EconlibThe LibraryOther Sites |
Front Page  Titles (by Subject) COLLECTED WORKS OF JOHN STUART MILL volume xvii - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XVI - The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill 1849-1873 Part III
Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XVI - The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill 1849-1873 Part IIIThe Online Library of LibertyA project of Liberty Fund, Inc.Search this Title:Also in the Library:
COLLECTED WORKS OF JOHN STUART MILL volume xvii - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XVI - The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill 1849-1873 Part III [1865]Edition used:The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XVI - The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill 1849-1873 Part III, ed. Francis E. Mineka and Dwight N. Lindley (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972).
Part of: Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, in 33 vols.
About Liberty Fund:Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. Copyright information:The online edition of the Collected Works is published under licence from the copyright holder, The University of Toronto Press. ©2006 The University of Toronto Press. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form or medium without the permission of The University of Toronto Press. Fair use statement:This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
COLLECTED WORKS OF JOHN STUART MILL
 >John Stuart Mill Portrait by E. Goodwyn Lewis dated 1869 In the possession of Dr. Graham Hutton 1865741.TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
Jan. 5. 1865 Dear SirI have been too long in acknowledging the receipt of the very interesting things you last sent; but I was working against time on another subject, and had unwillingly to put by your last notes unread until this morning. I thank you most heartily for them. They are a complete Essay on the state and prospects of Ireland,2 and are so entirely satisfactory that they leave me nothing to think of except how to make the most use of them. For my new edition I must confine myself chiefly to the general results; but if I find it advantageous to transcribe certain paragraphs entire, will you allow me to name their real author?3 The article is a valuable supplement to the notes. The letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle4 I was already acquainted with, having read it in I forget what newspaper. I beg you to offer my sincere thanks to Mr Pim5 for the books he so kindly sent, which I shall immediately read. His letter, inclosed in yours, is full of good sense. Respecting the rate of profits in the United States, we must hope to learn something through the kind offices of Mr Moran.6 But it is, I imagine, very difficult to ascertain the real average rate of profit, or expectation of profit, in any country. It would, however, be something to have an answer to the more vague question, whether, in the opinion of Mr Ashworth,7 or other persons to whom business in both countries is familiar, the profits of capital in the United States are or are not, higher than in England. Of the two or three points which we differ about, I will only touch upon one—the influence of price on demand. You say, if a tax is taken off beer and laid on tobacco in such a manner that the consumer can still, at the same total cost as before, purchase his usual quantity of both, his tastes being supposed unaltered, he will do so. Does not this assume that his taste for each is a fixed quantity? or at all events that his comparative desire for the two is not affected by their comparative prices. But I apprehend the case to be otherwise. Very often the consumer cannot afford to have as much as he would like of either: and if so, the ratio in which he will share his demand between the two may depend very much on their price. If beer grows cheaper and tobacco dearer, he will be able to increase his beer more, by a smaller sacrifice of his tobacco, than he could have done at the previous prices: and in such circumstances it is surely probable that some will do so. His apportionment of self-denial between his two tastes is likely to be modified, when the obstacle that confined them is in the one case brought nearer, in the other thrown farther off. Now as to the Reader.8 I consented to become a shareholder with the full intention of sending occasional contributions (to which I should be quite willing to put my initials) in case I was satisfied with the editorial arrangements, which I should be, in a very high degree, with regard to any part of them which you might undertake. My satisfaction would be much increased if you were willing, as Mr Spencer wished and hoped, to undertake not merely the political economy department, but political philosophy generally. I could be more useful to the Reader on other branches of that subject than on political economy, on which you would seldom need any hand but your own, and could easily obtain other aid if you accidentally required it. I might give some help too in moral and metaphysical philosophy, but that department will probably be under Spencer’s superintendance, and he and I should, I dare say, often differ. I have heard nothing further of their plans since the first communication made to me. Perhaps they may like to try their wings a little before attempting the higher flight which we have advised, but for which they are not strong enough at present, if the number for December 31 (which as it has been sent to me, I suppose came out under the new management) is a sample of what they can do. When you are fixed in London and ready to take an active part, we shall be likely to have more influence on their proceedings. I take Macmillan, and was much interested by your article,9 which makes more distinct the idea I already had of the contract system in the mining districts. Laing, in his Prize Essay,10 brought it forward many years ago as an example of the cooperative principle. I was glad to see Mr Brace’s letter in the Daily News.11 I have had a visit here from a rather remarkable American, Mr Hazard,12 of Peacetown, Rhode Island. Do you know him, or his writings? If not, I shall have a good deal to tell you about him that will interest you. Ever, Dear Sir, yours trulyJ. S. Mill 742.TO WILLIAM TALLACK1
Jan. 18. 1865 SirYour letter and its inclosures have been forwarded to me here. I am glad of the appointment of a Commission to enquire into the effects of capital punishment.2 I confess, however, that I have a very strong opinion against its total abolition, being persuaded that the liability to it (whatever may be the case with the sight of it) has a greater deterring effect, at a less expense of real suffering, than any other penalty which would be adequate to the worst kind of offences. If examined, therefore, I should not be a witness on the “right side.” I am Sir yours very faithfullyJ. S. Mill William Tallack Esq. 743.TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN1
Jan. 22. 1865 Dear SirI have been so much occupied with pressing work, that I have only quite recently had time to go through the “Double Algebra.”2 I have found it everything that from what I already knew of your speculations I expected it to be. Either you are the first (not excepting Peacock)3 who has pointed out the true rationale of algebra as an universal calculus, or I was not capable formerly of understanding the true theory when I had it before me, and have become capable now. Which of these suppositions is the true one, you best know. The fact in regard to myself is, that everything which I had a glimmering of, I now seem to myself to see as clear as day, while you have also led me into regions of which I had not even a glimmering, and have shewn me how I may have an equally clear comprehension of the whole of these by taking sufficient pains to follow you through the details. Why is what you have done, not known and recognized as the great contribution to philosophy which it is? I suppose because so few mathematicians are psychologists, and so few psychologists are mathematicians. I take blame to myself for not having known your speculations two years ago, as I might have been helping to spread the knowledge of them. I am Dear Sir |
| W. T. Thornton Esq. | £2 |
| Miss Helen Taylor | £2 |
| and myself | £10 |
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
R. H. Hutton Esq.
794.
TO THOMAS BAYLEY POTTER1
Blackheath Park, April 7, 1865.
Dear Sir,—
Though I have good reason for sympathising in your personal disinclination to go into Parliament, having the same feeling myself, I cannot help being very glad, on public grounds, that there is a prospect of your being elected for Rochdale.2 And if this takes place, in spite of your professing opinions in advance of the general state of opinions among reformers, there will be the more reason for satisfaction.
I have no objection whatever to the publication of my letter.3 Its association with the last thing Mr. Cobden ever wrote will give it a melancholy interest.
I am, dear Sir, yours truly
J. S. Mill
795.
TO HERBERT SPENCER1
- Blackheath Park
April 9, 1865
Dear Sir
I have written to Mr Lubbock2 to express my great satisfaction at his being a candidate, and the pleasure it would give me to be of any use to him. One of whom you express so high an opinion must be a very desirable member of the advanced liberal party in Parliament or anywhere.
I leave for Avignon on Tuesday evening, but will endeavour to send something for the Reader occasionally from thence.
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Herbert Spencer Esq.
796.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- Blackheath
April 10. 1865
Dear Sir
You are in the way of seeing many newspapers and periodicals, and it is probable that during my absence in France articles, connected with the Westminster election or with myself personally, may come under your notice, which I should be glad to see. If such should be the case, would it be very troublesome to you to cut out the articles and send them to me by post? Of course it is a condition that you will allow me to pay all expenses, whether of buying, posting, or anything else. Reviews of my books are not included, as I shall receive them through my publisher.
If you would kindly undertake this for me, I should be greatly obliged.
With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
797.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN1
- Blackheath
April 11. 1865
Dear Sir
I thank you very much for having enabled me to correct a proof of the second article on Comte before leaving. I have asked the printers to send a revise to Avignon. I should be much obliged if you would kindly let me have the same number of copies (20) as of the former article, and cause them to be sent to the same persons, with the difference of sending five instead of four to M. Littré, and one to M. Dupont-White, 11 Rue d’Angoulême Saint-Honoré, Paris; leaving only four copies for myself, to be sent here, and not to Avignon. The earlier the separate copies could be got ready, the better I should like it, as some of those who have had copies of the first would be glad to have the second as soon after it as possible. But this, of course, must be entirely subordinate to your arrangements.
M. Littré will take care that the translation is not published till after the second article has appeared in the Westminster.2
I leave for Avignon this evening.
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
798.
TO HENRY FAWCETT1
- Paris
April 12. 1865
Dear Mr Fawcett
I have sent the few subscriptions I have received to Mr Hughes, whose letter in last Saturday’s Spectator you have perhaps seen.2 Mr Hughes has also collected a few, and intended handing them over to Mr Hutton, the editor of the Spectator, to be published in next Saturday’s paper.3 I think the best thing you could do with yours would be to send it in a note to the editor, so that it might appear in the same list.
The Social Science meeting went off well,4 and was very full. Lord Stanley presided, and brought out Hare’s strength by good questions. The reports which I have seen give no idea at all of what was said, but I was glad to see that the Times reporter stated well and clearly the plan itself. Altogether it will have had a lift upwards by the meeting.
I am
Dear Mr Fawcett
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
799.
TO JAMES BEAL1
- [Avignon]
[April 17, 1865]
Dear Sir—
I beg leave to acknowledge your communication of the 12th inst. informing me that at a meeting of Westminster Electors2 it has been resolved to adopt me as a candidate on the terms of my letter of March 7th & to invite subscriptions to defray the expenses of my election.
On the subject of this Resolution it would not become me to say anything, except what might equally be said by one who had no personal interest in the matter: That if the Electors of Westminster return to Parlt as their representative any one, either myself or another, who has no claim whatever on them except their opinion of his fitness for the trust, & if on that sole ground they elect him without personal solicitation & without expense, they will do what is as eminently honourable to themselves as to the object of their choice, will set an example worthy to be, & likely to be, imitated by other great constituencies—& will signally raise the character of the popular party & advance the cause of Reform.
On this part of the subject, I have only further to express the earnest hope, that in accepting me on the terms of my letter, the Meeting intended to include in their adhesion the principle of an individual appeal by circular to every elector, laying other names before him as well as mine & requesting him to select from among them or from any others the person or persons whom he would wish to be brought forward as candidates.
I am also invited to state, for the more full information of the electors, my opinions on various political questions of general interest. Such a call can only be properly answered by the most complete openness. I hold decided opinions on all the subjects on which my sentiments are asked, & whether those opinions may serve or injure me in the estimation of the electors it is equally incumbent on me to state them plainly.
1. With regard to Reform Bills: I shd vote at once both for Mr. Baines’ bill3 & for Mr. Locke King’s,4 & for measures going far beyond either of them. I would open the suffrage to all grown persons, both men & women, who can read, write, & perform a sum in the rule of three, & who have not, within some small number of years, received parish relief. At the same time, utterly abominating all class ascendancy, I would not vote for giving the suffrage in such a manner that any class, even though it be the most numerous, could swamp all other classes taken together. In the first place, I think that all considerable minorities in the country or in a locality should be represented in proportion to their numbers. What other adjustments of the electoral system to an universal or nearly universal suffrage might prove practically the best adapted to secure to every portion of the community its just share of influence, while preventing any class from acquiring an unjust degree of preponderance either by means of property or of numbers, is a question which may be answered in many different ways & which will require much sifting & public discussion before the best can be selected. In the meanwhile I shd be prepared to support a measure which would give to the labouring classes a clear half of the national representation.
2. I prefer a mixed system of direct & indirect taxation to either alone. If the attempt were made to raise so large a revenue as ours after all due retrenchments would still be exclusively by direct taxation, I do not know of any taxes, in themselves just, which, under such strong pecuniary temptation, would not be successfully evaded. The evasions of the income tax are already a disgrace to the national morality. I would in no case tax any of the necessaries of life; but if even a working man expends in luxuries for himself, & especially in stimulants, what is required by the necessities of his family, I think it perfectly just that he shd be taxed on such expenditure.
3. Every civilised country is entitled to settle its internal affairs in its own [way], & no other country ought to interfere with its discretion, because one country, even with the best intentions, has no chance of properly understanding the internal affairs of another: but when this indefeasible liberty of an independent country has already been interfered with; when it is kept in subjection by a foreign power, either directly, or by assistance given to its native tyrants, I hold that any nation whatever may rightfully interfere to protect the country against this wrongful interference. I therefore approve the interposition of France in 1859 to free Italy from the Austrian yoke,5 but disapprove the intervention of the same country in 1849 to compel the Pope’s subjects to take back the bad government they had cast off.6 It is not however a necessary consequence that because a thing might rightfully be done, it is always expedient to do it. I would not have voted for a war in behalf either of Poland7 or of Denmark,8 because on any probable view of consequences I shd have expected more evil than good from our doing what, nevertheless, if done would not have been, in my opinion, any violation of international duty.
4. Respecting the disabilities of Dissenters my answer may be brief. There ought to be no disabilities whatever on account of religion.
5. Voting for a member of parlt is a public & political act, which concerns not solely the elector’s individual preferences, but the most important interests of the other electors, of the non-electors, and even of posterity: & my conviction is that in a free country all such acts shd be done in the face & subject to the comments & criticisms of the entire public. I wish that the elector shd feel an honourable shame in voting contrary to his known opinions, & in not being able to give for his vote a reason which he can avow. The publicity which lets in these salutary influences admits also, unfortunately, some noxious ones; & if I believed that these were now the strongest—if I thought that the electors of this country were in such a state of hopeless & slavish dependence on particular landlords, employers, or customers, that the bad influences are more than a match for the good ones, & that there is no other means of removing them, I should be, as I once was, a supporter of the ballot. But the voters are not now in this degraded condition: they need nothing to protect them against electoral intimidation but the spirit & courage to defy it. In an age when the most dependent class of all, the labouring class, is proving itself capable of maintaining by combination an equal struggle with the combined power of the masters, I cannot admit that farmers or shopkeepers, if they stand by one another, need despair of protecting themselves against any abuse now possible of the power of landed or other wealth.
6. As regards retrenchment, it is certain that chiefly through unskilful management great sums of public money are now squandered, for which the country receives no equivalent in the efficiency of its establishments, & that we might have a more useful army & navy than we possess, at a considerably less expense. I expect little improvement in this respect until the increased influence of the smaller taxpayers on the government, through a large extension of the suffrage, shall have produced a stricter control over the details of public expenditure. But I cannot think that it would be right for us to disarm in the presence of the great military despotisms of Europe, which regard our freedom through its influence on the minds of their own subjects, as the greatest danger as well as reproach to themselves, & might be tempted to pick a quarrel with us, even without any prospect of ultimate success, in the mere hope of reviving the national antipathies which so long kept apart the best minds of England & of the Continent.
7. I am decidedly of opinion that landed property shd be subject to the Probate Duty, & that property in settlement should pay succession duty on its full value & not, as at present, only on the value of the life interest.
8. Purchase is the very worst way but one, in which Commissions in the army could possibly be appropriated. The one, which is still worse, is jobbing & favoritism. I would support any mode in which the one evil can be got rid of without replacing it by the other. That there is such a mode I am fully satisfied, & that it would put an end to what is justly called in your letter, the monopoly by certain classes of the posts of emolument.
9. I am entirely opposed to flogging, either in the army or out of it, except for crimes of brutality. In some of those it seems to me a very appropriate punishment.
10. The differences between employers & workpeople which give rise to strikes, are, it appears to me, a subject which wholly escapes the control of legislation. I see nothing which law can do in the matter except to protect from violation the equal liberty of all to combine or to refrain from combining. After a sufficient trial of each other’s strength, both sides will probably be willing to refer their disputes to arbitration, but even then I do not think that the arbitrators should have power to enforce their decisions by law; because, in such cases as they would usually have to decide, it is impossible to lay down rules of justice & equity which would suit all cases, or would obtain universal assent: & the adjustments must generally be of the nature of compromises, not acting on fixed principles, but each side giving up something for the sake of peace. I do not presume to say that a better rule may not be arrived at in time, but it would be quite premature to act as if it had already been arrived at.
I am, Dear Sir,
very sincerely yours
J. S. Mill
James Beal Esq.
800.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
April 17. 1865
Dear Chadwick
I have received your note dated the 11th. and Mr Beal’s official announcement of the decision of the Meeting.2 The same post which takes this carries my reply to him, of which I inclose a copy.
When I saw them advertising for subscriptions for my election singly, I was alarmed lest they should have abandoned the intention of proposing any other names. Should this unfortunately happen, and should you, thereupon, go forward independently, I beg that you will at once put down my name for a subscription of £50, for which I will send a cheque as soon as your Committee is constituted.
I have suggested to Longman (as you recommended) that he should advertise in the penny papers,3 weekly as well as daily, and have now written again to recommend his not omitting the Morning Advertiser4 —
yrs ever truly,
J. S. Mill
801.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
April 20. 1865
Dear Sir
I shall be very glad to see the article in the Saturday Review,2 as my own copy has been stopped at the French post office; for which reason it will be advisable, if you have not already sent the number, to cut out the article and send it only.
I have always contemplated reprinting the articles on Comte as soon as is consistent with the interest of the Review; and if Mr Trübner3 wishes to be the publisher, no one has so good a claim. We will therefore consider that as settled.
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
802.
TO JOSHUA FAYLE1
- Avignon
April 24, 1865
Dear Sir
Owing to my absence from England, I have only this morning received your note, and the same cause makes it impossible for me to comply with the request which the Society2 has done me the honour of making.
I regret the delay which will take place in your receiving my answer, but I hope that my letter,3 published in Friday’s papers, may have made you aware of my absence soon enough to prevent any inconvenience. I am
yours very faithfully
J. S. Mill
Jos. Fayle Esq.
803.
TO WILLIAM E. HICKSON1
- Saint Véran
Avignon
April 24, 1865
Dear Hickson
Your letter, as you are probably by this time aware, did not find me in England.
I did not, I believe, reserve the right of translation as regards the book on Liberty. But I have had two applications from intending translators of it. The first was from my friend Professor Villari of Pisa, author of the Life of Savonarola, and of an enlightened and thoughtful Report on Education in England.2 The second was from Alberto Mario,3 Garibaldi’s Secretary and fellow-combatant, the husband of Madame White Mario. Him I referred to Professor Villari, and as the latter has his time very fully occupied, it is not improbable that he may have given up his project, in favour of Mario. In what state the matter is, I do not know, and I can only suggest, that the gentleman who does me the honour to make a third proposal, should ascertain what are the present intentions of his two predecessors. If they have abandoned their purpose, or desist from it in his favour, I give him the full consent which his politeness induces him to ask, but which he does not, for any legal purpose, require.
Death has indeed been busy lately, and one is continually reminded, if at our age we needed reminding, of our mortality. Cobden4 was perhaps the most perfectly honest man among all English politicians of his time and of anything like his celebrity, for he meant every word that he said. Is the Lucas who has just died,5 the same who wrote so many literary articles in the Times, and who had just started a new Magazine?
I hope you are well, and Mrs. Hickson at least no worse.
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
W. E. Hickson Esq.
804.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Saint Véran. Avignon
April 28. 1865
Dear Chadwick
Dr Lankester2 and the others whom you mention, fancy, I suppose, that they would diminish their chance of carrying one candidate by attempting two; in which opinion they might be right if they were proceeding in the old beaten track, and bringing forward a candidate in the commonplace, stupid way. But on the plan which was proposed, of going to the electors with a list of names, it would not be they, but the electors, who would determine to have two new candidates, and would decide who they should be. The Committee would be taking nothing upon themselves but to carry out the declared wishes of a body of electors requiring only organization. I fear from the apparent hanging back from executing this plan, that they have grown cold on the subject, and finding that they are getting praised for proposing me, and for the other honourable features of the case, the exemption from canvassing, pledges, and expense, they are content with that, and do not seek for more. If it is so, it is a great mistake, and an opportunity lost, independently of the great value to public objects, and even specially to Westminster of making you one of its members. But I still hope for better things. As to your own conduct in exerting yourself for my election exactly as if you had no claims of your own, I cannot praise it more highly than by saying that it is like everything else I have seen of your public conduct.
