[5. ]John Walter (1818-1894), proprietor of The Times, and MP for Nottingham, 1847-59, for Berkshire, 1859-65 and 1868-85, in his speech on the Representation of the People Bill, April 30, 1860. Hansard, CLVIII, cols. 350-59.

[1. ]MS at Brit. Mus. See preceding Letter.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[2. ]See Letter 454, n. 2 and n. 3.

[3. ]William Nathaniel Massey (1809-1881), barrister, historian, and MP for Newport (1855-57), for Salford (1857-63), for Tiverton (1872-81). For his “move” see Hansard, CLVII, cols. 1067-76.

[4. ]Charles William Gordon (1817-1863), captain in the Madras cavalry; MP for Berwick-on-Tweed, 1859-63.

[5. ]See Letter 458.

[6. ]See ibid., n. 3.

[7. ]See Letter 440, n. 3.

[8. ]Probably the number for April 11, 1860, p. 1, containing a review of Fawcett’s pamphlet.

[9. ]JSM was over-sanguine. The Representation of the People Bill introduced on March 1 was withdrawn June 11, 1860.

[10. ]Richard Jones (1790-1855), political economist; professor of political economy and history, succeeding Malthus, at the East India College at Haileybury; a critic of Ricardo; author of An Essay on the Distribution of Wealth, and on the Sources of Taxation (London, 1831).

[1. ]MS at Pierpont Morgan Library.

John Nichol (1833-1894), Professor of English Literature at Glasgow University, 1861-89. Son of John Pringle Nichol, astronomer, with whom JSM corresponded earlier; see Earlier Letters.

[2. ]John Nichol, Fragments of Criticism (Edinburgh, 1860), printed for private circulation.

[1. ]MS not located. Published in Elliot, I, 237.

[2. ]A home defence force, known as the Volunteer Movement, began to grow in 1859, largely as the result of British alarm over the activities of Napoleon III. The government supplied rifles, and military reviews found new favour at Court.

[1. ]MS in the Hollander Collection, University of Illinois.

George Woodyat Hastings (1825-1917), attorney; hon. sec. to the NAPSS, 1857-68 and chairman of its Council, 1868-83; MP for East Worcester, 1880-92; expelled from the House of Commons on having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for fraudulent conversion.

[2. ]The 1860 meeting was held in Glasgow in Sept.; the 1861 meeting, in Dublin.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[2. ]See Letter 440, n. 3.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[1. ]MS in 1943 in the possession of Mrs. K. E. Roberts. Envelope addressed: Thomas Hare Esq. / 8 York Street / St. James’s. Postmark: LONDON SE / 3 / JY / 18 / 60.

[1. ]MS draft at LSE. First and last paragraphs published in Elliot, I, 237-38.

Thomas Edward Cliffe Leslie (1826-1882), political economist; professor of jurisprudence and political economy at Queen’s College, Belfast, 1853-82.

[2. ]“The Future of Europe Foretold in History,” Macmillan’s, II (Sept., 1860), 329-38; reprinted in Leslie’s Essays on Political and Moral Philosophy (Dublin and London, 1879), pp. 94-110. Leslie had evidently sent JSM either the manuscript or proof sheets of the article, which was published the next month.

[3. ]The word is not fully legible. Leslie does mention in the article (Essays, p. 97) Roussillon, one of the old provinces of France, ceded to the French crown in 1659 after having been under Spanish rule for 400 years.

[4. ]Leslie kept the reference to Nice and Savoy, but in a footnote added that they “cannot, even now, be regarded as irrevocably annexed to France” (p. 97).

[5. ]As published (p. 98): “The genuine traditions of French policy no more recognize the Rhine, the Alps, and the Pyrenees as the natural boundaries of France than the Oise, the Marne, and the Cevennes, the Rhone, the Loire, and the Garonne, or the Vosges and the Saone, which have been successively crossed.”

[6. ]As published (p. 98): “Upon the same principle the French should celebrate their Terminalia, not at Utrecht, Coblentz, or Genoa, but near the fourth milestone on the road from Paris to St. Denis . . . .”

[7. ]Henry Thomas Buckle (1821-1862), author of History of Civilisation in England, the first volume of which had appeared in 1857; vol.2 was to appear in 1861.

Leslie’s first published article, “The Question of the Age—Is it Peace?,” had been published in Macmillan’s, II (May, 1860), 72-88 (reprinted in his Essays, pp. 62-93). It was in large part an attack on Buckle’s generalization that wars were declining in frequency and might be expected to cease.

[1. ]MS at Johns Hopkins. Envelope addressed: Miss Taylor / at J. S. Mill’s Esq / Blackheath Park / Kent.