As to my last letter,3 I expected that it would damage my chance. If it does no worse than you seem to think, I shall reckon it wholly a success. I do not see how I could have refused to answer questions about my opinions, put in the very letter which announced the acceptance of me as a candidate. It can only be a small proportion of the electors who have ever looked into my books. But I do not think my answers to questions will admit of being confounded with pledges, especially as several of them are opposed to the general opinion of those who support me. I hope there are many more Tories who will take your Tory friend’s view of women’s votes.
The glorious news from America is dreadfully dashed by the terrible report about Lincoln.4 The idea of its being true is scarcely endurable—but the cause will not suffer—may even benefit by it, now.
Ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
805.
TO GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE1
- Avignon
April 28 1865
Dear Sir—
I have received your two notes & your pamphlet,2 which I think is one of the best of your writings, & well calculated to stir up the thinking minds among the working classes to larger views of political questions. So far as I am myself concerned, I cannot but be pleased to find you in sympathy with some of the most generally unpopular of my political notions. For my own part, I attach for the present more importance to representation of minorities, and especially to Mr Hare’s plan, combined with opening the suffrage to women, than to the plural voting which, in the form proposed by Mr Buxton, of attaching the plurality of votes directly to property,3 I have always strongly repudiated. But I think what you say of it likely to be very useful by impressing on the working people that it is no degradation to them to consider some people’s votes of more value than others. I would always (as you do) couple with the plurality the condition of it being accessible to any one, however poor, who proves that he can come up to a certain standard of knowledge.
I am
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
G. J. Holyoake Esq.
806.
TO THEODOR GOMPERZ1
Saint Véran, Avignon, April 30 1865
I have delayed thanking you for the first number of your Herculanean series,2 in hopes that I should have been able to say something about the work itself. I have, however, been so busy, that I have not yet had time to do more than read your Preface and Introduction and merely glance at the Greek text. What you say of it, however, proves it to be, at the very least, a highly important and novel contribution to the history of Greek thought, and I look forward with great pleasure to making a real study of it at some not distant time.—But, interesting as such labours are, you are capable of things much more valuable than such mere editorial work. I can not wish that you should leave unfinished what you have so well begun, but I shall be glad when the time comes to which you seemed to be looking forward in your last letter, now some months ago. . . . I hope, before this, you have received the book on Hamilton, and also the first of two articles which I have written on Comte’s philosophy. The second article is in print and I expect to be able to send it to you before it is published in England. I shall be well content if you are half as well pleased with these as you are sure to be with Mr. Grote’s book on Plato. This is nearly all printed, and I have read most of it; and both in point of learning and of thought it comes up to my highest expectations. It can not, I think, fail to produce a great effect in Germany, where the thoroughness of his knowledge of the subject will be much better appreciated than by an unlearned public, which can only take it on trust . . . .
807.
TO WILLIAM LONGMAN1
- S[aint] V[éran]
April 30, 1865
Dear Sir—
I noticed the discrepancy between the price mentioned in the agreement & those advertised,2 but supposed that it was intentional & that you thought it advantageous to begin at once with the lower price. I would make any sacrifice rather than consent to fixing the price of the Pol. Ec. higher than the one announced, as it would look like breaking faith with the public. But I feel the same objection as before to binding myself by a permanent engagement which would prevent the plates from ever returning to me. I am most willing that you should retain as many copies beyond the 8000 as will indemnify you for what you would otherwise lose by your mistake. The loss being 2/6 on each of 4000 copies, 2000 copies additional at 5/- would compensate you for this, but would leave you losers by the paper & press work of the 2000 & for that I am ready to add as many more copies as you think sufficient to indemnify you, leaving the stipulation about the subsequent sale as it already stands, viz, that you should continue to publish the editions at half profit for five years after the sale of the whole number of copies agreed on.
I am glad to hear so good an account of the sale.3 I suppose the 400 copies sold of Hamilton are chiefly the trade subscription.4 The Logic will require an unusual amount of revision for the new edition,5 & I will take it in hand as soon as I can, but as this can hardly be before my next return to England, I will ask you to send the sheets to Blackheath Park rather than here.
I was not aware that you had been asked to allow your name to appear as one of my supporters for Westminster, and I beg that you will not consent unless, on public grounds, you prefer me to any other candidate likely to be proposed. I should be much honoured by your doing so, but if you do not I hope you do not think that it can have any influence on my personal sentiments towards yourself.
808.
TO WILLIAM GEORGE WARD1
[May? 1865]
It is very unlikely that anything you write, however much I may disagree with it, could appear to me either “detestable” or “simply mischievous,”2 I have never read anything of yours in which I have not found much more to sympathise with than to dislike. . . . [again] the only opposition which I deem injurious to truth is uncandid opposition, and that I have never found yours to be, nor do I believe I ever shall.
809.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- Avignon
May 1. 1865
Dear Sir
I am extremely obliged to you for taking the trouble to send me those cuttings, none of which I had seen (except Mr Berkeley’s letter,2 which was also in the Daily News) and most of which it would have been a loss to miss. I have been particularly pleased with the tone in which several of them speak of women’s voting, and of Mr. Hare’s plan.
Lincoln is a glorious martyr if ever there was one. He is not to be pitied—to be envied rather. One’s feeling is all personal—it is as if a ruffianly assassin had deprived one of a dear personal friend. I do not believe the cause will suffer. It may even gain, by the indignation excited. There was real danger lest the North, and Lincoln himself, should be too soft-hearted to the exslaveholders, and leave them too much power of mischief.
We are glad to hear that you are settled in your new home.
With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer I am
Dear Sir
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
810.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1
- Avignon
May 1. 1865
Dear Sir
I shall be happy to join in any mark of sympathy to the Free States of America, both on their success in their arduous struggle, and on the atrocious act which has mingled such deep grief with the very hour of triumph. I should think that the initiative would be taken by friends of the cause who are in a position to act more effectually than I could. I should like an address to the American people to be signed by millions.2
I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
811.
TO HENRY SODEN1
- Avignon
May 2. 1865
Dear Sir—
I have just received your letter, dated 25th Feby.
It is a great compliment to me that my supposed opinions should have had the influence you ascribe to them in Australia.2 But there seems to have been a considerable degree of misunderstanding about what they are. The fault probably lies with myself, in not having explained them sufficiently. I have entered rather more fully into the subject in the new editions published this spring. But, not to give you the trouble of referring to them, I can have no difficulty in saying that I never for a moment thought of recommending or countenancing, in a new colony more than elsewhere, a general protective policy, or a system of duties on imported commodities such as that which has recently passed the representative assembly of your colony. What I had in view was this. If there is some particular branch of industry, not hitherto carried on in the country, but which individuals or associations, possessed of the necessary capital, are ready & desirous to naturalize: & if these persons can satisfy the legislature that after their workpeople are fully trained, & the difficulties of the first introduction surmounted they shall probably be able to produce the article as cheap or cheaper than the price at which it can be imported, but that they cannot do so without the temporary aid either of a subsidy from the Govt or of a protecting duty: Then it may sometimes be a good calculation for the future interests of the country to make a temporary sacrifice, by granting a moderate protecting duty for a certain limited number of years, say ten, or at the very most twenty, during the latter part of which the duty should be on a gradually diminishing scale, & at the end of which it should expire. You see how far this doctrine is from supporting the fabric of Protectionist doctrine, in behalf of which its aid has been invoked.
Your wish respectg a cheap edition of the little book on Liberty has already been fulfilled. It is now on sale at 1/4 & my Pol. Econ. & Rep. Govt at prices proportionally even lower 5/ & 2/.
You are at full liberty to make any use you please of this letter.
812.
TO WILLIAM E. HICKSON1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
May 3, 1865
Dear Hickson
The universality of the feeling occasioned by Lincoln’s catastrophe is a good sign of our common humanity, for it is, in most cases, genuine feeling of the bitterness of losing such a man. He himself may be considered happy in his death—quite otherwise than if he had died before the decisive triumph. There cannot be a more glorious fate than to die so mourned by a whole people—to have become so dear to them through the best part of their character exclusively. I agree with you in having no fear of public mischief from his loss. It will perhaps, on the contrary, prevent a great deal of weak indulgence towards the slaveholding class, whose power it is necessary should be completely and permanently broken at all costs. Meanwhile the effect is admirable in Continental Europe (England does not need that particular lesson) of the example of power passing by course of law, without a dream of opposition in the freest country in the world.
From what you say, the Lucas who is dead2 must be the younger brother of Frederic Lucas. I was slightly acquainted with him formerly, but had lost sight of him. I suppose he died of heart disease like his brother—more fortunate than he in dying without a long illness.
Pray thank Mrs Hickson and Miss Grant3 for their kind remembrances.
We shall remain here probably until about May 30, when we leave for a time in Auvergne. We expect to return about June 30, and to leave for England about July 3. If you should be passing while we are here, we shall be very glad to see you.
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
813.
TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL1
- Avignon
le 5 mai 1865
Je voudrais bien, mon cher d’Eichthal, pouvoir répondre à votre lettre, comme M. Blackie,2 par une lettre en grec: Πολλου̑ γε καὶ δει̑; ἐπεὶ παντὸς μα̑λλον, ὤ ϕίλε, βουλοίμην ἄν.3 Assurément la nation grecque vous doit de la reconnaissance, ainsi que, en second lieu, à M. Duruy.4 Du reste, elle me semble déjà bien avancée dans le chemin de la restauration grammaticale de son ancienne langue. Jugez de ma satisfaction quand j’ai vu, dans la redaction de sa nouvelle Constitution,5 qu’elle avait repris possession complète du cas datif. Après cela il ne lui reste guère à reprendre que l’infinitif, chose très importante, mais nullement plus difficile à regagner.
Votre nouvelle brochure6 ne m’est pas encore parvenue, mais un paquet va venir qui la contiendra. Je tâcherai de faire en sorte qu’il soit question de toutes les deux, non seulement dans la Revue de Westminster,7 mais peut-être ailleurs.
Nous avons un fort bon livre anglais sur la prononciation de la langue grecque, par un nommé Pennington,8 dans lequel il est à peu près démontré que les anciens Grecs prononçaient leur langue d’une manière peu éloignée de celle des Grecs d’aujourd’hui. Je n’ai pas un exemplaire de ce livre, et je crois qu’il se trouve difficilement, si ce n’est dans les bibliothèques publiques; sans cela je vous l’aurais envoyé. C’est le sécrétaire du gouvernement anglais des îles Ioniennes qui me le fit lire en 1855.9
J’essaierai de vous voir en traversant Paris en deux mois d’ici, bien que je n’y compte rester que quelques heures.
Avez-vous vu l’article du dernier numéro de la Revue de Westminster sur l’Evangile de Saint-Jean? Il ne vous offre probablement rien de nouveau, puisqu’il se donne comme résumé des travaux de l’école de Tubingue.10
Bien des salutations à votre frère et à Duveyrier,
Tout à vous
J. S. Mill
814.
TO EMILE LITTRÉ1
- S[t] V[éran]
May 11. 1865
Cher monsieur—
La seconde partie de mon travail sur M. Comte ne sera publiée que le 1er juillet mais on a promis de me donner bientôt des exemplaires séparés. Il vous en sera expédié cinq, destinés comme auparavant pour vous même, pour le traducteur,2 pour Mme Comte, pour M. de Blignières et pour M. Taine. Il est très naturel que vous n’approuviez pas sans réserve tout ce que j’ai dit dans la 1re partie. Ce que votre livre a montré d’accord entre nos jugements est encore plus que je n’osais espérer. Une critique de ma critique, faite de votre point de vue, m’intéresserait grandement, et ce serait une bonne fortune pour moi si vous pouviez avoir le temps de vous en occuper.3
Quant au livre sur Hamilton c’est en grande partie une oeuvre de circonstance, comme le doit être tout livre de polémique—mais avec quelques chapitres de psychologie positive. Ce que ce livre a de mieux c’est qu’il porte la guerre dans le camp ennemi. Aussi je crois que les métaphysiciens de l’école éclectique et allemande ne me le pardonneront pas.
Si un journal a dit que je sollicite des électeurs, ce journal se trompe: ce sont des électeurs qui m’ont sollicité. On m’a porté candidat presque malgré moi. J’ai refusé de rien faire de ce que font ordinairement chez nous les candidats. Je n’ai fait que ce qu’ils ne font guère c. à. d. une profession de foi parfaitement sincère. Au reste je pense avec M. Comte que, sauf des circonstances exceptionelles et transitoires, la place des philosophes n’est pas dans le gouvernement, et malgré mes 35 ans des fonctions administratives je ne me regarde pas comme une exception. Vous savez que dans l’idée que je me fais des assemblées délibérantes, elles doivent être un lieu de discussion plutôt que d’action, et si je consentais à y siéger ce serait pour n’y exercer qu’un pouvoir spirituel. P. L. Courier4 disait que, presque seul parmi les Français, il ne voulait pas être roi: si l’on me nommait à la chambre j’y serais probablement le seul député qui ne voudrait pas être ministre.
815.
TO FREDERICK DENISON MAURICE1
- S[t]V[éran]
May 11. 1865
Dear Mr Maurice—
I was already so well aware of your kind feelings towards me that even such a letter as I have just received from you hardly increases my sense of them. I most sincerely feel towards you & your work in life, the full equivalent of all which you so kindly express. I never voluntarily leave unread any of your writings & if I have not more frequently offered you any of mine it was because I seldom felt confident that what you would approve in them, would outweigh what you would disapprove. I knew however that there was much in my new book2 with which you would fully sympathize, greatly as I know you differ from the metaphysical doctrines contained in it. You were continually in my thoughts when I wrote the chapter against Mansel3 and your controversy with him contributed much towards stirring me up to write the book.
I sympathize with the feeling of (if I may so call it) mental loneliness which shews itself in your letter & sometimes in your published writings. In our age & country, every person with any mental power at all, who both thinks for himself & has a conscience, must feel himself, to a very great degree, alone. I shd think you have decidedly more people who are in real communion of thoughts, feelings & purposes with you than I have. I am in this supremely happy, that I have had, & even now have, that communion in the fullest degree where it is most valuable of all, in my own home. But I have it nowhere else; & if people did but know how much more precious to me is the faintest approach to it, than all the noisy eulogiums in the world! The sole value to me of these is that they dispose a greater number of people to listen to what I am able to say to them; & they are an admonition to me to make as much of that kind of hay as I can before the sun gives over shining. What is happening just now is the coming to the surface of a good deal of influence which I had been insensibly acquiring without knowing it; & there are to me many signs that you are exercising a very considerable influence of the same kind, though you yourself seem to think the contrary.
816.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
May 11. 1865
Dear Sir
I have to thank you for a great many more cuttings, which were extremely interesting to me, and on the whole very satisfactory, for those of my opinions which are thought to be most out of the common way seemed to obtain fair consideration, and to be found not so bad as they look. I was amused with your friend’s letter, especially with his idea that the male voters need the ballot to protect them against their wives. I think, myself, that the privilege of the vote gives an advantage not only to a bad husband over the wife, but to the wife over a kind husband, for he thinks he ought to defer more or less to her, on account of his voting as the representative of both. If she had a vote of her own, she would not have so much power of interfering with his.
Your friend should reconsider his opinion on representation of minorities. Cobden’s answer2 is no answer at all; for in his plan, of having as many constituencies as there are members, a minority of each would still be unrepresented. On Mr Hare’s plan, no one need be unrepresented, since the electoral body would divide of itself into unanimous constituencies.
With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
817.
TO HENRY BOWIE1
- Avignon
May 13. 1865
Sir
I have had the honour of receiving your letter dated the 10th inst. inclosing a Requisition from the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and many distinguished citizens of Edinburgh, who, in the name of the Directors and Members of the Philosophical Institution,2 invite me to deliver the Inaugural Address at the opening of the Session in November next.
I feel most strongly the high distinction conferred on me by being the object of such a request from such a body. There being, however, many persons who are far better qualified than myself for the honourable function which the Directors and Members of the Institution propose to entrust to me, I beg to be excused from undertaking it, as I could not without great personal inconvenience be at Edinburgh, or anywhere in Great Britain, in November next, in addition to which I have so much occupation on my hands, that I could with difficulty find time for the duty and the necessary preparation for it.
I have the honour to be
Sir
very respectfully yours
J. S. Mill
Henry Bowie Esq
&c &c
818.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
May 15. 1865
Dear Chadwick
I have been so very busy, and have had, besides, so many letters to write, that I am very tardy in replying to your interesting letter of April 29. We were greatly amused by the “election humours” which it communicates, and by the comments you report on the injudiciousness of my second letter.2 I do not wonder that people should think it injudicious if they suppose that my grand object in the whole matter is to get myself elected. But as the only purpose for which I care to be elected is to get my opinions listened to, it would have been very “injudicious” in me to forego so good an opportunity of that, for fear that it should damage my election. I have gained this by it, that what are thought the most out of the way of all my opinions, have been, and are, discussed and canvassed from one end of the country to the other, and some of them (especially women’s voting) are obtaining many unexpected adhesions. I reckon this a good stroke of practicality, whether I am elected for Westminster or not.
As to the election itself, I had much rather you were elected than I, and if I could transfer my supporters in a body to you, I would do so instantly. I suspect, however, that the thing will be taken out of our hands. The appearance in the field of the illustrious man3 whom the Tories have put forward as the representative of the intelligent classes against popular ignorance, as embodied in me, will probably produce a general demand that one of the professedly liberal candidates should be withdrawn; and perhaps the appeal to the individual electors by circular, which we have contended for, will be made for the inferior purpose of ascertaining who ought to retire. I do not think the Tories expect their man to come in, otherwise some more considerable person would have started in that interest. But they are glad when anybody with money to spend, is willing to venture it on the chance.
I feel for Sir Edw. Lytton,4 who expected to get some credit from my friends by the expression of his good wishes (which were very likely sincere) but found he had come across a man who had the peculiarity of expecting that people should act up to what they say. I should have thought more highly of him if he had said plainly, “These are my private sentiments, but I must go with my party”, a feeling which, as men go, is very excusable. Lord Amberley,5 I am glad to see, has a higher standard. It is really a fine thing in him to have withdrawn from Grosvenor’s Committee and come over to me.6
It is an agreeable surprise to me that Mr Westerton should have been so favourably impressed by the “Liberty”. I give him very great credit for it. It shews that his view of religion is a much higher and better one than is at all common. Had I listened to commonplace notions of “practicality,” I should never have published that book; yet its publication does not seem to do me any practical harm.
As to the application you have received about having my likeness taken for publication, I have a real difficulty about it, owing to having refused my photograph to friends who much wished for it. If it should be necessary, however, there is a cameo likeness of me,7 from which a copy could be taken; but it cannot be till we return.
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
P.S. I have just received your packet of printed documents. The list of the Committee is very good: there are some names on it which I am glad to see, but was afraid would be wanting.
819.
TO PARKE GODWIN1
- Avignon
May 15. 1865
Dear Sir—
I had scarcely received your note of April 82 so full of calm joy in the splendid prospect now opening to your country & through it to the world; when the news came that an atrocious crime had struck down the great citizen who had afforded so noble an example of the qualities befitting the first magistrate of a free people & who in the most trying circumstances had gradually won not only the admiration but almost the personal affection of all who love freedom & appreciate simplicity & uprightness. But the loss is ours, not his. It was impossible to have wished him a better end than to add the crown of martyrdom to his other honours & to live in the memory of a great nation as those only live who have not only laboured for their country but died for it. And he did live to see the cause triumphant & the contest virtually over. How different would our feelings now be if this fate had overtaken him as it might so easily have done, a month sooner!
In England, horror of the crime & sympathy with your loss seem to be almost universal, even among those who have disgraced their country by wishing success to the slaveholders. I hope the manifestations which were instantaneously made there in almost every quarter may be received in America as some kind of atonement or peace-offering. I have never believed that there was any real danger of a quarrel between the two countries but it is of immense importance that we should be firm friends; & this is our natural state; for though there is a portion of the higher & middle classes of Great Britain who so dread & hate democracy that they cannot wish prosperity or power to a democratic people, I firmly believe that this feeling is not general even in our privileged classes. Most of the dislike & suspicion which have existed towards the U.S. were the effect of pure ignorance; ignorance of your history, & ignorance of your feelings & disposition as a people. It is difficult for you to believe that this ignorance could be as dense as it really was. But the late events have begun to dissipate it, & if your Government & people act as I fully believe they will, in regard to the important questions which now await them there will be no fear of their being ever again so grossly misunderstood, at least in the lives of the present generation.
As to the mode of dealing with these great questions, it does not become a foreigner to advise those who know the exigencies of the case so much better than he does. But as so many of my countrymen are volunteering advice to you at this crisis perhaps I may be forgiven if I offer mine the contrary way. Every one is vaguely inculcating gentleness, and only gentleness, as if you had shown any signs of disposition to take a savage revenge. I have always been afraid of one thing only, that you would be too gentle. I shd be very sorry to see any life taken after the war is over (except those of the assassins) or any evil inflicted in mere vengeance; but one thing I hope will be considered absolutely necessary: to break altogether the power of the slaveholding caste. Unless this is done, the abolition of slavery will be merely nominal. If an aristocracy of ex-slaveholders remain masters of the State legislatures they will be able effectually to nullify a great part of the result which has been so dearly bought by the blood of the Free States. They & their dependents must be effectually outnumbered at the polling-places: which can only be effected by the concession of full equality of political rights to negroes & by a large immigration of settlers from the North, both of them being made independent by the ownership of land. With these things in addition to the constitutional amendment3 (which will enable the Supreme Court to set aside any State legislation tending to bring back slavery in disguise) the cause of freedom is safe & the opening words of the Declaration of Independence will cease to be a reproach to the nation founded by its authors.
I doubt not that you have by this time received from Mr Hare the new edition of his book. I do not know if Mr Fawcett has fulfilled his intention of sending you his pamphlet,4 but as Mr Hare has adopted the simplifications which Mr Fawcett proposed, you will be under no necessity of learning them from any other source. I am,
dear Sir,
yours very truly,
J. S. Mill
820.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- Avignon
May 22. 1865
Dear Sir
I have this morning received three more packets of extracts, for which I cannot sufficiently thank you. They are all of use to me, the unfavourable ones most of all.
You will do me a favour if you will buy the Fortnightly Review for me, and (after reading it yourself) keep it for me till my return to England. I should like to see the article you speak of,2 but do not think it worth while to have it sent here, and the more, as I have very little time at the present moment to read it.
I have the Saturday Review.
With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer I am
Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
821.
TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL1
- Avignon
le 23 mai 1865
Mon cher d’Eichthal
Merci de votre brochure sur “l’usage pratique de la langue grecque comme langue internationale”2 et des deux journaux grecs de Trieste.3 La première me fait désirer la complétion de l’ouvrage dont elle forme le commencement. Les derniers montrent bien l’enthousiasme que votre proposition excite très naturellement chez les esprits Helléniques. Je lis assez facilement le Grec moderne, à quoi, en effet, il suffit de posséder une certaine connaissance de la langue ancienne, et d’avoir lu une grammaire quelconque de la moderne: car, dans le vocabulaire, toute ce qui n’est pas grec ancien est une imitation assez drôle des mots occidentaux et surtout français. Je n’ai jamais ri de meilleur coeur que lorsqu’à ma première visite à la poste aux lettres d’Athènes, je vis devant moi une affiche commençant par ces mots: Ἡ γενικη διευθυνσις τω̑ Ἑλληνικων ἀτμοσκαϕειων Ἐιδοποιει̑.4
Je trouve l’article de Littré5 fort bon, et votre lettre dans la Clio6 excellente. Ce serait, sans doute, difficile de faire dans la langue ordinaire la restauration grammaticale que vous proposez. Mais après tout ce que les Grecs ont déjà fait dans ce genre, il ne faut désespérer de rien. D’ailleurs l’instruction que reçoivent à peu près tous les enfants (au moins mâles) dans l’ancienne langue, rend ces changements beaucoup moins difficiles, puisque les formes restaurées seraient tout d’abord comprises.
Je vous renverrai les journaux, qui pourront vous servir encore pour la propagande.
Je ne connais M. Blackie7 que par son réputation et par quelques-uns de ses écrits. J’ai remarqué avec plaisir les succès parlementaires de Lanjuinais.8
Ce serait une bonne fortune pour moi que de vous voir à Avignon: mais, pour le moment, je n’en ai guère l’espoir; car je me propose de partir en cinq jours pour une tournée dans les Cévennes et en Auvergne, après quoi je ne serai ici que pendant deux ou trois jours au commencement de juillet avant de partir pour l’Angleterre, où je passe habituellement la moitié de l’année. L’élection de Westminster n’est pour rien dans mon retour. Cette élection se fait absolument sans moi.9 Je ne compte pas du tout sur le succès, mais s’il arrive, il en sera d’autant plus honorable pour moi et pour les électeurs.
Je vous serre la main.
J. S. Mill
822.
TO EDWIN L. GODKIN1
- Avignon
May 24, 1865
Dear Sir
I thank you very sincerely for your article in the North American Review;2 not merely for sending it to me, but for writing it. I consider it a very important contribution to the philosophy of the subject; a correction, from one point of view of what was excessive in Tocqueville’s theory of democracy, as my review of him was from another. You have fully made out that the peculiar character of society in the Western States—the mental type formed by the position and habits of the Pioneers—is at least in part accountable for many American phenomena which have been ascribed to democracy. This is a most consoling belief, as it refers the unfavourable side of American social existence (which you set forth with a fulness of candour that ought to shame the detractors of American literature and thought) to causes naturally declining, rather than to one which always tends to increase.
But if any encouragement were required by those who hope the best from American institutions, the New England States as they now are, would be encouragement enough. If Tocqueville had lived to know what those states have become, thirty years after he saw them, he would, I think, have acknowledged that much of the unfavourable part of his anticipations had not been realized. Democracy has been no leveller there, as to intellect and education, or respect for true personal superiority. Nor has it stereotyped a particular cast of thought; as is proved by so many really original writers, yourself being one. Finally, New England has now the immortal glory of having destroyed Slavery; to do which has required an amount of high principle, courage, and energy, which few other communities, either monarchial or republican, have ever displayed. And the great concussion which has taken place in the American mind, must have loosened the foundations of all prejudices, and secured a fair hearing for impartial reason on all subjects, such as it might not otherwise have had for many generations.
It is a happiness to have lived to see such a termination of the greatest and most corrupting of all social iniquities—which, more than all other causes together, lowered the tone of the national and especially the political mind of the United States. It now rests with the intellect and high aspirations of the Eastern States, and the energy and straightforward honesty of the Western, to make the best use of the occasion, and I have no misgiving as to the result.
Do not trouble yourself to send me the North American Review, as I already subscribe to it. But I shall always be glad to be informed of any article in it which is of your writing, and to know your opinion on any American question.
I am Dear Sir
yours very sincerely
J. S. Mill
Edwin L. Godkin Esq.
823.
TO WILLIAM WHEWELL1
- Avignon
May 24. 1865
Dear Sir—
It gave me great pleasure to receive your note of May 15. It was, in the first place, very agreeable to hear that you go along with my book, so far as it is directed against Sir W. Hamilton; which is fully as much approbation as I could hope for; & it was pleasant to be told that there are other points which could have been made against Sir W. H. but which I had omitted—fearful as I was of being charged, on the contrary, with having pursued him à toute outrance.
But a still greater cause of satisfaction to me from receiving your note, is that it gives me an opportunity on which without impertinent intrusion I may express to you, how strongly I have felt drawn to you by what I have heard of your sentiments respecting the American struggle2 (now drawing to a close) between freedom & slavery, & between legal gott & rebellion without justification or excuse. No question of our time has been such a touchstone of men & has so tested their sterling qualities of mind & heart—as this one—& I shall all my life feel united by a sort of special tie with those, whether personally known to me or not, who have been faithful when so many were faithless. I am Dear Sir
very truly & respectfully yours
824.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
May 28. 1865
Dear Sir
It seems a very long time since I either heard from you or wrote to you, and you may have thought it strange that I did not write on a subject of such deeply tragical interest to us both as the assassination of Lincoln. But I felt it necessary to express my feelings on that catastrophe to so many persons,2 Americans and others, who could not otherwise have known them, that I felt less prompted than usual to give vent to them, to those who would know and judge of them by their own. What I now principally feel is that the death of Lincoln, like that of Socrates, is a worthy end to a noble life, and puts the seal of universal remembrance upon his worth. He has now a place among the great names of history, and one could have wished nothing better for him personally than to die almost or quite unconsciously, in perhaps the happiest hour of his life. How one rejoices that he lived to know of Lee’s surrender.
At present I am chiefly anxious that the Americans may not do themselves any damage in the matter of Jefferson Davis.3 I do not like the trial of the assassins by martial law. If they try Davis in that manner, and convict him, let him be ever so guilty, the world will never believe that he had a fair trial. I have good hopes, however, from the favourable opinion of Johnson4 expressed by men who have the means of knowing him.
I was happy to see your name in full, attached to your excellent article on Lowe’s speech.5 There were several very good things in the last number: the leader, by Huxley,6 particularly so, notwithstanding what I venture to think heretical physiology, which, however, he clearly sees, and as clearly shews, not to affect in the smallest degree the moral, political, or educational questions, either as regards negroes or women. I wish, however, that the Reader did not cultivate a tone of flippant attack, often on very slender grounds which is infinitely more offensive than damaging to the persons attacked. The Saturday Review, with much more real matter, manages these things much better. Do you know the editor?7 He seems to me to be amenable to good influences, and worth cultivating.
We propose setting out in two or three days for an excursion in the central mountains of France, but letters will from time to time be forwarded to me from here. I shall be in England in time for the July meeting of the Club,8 at which I am pledged to open my question if required and where I shall hope to see you. If you write, pray tell me your London address.
Ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
825.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
May 28, 1865
Dear Chadwick
You have indeed a fine list of occupations for any one to carry on pari passu with his election to Parliament. But your power of work seems unlimited.
The request of the Committee2 places me in a considerable embarrassment. What they propose is in itself perfectly reasonable; and any one who comes forward and proposes himself as a candidate, ought to be willing to meet the Committee and the Electors in the way they propose, as often as they think desirable. But I have never, from the beginning, been in the position of one who offers himself as a candidate. In my first letter3 I disclaimed doing so; I said that my personal inclination was against going into Parliament; but that if the electors of Westminster nevertheless did me the great honour of choosing me, I would do my best to serve them, and would answer unreservedly any number of questions respecting my political opinions, which might be put to me by or in behalf of any body of electors. My candidature went forth to the public on this footing; and this declaration seemed to be one of the causes of the feeling so widely expressed in favour of the candidature. If I were now to attend meetings and make speeches to the electors in the usual, and, in most cases, very proper manner, it would seem as if there had been no truth in my declaration that I did not personally seek to be in Parliament; as if I had merely been finessing to get myself elected without trouble and expense, and having found more difficulty than I expected, had at last shewn myself in my true colours, rather than run the risk of losing the election.
If you will kindly represent these things to the Committee, they will, I hope, enter into the difficulty I feel. If they think that any further explanation of my opinions would be desirable, they have only to ask for it. If Mr Beal, or Mr Westerton, or any other member of the Committee, will write to me, asking my opinion on any new points, or the reasons and justification of my opinion on any of those on which it has been already asked and given, I shall have the greatest pleasure in satisfying them.
In the same manner, I shall be happy to reprint any of my articles which the Committee may propose. I cannot, however, remember any that would be much to the purpose, as the political articles are mostly on gone-by politics. I should be very happy to reprint the article on “Enfranchisement of Women,”4 but it must be as my wife’s, not as mine.
I am glad to hear what you tell me concerning Mr M’Clean.5 In addition to his very handsome subscription, he has lately sent me two polite invitations in his capacity of President of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and I was desirous to know how I had acquired so much of his good will.
Any writing by Tories, nominally in my favour, is of no consequence. The Tories prefer anybody to a regular government man, as they suppose Grosvenor to be.6 Any one who is not a pledged member of the ministerial party, they hope may now and then give them a stray vote. But if I were elected I should hope to be a much greater thorn in their side than a member of the old Whig connexion can be.
This letter of course is not for publication, but it may be shewn to any members of the Committee.
I am Dear Chadwick
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
826.
TO THOMAS HARE1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
May 29. 1865
Dear Sir
It is a long time since I wrote to you: indeed, from a variety of causes. I have had so many more letters to write to total or comparative strangers than I ever wrote in the same time before, that writing to my real friends has been put off. I have not, however, been inattentive to what you have been doing meanwhile. The Social Science meeting2 evidently gave a push onward to Personal Representation, and you have followed it up in the Daily News with vigour and effect.3 The question has for the first time passed into the domain of popular discussion, and is making unexpected proselytes. You must have noted Lubbock’s4 qualified and Hughes’5 distinct adhesion in their electoral addresses. Perhaps you may not have observed a letter from Francis Newman,6 giving reasons for and against supporting my candidature, in which my adherence to your plan is placed among the foremost of the reasons for supporting me. There are also articles in some of the country papers, shewing that the plan is obtaining favour in proportion as it becomes known. In addition to which, my Westminster supporters are all busy finding what they can say to defend their candidate on the points of representation of minorities and women’s suffrage. Certainly this election affair is a better propaganda for all my political opinions than I might have obtained for many years; and it is selling my cheap editions, and indeed the dear ones too, in a most splendid manner.
My occupation here, except letter-writing, has been of a kind very remote from these interests, being chiefly that of reading Plato, with a view to reviewing Grote’s new book.7 I do not find that this by any means quickens my zeal in my own cause, as a candidate. It is an infinitely pleasanter mode of spending May to read the Gorgias and Theatetus under the avenue of mulberries which you know of, surrounded by roses and nightingales, than it would be to listen to tiresome speaking for half the night in the House of Commons. The only disagreeable thing here is having to choose between pleasures: thus we are about to tear ourselves away from this most enjoyable place to make a tour in the Cevennes and Auvergne, beginning at Alais, and going round by Le Vigun, the Lozère, the Cantal, and Mont Dore, to Clermont. We expect much pleasure from this, but we give up so much pleasure by not remaining here, that did we not think it useful to health, I do not believe we could either of us make up our minds to it.
I shall be back for the July meeting of the Club, where I shall hope to see you. I am glad to see that Gladstone is to be chosen a member.8
With our kind regards to all your family
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
Letters will be sent to us from here.
827.
TO HERBERT SPENCER1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
May 29. 1865
Dear Sir
Nothing can be more agreeable to me than to hear that you are going to answer me in the Fortnightly Review.2 I hope you will not spare me. If you make out so strong a case (and no one is more likely to do so if it can be done) as to make it absolutely necessary for me to defend myself, I shall perhaps do so through the same Review; but not without a positive necessity. I have had enough, for the present, of writing against a friend and ally.
With regard to the Reader, I like the plan of full signatures. I am glad to see that my friend Professor Cairnes has adopted it, & I should be glad if it were the common practice. But, to admit of this, it would be necessary for the Reader to give up the plan it has recently adopted of making slashing attacks to the right and left, with very insufficient production of evidence to justify the vituperation: and in a manner which gives to an indifferent spectator the impression either of personal ill will in the particular case, or of general flippancy and dogmatism. Contributors will not like to identify themselves by name with a publication which would embroil them with an unlimited number of angry and vindictive writers together with their friends and their publishers. I myself should not like to be supposed to be in any way connected, for instance, with the attack on the Edinburgh Review3 (for which I am at this very time preparing an article)—an attack of which I wholly dislike the tone, and agree only partially with the substance; and it happens that the article singled out from the last number for special contempt,4 my name too being cited against it, is by a personal friend of my own, a man of very considerable merit, whom I was desirous of securing as a recruit for the Reader—and who is very naturally hurt and indignant at the treatment of him. I am by no means against severity in criticism, but the more it is severe, the more it needs to be well weighed and justly distributed. I have represented a good deal of this to Mr. Rae,5 with whom I am in correspondence, and of whom in other respects I have formed a very favourable impression. He has very much improved the Reader, and is improving it more and more; and but for that one fault it bids fair to justify our original hopes.
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
828.
TO MAX KYLLMANN1
- S[aint] V[éran]
May 30, 1865
Dear Sir—
I have not written to you since I came here, having from various causes been so overwhelmed with letter writing that I was obliged to adjourn all of it that admitted of postponement. I now write though I have not anything very particular to say, except that I am going to leave Avignon for a tour in the Cevennes & Auvergne & though letters will be sent to me from here, they will not reach me so soon or so certainly as at present. It seems to me that discussion on the fundamental points of representative government & especially on the points raised in my Westminster letters, is going on very satisfactorily at present. Numbers of country papers are sent to me in which Hare’s system, repr of minorities, in all its shapes, and women’s suffrage are mooted—sometimes with approbation, & often (especially as to women’s suffrage) with much less hostility than was to be expected. You have probably seen Mr. Hughes’ declaration in favour of Hare’s system2 & Francis Newman’s commendation of me for adhering to it.3 The cheaper editions also are going off at a wonderful rate & even the dear ones are increasing in sale. These are substantial advantages derived from the Westr contest whether it succeeds or not. I think it hardly possible that it should succeed. Though it has brought to light a most unexpected amount of good feeling by isolated individuals towards me personally, there is no set of political men who really wish to have me in Parlt: neither Whigs, nor Tories, nor the Bright radicals (though I hear that B. himself speaks in my favour), nor any other set of radicals except perhaps the Cooperative section of the working classes. Look at the list of subscribers for the election expenses: next to none of them are representative men. They are people from here, there, & everywhere who have happened to like my books. Many even who for personal reasons might have subscribed, hold back, evidently because their sets are hostile to me. This is what I always said would be the case. As Comte says, “tout ce qui est aujourd’hui classé” is sure to be hostile to really new ideas—a little shuffling of the cards is all they want.4
But enough of this. I am full of joy & spirits for the glorious future of America. The catastrophe of Lincoln though it was a great shock, does not cloud the prospect. How could one have wished him a happier death? He died almost unconsciously, in the fulness of success, & martyrdom in so great a cause consecrates his name through all history. Such a death is the crown of a noble life.
829.
TO WILLIAM FRASER RAE1
- Avignon
May 31. 1865
Dear Sir
The author of the paper “Nurses Wanted”2 offers an article on a very different subject, a notice of the new (and much improved) edition of Mr Hare’s book on Representation. The article3 is strongly in favour of Mr Hare’s system; which I suppose you do not object to, especially as any other contributor is free to take the opposite side. I think the writer brings out some important points very well, and will give an impression of novelty in the mode of treatment.
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
W. F. Rae Esq.
830.
TO CHARLES LORING BRACE1
[June, 1865]
Your remark2 is most just on the unworthiness of the conversions due only to success. Such conversions merely show the fundamental unworthiness of the original error. The disgust they occasion is one of the causes which make those who have fought an up-hill battle up to the hour of victory eager to go forward to something else, in which they will still have the low-minded and selfish part of mankind against them.
831.
TO ROWLAND G. HAZARD1
- Bagnols les Bains, Lozère
June 7, 1865
Dear Sir
I am writing to you from a little place in the mountains of Central France, where we are making a short excursion. I have not liked to write until I had read your treatise on Freewill.2 I have now done so, with great admiration in many respects, but I am unable to say that it has made any alteration in my opinion. It is very clearly thought and expressed, and draws some metaphysical distinctions which though quite correct are often disregarded, for instance, that fundamental one between volition and choice. There is great acuteness too in much of the polemic with Edwards,3 though I think that he might have found much to say in reply to it, and that you have sometimes refuted rather his expressions than his thoughts. But I do not find that your arguments in any way touch the doctrine of so-called Necessity as I hold it. You allow that volition requires the previous existence of two things, which the mind itself did not make, at least directly, nor, in most cases, at all: a knowledge, and a want. You consider as the peculiarity of a free cause, that its determinations do not depend on the past, but on a preconception of the future. But though the knowledge and the want refer to what is future, the knowledge and the want themselves are not future facts, but present, or rather past, facts, for they must exist previous to the volitional act. You seem to admit not only that the knowledge and want are conditions precedent to the will, but that the character of the will invariably corresponds to that of the knowledge and want, and that any variation in either of these determines, or at least is sure to be followed by, a corresponding variation in the volition. Now this is all that I, as a necessitarian, require. I do not believe in anything real corresponding to the phrases Necessity, Causal Force or the like. I acknowledge no other link between cause and effect, even when both are purely material, than invariability of sequence, from which arises possibility of prediction. And this it seems to me, on your own shewing, exists equally between volitions and the mental antecedents by which you allow that they are and must be preceded.