[2. ]Alexander Irvine (1793-1873), botanist; author of The London Flora (London, 1838), Introduction to the Science of Botany (London, 1858), and Illustrated Handbook of British Plants (London, 1858).

[1. ]MS at Johns Hopkins. Envelope addressed: Miss Taylor / at J. S. Mill’s Esq / Blackheath Park / Kent. Postmark: FOLKESTONE / A SP 6 / 60.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[2. ]Probably the paper Fawcett read at the meeting of the BAAS at Oxford this year in which he attacked Whewell’s preface to Richard Jones, Literary Remains; consisting of lectures and tracts on political economy . . . , ed., with a prefatory notice by William Whewell (London, 1859).

Fawcett’s paper “Dr. Whewell on the Method of Political Economy,” was apparently never published; it is listed on p. 191 of “Transactions of the Sections” in the Statistical Science Section of Report of the 30th Meeting of BAAS, June and July, 1860 (London, 1861).

[3. ]Fawcett attended the Sept., 1860, meeting of the NAPSS in Glasgow, participated in the meeting of the committee on strikes, and read two papers. There is no mention of Hare’s plan in the NAPSS Transactions of that meeting of the Association.

[1. ]MS at Brit. Mus. MS draft in the Berg Collection of NYP. Published in Hospitals, X, No. 7 (July, 1936), 79. In reply to Miss Nightingale’s of Sept. 5, ibid., 78. The following paragraph at the end of the draft was crossed out by JSM:

“It is very agreeable to me that you should have found my Logic of so much use to you, & particularly the chapter on Free Will & Necessity, to which I have always attached much value as being the writing down of a train of thought which had been very important to myself many years before, & even (if I may use the expression) critical in my own development.”

[2. ]Suggestions for Thought to the Searchers after Truth among the artizans of England (3 vols., London, 1860). Privately printed, but not published.

Profoundly religious, Miss Nightingale was “anxious to find some theological sanction . . . for her religion of practical service.” She worked on this book before undertaking her famous mission in the Crimea, took it up again in 1858-59, rewrote and added, and began printing at the end of 1859. A few copies were printed in 1860. She thought of publishing, and consulted Benjamin Jowett as well as JSM. See E. T. Cook, Life of Florence Nightingale, I, 468-90.

[3. ]In her letter of Sept. 5 Miss Nightingale wrote in a postscript: “I acknowledge the justice of your animadversion (of which Mr. Chadwick wrote to me) upon a passage of my little book on Nursing, if I meant what you think which I did not. If my words bear that interpretation, and you will kindly point them out to me, I shall be glad and grateful to alter them.” See also Letter 467A in Appendix II.

The passage in question: “I would earnestly ask my sisters to keep clear of both the jargons now current everywhere (for they are equally jargons); of the jargon, namely, about the ‘rights’of women, which urges women to do all that men do, including the medical and other professions, merely because men do it, and without regard to whether this is the best that women can do; and of the jargon which urges women to do nothing that men do, merely because they are women, and should be ‘recalled to a sense of their duty as women,’and because ‘this is women’s work,’and ‘that is men’s,’and ‘these are things which women should not do,’which is all assertion, and nothing more. Surely woman should bring the best she has, whatever that is, to the work of God’s world, without attending to either of these cries. . . .” Notes on Nursing, p. 135.

[1. ]MS not located. Excerpt published in Bain, p. 116.

[2. ]At this time Thornton was secretary to the Public Works Department in the India Office.

[3. ]By the transfer in 1858 of the rule of India from the East India Co. to the Crown.

[1. ]MS at Brit. Mus. MS draft in the Berg Collection of NYP. Published, except for last paragraph, in Elliot, I, 238-41, and in full in Hospitals, X, No. 7 (July, 1936), 79-80. In reply to Miss Nightingale’s of Sept. 12, ibid., p. 79.

[2. ]See Letter 472, n. 2.

[3. ]On Benjamin Jowett’s advice, vols. 2 and 3 were addressed instead to “Searchers after Religious Truth.”

[4. ]Her ill health.

[5. ]In her letter of Sept. 12, referring to her remarks in the Notes on Nursing on the “jargons” commonly used in talking about women’s rights (see Letter 472, n. 3), Miss Nightingale said: “To every word of an article, called by your name [presumably Mrs. Mill’s 1851 article on “Emancipation of Women”], on this subject, I heartily subscribe and defer. This is not the ‘jargon’I mean. I refer to an American world, consisting of female M.D.’s, etc., and led by a Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, and though the latter is a dear and intimate and valued friend of mine, I reassert that her world talks a ‘jargon’, and a very mischievous one—that their female M.D.s have taken up the worst part of a male M.D.ship, of 30 years ago—and that, while Medical education is what it is . . . instead of wishing to see more Doctors made by women joining what there are, I wish to see as few Doctors either male or female as possible, for mark you, the women have made no improvement—they have only tried to be ‘men’and they have only succeeded in being third-rate men. They will not fail in getting their own livelihood but they fail in doing good and improving therapeutics.”