My own view of the subject you will find in a chapter of my book on Sir William Hamilton,4 which I hope reached you, and to which I must refer you for the arguments I have not room for here. Let me add, however, that on the subject, practically considered, I am at one with you. Your view of what the mind has power to do, seems to me quite just: but we differ on the question, how the mind is determined to do it.5
To turn to another subject, no less interesting to us both; you seem to have now a finance minister who understands currency,6 and the close of the war will render return to the right path comparatively easy. I look forward to the brightest future for America now, provided the North is not foolishly generous to its conquered enemies. It is quite indispensable to break the power of the Slaveholding oligarchy. Emancipation is not enough, without making the freed negroes electors and landholders, nor without reinforcing them by a large migration of northern people into the southern states. Otherwise the negroes will remain in a state of dependence on their old masters approaching to slavery, and both they and the mean whites will be kept ignorant and brutish as they have been kept hitherto. I would not shrink from extensive confiscation if it were necessary for these purposes, but doubtless the impoverishment of the great landholders, and their disgust with the new state of things, will cause a great number of the large estates to be sold and broken up, a thing eminently desirable. Probably the indignation of your whole people at the atrocious crime which robbed the world of your noble President, added to the known opinions and determined character of his successor, may tend to diminish the risk of any undue indulgence being shown to those who, like dethroned despots, will be always hankering after their lost power. It is only the next generation of them who can possibly become true citizens of a free nation.
I am Dear Sir
very sincerely yours
J. S. Mill
R. G. Hazard Esq.
832.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Mende, Lozère
June 8. 1865
Dear Chadwick
I am extremely sorry that your two letters were not answered immediately, owing to their having arrived a day or two after we had set out on an excursion in the mountains. They have been forwarded to me here, along with a letter from Mr Beal, to whom I have by this post sent a reply, which he will no doubt communicate to you. I have told him that I am decidedly for proceeding in the way first proposed,2 and submitting your name to the electors with those of all the candidates, and that it would not be just to you to ask you to forgo such claims as you possess, without having laid them before the electors and obtained their decision. The talk about dividing the liberal interest is quite inapplicable to the course proposed, in which it is implied that neither you nor I will be nominated if the result of the appeal to the electors shews that we have fewer supporters than Grosvenor and Smith. I need not repeat what my own wishes are, and that I would much rather you were elected than myself. But that is not the question: it is for the electors to shew their preference, and for us, or rather our supporters, to withdraw our names if any other candidates in the liberal interest are preferred to us.
I have revised your address,3 not as to matter, but as to style, in which it was very defective, and sometimes even unintelligible, from haste. The contents of it (and it is an understatement of your public services) ought to suffice for your election by any constituency in the country. If the public were not so much inured to seeing any petty consideration prevail over personal fitness they would feel it a national disgrace that you are not in Parliament.
Ever, dear Chadwick,
yours truly
J. S. Mill
833.
TO GEORGE GROTE1
- Mont Dore les Bains
June 18. 1865
My dear Grote
Many thanks for the two sheets, which were waiting for me at Mende along with your letter. The chapter on the Leges2 is less interesting than most of the others, because the subject is less so: its inferiority, in fact, was the main point to bring out. The two concluding chapters,3 on the other hand, are equal in interest to almost anything in the work; especially the account of the Megarics, Kyrenaics &c. of whom I previously knew very little. I hope to be able to make a useful article on the book:4 but when I spoke of giving an intellectual outline of Plato from your materials, I meant from your thoughts: not that I had attained any higher point of view than yours, but that I hoped to reproduce yours in a condensed form.
I hope you have seen Mark Pattison’s review of you in the Reader.5 He contests the question of the Platonic canon with you, or rather, promises to contest it. I fancy he reckons the history of philosophy one of his own strong points; which it certainly is not, since he can speak of Aristotle as a mere pupil of Plato. I was pleased, however, as well as surprised, to find him so eulogistic of the book in every other respect. He had just before written a review of my Hamilton in which he equally surprised me by the extent of his adhesion.6
How valuable to me is your approbation of the Hamilton I need not say. The opinion you express of it comes up to my highest hopes. I have been amused by some of the discussions respecting it which have been evoked by the stimulus of the Westminster affair. I learn from the Spectator,7 that the Morning Advertiser8 (à propos of the chapter on Mansel’s Bampton Lectures)9 declares that I am not only an athetist, but have on this occasion put forth my atheism in a form the most revolting which the editor of that paper has ever met with: and the Record10 says I am the chief of the Satanic School in England at present. The Spectator, on the contrary, says the principal value of the book is the logical; that the passages in question are the true language of prophets and apostles: and in the same number in which it attacks and protests against the philosophy of the book, makes a hearty and vigorous defence of its religion: saying at the same time that it has never been able to find out what my private religious opinions are, and that nobody has any right to pry into them. All this is pretty much as I expected, and wished.
I am writing to you from a beautiful place, in the heart of a valley which is an old crater, surmounted by summits between 6 and 7000 feet above the sea, though only from 3 to 4000 above the plateau of Central France. The interior of the crater is filled up with the loveliest pastures and forests. We have enjoyed our tour very much, and have not been indulged with a single rainy day, or even hour, in which to get on with Plato. I hope to see you in the early part of next month.
With our kind regards to Mrs Grote
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
834.
TO CHARLES WESTERTON1
Clermont-Ferrand, June 21 [1865]
Dear Sir—
I very much regret that your letter and telegraphic message were not answered as promptly as I should have wished, they having had to be forwarded to me here. I have no objection whatever to attend meetings of the Committee, or even of the electors, other than those which I stated in my answer2 to a letter which Mr Chadwick wrote to me on the subject, at the request as I understood, of the Committee. But I confess the reason you now give for desiring me to come over and meet the Committee, operates on my mind the reverse way. I should never, for my own part, think of taking any notice of a charge of irreligion brought by the Record3 or the M. Advertiser.4 They are ready to bring such a charge against the most pious man in England if he does not agree in their narrow minded & thoroughly unChristian notions of religion and my attending a meeting just at present would scarcely promote the purpose for which you suggest it, since I should positively and deliberately refuse to allow myself to be interrogated on any subject whatever of purely religious opinion. I do this on principle. I conceive that no one has any right to question another on his religious opinions; that the tree ought to be judged, and only can be judged, by its fruits; and I hold myself bound, not for my own sake, for it is my practice to speak my opinions very plainly, but for the sake of future candidates, not to do any thing that may facilitate raising a religious cry against a person who may be unassailable as a politician, on evidence extorted from his own mouth. The case is different as to my expressed opinions. Whatever I have written and published I stand by, and am ready to defend; and I defy any one to point out in my writing a single passage that conflicts with what the best religious minds of our time accept as Christianity. The passage which, I am informed, the Record and the Advertiser have fastened upon, I maintain to be one of the most religious and Christian expressions of feeling in all recent literature. I am not alone in this opinion. Among many others, one of the most eminent of the Bench of Bishops declares in a letter in the Spectator of June 17,5 that the sentence in question breathes the purest spirit of Christian morality; and the Spectator itself (a most religious paper) had said a fortnight before,6 of the same sentence, that it speaks the true language of Prophets and Apostles. Such expressions as these it would not become me to use; but I am not afraid that your judgment, or that of any rational person who reads the passage and the context fairly, would pronounce it other than Christian, in the truest sense. I am not aware that Mr Mansel’s theology7 is the same thing with religion, or that to say that I will worship no God but a good God is to be an atheist.—You are at full liberty to make any use you please public or private, of this letter.
Any letter to me had better be addressed to Avignon, as I am about to return there, and thence very shortly to England.
Charles Westerton, Esq.
835.
TO CHARLES WESTERTON1
[June 21, 1865]
Dear Sir—
When I wrote to you this morning I had not yet received your letter of the 17th inst. written in the name of the Committee and requesting a personal interview. In reply I beg to say that I shall be happy to attend the Committee on any day they may appoint after I arrive in England. In the meantime I beg to say that with regard to the plan of addressing the electors by circular, as on every other matter connected with the election, it rests with the Committee alone to decide; and I regard it simply as an additional mark of courtesy and consideration towards myself, that they should have sought any consultation with me on the subject. Not taking any of the usual burthens of a candidate, I have no claim to the privileges of one. It is but reasonable that those who take all the trouble should freely determine on their own judgment the course to be pursued. I did not volunteer the proposal of submitting various names to the constituency, as a suggestion of my own; I understood it to be included in the original scheme of which my nomination was a part; and thinking the plan an excellent one, both in itself and as an example, I expressed strongly the approbation which I felt. My opinion on the subject is not changed; I still think that it would have been highly desirable to adopt this course in the first instance. The Committee, however, are of opinion that the time has gone by for it, and that it would not be suitable to the present state of affairs. They have a perfect right to act on their own judgment; and were they even to carry courtesy so far as to postpone their judgment to mine, to accept such an act of abnegation would be to take the conduct of the election out of their hands, which I am as little inclined as entitled to do. Any discussion between us, therefore, on this matter, I regard as merely an affair of friendly explanation, and not of a practical character. I shall be at Blackheath Park on the 6th of July,2 and I shall hold myself at the disposal of the Committee any day and hour afterwards, except the evening of the 7th for which I have a positive engagement.3
836.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Brioude
June 22. 1865
Dear Chadwick
Your letters of the 15th and 16th followed me to Clermont, and along with them I received an urgent letter from Mr Westerton (with a telegraphic message which had preceded it) urging emphatically the necessity of my coming over at once on account of the accusations of atheism made against me by the Record and the Morning Advertiser.2 I thought so much sensitiveness to such attacks from such quarters of very bad augury; and not choosing to submit to being catechized on my religious belief, I wrote to Mr Westerton as follows: [Here JSM copies Letter 834].
By the next day’s post I received a further letter from Mr Westerton as Chairman of the Committee requesting on their part a personal interview with me for the purpose of explaining to me how they had endeavoured to adopt my plan (as he called it) of addressing the electors by circular, and why they were now of opinion that altered circumstances render it desirable to abandon the plan. I do not see what answer I could give to this except that it was their affair, not mine; that having been asked my opinion I had given it, and that it is unchanged; but that I am not a candidate, and have no right or wish to take the management of the election into my own hands. I therefore wrote the following letter: [Here JSM copies Letter 835].
My private opinion is, that they made a mess of the matter, and spoiled their chances of great public good and great honour to themselves, by not acting on the plan at first; but that they have let the time go by; that they would stultify themselves by adopting it now, and (especially after Shelley’s retirement)3 would bring on themselves bitter reproaches for dividing the liberal interest, which they are not the men to be capable of facing. My opinion of them is greatly lowered, and I doubt much if they have it in them to bring in even one candidate. Mr Beal is evidently not a typical, but a much too favourable specimen of them.
If you decide to start independently, I will subscribe, as I said. I do not think either of us will be elected. I would at present lay considerable odds on Grosvenor and Smith.
The details in your letters interest me very much and some of them are really important, for purposes much beyond this election.
I am Dear Chadwick
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
Of course this letter is private, and only for yourself.
837.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Avignon
June 26. 1865
Dear Chadwick
A very urgent letter which I have received this morning from Mr Westerton seems to make it necessary that I should return immediately, as it is due to those who have taken so much trouble about me that I should not give them the impression that for my own convenience I expose them to the probable frustration of all their endeavours. I shall therefore be at Blackheath next Friday morning, and shall probably see Mr Westerton and perhaps the Committee on the same day.2 I shall apparently be obliged to attend also a meeting of the electors, though by doing so I shall in some degree alter the original character of my candidature, which I had wished to preserve.
As I expect to see you so soon, I need not touch on any other topic.
Ever, dear Chadwick
yours truly
J. S. Mill
838.
TO CHARLES WESTERTON1
- Avignon
June 26, 1865.
Dear Sir
Your letter, which I have just received, leaves me no alternative but to comply with the wish which you so strongly express. I will therefore return to England immediately, and shall arrange so as to arrive early on Friday the 30th.
I shall be happy to attend the Committee or to call on you personally on that or any following day, if you will kindly write to Blackheath Park fixing the place and time.
I am Dear Sir
Very truly yours
J. S. Mill.
Charles Westerton Esq.
839.
TO CHARLES WESTERTON1
- Blackheath Park
June 30. 1865
Dear Sir
Having been informed by you that a proposal has been received from Capt. Grosvenor’s Committee, for a personal conference between Capt. Grosvenor and five members of his Committe on the one part, and myself and five members of your Committee on the other, to discuss the possibility of cooperation between the two bodies; I beg to say, that I can have no objection whatever to a conference between the two Committees for the proposed purpose, but that I cannot personally take any part in it. I have from the first declared that I am not a candidate, in the ordinary sense of the term; that I do not offer myself to the electors, but that, if thought worthy of the honour of being elected, I will do my best to serve them. To engage personally in a negociation with another candidate, would be not only to assume the character which I have disclaimed but to take into my own hands, in a certain degree, the management of the election. That management must rest, as it has hitherto done, wholly with your Committee; with whose judgment respecting the mode of conduct which most conduces to the furtherance of the liberal interest, I have neither the wish nor the right to interfere.
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Charles Westerton Esq.
840.
TO HARRIET ISABELLA MILL1
- Blackheath Park
July 2, 1865
Dear Harriet
I duly received your packet, but thought it best to put off signing the document till I got my signature witnessed in London. Having now done so, I dispatch it to Mr. Paterson2 by the first post.
There is no occasion to send stamps.
I am glad that you have got to the end of your troubles in this matter.
J.S.M.
841.
TO EDWIN ARNOLD1
- Blackheath Park
July 6, 1865
Dear Sir
I am very much indebted to you for your note, as well as for your most energetic and most valuable support. I did not get the note until I had finished my speaking for the evening2 except in answer to questions. If any one had come, as I fully expected, primed with questions out of the Morning Advertiser,3 I was prepared to enter upon the subject you mention.4 But as no one said anything about it, I thought it best to say nothing either. If I should be troubled on the subject at any of the other meetings I have to attend (which does not now seem likely) I shall be ready to face the assailants. But (thanks partly to you) I have now such a multitude of defenders5 that they would carry me through almost any attacks—saying and doing much more for me than I should choose to say or do for myself.
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Edwin Arnold Esq.
842.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath
July 6. 1865
Dear Chadwick
Though I hope you have gone to Evesham, I write to say that when I went to the meeting yesterday evening,2 the Committee had already come to an arrangement with Grosvenor’s Committee,3 in the bona fides of which they seemed to have complete confidence so that there was nothing for me to do but to acquiesce in it. I had copies made of the draft of my speech, but as the reports of the previous meeting4 were so satisfactory, I made no use of them, and those of this morning give me no reason to regret that I did not. You will have seen in the Daily News, and doubtless in the Telegraph,5 the onslaught I made on the money power. The Times report,6 though otherwise good, has cut down, or rather cut out, all that related to that subject. I have to speak at meetings tonight, Saturday, and Monday. Happily Monday’s must be the last.7 The meeting was very enthusiastic, and every one seemed very confident. Qui vivra verra. I shall only believe in success when I see it; and, success or not, shall always regret that the original plan was not tried. The probable loss of some liberal seats even metropolitan ones, through too many or bad candidates, will make the liberal managers see what they ought to have done when it is too late to retrieve the error. I am
Dear Chadwick
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
843.
TO W. L. HARVEY1
Blackheath-park, July 13 [1865]
Dear Sir,—
The suggestion2 you make of an optional secrecy of voting has been made before, but it has always appeared to me to be liable to all the objections against the ballot without having its advantages; since an elector who asked for the ballot would, by doing so, be considered to declare that he intended to vote in opposition to the influence exerted over him; and the influence which is strong enough to induce him to vote against his convictions would be strong enough to compel him to give his vote openly as long as he had the option of doing so. Electors who are tradesmen may be some times exposed to coercive influence from both sides; but in that case I should expect that both sides, or at all events the one which thought itself strongest, would insist on the elector’s voting openly, in order that they might know whether they could depend on him.
You are at liberty to publish my letter.
I am, dear Sir, very faithfully yours,
J. S. Mill
844.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1
Blackheath Park, July 13, 1865
Dear Sir—
. . . In spite of Mr. Hill’s drawing back about the Wolverhampton Plate-Lock Makers,2 the papers which have been sent to me from both sides, and especially the report of the correspondent of “Aris’s Birmingham Gazette,”3 confirm me in my opinion that the Co-operators are wholly in the right.
I am, dear Sir, very truly yours,
J. S. Mill
845.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Blackheath
July 14 / 65
Dear Sir
Would this day week Friday the 21st, suit you and Mrs Cairnes for coming here about 12 o’clock and going with us to Chiselhurst returning here to dinner? If Mr Conway2 would do us the favour of accompanying you, he would see some very pretty country of the English type, and would give me the pleasure I much desire of seeing and conversing with him.
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
846.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- Blackheath
July 14, 1865
Dear Sir
To begin with the most pressing—there does not exist any photograph of me; but I have been so urged to have one taken, that I have been obliged to make up my mind to it, and I promise that you shall have one of the very first copies.2
I cannot thank you enough for the trouble you have taken in sending me such a number of cuttings from newspapers &c which I should not otherwise have seen, and for which even in a pecuniary sense I must be considerably your debtor. We are hoping to see you and Mrs Plummer very soon but are still so overloaded with occupations we cannot put off, that we have not been able yet to fix a day when we can ask you to give us that pleasure.
In haste
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
847.
TO WILLIAM GEORGE WARD1
[After July 17, 1865]
It gives me much pleasure that you sympathise so completely with me on the subject of the Westminster election. That you were sure to feel with me as to the passage of my book for which I have been attacked,2 I could not doubt after reading your book on Nature and Grace.3 Let me add that (whatever may be my opinion of Ultramontanism) I know far too much both of your writings and of yourself to be in any danger of mistaking you for a ‘bigot.’4 Few people have proved more fully than you not only their endeavour but their ability to do ample justice to an opponent.
[Mill wrote also at considerable length on the Galileo case,5 and the essay was partially recast in deference to his criticism.]
848.
TO JANE MILL FERRABOSCHI1
- Blackheath Park
July 18, 1865
Dear Jane
Though extremely busy, I write these few words to thank you for your congratulations,2 and to wish you, though it is past the day, many happy returns of your birthday. I am quite well, and am glad to hear a good account of your health and that of all your family. The cause of my not having called on you is that it is many years since I have passed more than a few hours at Paris. I regretted that some time ago when you were in England, my absence prevented me from seeing you. Helen desires her kind regards.
J.S.M.
849.
TO HENRY FRANKS1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
July 21, 1865.
Dear Sir—
I have been prevented by much occupation from sooner acknowledging your letter dated the 14th.
The difficulty which you feel I understand to be this: how is the opinion that Christianity might have been extinguished by persecution, compatible with the belief that God intended & preordained that Christianity should subsist?2 I conceive there is no inconsistency between the two opinions. If Xtianity would have perished had it been persecuted in a certain manner, if God had preordained that it shd not perish, the reasonable inference is that God preordained that it should not be persecuted in that manner. The preservation of Xtianity thus brought about would be no “accident” but part of the divine plan.
The relation between means & ends is quite compatible with a providential government of human affairs. It is only necessary to suppose that God, when he willed the end, willed the means necessary to its accomplishment. If the Maker of all things intended that a certain thing should come to pass, it is reasonable to suppose that provision was made in the general arrangements of the universe for its coming to pass consistently with these arrangements.
850.
TO THE REV. WILLIAM HENRY LYTTELTON1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
July 21. 1865
Dear Sir—
I thank you most sincerely for your Tract2 which I have read with very great pleasure & sympathy. Though I had read several papers belonging to the same series & was well acquainted with your name & character I had not happened to see this tract. You had a strong case & you have stated it well & effectively, & above all, like one who feels its importance. I cannot conceive how any other view than that which you take, of the question raised by Mr Mansel,3 can be deemed religious, or Christian; & I felt sure that in maintaining, from my own point of view, the same conception of religious duty, I shd be in complete sympathy with the best part of the religious world—using that phrase in its literal & not in its slang acceptation. Accordingly the manner in which so many of the greatest ornaments of the C[hurch] of E[ngland] lately came forward4 to share the responsibility of a doctrine which coming from me was called atheistic & satanic,5 did not cause me half so much pleasure from its connexion with myself as because it so fully justified the perfect confidence I had in their high feelings & principles. It causes me no surprise but additional pleasure that you so fully participate in the same convictions & sentiments.
I return as desired your letter in the Guardian6 with thanks for the pleasure it has given me.
851.
TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE1
- Blackheath Park
July 23. 1865
My dear Sir
Allow me, in thanking you for your kind congratulations on the result of the Westminster election, to congratulate in my turn, not you, but the electors of South Lancashire,2 on having placed themselves in the honourable position which another constituency has so unwisely relinquished. Though your reelection for the University under the new circumstances would have been, both personally and publicly, a great triumph, the opposite result is not any real loss, it being obvious to everybody that, but for the new mode of voting, you would have been returned by a large majority. If the temporary check to the Liberal party had indicated a retrograde movement at Oxford, it would have been a serious matter. But the country knows that the real University, the resident members of the body, are clear of the discredit of this party move, and that, with them, you are stronger than ever. It is even possible that this disappointment, by stimulating the Liberal party in the University to increased exertions, may ultimately be as great a help to the cause of improvement as even your reelection would have been.
I am My dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
852.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- Blackheath
July 25, 1865
Dear Sir
I hope to be able to give you a photograph soon, but I have not yet received a proof from the artist. As soon as I have a likeness in a state to be sent to you I will send it.
Hoping to see you and Mrs Plummer on Sunday I am
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
853.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN1
- Blackheath Park
July 28, 1865
Dear Sir
Many thanks for your note.
My usual conditions with my publishers are the ordinary half profit plan for a single edition—the number of copies to be at the discretion of the publisher and the copyright to remain with me. This is what I should propose for the Comte papers, if agreeable to Mr Trübner.2 I should wish to revise the articles before they are sent to the printer.
I shall be very glad to hear of any further applications of your discovery.3 If it proves applicable to cholera, it will be still more important than it is already shewn to be. I am
Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
854.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- Blackheath
July 28 [1865]
Dear Sir
I wrote last Sunday to ask if you and Mrs Plummer would do us the pleasure of dining with us next Sunday July 30 at six o’clock. I have since received a note from you and not being sure when yours was written, do not know whether you have received mine. I should be glad to know whether we may count on the pleasure of seeing you.
I hope the photograph will soon be ready.
I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
855.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN1
- Blackheath Park
July 30. 1865
Dear Sir
I have been long under an engagement to review Mr Grote’s book for the Edinburgh2 —and shall scarcely have time to do that, much less to write another review also,3 before the meeting of Parliament. I sympathize much in your difficulty, as it is not easy to find writers who are sufficiently familiar both with Plato and with philosophy, without being full of wrong ideas on the latter, if not on both. I can think of no one who is not likely to have been already thought of by yourself. Have you asked Professor Bain?4
I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
856.
TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN1
- Blackheath
July 31, 1865
Dear Sir—
In revising my Logic for a new edition2 I have arrived at the places where your son pointed out an error—viz, in my numerical estimation of the probability arising from the addition of two independent improbabilities (Vol. 2. Ch. 23 § 6 of the third book). I find to my very great regret that I have mislaid the paper which contained the discussion of the point, and though I was convinced at the time, I have not been able to reason out for myself the estimation of the compound probability in the case supposed. Though I greatly regret giving you the trouble, I should feel it a great favour if you would kindly put on paper the few sentences which would be sufficient to make me once more understand the matter as it really is.
I ought not to need this additional assistance but though it is my own fault, I think it better to ask for instruction on the subject than to go without it.
857.
TO HELEN TAYLOR1
- Penzance
- (Queen’s Hotel)
Wednesday [Aug. 2, 1865]
Thanks dear for taking the trouble to write an abstract of so many letters. None of them need be sent, or need be answered till I come back, except Thornton’s.2 To him I will write tonight or tomorrow & I quite agree with you about not taking any notice of Smith’s letter.3 It is very possible that the creature thinks he has not committed any corruption, for that sort of person squares his conscience by the law, entirely.
I rather think I shall not return till Monday, but I will write again to say. Irvine4 seems rather inclined to stay on, and there is plenty to do botanically for a much longer time. We have been successful thus far—fine though showery weather (I have brought & worn a waterproof) & plenty of plants but I have not been so well as I expected to be having had diarrhoea which is going off but has not quite left me. I cannot write more as I am keeping Irvine from his dinner to save the post.
Yours ever affectionately
J.S.M.
858.
TO RICHARD CONGREVE1
- B[lackheath] P[ark].
Aug. 8. 1865
Dear Sir—
It is precisely because I consider M. Comte to have been a great thinker, that I regard it as a duty to balance the strong & deeply felt admiration which I express for what I deem the fundamental parts of his philosophy by an equally emphatic expression of the opposite feeling I entertain towards other parts.2 It is M. Comte himself who, in my judgment, has thrown ridicule on his own philosophy by the extravagances of his later writings; & since he has done so, I conceive that the mischief can only be corrected if those who desire to separate the first from the last, shew that they are as much alive to the ridiculous side of his character & speculations as those are who are unable to appreciate his greatness. Unless this separation can be effected, either the absurdities will weigh down the merits or the merits will float the absurdities, & since many of those last are, in my estimation, of such a kind that if it were impossible to laugh at them it would be necessary to denounce them seriously & severely, I am glad that the former side of the alternative is possible. Forgive the freedom with which I express what I know must appear to you not only error & prejudice, but want of due modesty & reverence. But any weaker terms would not put you in full possession of what I feel in the matter, on which feeling must rest the justification of the tone of the article. In saying that the offence I feared I might give would be unintentional I did not mean that it would be unforeseen, but only that such a consequence of my free speaking on the subject would be one which I shd sincerely regret. I earnestly disclaimed, near the beginning of the second article, any feeling but that of respect towards M. Comte’s persistent disciples, and I am bound to acknowledge the extreme courtesy of your letter, in circumstances which would have excused in my eyes some vehemence of language.
859.
TO GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE1
- Blackheath Park
Aug. 8. 1865
Dear Sir
I have to thank you for three or four notes which want of time prevented me from answering when I received them. I congratulate you on the triumphant return of Mr Cowen for Newcastle,2 and I regret that the attacks on you should have prevented the realization of your hopes in regard to the Secretaryship.3
The Affirmation Bill4 must not be suffered to drop in consequence of Sir John Trelawny’s absence from the House.5 His non-election is one of the greatest of the few losses which advanced opinions have sustained in this Parliament.
I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
860.
TO THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY1
- Blackheath Park
Aug. 8. 1865
Dear Sir
I suppose that the projected International Education Society2 is intended to carry out the plan concerning which a good deal has been written by Professor Lorimer of Edinburgh.3 The idea seems to me a good one, but I should hardly place it in the foremost rank of the improvements which require to be made in education, and in any case I could not afford to give any time to it, or incur any responsibility. I do not know whether being one of the Vice Presidents would imply more than a general good opinion of the undertaking, grounded on confidence in some of the names of the list of Directors.
I should like also to know more precisely what attitude the mode of education will hold towards Theology.4
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Professor Huxley
861.
TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN1
- Blackheath Park
Aug. 9. 1865
Dear Sir
Your letter is clear and conclusive, and, together with my own letter grounded on your previous one,2 makes the truth perfectly obvious in the case to which they apply, viz. the comparative probabilities of the different causes which may have produced a known effect. But it is not quite so easy to apply the same principle to cases in which there is no known effect to be accounted for, but the antecedent probability of an unknown fact is to be estimated from mere statistics. Take the case in its most general form, as it stands in my book: Two of every three As are Bs, three of every four Cs are Bs, what is the probability that something which is both an A and a C is a B?3
The beginning of the argument runs smoothly enough. If the thing is a B, something must be true which is only true twice in every thrice, and something else which is only true thrice in every four times, and this coincidence will only happen six times in twelve. If the thing is not a B, something must be true which is only true once in every thrice, and something else which is only true once in every four times, and this coincidence will only happen once in twelve times; making the comparative probabilities six to one. But what becomes of the other five cases in this statement? In the case of the two witnesses these five cases are put out of count, being cases in which the two witnesses give opposite testimonies, which in the case in question it is known they have not done. But what is the equivalent of this exclusion in the more general theorem? It seems to me that in this, the a posteriori falsity is replaced by an a priori impossibility, since the remaining five cases, implying that the thing is both B and not B, involve a contradiction.
There is something, to my mind, a little louche about this reasoning, which makes me wish for your sanction to it before I make use of it. Is there not something absurd in a theory of 12 possible cases of which 5 turn out impossible? In the case of the witnesses, the five cases are not impossible, but it is merely known that the particular instance is not one of them. But in the general form of the theorem it would seem as if there were twelve cases, in six of which one thing is true; in one, another thing; and in the remaining five, nothing.
I thank you for your kind wishes about my health. No doubt I shall be fully occupied with Parliament during the session, but I hope by keeping out of engagements, to be able to work at other subjects in the vacation. My safeguard is that I have no taste for what is called society; which is the grand consumer of time, energy, and in my case, of animal spirits. As I do not mean to let myself be drawn into that, I hope to have a fair average amount of leisure like other people.
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
862.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- Blackheath Park
Aug. 11. 1865
Dear Sir
I have now the pleasure of enclosing two carte photographs either of which I give my full consent to your employing, for the purpose of Cassell’s Family Paper.2
I also enclose the very droll letter which you received from North Wales. If you are often expected to communicate universal knowledge by return of post, your duty will be an onerous one. The impatience of your correspondent must have been great, since he could not even wait for an answer in the paper. I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
863.
TO HERBERT SPENCER1
- Blackheath Park
Aug. 12. 1865
Dear Sir
When I received your article in the Fortnightly Review,2 the reprint of my book on Hamilton was too far advanced to admit of any correcting at the proper place the misconception which you pointed out in p. 536 of the Review. I consequently added a note at the end of the volume, of which, in case you have not seen it, I enclose a transcript.
I do not find that the distinction between the two senses of the word inconceivable,3 removes or diminishes the difference between us. I was already aware that the inconceivability which you regard as an ultimate test, is the impossibility of uniting two ideas in the same mental representation. But, unless I have still further misunderstood you, you regard this incapacity of the conceptive faculty merely as the strongest proof that can be given of a necessity of belief. Your test of an ultimate truth I still apprehend to be the invariability of the belief of it, tested by an attempt to believe its negative.
I have, in my turn, to correct a partial misunderstanding of my own meaning. I did not assert that a belief is proved not to be necessary by the fact that some persons deny its necessity, but by the fact that some persons do not hold the belief itself; which opinion seems as evident as the other would be absurd.4
On the main question between us your chief point seems to be, that the Idealist argument is reduced to nonsense if we accept the idealist conclusions, since it cannot be expressed without assuming an objective reality producing, & a subjective reality receiving, the impression.5 The experience to which our states of mind are referred, is, ex vi termini, (you think) experience of something other than states of mind. This would be true if all states of mind were referred to something anterior; but the ultimate elements in the analysis I hold to be themselves states of mind, viz—sensations, memories of sensations, and expectations of sensation. I do not pretend to account for these, or to recognize anything in them beyond themselves and the order of their occurrence; but I do profess to analyze our other states of consciousness into them. Now I maintain that these are the only substratum I need postulate; and that when anything else seems to be postulated, it is only because of the erroneous theory on which all our language is constructed, and that if the concrete words used are interpreted as meaning our expectations of sensations the nonsense and unmeaningness which you speak of do not arise.
I quite agree with you, however, that our difference is “superficial rather than substantial”,6 or at all events, need not and does not affect our general mode of explaining mental phenomena. From the first I have wished to keep the peace with those whose belief in a substratum is simply the belief in an Unknowable. You have said what you deemed necessary to set yourself right on the points which had been in controversy between us. I am glad you have done so, and am now disposed to let the matter rest. There will probably be other and more hostile criticisms, by Mansel and others, and if I should think it desirable to reply to them, I could on the same occasion make some remarks on yours, without the appearance of antagonism which I am anxious to avoid.
I am, Dear Sir,
very truly yours,
J. S. Mill
Since writing this I have seen a clever article in today’s Saturday Review7 which takes my side of the question against yours. It is pleasant to see these abstract questions really and intelligently discussed in a popular periodical.
864.
TO EDWARD WILSON1
- Blackheath Park
Aug. 13. 1865
Sir
I beg to acknowledge your letter of Aug. 2 respecting Parliamentary Reform and representation of minorities, and to say that I shall be happy to read the pamphlet2 you mention when it reaches me, which it has not yet done.
I am Sir
yours very faithfully
J. S. Mill
Edward Wilson Esq
865.
TO JAMES BEAL1
- Blackheath Park
Aug. 14. 1865
Dear Sir
In consequence of the wish expressed by many of my friends in Westminster to have my likeness, I have sat to a photographer, and the result is the inclosed cartes of which allow me to request your acceptance. It will therefore be unnecessary that I should comply with the proposals made by Mr Mayall2 and by the Stereoscopic Society.3
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
James Beal Esq.
866.
TO THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY1
- Blackheath Park
August 18, 1865
Dear Sir
From what you say of the projected School2 I feel no doubt that it will be a good thing, and deserving of support; but I do not see how, with my opinions, I could publicly associate myself as a special supporter and recommender, with any school in which theology is part of the course; for assuredly I do not think that theology ought to be taught in any school; and there are, even at present, schools (the Birkbeck schools)3 in which none is taught; though I am not aware of any schools of that sort for the higher and middle classes, unless it be the London University College School,4 which, I believe is only a day school. It might be useless, in the present state of the public mind to propose such schools, and it may be quite right to support others; but I do not feel that that justifies me in holding myself forth as approving, and partly founding, schools in which a principle I wholly condemn is even partly recognised and acted on. I must wait, therefore, to know more of the actual plan of the institution in this respect, before I can judge how far and in what way I can join in promoting its establishment.
When I said that our educational system needs other modifications still more than it needs the due introduction of modern languages and physical science,5 what I had chiefly in view was improvements in the mode of teaching. It is disgraceful to human nature and society that the whole of boyhood should be spent in pretending to learn certain things without learning them. With proper methods and good teachers boys might really learn Greek and Latin, instead of making believe to learn them, and might have ample time besides for science and for as much of modern languages as there is any use in teaching to them while at school. And if science were taught as badly as Greek and Latin are taught, it would not do their minds more good.
I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
867.
TO JOHN BOYD KINNEAR1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
Aug. 19. 1865
Dear Sir—
Having a strong impression that I shd like the book which you did me the favour to send,2 I delayed writing to thank you for it until I shd have had time to read it through.
I have now done so & I not only agree with far the greater part of the opinions expressed but consider the book as of permanent value & shall keep it by me for reference, especially on points connected with our military & naval system, & with law reform.
The chief points on which I differ from you are
1st. I think you ascribe too great influence to differences of race & too little to historical differences & to accidents as causes of the diversities of character & usage existing among mankind.3
2dly. I cannot join with you (glad as I shd be to do so) in thinking that the wages-receiving class, if universally enfranchised would have no class feelings or class opinions as such.4 The fact that the operative classes are divided on many questions of politics & legislation is equally true of the higher, or the middle class, of landholders, or of capitalists, & is as consistent in the one case as in the other with their holding together as a compact body in cases in which their joint interest is or seems to be involved, or in which any bias arising from their common social position is liable to operate.
I am heartily glad to welcome you as an adherent of a reading & writing qualification. We agree in thinking that this, combined with independence of public charity, should entitle to a vote. I do not find any notice in your book of the principle of representation of minorities or rather, representation of all instead of a number of local majorities. I cannot help wishing that your attention were drawn to a principle which besides its inherent justice and manifold expediency, would be the most important corrective, as I think, of the inconveniences liable to arise from universal suffrage even subject to the condition of reading and writing.
868.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
Aug. 22. 1865
Dear Sir
I have read your letter in the Economist.2 It is extremely well done, and I sympathize fully in your feelings, but it does not touch any of my difficulties.
I still think that the proper ground to take is to insist on keeping out of the Senate of the Queen’s University3 any person who is disaffected to the purpose for which that University was instituted, viz. mixed education.4 The Catholic party have a just claim to be represented in the choice of examiners, but none whatever to have a voice in the curriculum of study for any but their own institutions, or the conditions of a degree even for those. These are things to be decided only by the State. If necessary, the subjects of examination ought to be fixed, not by the body which confers degrees, but by the government, or even by act of parliament.
You are quite right to point out the bad consequences which are likely to follow the present concession,5 even if it cannot be with propriety refused. But the great point is, to insist that the particular scheme of education which the British nation has instituted because it thinks that (for Ireland) it is the best, shall continue to have fair play; and that the enemies of the scheme shall have no voice in deciding how it shall be carried out. This is also the utmost which there is any chance of obtaining; for the ministry cannot retract after the general election what they promised before it. They must either keep their promise, or resign.
I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
869.
TO GEORGE GROTE1
- Blackheath Park
Aug. 22. 1865
My dear Grote
I am sorry to say that this present day is the first time since I left Avignon on which I have been able to resume Plato. The whole time here, since I got clear of the election, has been occupied in preparing a new edition of the Logic;2 which I had hoped to be spared until December and January, when the article for the Edinburgh3 would be finished. But Longman came down on me unexpectedly with a peremptory demand; which I should not be much surprised, after all, to find had been premature. From this pressure, I have been obliged to get through the revision of the Logic in a more summary manner than I had hoped to do, and to content myself with alterations and additions to several chapters which I had once thought of rewriting altogether. I have limited myself to what was indispensable, but have given references to the book on Hamilton on points into which I could not enter at length. I read Professor Grote’s4 book carefully, but found speculations and criticisms much more vague and less tangible than I expected. Bain seemed to think that the objection to Noumena was important, and merited notice, but, as I understand it, it amounts to little. It is very well to say, why suppose an unknowable entity as the substratum of everything knowable, but the truth seems to be that the Professor merely, with Reid and Hamilton, believes this unknowable entity to be the knowable. Altogether I could make no use of the Exploratio for the improvement of my Logic, and have merely touched upon it briefly in a note.5
I have also (but this was a very slight business) revised the two articles on Comte for republication by Trübner as a small volume. I need hardly say how glad I am that you like them. The parallel which struck you between Comte in his old age and Plato in his, had impressed itself forcibly on my own mind.
I was very happy to infer from Mrs Grote’s letter to Helen, that the visit to Baden was benefitting her health. It is hardly to be expected that her recovery should be rapid from the state of prostration she seems to have been in. All will depend upon her being surrounded for a considerable time with the most favourable circumstances attainable. We are not likely either to see you and her before our departure or to encounter you on the Continent, as we go first to North Germany, and shall make a long though very rapid circuit before settling down to Avignon and Plato. There is now no other heavy work hanging over me before the meeting of Parliament, and the worst that can happen is that I may have to ask Reeve6 for an additional three months, so as to have the whole time up to February available.
Your doubts whether the new employment of so much of my time will on the whole be a good thing, answer to corresponding misgivings of my own. It will depend on what I find myself able to do in Parliament in the way of promulgating useful opinions and adding to improving influences. How much this will be, neither I nor anyone else can know beforehand, but it will be a positive duty for me to try my utmost. On the other point you speak of, the new influences brought to bear on the tone of my writings, I feel quite easy. Those new influences will have no effect at all. I consented to be elected on the footing of not modifying or keeping back a high opinion on account of its being unacceptable to the public or the electors. As much to my own astonishment as to that of others, I actually was elected on that footing, and nothing else that I said or did, had so much success at all the public meetings as that had. As for the social influences which so often corrupt or tame men when they go into Parliament, I shall protect myself against those by keeping out of their way.
An intelligent correspondent of mine in Greece, Mr Leonidas Sgouta,7 has sent me the inclosed appeal from the Archaeological Society of Athens to those in the Western countries who are interested in Grecian antiquities. You are at the central point of all such, and I cannot better promote the object than by sending the papers to you. I should be very glad to join with others in any subscription for the object.
Ever my dear Grote
Yours most truly
J. S. Mill
870.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath
Sept. 1. 1865
Dear Chadwick
I am obliged to you for drawing my attention to the official correspondence about the Low2 affair. I should otherwise have overlooked it.
Today, the very day before we leave, I have for the first time been able to look through the pamphlets and documents which you sent to me, and which I now return. Your address to the Social Science Assn is very good,3 and Lord Ebrington’s pamphlet4 is full of good things.
I send a few more of the photographs. If you write before the end of September, it will be best to direct here, as letters, (though not parcels) will be forwarded. After that time direct to Saint Véran, Avignon.
ever yrs truly
J. S. Mill
871.
TO WILLIAM MARTIN DICKSON1
- Blackheath Park, Kent,
Sept. 1, 1865.