[1. ]MS at Brit. Mus. MS draft in the Berg Collection of NYP. Published in Elliot, I, 241-42, with omissions, and in Hospitals, X, No. 7 (July, 1936), 81-82. In reply to Miss Nightingale’s letters of Sept. 28 and 29, in ibid., pp. 80-81.

[2. ]See Letter 472, n. 2.

[3. ]In her letter of Sept. 28 Miss Nightingale had expressed the hope that JSM would write her again, and added “And then, as Frederick the Great’s General said to God, ‘Grant me this one thing and I promise never to pray to you any more.’”

[1. ]MS draft at Leeds. Published in Elliot, I, 242-44. On verso in JSM’s hand: To Villari / Nov. 6. 1860.

[2. ]The struggle for Italian unification had advanced greatly this year. In May Garibaldi had invaded Sicily and, after overthrowing the Bourbon government there, had entered Naples on Sept. 7 and proclaimed himself dictator of the kingdom. Garibaldi and King Victor Emmanuel had met on Oct. 29, and on the day following this letter the two entered Naples together. Garibaldi then resigned his authority into the king’s hands and retired.

[3. ]Mazzini’s great contributions to the cause of Italian unity over many years were not acknowledged officially in Italy until after his death in 1872.

[4. ]Italy did not become involved again in war with Austria until 1866.

[5. ]When Napoleon III was ceded Savoy and Nice in return for French help against Austria.

[6. ]Presumably Count Cavour.

[7. ]King Victor Emmanuel II.

[1. ]MS at Huntington. Published in Principles, p. 1032.

[2. ]See earlier negotiations with Furnivall about reprinting this chapter, beginning with Letter 129.

[3. ]The 5th edition of Pol.Econ., 1862.

[4. ]See Letter 323, n. 3.

[5. ]John Bright in a speech on the Representation of the People Bill on June 7, 1860, spoke favourably about the progress of co-operative societies as evidence of the growing sense of responsibility on the part of the working classes. Hansard, CLIX, cols. 94-95.

[1. ]MS in 1966 in the possession of M. Pierre-Sadi Carnot of Paris. Third paragraph published in Villey, pp. 229-30.

[2. ]Of On Liberty. See Letters 361, 417, and 451.

[3. ]Eventually published as “Centralisation,” ER, CXV (April, 1862), 323-58.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[2. ]On Nov. 9, 1860, Fawcett, hearing that the Southwark electors were looking for an independent candidate, offered to stand. He fought a hard campaign but withdrew just before the poll on Dec. 10.

[3. ]The Times, “Election Intelligence, Southwark,” many stories, e.g. Nov. 28, p. 12; Dec. 1, p. 12; Dec. 10, p. 5; results, Dec. 11, 1860, p. 6.

[4. ]“Election Intelligence—Southwark,” Evening Mail, Nov. 26-28, Dec. 5-10, 1860, p. 7.

[5. ]Austen Henry Layard was elected.

[6. ]Fawcett fought the campaign for one month for less than £250. In an earlier election the incumbent for the district had been forced to spend £10,000.

[7. ]“Co-operative Societies: their Social and Economical Aspects,” Macmillan’s, II (Oct., 1860), 434-41; and “A Popular Exposition of Mr. Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’,” Macmillan’s, III (Dec., 1860), 81-92.

[8. ]Considerations on Representative Government, published in April, 1861, and Utilitarianism, which was at least partly written in 1854, rewritten late in 1859, revised in 1860, and first published in Fraser’s, LXIV (Oct.-Dec., 1861), 391-406, 525-34, 659-73, and in book form in 1863.

[9. ]Probably The Subjection of Women, finished in 1861, published in 1869.

[1. ]MS at Brit. Mus. Envelope addressed: Thomas Hare Esq / 8 York Street / St James’s Square / London. Postmarks: AVIGNON / 24 / DEC / 60 and LONDON E / C / DE 26 / 60.

[2. ]“On the Application of a new Statistical Method to the Ascertainment of the Votes of Majorities in a more exhaustive manner,” a paper read before the Statistical Society, June 19, 1860, and published in Journal of the Statistical Society of London, XXIII (Sept., 1860), 337-53.

[1. ]MS not located. Excerpt published in Bain, p. 159. Bracketed portion is by Bain.

[2. ]Probably in Oct., 1840. See Earlier Letters, p. 448.