Dear Sir
I am sincerely obliged to you for giving me an opportunity of reading the letter of General Cox,2 and your excellent paper in reply.3
You ask me for an opinion. I should hesitate very long before obtruding upon any American, and still more upon the American public, any mere opinion of mine respecting their internal concerns. But it is the concern of all mankind, almost as much as of the United States, that the conquests achieved by your great and arduous struggle should not be, in the very hour of victory, carelessly flung away: and the opinion which you do me the honor to ask is one which I share with so many of the noblest and wisest Americans, that I need have the less scruple in expressing it.
It is certainly some gain to the negroes, and to the principle of freedom, that they have been made even nominally free. I do not pretend that it is nothing, that they can no longer legally be bought and sold. But this is about the amount of all they will have gained, if the power of legislation over them is handed over once more to their old masters, and to the mean whites by whom they are despised as much, and probably hated more, than even by their masters, and who have been fighting these four years to retain them enslaved. If it were not for your State institutions, the case would not be so pressing, for those who have made them free could keep them so. But, once the war power laid down, and the regular course of State government restored, what is to prevent a State legislature chosen by their enemies from making laws under which, unless they resist by force, they will have as little the control of their own actions, as little protection for life, honor, and property, will in short be, except in a few of the outward incidents of slavery, almost as much slaves as before? To bring this about, it would not even be necessary to enact new laws. It would suffice to leave the old ones unrepealed, by which the testimony of a negro cannot be received against a white. Nay, even were these laws abrogated, nothing more would be needed than partiality and prejudice in the white courts of justice. And would it be consistent with ordinary human nature that such partiality and prejudice should not exist? All this is so evident that even the candidate to whose letter you so ably replied, is quite aware of it; and can suggest no means of averting the evil, except what I agree with you in regarding as the chimerical project, of effecting a local separation between the two races, excluding the negroes from the jurisdiction of the States, and giving them a territorial government apart. It is not to be believed that the President or Congress will entertain such a scheme as this seriously. If, then, they allow the Southern States to reorganize themselves and resume all their constitutional rights without negro suffrage, what is to be done? To abandon the negroes to the tender mercies of those from whom, at so terrible a cost, you have so lately rescued them? No party or set of men in the Free States are so shameless as to propose this combined turpitude and imbecility. But the freedom of the negroes and the self-government of the Southern States as at present constituted, cannot coexist: and if it is determined that, come what will, the former shall be a reality, it must be intended that the latter should be a mere pretence. A censorship will have to be exercised over all the acts, both legislative and administrative, of the State governments; the Federal authorities will by military coercion prevent or set aside all proceedings calculated to interfere with that equality of civil rights which they are bound by every consideration both of duty and of interest to secure to the freed race. And this military dictatorship will have to be continued for a very great length of time; for it is speaking within bounds to say that two generations must elapse before the habits and feelings engendered by slavery give place to new ones; before the stain which the position of slave master burns into the very souls of the privileged population can be expected to fade out.
This is the state of things which the policy now apparently acted on by the Federal Government leads to; but I have too high an opinion of the intentions and feelings of the President, and the practical good sense and determination of the American people, to believe that such a policy will be persevered in. It would be nothing less than electing to rule tyrannically over the whole Southern population, in order to avoid depriving the white half of that population of the power of tyrannizing over the black half.
Instead of restoring to the States lately in rebellion a nominal self-government which, unless you are willing to sacrifice all that has been gained by four years of civil war, can not be suffered to be real, would it not be better to make the self-government real, but to grant it only to a mixed community, in which the population who have been corrupted by vicious institutions will be neutralized by black citizens and white immigrants from the North?
And what is the hindrance to this in the minds of the President and his cabinet? Is it scruples about legality? To be scrupulous about exceeding his lawful powers, well becomes the first magistrate of a free people. But in this case the scruple seems wholly out of place. We are told that the rebel States must be assumed never to have been out of the Union, and therefore to be unconditionally entitled to all their original liberties and powers the moment they condescend to accept them. Reason would say, on the contrary, that by declaring themselves independent of the Union, they could not indeed, divest themselves of its obligations, but certainly forfeited its privileges. A state of civil war suspends all legal rights, and all social compacts, between the combatants. Except under the terms of a capitulation, defeated rebels have no rights but the universal ones of humanity. The Southern people, their lives, bodies, and estates, were by the issue of the war, placed at the discretion of their conquerors; but of conquerors whom both the general law of right, and the special principles of their own social and political institutions, forbid to exercise permanent dominion over any human beings as subjects, or on any other footing than that of equal citizenship. It would, however, be on the part of the Free States a generosity partaking of silliness, were they to give back to their bitter enemies not only power to govern themselves, and the negroes within their limits, but (through representatives in Congress,) to govern the Free States too, without first exacting such changes in the structure of Southern society as will render such a relation between them and the Free States rational and safe. If you have not a right to do this, you had not a right to impose the abolition of Slavery. Consider what an element you are going once more to admit into the supreme government of the Union. Think of this one thing—it is but one of many. Every Southern member of Congress, elected without negro suffrage, is a sure vote for that blackest and most disgraceful breach of faith, which would brand American democracy and popular government itself with a mark that would endure for generations—the repudiation of the war debt. The Southern representatives, in fact, would be the only members of Congress who could honestly vote for this; since to their minds, unless the Confederate debt is recognised too, it would seem only equal justice. This is of itself a sufficient reason why no community, composed exclusively or principally of those who have been engaged in the rebellion, is fit to have a voice in Congress. Of course the States have to be readmitted: to keep them out, and govern them as subjects, would be in contradiction to all the principles of the American or any other free constitution. But the future history of America perhaps for ages to come, depends (I cannot but think) upon your requiring them, before admission, to give guarantees to freedom, by admixture with fellow citizens whose interests and feelings are in unison with justice and with the principles of the Free States. Migration from the North will do this in time and in part, but only negro suffrage can do it sufficiently.
I have no objection to requiring, as a condition of the suffrage, education up to the point of reading and writing; but on condition that this shall be required equally from the whites. The poor whites of the South are understood to need education quite as much as the negroes, and are certainly quite as unfit for the exercise of the suffrage without it.
I am Dear Sir,
yours, very sincerely,
J. S. Mill
Hon. Judge Dickson
872.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Blackheath Park
Sept. 2. 1865
Dear Sir
The “middle course” which you seem to think not feasible2 would, I think, consist in making the Board which confers degrees totally distinct from any of the Colleges, and depriving it of all authority over them. Perhaps the best mode would be to place the whole affair under the University of London,3 appointing, as you suggest a few persons in the confidence of the Ultramontanes4 to seats in the Senate. If this is objected to, it seems to me that a similar body, named by the Government, and in which the Ultramontanes should be represented but not to the extent of half, should be created for Ireland. They are not entitled to half. The Catholic religion is entitled to half, but not any particular section of the Catholic body. The Government would merely in appointing Catholics take care to appoint some of the Ultramontane party, instead of taking care to exclude that party.
But I am afraid there is little chance of getting this, or anything like it, assented to by the Government or Parliament. Jacta est alea5 I fear. But there must be a stir made in the House, in which I hope to help.
We leave this evening (Saturday). It will be best to write to Blackheath Park up to the end of September; after that to Saint Véran, Avignon. In haste
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
872A.
TO GEORGE HOWELL1
- Berlin
Sept. 13. 1865
Dear Sir
I thank you sincerely for your letter and its enclosures.2 Your details are of importance by shewing that a strike, when extending to an entire trade, or even to a great part of it throughout the country, is sometimes remarkably successful. But you seem to argue that the benefit to the operators is not at the expense of the employers, being, I suppose, reimbursed to them by the increased price of the article in which they deal, being, in the present case, houses. Now this might, and often would, happen in a single trade, but you have not, perhaps, considered that it could not happen if the rise of wages extended to all, or the generality, of trades. I could shew that there could not possibly be, in that case, an equivalent rise of general prices. But I content myself with saying that even if there was, it would not compensate the employers, since a rise of price extending to all things is merely nominal. Besides, a rise of wages accompanied by an equivalent rise of all prices would be no benefit to the labouring classes.
I think you will find, on consideration, that though a partial rise of wages may be at the expense of the consumer, a general one is always at that of the employer; which however is far from being, with me, a reason for not desiring it. I am Dear Sir
Yours very sincerely
J. S. Mill
Mr George Howell
873.
TO JOHN BOYD KINNEAR1
- Munich
Sept. 25. 1865
Dear Sir—
Many thanks for your long & interesting letter. It is well that those who agree as much as we do shd occasionally discuss their points of difference, if only for the sake of suggesting to each other matter for further thought. I will therefore add a few words by way of rejoinder confining myself at present to your third point, the extension of the suffrage.2
My experience agrees with yours as to the greater mental honesty, & amenability to reason, of the better part of the working classes, compared with the average of either the higher or middle. But may not this reasonably be ascribed to the fact that they have not yet, like the others, been corrupted by power? The English working classes have had no encouragement to think themselves better than, or as good as, those who are more educated than themselves. But once let them become the ascendant power & a class of base adventurers in the character of professional politicians will be constantly addressing them with all possible instigations to think their own crude notions better than the theories & refinements of thinking people, & I do not deem so highly of any numerous portion of the human race as to believe that it is not corruptible by the flattery which is always addressed to power.
The vertical divisions of opinion which you speak of seem to me to belong to the past, & to be almost wholly the effect of bad laws, now mostly removed. Who ever thinks of opposition of interest or feeling between the agricultural & the trading classes now that the corn laws have been repealed?3 But the division between labourers & employers of labour seems to me to be increasing in importance, & gradually swallowing up all others, & I believe it will be always widening & deepening unless, or until, the growth of Cooperation practically merges both classes into one. And if either of the two powers is strong enough to prevail without the help of an enlightened minority of the opposite class, it seems to me contrary to all experience of human nature to suppose that it will not abuse its power. There is no considerable opposition of apparent interest among the different kinds of manual labourers. Even if there be any kind of them whose wages do not admit of being raised, which I for one do not believe (much less would they), they would still, I apprehend, vote for a law which they thought would raise the wages of others, since the rise would not be at their expense. Neither is it only on the question of wages, or hours of labour, that the poorest & most numerous class would feel a common interest as against the propertied classes; might they not be tempted to throw all taxes on property—or even on realised property—& to make the taxes heavy in order, by their outlay, to benefit as they might think, trade & labour? Does anyone think them sufficiently enlightened to have outgrown these fallacies? I am expressing all this very crudely for want of time & space, but “I speak as to wise men—judge ye what I speak.”4
I heartily wish you were in the H. of C. to speak there the whole of your book5 & many things besides. But perhaps the wish will appear to you like that of the fox who had lost his tail.
874.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Oct. 14, 1865.
Dear Sir
There has lately been forwarded to me from Blackheath a note from Mr Walford,2 one of the editors of “Once a Week”, saying that he had been asked to suggest a proper person to go out to India to edit a daily paper, with a good salary guaranteed for three years certain, a knowledge of commercial politics being one of the requisites. He wished to know whether I thought you qualified for such a post, as if so he should like to recommend you for it. I was in some difficulty in giving a distinct answer to Mr Walford’s question, from not knowing exactly what he meant by commercial politics, nor knowing completely what commercial questions you had attended to. I stated to him this difficulty, but said that I thought you quite competent to the editing and much of the writing of such a paper as he mentioned. I did not, however, say anything leading him to suppose either that you would, or that you would not, be likely to accept such a position, not knowing whether it would be more agreeable to you than your present one. I have heard nothing further from Mr Walford, but I think it as well to mention to you what has passed on the subject. It is at any rate an additional instance of a favourable impression made by you.
We are now here till the meeting of Parliament. With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer, I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
875.
TO WILLIAM FRASER RAE1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Oct. 18. 1865
Dear Sir
I have a strong impression that you are well qualified for the Professorship for which you propose offering yourself,2 but have some difficulty in specifying the grounds of that impression with the precision and detail desirable in a testimonial. I inclose a few lines, but I should not be surprised if they were quite insufficient to be of use to you.
I am sorry that you have had so serious an illness, but very glad that you have got so much better. Your letter is the first information I have had that you are no longer editor of the Reader. I have heard nothing of its affairs since I saw you beyond being invited to a meeting to ratify the sale to some one whose name I do not remember to have heard you mention.3 I was in hopes that in changing proprietors the paper would not have lost its Editor. I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
W. F. Rae Esq.
876.
TO MONCURE DANIEL CONWAY1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Oct. 23. 1865
Dear Sir
I cannot thank you enough for Mr Wendell Phillips’ admirable speeches.2 I was not aware that he was so thorough an adherent of not only representation of minorities, but what is much more, personal representation—the representation of every elector: that great idea of which the credit, though Mr Phillips seems to give it to me, is exclusively due to Mr Hare. It is hardly possible to state the merits of the principle more forcibly, or with a more thorough understanding of all its importance, than Mr Phillips has done. It is indeed at once a direct corollary from the first principles of democracy, and a most powerful corrective of all evils liable to arise from the forms of democratic government hitherto in use. That Mr Phillips should have taken it up, and in the manner he has, is most cheering and auspicious. I was not aware of the publication he mentions, and should like very much to see it.
I beg that you will express my warmest thanks to Mr Phillips for his correction of my unintentional misrepresentation of the Abolitionists—to whom, I hope I need not say that I meant no disparagement, having always regarded them as the élite of their country, not to say of their age. I have been much gratified by receiving so strong a confirmation, from such authority, of my opinion concerning Tocqueville, which I shall now hold with increased confidence.
I have not, however, been convinced by Mr Phillips’ argument against an educational qualification.3 It is very true that intelligence, and even a high order of it, may be formed by other means than reading, and even (though, I think, rarely) without the aid of reading: but not, I think, intelligence of public affairs, or the power of judging of public men, save perhaps in exceptional cases, too few to affect the practical conclusion. At the present crisis, however, the securing of equal political rights to the negro is paramount to all other considerations respecting the suffrage. I should be glad to think that you are strong enough to reject a compromise admitting negroes on an educational qualification common to them with the whites. As things look now, it seems as if even that would be a thing to be thankful for.
The author of the article “Enfranchisement of Women” would have been well rewarded by the progress which that question is making, had she lived to see it.4 Nothing would have gratified her more than to hear on such high authority that a cause to which she was so earnestly devoted had been in any degree forwarded in America by what she wrote.
I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Do you wish the two numbers of Mr Garrison’s paper5 to be returned?
877.
TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Oct. 25, 1865
Dear Sir
I have to thank you for three letters2 which have been reproaching me ever since they were forwarded from Blackheath. The one on probability I was obliged to lay by for reperusal. This I have now been able to give to it and I seem to myself to follow the reasoning and agree with it. You have probably observed the correction I made on the point in question in the new edition of my Logic.3 It will probably now require a supplementary one. If the edition were still unpublished I would have asked you for a short note with leave to insert it as yours.
I agree with you about the misuse of prepositions, but is “averse to” a case of it? Undoubtedly we ought to have said averse from; but did writers in any [era?] of English literature, say so?
When I refer to a former “book,” I always mean liber not opus. The confusion is only pardonable in conversation where the context usually clears it up.
I have sometimes thought I ought to have some mark for alterations and additions. But one could scarcely give distinctive marks to all the successive strata of new matter, and a mere note of distinction from the edition immediately previous would not answer the [purposes of] those readers who only possess a still earlier one.
I well remember our meeting long ago, on the occasion you refer to, and I have retained ever since a vivid impression of your personal appearance. By the way, the phrenological indications in your letter do not by any means tally with what knowledge I possess of my own character; but I refrain from saying in what they differ from it, as I am not [—?] to shew up my weak points.
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
878.
TO MAURICE WAKEMAN1
- Avignon
Oct. 25. 1865
Dear Sir—
Your letter dated Sept. 29 has been forwarded to me here. For the good opinion & good will which it expresses as regards myself I am duly thankful.2 You will scarcely be surprised that the bitter hostility it declares against my country & (with a few individual exceptions) against the whole of my countrymen, produces in me a very different sentiment.
No one disapproves more, or is in the habit of expressing his disapprobation more strongly than I do of the narrow, exclusive patriotism of former ages which made the good of the whole human race a subordinate consideration to the good, or worse still, to the mere power & external importance, of the country of one’s birth. I believe that the good of no country can be obtained by any means but such as tend to that of all countries, nor ought to be sought otherwise, even if obtainable. If my country were peopled, as you seem to think, by the scum of the earth, & if its existence were a standing nuisance to all other nations, I for one would shake the dust from my feet & seek a better country elsewhere. But, speaking as one who has never kept any terms with national vanity nor ever hesitated to tell his countrymen of their faults & who has especially censured the feelings & conduct of an influential portion of them on the occasion of your late glorious contest, I do not admit the charges brought against them in your letter. England is to the populations of Europe the representative, by no means perfect but still the representative, of the same principles of social & political freedom which Americans so justly cherish. Any weakening of her influence would be simply so much additional discouragement to popular institutions & to liberty of thought, speech, & action throughout the old continents, & strengthening of the hands of despotism, temporal & spiritual, all over the world.
A war between Great Britain & the United States, were such a calamity possible, would give a new lease to tyranny & bigotry wherever they exist, & would throw back the progress of mankind for generations. Let me remind you that what you say about the grasping disposition & aggressive spirit of the English Government & people, is exactly & literally what the ignorant and prejudiced part of the higher & middle classes of Great Britain sincerely think & say concerning America. In neither of the two cases is the accusation true: but the profound ignorance of each other which it exhibits in both countries, is a most serious danger & evil to the world, which all who wish well to mankind must earnestly desire to cure, & which can only be exagerated by the indulgence of such feelings as you express.
879.
TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
le 26 octobre 1865
Mon cher d’Eichthal
Je vous remercie très sincèrement de l’envoi de votre travail sur la question des origines américaines,2 bien que je ne l’aie point encore vu. Votre lettre m’a été envoyée ici, mais l’Etude se trouve confondue dans la foule d’imprimés de tout genre dont on m’accable, et pour la faire venir ici il faudrait qu’on fît un paquet de plusieurs kilogrammes de fadaises. Ce sera pour moi une lecture bien intéressante lorsque je pourrai la faire. Je ne puis vous recommander d’autre nom pour recevoir un exemplaire, si ce n’est peut-être celui de la Société Ethnologique, presidée par M. Crawfurd.3
Vous m’avez écrit de Vienne une bien aimable lettre, à laquelle je n’ai pas répondu alors, à cause de l’incertitude de votre adresse, et encore plus par la multitude de mes occupations. Cette dernière raison m’a également empêché de remercier votre frère du bon et amical billet qu’il m’écrivit lors de mon élection. Je vous prie tous deux d’agréer mes excuses, et de croire que je n’en suis pas moins sensible à ces marques d’amitié. Plus on s’avance dans la vie et plus on tient aux vieilles amitiés, même lorsque l’éloignement physique en fait une jouissance surtout de pensée et de conscience.
Je me réjouis que vous vous occupez fortement de votre St Jean.4 Si cette partie est relativement à la hauteur de la première, vous aurez fait un des plus importants ouvrages sur un des plus grands sujets.
Tout à vous
J. S. Mill
880.
TO HERBERT SPENCER1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Oct. 29, 1865
Dear Sir:—
I have kept your letter by me unanswered, partly for want of time, and partly in hopes that the delay might enable something to occur to me which would throw light on the rather subtle matter of difference between us which you bring to my notice.2 It is evident that I have again a misapprehension of your opinion to confess and correct, since you do not acknowledge it as yours in the mode in which it is stated by me. We seem to differ on two questions, one a question of fact, viz. whether it is possible, while looking at the sun, to imagine darkness. You, and your three friends, think it is not, while my consciousness seems to tell me that it is quite as possible to imagine darkness in its absence, as anything else in its absence. Of course the stronger present impression of an actual sensation makes the simultaneous consciousness of a mere recollection seem feeble by comparison. But it appears to me perfectly real, and as like the impression of sense which it corresponds to, as most reminiscences are to their originals.
But, you say, even if I could, under such conditions, imagine darkness, it would not follow that I could imagine that I am actually at the moment looking into darkness. To me it seems, that to imagine an object of sight, is always to imagine myself actually at the moment seeing it. I think one never imagines anything otherwise than as an immediate and present impression of one’s own. Indeed, when the object to be conceived is darkness, there is absolutely nothing else to imagine, than oneself trying to see and not seeing; for darkness is not a positive thing. It seems to me, then, that I can, in broad daylight, conceive myself then & there looking into darkness. Is this the same thing, or not the same thing, as what you mean by the words “conceive that I am then and there looking into darkness”?3 It strikes me that this change of the expression to the form I am, just marks the transition from conception to belief—from an imagination of something thought as absent from the senses, to an apprehension of something which is thought to be present to the senses; of which two states of mind I hold the former to be, in the assumed circumstances, possible, the latter impossible. It was in this way I was led to think that you were here using the word conception in the sense of belief. Even now, I cannot see how the phrase, to conceive that I am, or that anything is, can be consistent with using the word conceive in its rigorous sense.
I am, Dear Sir,
Yours very sincerely,
J. S. Mill
881.
TO CHARLES GAVAN DUFFY1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Oct. 30. 1865
Dear Sir
The place from which this note is dated will sufficiently account to you for my not having written to you sooner. Had I been in England, I should have endeavoured to find you out before this. As it is, I can only say that I shall be at Avignon for the next three months and that if your Continental excursion should lead you this way, I shall be most happy to see you. My address here can be learnt at the Hotel d’Europe.
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
C. Gavan Duffy Esq.
882.
TO MACRAE MOIR1
October 30, 1865
My absence from England prevented me from receiving your circular . . . but I beg to express my satisfaction at Mr. Masson’s appointment to the Edinburgh Professorship.2
883.
TO LOUIS BLANC1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
le 4 Novembre 1865
Mon cher Monsieur Louis Blanc
J’avais déjà vu dans un journal la nouvelle de votre mariage,2 et j’ai reçu depuis de Blackheath la carte qui m’en faisait part. Je vous félicite de tout mon coeur, et vous souhaite tout le bonheur que puisse offrir un pareil événement.
J’espère que l’adresse n’indique pas que vous avez définitivement quitté Londres pour demeurer à Brighton. Quoiqu’ il en soit, je n’ai pas besoin de vous dire que lorsque vous et Madame Louis Blanc serez à Londres et que nous serons à Blackheath nous aurons le plus grand plaisir à vous y voir.
Votre affectionné
J. S. Mill
884.
TO JOHN MORLEY1
Nov. 4, 1865
Wherever I might have seen that article,2 I should have felt a strong wish to know who was its author, as it shows an unusual amount of qualities which go towards making the most valuable kind of writer for the general public.
885.
TO ADAM GUROWSKI1
[Before Nov. 5, 1865]
I have read your three volumes . . . and the result is that on their own account as well as on yours, I am desirous that they should be published.2 You have fully established the claim of your view of the last years of American history, to be heard and considered. Your Diary will be an important part of the evidence which future historians of these great events will have to study. It will be very instructive even in this country.
886.
TO JOHN NICOLAUS TRÜBNER1
- Avignon
Nov. 5. 1865
Dear Sir
Though I should like very much to be of service to Count Gurowski, and really think his book2 well worthy of republication, I should not be willing to write an introduction to it, or attach my name to it as Editor. I have abstained hitherto, and prefer still to abstain, from making myself responsible for other people’s writings; and in this book there are so many severe things said of individual politicians, that it would be wrong in me, with no more information than I possess, to make myself a party to them, and hardly possible to put my name to the book without seeming to do so.
Your report respecting the work on Comte is very satisfactory.3 A translation of it into French is in course of being made, with my concurrence, to be published by Germer Baillière.4 With regard to a German translation,5 I have no wish except that it should not be done by an incompetent person. I do not look for any gain from it, and I doubt if it would be worth the while of a publisher to give anything worth taking for the privilege: but if it should so happen, I propose that we should divide equally whatever is obtained.
I do not wish any copies to be sent here; but I should like a copy sent to Professor Fawcett, M.P. Trinity Hall, Cambridge, if he was not on the list I sent you; also to J. S. Storr Esq.6 26 King Street Covent Garden, and Dr Brewer,7 21 George Street Hanover Square.
I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
887.
TO GEORGE GROTE1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Nov. 10. 1865
My dear Grote
I find myself, from my want of knowledge of the Platonic critics, ignorant of the merits of a question of some importance and difficulty, viz. whether the Platonic Apologia is in substance the real defence of Sokrates. I learn from your book that Schleiermacher and Ueberweg think so,2 and that you are of the same opinion. But on the other hand, the Platonic Apologia is almost wholly different from the Xenophontic,3 which latter professes to be the defence actually made by Sokrates and told to Xenophon by Hermogenes, who is also mentioned in the Phaedon as one of the friends who were with Sokrates at his death.4 Xenophon says,5 indeed, that many more things were said by Sokrates than are included in his report; and the things which Xenophon was likely to omit, would be just those which Plato would relate. But Plato’s report does not profess to omit anything. If both are genuine, we must suppose that each reporter left out exactly what the other took, for there is hardly anything in common to them both, except the allusion to Palamedes.6 Now, in every other case, you seem to regard the Xenophontic, and not the Platonic, as the historical Sokrates. Could you, without much trouble, give me some notion of the reasons for holding the opposite opinion in this particular case?
If the Apologia is not the real speech of Sokrates I do not know why we should consider it as authoritative evidence of the point of view of Sokrates as distinct from Plato. For it seems almost equally unlikely that Plato would have put anything unSokratic into the mouth of Sokrates in the affecting narrative of the last day of his life: yet he does, without scruple, put into his mouth on that day the whole of his own two doctrines of Ideas and Reminiscence, which, as far as I know, neither you nor any one supposes to have been held by Sokrates. These things are a real puzzle to me: an ἀπορια for which I greatly need τον καταλυσοντα.7
Reeve has very courteously consented to wait for the article till the April number,8 which gives me the whole time up to the meeting of Parliament for completing it. I have not yet written anything, but have read Plato all through, and am now going through your book carefully again, not only referring to Plato frequently, but reading once more quite through some of the most important of the dialogues which I read last spring: Phaedon, Parmenides, Theoctetus, Sophistes, Politikos, &c.
The article in the Westminster on your book9 seems to me very good. I am curious to know who wrote it.
If you have time to answer this, please tell us also how Mrs Grote is, for it is long since we heard.
Ever yours affectionately
J. S. Mill
888.
TO W. O. ADAMS1
- Avignon
Nov. 13. 1865
Sir—
To give a proper answer to your question2 would be to write the essay which you are intending to write. But if you wish for a mere opinion, expressed in few words, I would say,
1. Severe punishments of some kind are often necessary for boys, but only when they have been negligently or ill brought up & allowed to acquire bad habits.
2. Assuming severe punishments to be necessary, any other mode of punishment that would be effectual is preferable to flogging. In the case however of certain grave moral delinquencies chiefly those which are either of a cowardly or of a brutal character, corporal punishment in that or some equivalent form may be admissible.
889.
TO ROWLAND G. HAZARD1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Nov. 15. 1865
Dear Sir
I have been a long time without acknowledging your very interesting letter of July 1. My excuse must be the great quantity of temporary business (including a vast amount of letter-writing) which has come upon me lately, and the necessity of finishing off old engagements before the new and engrossing ones commence.
I hope you at length received the book on Hamilton. I gave a fresh order for sending it to you, having reason to think that the first had not been executed. You will have found less than you probably expected on the Freewill controversy, the object having been, not to give a complete view of the metaphysics of the question, but merely to reply to some objections and resolve certain difficulties. I am glad you were interested by the review of Comte. The remarks on his philosophy in your letter are just and reasonable from your own point of view. Above all, they are clear; a merit which your writings possess in a degree not common with the a priori or spiritualist metaphysicians.
I was happy to find, though it was no more than I expected, that we think exactly alike on the necessity of giving equality of political rights to the negroes. What has just taken place in Jamaica2 might be used as a very strong argument against leaving the freedmen to be legislated for by their former masters. The legislation appears to have been just such as might have been expected, and the consequence is what we see. It seems not at all unlikely that England will have to make a clean sweep of the institutions of Jamaica, and suspend the power of local legislation altogether, until the necessary internal reforms have been effected by the authority of the mother country. How much more needful, then, is it that America should refrain from giving back to the rebel states the rights already forfeited by them, except on such conditions as will secure equal laws and an impartial administration of justice between colour and colour; which will not and cannot be the case unless the Negroes can serve on juries, and, through the electoral suffrage, have an equal voice in choosing or controlling the judges, or those who appoint them. I felt greatly discouraged a short time ago by the turn which events seemed to be taking; but the published conversation between the President and Mr Stearns3 has revived my hopes; for it seems to shew that Mr Johnson does not differ fundamentally from us; that he only hesitates on the question of time, and is ready even at once to enfranchise the negroes subject to certain conditions, which he would make applicable also to the uneducated whites. If he adheres to this, and also to his declared opinion that non-electors ought not to be counted, even in a fractional proportion, as part of the population that determines the number of Federal representatives; the Republican majority in Congress will be able to act with him, and to prevent any serious mischief.
You must be greatly edified, if you read the English newspapers and periodicals, by their change of tone on American affairs. Those who, at the time of the colonization of New England, used to be called “waiters on Providence,” have changed sides, and are now profuse of panegyrics on the people of the United States. Their praise is of no more intrinsic value than their attacks were before; but it is an additional proof what a great benefit your people have conferred on mankind by shewing what democracy and universal education together can do—how they make a whole people heroes when heroism is required, and peaceful citizens again as soon as the necessity is ended. Most English observers are also much struck by the total absence of vindictive spirit, even under the provocation of Mr Lincoln’s murder. I do not share their surprise, my only fear having been that your people would forgive too easily. But if they only take care not to be forgiving at the Negroes’ expense, I am ready to join in the universal chorus.
We often think and talk of you, both at Blackheath and here, where we first saw you. I hope to hear from you now and then. It is of no consequence whether you direct here or to Blackheath, as letters are promptly forwarded.
Ever, dear Sir, yours truly,
J. S. Mill
890.
TO CHARLES ELIOT NORTON1
- Avignon
Nov. 24, 1865
Dear Sir
I have had the pleasure of receiving your letter of the 30th ulto. It is needless to send me the North American Review, as I am already a subscriber to it; but I am always glad to hear from any of the writers and to be enabled to identify an article with its author. The essay on American Political Ideas2 I had read the day before I received your letter. There is a good cause why the Americans are more attached than the people of other countries to the principles of their Constitution; it is because their Constitution has principles. The British Constitution has no principles: it is the unpremeditated and unplanned result of a secular conflict of opposing forces. There are however, principles, not laid down in words, but involved both in the English and in the American institutions, viz. personal freedom; liberty of thought and publication; and, in America, perfect civil equality between one person and another. To these principles the people of each country are strongly attached, but in neither are they thoroughly carried out, though by you far more nearly so than by us. I hope you are going to carry the last of them into effect as between white people and black; after which it will still remain to bring it into operation between men and women.
I have great pleasure in subscribing to every word of the practical exhortations in your concluding paragraphs. Society in the Southern States has to be democratized in law and in fact, on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, otherwise the sufferings and sacrifices of these glorious years will be more than half lost. And this will be easily done if the people of the Northern States do but will it. The opinions, feelings, and entire civilization of the North have made a wonderful stride since the war began. If they are not yet quite up to the final mark, who can blame them? May they reach it before anything irrevocable has been done in restoring the rebel States to their constitutional rights. I am Dear Sir
Yours very sincerely
J. S. Mill
My address is Blackheath Park, Kent, from whence, in my absence, letters are forwarded.
891.
TO GEORGE GROTE1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Nov. 26. 1865
My dear Grote
I am very much indebted to you for taking the trouble to give me such full explanations in answer to my question respecting the Apologia.2 The points you mention in Xenophon and Plato are all familiar to me, but I wanted your appreciation of them, and that you have given me. I had been much struck with the fact that the two authorities are not agreed even as to what the oracle was, though unquestionably they must both have known it. There is also a prima facie objection to the statement of Sokrates in the Apology, that he first commenced his cross-examining Elenchus after he had already been declared by the oracle to be the wisest of men. If the oracle declared this of Sokrates before he set out on the career which has given him all his fame with posterity, the oracle must have had remarkable sagacity and wonderfully good information. However this may be, I understand you to think that Sokrates spoke the substance of what Xenophon ascribes to him, and also matters which, idealized by Plato, became the Platonic Apology;3 and this seems much the most probable supposition which can be made.
I now feel assured how far I can safely build upon the character of Sokrates which the Apology indicates; and that is what I wanted. I do not think it possible, without abridging more important matter, to discuss in the article Plato’s precise relation to Sokrates. His relation to the Sokratic dialectic is the important thing: and, by the aid of your book and of the familiarity I have now acquired with Plato himself, this is not difficult to bring out.
I have written a great part of the article, and see my way clearly to the end of it. There will never, I think, have been as much said about Plato in the same space; but there will not be anything both important and new in it, for you have left nothing to do: except that every fresh turning over of the ground makes some of the things that are turned up look new by some new light which falls on them.
We are very happy to hear your favourable account of Mrs. Grote. Pray give her our kindest regards. I am equally pleased and honoured by your reviewing me for Chapman,4 and I am glad that you take the opportunity of doing justice to my father.5 My own contribution to his memory is already written in a MS designed for posthumous publication;6 though if I live more than a few years longer, I shall very likely publish it while I am alive.
I am fully and greatly enjoying my last weeks of freedom. The chief occupation of this year has been with Plato, Sokrates, and you: and there could not have been, to me, a pleasanter one.
Ever, my dear Grote
yours most truly
J. S. Mill
892.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Nov. 27. 1865
Dear Sir
I have received your note, but not the prospectus of the new paper,2 which if sent to Blackheath, would in ordinary course wait there for my return, as though letters are forwarded to me here, printed matter is not. I however expect a parcel from Blackheath in a week or thereabouts, which will probably contain it. I dare say I shall be able to write some sort of letter to you when I have seen the Prospectus, or at any rate after the first number. An article, I am sorry to say, would be quite out of the question with my present occupations.
I have never yet had time to acknowledge your letter of Nov. 11. I am very much obliged to you for all you write, and no less so for not writing solely to forward applications which you are quite right in thinking I should be unable to comply with. I am not surprised at your not accepting the offer of the Indian Editorship,3 and were I in your place I would not accept it either. Your present position, like all others, may have its disagreeables, but they are probably much less than those of the Indian situation, and the connexion is a better one for opening other opportunities both of improving your own condition and of serving your opinions.
I am always glad to be told what people say about public affairs; but the remarks mentioned in your letter as made by the Moderate Liberals must come from very moderate Liberals indeed. If (which I am not aware of) the Liberal party is “rapidly approaching a state of complete disorganisation”, the conclusion I should draw would be that it is time for it to dissolve, and organise itself anew on some better basis. I am sure no party can deserve to be kept together which is in danger of being broken up by the accession of two or three persons who are thought likely to speak opinions freely which are in advance of the rest. But the Moderate Liberals are always anxious to stop the mouths of the immoderate ones, and these things are said and printed for the effect it is hoped they may produce on the supposed marplots themselves. I am Dear Sir
with our kind regards to Mrs Plummer
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
893.
TO CHARLES KINNEAR WATT1
- Avignon
Nov. 27. 1865
Dear Sir
I have this morning had the honour of receiving your letter of the 23rd instant.
At almost any other time than the present I should have felt it a duty to shew my sense of the distinguished honour conferred on me, by accepting the office of Rector and endeavouring to the best of my power to discharge its duties. But it is hardly possible that such a function could have devolved on me more inopportunely than in the circumstances in which I am placed at the present moment, when my whole time is devoted to clearing off longstanding literary engagements which I cannot hope to have completed sooner than the commencement of the Session of Parliament.2 Even, therefore, if it were possible for you to wait a considerable time for the visit which it would be my duty to pay you, I do not know at what time it would be in my power to pay it. An address fit to be delivered on such an occasion and to such an audience, is a thing which I certainly could not produce off-hand, or with a mind occupied with other engrossing thoughts. Under these difficulties I see no course which I can take but that of respectfully declining the office which has been so flatteringly bestowed on me by the students of the University.3 With sincere thanks for their good will and favourable opinion, I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Charles K. Watt Esq.
894.
TO LOUIS BLANC1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
le 2 Décembre 1865
Mon cher Monsieur Louis Blanc
Je ne puis m’abstenir de vous féliciter des admirables lettres que vous écrivez au Temps sur les déplorables événements qui se sont passés en Jamaïque, et surtout de celle qui a paru le 30 Novembre.2 Rien ne saurait être mieux pensé ni mieux senti que cette lettre. Souhaitons qu’il se trouvera dans le parti libéral de la chambre assez d’hommes de coeur, non seulement pour flétrir dignement les iniquités de la répression, mais pour exiger la punition exemplaire de leurs auteurs. Le ministère et la chambre, voire même la nation, veut donner leur mesure. S’ils laissent faire de pareilles énormités au nom de l’Angleterre, ils n’auront rien à reprocher ni aux Russes en Pologne—qui n’ont jamais fait autant—ni aux Carrier3 et Collot4 de la Révolution française.
Vos observations au le Times sont excellentes; mais on pourrait dire de plus, que dans ce qui regarde les West Indies, ce journal ne représente pas l’opinion publique de l’Angleterre, bien qu’il entraîne trop souvent cette opinion. Vous avez pu remarquer qu’en tout ce qui regarde les nègres, le Times est depuis vingt ans l’organe de l’oligarchie blanche des West Indies. Je ne sais pas quel est l’intérêt, pécuniaire ou social, qui le décide à se ranger sous cette bannière, mais le fait n’est pas douteux. Le Times n’a-t-il pas fait, pendant de longues années, tout son possible pour forcer ou persuader le gouvernement à retirer l’escadre anglaise des côtes de l’Afrique?5 tentative qu’il n’a abandonnée que lorsque l’impossibilité de réussir a été pleinement constatée. On sait toujours d’avance ce que dira le Times dans tout cet ordre de questions: on est sûr qu’il sera du parti le plus brutalement contraire aux noirs. Il ne serait pas sans utilité que cette liaison du Times avec les intérêts esclavagistes fût connue en France, où généralement on voit dans ce journal un organe de l’opinion anglaise, sans tenir compte des impulsions spéciales et privées qui agissent souvent sur les écrivains du Times comme sur ceux de tout autre journal, et modifient sa mauvaise direction générale par de mauvais caprices particuliers.
tout à vous
J. S. Mill
895.
TO DR. HENRY MacCORMAC1
- Avignon
Dec. 4. 1865
Dear Sir—
In answer to your letter of Nov. 29, I would say, that restrictions on marriage, or on any other human action when so conducted as to be directly injurious to others than the agents themselves, do not appear to me objectionable on the principle of Liberty.2 For all our actions which affect the interests of other people I hold that we are morally, & may without violation of principle be made legally, responsible. I have however expressly guarded myself against being understood to mean that legal restrictions on marriage are expedient. That is an altogether different question, to which I conceive no universal & peremptory answer can be given, & in deciding which for any particular case due weight ought to be given to the probability of consequences of the kind you mention as well as of any other kinds.
I am glad that you agree with me on the subject (much more urgent in this country) of compulsory education.
896.
TO JAMES BEAL1
- [Avignon]
Dec. 13, 1865
Dear Sir—
I have seen with great pleasure, in the newspapers, the movement which the St. James’s Vestry has originated at your suggestion for the union of all London into one body for municipal purposes, with smaller bodies of the same sort for purposes special to each of the parliamentary divisions.2 I have long wished that an effort in this direction should be made. All the more important town-interests are common to the whole town, and can only be properly attended to by a body representative of the whole; and I quite agree with you that there should be but one such body, and that the functions (for instance) of the Board of Trade should merge into those of the united municipality. I also go entirely along with the proposal to abolish the jurisdiction of the Middlesex magistrates in the metropolis, and to have none but stipendiary magistrates. The only point on which I do not agree with the scheme as reported is the choice of magistrates by the citizens or the municipal body. The proposed corporation ought, of course, to have powers equal to those of other municipal corporations; but it seems to me that the choice of judicial officers is best placed, not with any corporation, but with a minister or great public functionary, who can be held responsible for making a proper choice. As a general rule, skilled professional officers are hardly ever well chosen by numbers; some one person must make it his business to find them and judge of their qualifications. I do not know if this view of the question has been under your consideration, or that of the vestry; but as I hope to aid in bringing your plan before Parliament, I am glad to begin already an interchange of sentiment with you on the subject.3
I am, dear Sir,
very truly yours,
J. S. Mill
James Beal, Esq.
897.
TO WILLIAM FRASER RAE1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Dec. 14. 1865
Dear Sir
I imagine that none of the candidates for the Professorship had any chance against Mr Henry Morley.2 I am sorry to hear such an indifferent account of your health, and I regret much that you have been prevented from finishing the article you mention. If you pass through Avignon before we leave for England, we shall be very glad to see you.
I fully intend to read Livingstone’s new book3 when I have time, but I do not know when that will be. There seems likely to be enough doing in Parliament, this session, to occupy all one’s thoughts. There is no part of it all, not even the Reform Bill, more important than the duty of dealing justly with the abominations committed in Jamaica.4 If England lets off the perpetrators with an inadequate punishment, no Englishman hereafter will be entitled to reproach Russia or the French Revolutionists with any massacres, without at the same time confessing that his own country has done worse.
I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
898.
TO HORACE WHITE1
- Avignon
Dec. 15. 1865
Dear Sir—
Your letter dated Nov 3 has been forwarded to me here. It would be a great satisfaction to me to be able to give any assistance in the struggle which the enlightened friends of Free Trade have to maintain against, I am sorry to say, many Americans whose opinions & feelings on other matters command my warmest sympathies. I do not despair of being able, some time hence, to write something for the Chicago Tribune of the kind you wish,2 & if so I shall esteem it a privilege to have it accepted without any payment. At present however my time & thoughts are so fully occupied by engagements which must be completed before the commencement of the session of Parlt now near at hand, that I really am not able to undertake any fresh work. What you ask me to do is not easy; I hardly know any point in Pol. Economy which it is more difficult to treat popularly, & so as to carry persuasion to those who have not studied the subject, than that one, of the influence of high & low wages on foreign trade. To understand the matter it is necessary to realize the fact that all trade is in reality barter—that the question is not whether the home capitalist shall produce or not, but whether he shall produce one thing or another—cotton fabrics, for instance, or wheat; & that high wages which must equally be paid in either case, cannot place one of these two modes of employing his capital at any disadvantage by the side of the other. If it was only in cottonspinning that American wages were higher than English, while in agriculture they were equal, then indeed the high wages being peculiar to one employment would really make it more difficult, & perhaps impossible to carry it on without a protecting duty. But in that case it would clearly be an employment unsuited to the country, since labour employed in it would require to be remunerated more highly than the general rate of wages in the country.
It is very difficult to make this argument popular. What one ought to do is, to ask, If high wages are sufficient to make the American cotton manufacturer unable to compete with the English, how is it that the same high wages do not prevent the American farmer from underselling the English, unless because farming is an industry suited to the circumstances of the country & cottonspinning not?
899.
TO JOHN TULLOCH1
Avignon Dec. 20. 1865
Dear Sir,
You are probably aware of the causes which have so long delayed my answer to your communication dated the 24 in ulto. Being so situated as to have no chance of being able to visit Saint Andrews’ for the purpose of delivering an address, at any time when the University will be sitting, earlier than the end of January 1867, I thought it best to make this circumstance known to the students who had done me the honour of electing me, and to be guided by their wishes in accepting or declining the Rectorship. Being informed that, notwithstanding this inevitable delay, it is still the wish of the Students that I should fill the office of Rector, I beg, accordingly, to communicate to you my acceptance of that office. I understand that this intimation should properly be made to the Vice Chancellor.2 I am not able, where I am, to ascertain who is the present holder of that dignity, nor the proper form in which to make the announcement; but I take the liberty of inclosing a communication addressed to him, and of begging that if it be informal, or in any other way insufficient, you will kindly furnish me with the means of rectifying it.
I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Rev. Principal Tulloch
900.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Dec. 29. 1865
Dear Chadwick
I received your letter only this morning, so that if you are at Paris tomorrow as you expected, you will not receive this answer. But as in that case I shall probably see you at Avignon, it will not matter.
I am doubtful of any good from an inquiry moved for by Lord Elcho.2 The sole object of its promoters will probably be to obtain such statistics as may frighten Parliament and the electoral body into restricting the extension of the suffrage to the narrowest limits possible. They do not want to have your, or my, or Mr Hare’s plans of reform taken into consideration, and they will prevent all such consideration if they can. Any locus standi for “crochets” and “fancy franchises” before the Commission will have to be fought for, and fought for against Tories, Whigs, and such Radicals as Bright. It would therefore be in my opinion a false policy for any reformer to say to Government or the public, Do not propose a Reform Bill, but wait for the result of an enquiry by such men as Lord Elcho. But even if it were competent to any other reformer to take this position, it is not so for me. It is for those to call for an enquiry who need an enquiry, before being willing to take action. I know what reform I want, and am ready now to do my utmost to get it. An enquiry should be supplementary to, and not instead of, any measure of reform that the present ministry are likely to propose.
I am very sorry that you have had so much unpleasantness about the Newsman, and sorry that Beal had any share in it. I was hoping that you and he would be able to work together at the local government of London. It is one of the many questions which incessantly make me regret that you are not member for Westminster. I shall want to consult with you about it, and shall miss you if you are in Algeria.3 But if you can really help the sanitary improvement of the army, it is a thing worth going there for.
The idea of making the rate book the register, is a good one if the only qualification is to be one of rating, because it makes the registration seek the elector instead of the elector the registration. But it will not be carried, because it would take away the qualifications by property—freehold, copyhold, and leasehold. If those qualifications are allowed to remain, there will still be need of lawyers, and registration associations. The whole of our laws of election from top to bottom require to be reconstructed on new principles: but to get those principles into people’s heads is work for many years, and they will not wait that time for the next step in reform. If they would, all they would get is to be told that the public is content with the thing as it is. And perhaps some measure of reform is as likely to promote as to delay other improvements in the representative system. I am Dear Chadwick
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1866
901.
TO HENRY FAWCETT1
- Saint Véran
Jan. 1. 1866.
Dear Mr Fawcett
I have delayed long to thank you for your book,2 having been very busy writing, and unable to read it with proper attention until within these few days.
I think the essays must have been very interesting as lectures,3 and will be very useful as a book. The subject of the land laws, and laws of inheritance, is very well treated, and is one of which few feel the importance. You have broken ground very usefully on it. The considerations you have brought forward will be much needed in the discussions we shall soon have on Irish affairs, and the whole subject will become much more practical after any considerable parliamentary reform. One of the most important consequences of giving a share in the government to the working classes, is that there will then be some members of the House with whom it will no longer be an axiom that human society exists for the sake of property in land—a grovelling superstition which is still in full force among the higher classes.
I need hardly say how highly I approve your chapter on cooperation, and the restatement of the ideas of your Westminster Review article respecting Strikes.4 On all these subjects you have strengthened yourself by new thoughts and illustrations; and the speculations in the concluding chapter, on the possibilities of the future, open a class of considerations both new and very necessary to be thought of.
The chapter which on the whole I least like is the one on wages,5 though it will probably be more praised than any of the rest: but I think I could shew that an increase of wages at the expense of profits would not be an impracticability on the true principles of political economy. It might doubtless send capital to other countries; but we must recollect that the movement for higher wages and shorter working hours is now common to all the industrious nations.
There is one mistake in a matter of fact which I saw with regret in the book, and which I hope a new edition may soon give you an opportunity of correcting. You have entirely misunderstood the ateliers nationaux.6 They were not advances to cooperative societies, but direct payment of wages, for work mostly nominal, from the public purse; and so far were they from having any connexion with Louis Blanc or his opinions, that he has always bitterly complained of them, as having been set up, not for, but against him and his plans. The member of the Provincial Government principally responsible for them was, he says, M. Marie.7 The advances to associations of workmen were quite another matter, and did none of the harm which the ateliers nationaux did—probably even some good: at all events the Government could not have refused such experimental aid when the associations thought that they could not get on without it. I am not certain that such advances (resembling those the Crédit Mobilier8 makes to a richer class) would not sometimes be useful even now: though it is one of the lessons of the experience of that time that in most cases the associations which did without subsidies prospered the most.
There are some misprints in the volume, especially ‘married men’ for ‘monied men’ at p.209, and Arsène Haussage for Houssaye9 (p.103).
We shall now soon meet on our common field of battle. The two great topics of the year will be Jamaica10 and Reform,11 and there will be an immensity to be said and done on both subjects. I have just seen with great pleasure that Lord Hobart has come out decidedly in McMillan’s for Hare’s system.12 It is gradually taking hold of one after another of the thinking men; of whom Lord Hobart is decidedly one. I shall perhaps invoke your aid on the Metropolitan government question,13 of the burthen of which I shall probably have to take a considerable share.
I am Dear Mr Fawcett
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
902.
TO THOMAS HARE1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Jan. 4. 1866
Dear Sir
It is a favourable sign of the impression which the idea of Personal Representation is making not only on the best thinkers but on thinking persons of all degrees that I should have received such a letter as the one I inclose.2 The objections to the plan proposed by the writer, you will not need me to point out; but he shews that his mind has worked on the subject, and many minds like his are probably by this time doing the same.
I was delighted to read Lord Hobart’s complete and most intelligent adhesion in the new number of McMillan.3 His is about the best theoretical head in the whole nobility. What a pity that he holds an office which excludes him from the House of Commons.
In a letter I have just received from M. Morin,4 he tells me that through the impression made by Naville,5 and in consequence of the victory of the Independent Party in the late elections, there is some chance of an actual trial of Personal Representation in the choice of the four deputies whom Geneva elects to the National Council of Switzerland.6 This, it seems, can be done by the authority of the ordinary legislature: while the mode of election of the cantonal authorities can only be changed by a Constituent Assembly, or by a general assembly of the citizens. But if the trial is made in the one case, and succeeds, its application to the other will probably soon follow. And if made at all, the trial is pretty sure to be a true and fair one, with Naville to direct it.
I begin to think that you or I may live to see the plan in actual operation in England, or at all events in America.
There are at least Hughes and Fawcett who I hope will help me to bring it before the House of Commons in the approaching discussions on reform.
I am Dear Sir
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
903.
TO JOHN NICOLAUS TRÜBNER1
- Avignon
Jan. 4. 1866
Dear Sir—
With regard to the question of stereotyping the book on Comte, if I revise the book well before it is reprinted, it is hardly likely that any further alterations will be urgently required. It may, however, be desirable after a time to publish a cheap edition; but stereotyping need not I suppose prevent this as it could be done by merely lowering the price. If therefore you decidedly prefer stereotyping I have no objection. In that case I shd be obliged by your telling me what you would be disposed to give, either in the form of so much a year, or so much for every 1000 copies sold, or a sum down for a fixed number of years or of copies. It would be well also to fix some number of years, or of copies sold, after which the copyright & the stereotype plates should revert to me or my representatives.
I thank you for your offer of a payment on account, but I should prefer to wait for any payment till the accounts of the first edition are made out & the pecuniary result ascertained.
904.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Jan. 6. 1866
Dear Sir
It seems a long time since I either heard from you or wrote to you. As the time approaches when I shall be taking part in the discussion of pending questions, I feel an increasing desire to take counsel with you concerning some of them.
One is the question of the Irish Colleges. I have been drawing nearer and nearer to your view of that subject,2 practically considered, though I am not sure that we quite agree yet about the amount of concession required by equal justice. I shall take my stand against the denominational system in any form for Ireland—regarding it as a mere concession to practical difficulties even in England, and in Ireland inadmissible altogether. I am prepared to maintain that no public assistance ought to be given in Ireland to any education involving more or other religious teaching than exists in the mixed, or national system. I also think that in Ireland it is so great a point to bring youths of different religions to live together in colleges, as will justify almost any encouragement to the system of the Queen’s University, except that of actually refusing degrees to those who have studied elsewhere. From what I see in newspapers and hear, I am in hopes that the Catholic prelacy is shewing itself so impracticable as to give the Government a fair ground for withdrawing any offers they may have made, if only they can be induced to think such a retraction desirable: and it must be the business of members of Parliament to try to make them think so. Do you know of any member likely to lead the opposition on your side? What do you think of M’Cullagh Torrens?3 He, most likely, agrees with you, and he is one of the few Irishmen in Parliament who are not incumbered with an Irish constituency. Do you know what views Neate4 takes of the question? Any tolerable stand made in the House will have powerful support outside, from the mass of feeling in the country always ready to be called forth against any new concession to Catholics.
Then comes the Land Question. I have read several of your letters in the Economist,5 and admired them greatly. The generalities of the question have perhaps never before been so well stated as in your first letter. But your conclusion seems to me to fall far short of your premises. It may be that this is unavoidable. But the remedy of permitting the tenant to carry away or destroy his improvements, will surely do very little for him. It is monstrous that the law, at present, should not permit him to do this. But supposing that abominable state of the law to be altered, how inconsiderable would be the advantage to the tenant. 1st. If, as is generally the case, the landlord’s object is to clear the estate and consolidate the holdings, the tenant by pulling down his buildings is merely doing the landlord’s work gratis. 2dly. The cases most of all deserving compensation, are those in which the tenant has actually reclaimed the land: and how can he put it back into the state of heath or bog in which it was before? 3dly. Even when the improvement consisted in putting something on the farm which can be carried away such as buildings or fences—to remove them would make no return to the farmer for the labour or cost of putting them up, but would merely give him the value of the materials; and what are they? earth or rough stones: seldom worth even the trouble of carrying away. It would be his interest to accept the most trifling offer from the landlord, rather than exercise his right: unless indeed his motive was a vindictive one; and he would have but little even of that kind of satisfaction, for he could in general do the landlord as little harm as he could do himself good.
I am disposed to make a much greater claim for the tenant—to demand for him, not compensation for his outlay, but a full equivalent for the additional value which either by his labour or his expenditure he has given to the land: to be assessed either by a special tribunal or by arbitration. Justice requires no less than this, and its impracticability is not, to my mind, made out. But, as I am afraid you are of a different opinion, I should like very much to compare notes with you on the subject.
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
905.
TO HENRY SAMUEL CHAPMAN1
Avignon, Jan. 7, 1866
Dear Chapman
Your letter of June 18 reached me just before leaving England for Avignon, where I have been during the whole time, which, as you mentioned, Mrs Chapman and your younger children were to pass in London.2 I consequently have not seen them; but I shall hope to see your son who is to remain in England,3 as well as his brother who was already there.4 I have had less intercourse with your eldest son than I had hoped and intended to have, owing to the great engrossment of my time when in England by occupations which you can well appreciate: and now there is more on my hands than ever, and I have so many calls upon every moment of time that I am obliged to seem negligent of old friends, and almost to avoid making new ones. But I am not the less desirous to be of use to any one connected with you, and if I seem inattentive, it is not owing to indifference.
It must be very interesting to you to renew your knowledge of British New Zealand after an interval which bears so considerable a proportion to its short history.5 England has heard much of New Zealand these few years, and in a manner far from agreeable. Thoughtful people have found it hard to make up their minds on the New Zealand aspect of the universal colonial question—what to do with the aborigines. It was hoped that this would be a less desperate difficulty in New Zealand than elsewhere, on account of the higher qualities and more civilisable character of the Maoris. But the eternal source of quarrel, the demand of the colonists for land, has defeated these hopes; and it seems as if, unless or until the progressive decline of the Maori population ends in their extinction, the country would be divided between two races always hostile in mind, if not always in actual warfare. Here, then, is the burthen on the conscience of legislators at home. Can they give up the Maoris to the mercy of the more powerful, & constantly increasing, section of the population? Knowing what the English are, when they are left alone with what they think an inferior race, I cannot reconcile myself to this. But again—is it possible for England to maintain an authority there for the purpose of preventing unjust treatment of the Maoris, and at the same time allow self government to the British colonists in every other respect? How is that one subject to be kept separate, and how is the Governor to be in other things a mere ornamental frontispiece to a government of the colony by a colonial Cabinet and Legislature, and to assume a will and responsibility of his own, overruling his cabinet and legislature wherever the Maoris are concerned? If the condition of colonial government is, to keep well with the colonial population and its representatives, there is no hindering the colonists from making their cooperation depend on compliance with their wishes as to the Maoris. I do not see my way through these difficulties. Nor do I feel able to judge what would be the consequence of leaving the colonists, without the aid of Queen’s troops, to settle the Maori difficulty in their own way. Perhaps the proofs which the Maoris have given that they can be formidable enemies may have produced towards them in the colonists a different state of mind from the overbearing and insolent disregard of the rights and feelings of inferiors which is the common characteristic of John Bull when he thinks he cannot be resisted. On all these questions I am now under a special public obligation to make up my mind, and I hope to be helped to do so by your knowledge and experience. The information your letters are always full of, will be often valuable to me now.
Your account of the Middle Island and its impassable range of high Alps, is very attractive to me, and if New Zealand were an island in the Northern Atlantic, would speedily send me on a visit there. The very idea of anything impassable and impenetrable is almost too charming, now when every nook and corner of our planet has got or is getting opened to the full light of day. One of the many causes which make the age we are living in so very important in the life of the human race—almost, indeed, the turning point of it—is that so many things combine to make it the era of a great change in the conceptions and feelings of mankind as to the world of which they form a part. There is now almost no place left on our own planet that is mysterious to us, and we are brought within sight of the practical questions which will have to be faced when the multiplied human race shall have taken full possession of the earth (and exhausted its principal fuel). Meanwhile we are also acquiring scientific convictions as to the future destination of suns and stars, and the whole visible universe. These things must have ultimately a very great effect on human character. You have read Buckle’s remarks on the effect of the aspects of nature in different parts of the earth, upon the mental characteristics, and thence on the social development of the different nations.6 One begins to see a long vista of effects, of analogous origin but very different, on the future generations of mankind. Even without looking to anything so distant, or going beyond the proximate effects of social and economical causes already in operation, some thinkers are beginning to speculate on what will happen when the agricultural labourers of England shall have followed those of Ireland to America; and are asking themselves whether we shall have to import Chinese to supply the vacancy. The most certain result that I foresee from all this, is that English statesmanship will have to assume a new character, and to look in a more direct way than before to the interests of posterity. We are now, I think, standing on the very boundary line between this new statesmanship and the old; and the next generation will be accustomed to a very different set of political arguments and topics from those of the present and past.
I am Dear Chapman
yours very sincerely
J. S. Mill
906.
TO JOHN NICOLAUS TRÜBNER1
- Avignon
Jan. 9. 1866
Dear Sir—
When I have disposed of the second edition of any of my books for a fixed sum, I have always hitherto had more for it than the amount of the half profit I had derived from the first. I think I might reasonably look for £70 for the second ed. of the Comte—the half profit on the first ed. to be paid when it is all sold & the £70 on the publication of the second. If you agree to this I accept your proposal regarding the remainder of the 5000 copies, on the understanding that the reduced price commences after the sale of the second thousand.
I have to thank you for sending me a number of the Contemporary Review.2
Will you be so kind as to send Count Gurowski’s book3 to my house, Blackheath Park, at any convenient time in the course of the month.
907.
TO THOMAS HARE1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Jan. 11. 1866
Dear Sir
It is not so clear to me as it is to you, that we ought to desire that the Government measure of reform should include nothing but an extension of the suffrage. No doubt there might be advantage in obtaining that first, if there were a reasonable prospect of getting anything else afterwards; but is there such a prospect? I can see none. If Bright’s doctrine2 is accepted by public opinion and acted on by the Government, it may be assumed as certain that no other point of parliamentary reform will be allowed to be discussed this year. No party in the House would tolerate it: whoever attempted it would speak to empty benches—would probably be counted out. And it is to my mind equally indubitable that when any reform has been passed the whole subject of changes in the representation will be tabooed for years to come. Most of the liberal members are not real reformers, and only vote for any reform because they are obliged, and in the hope of getting rid of the question. You seem to think that while the House is passing a bill confined to the one point, it might be induced to appoint a Committee to enquire into the best means of “liberating and stimulating individual thought and action.” But what is to be the inducement? Are there six persons in the House of Commons who think it any business of theirs to liberate and stimulate individual thought and action, or who would desire to do so even if they knew what it meant? How many are there even outside the House, who would support a motion for such a Committee? The small number who are already converts to your plan; not a man beside. To nobody else would such a proposal carry any distinct meaning; still less represent anything that to their minds would appear sensible or practical. I admit that our prospects are nearly as bad if Lord Russell does include something else in his bill, as if he does not. Little as the chance is of an early reopening of parliamentary reform after the bill has passed, it will probably be sooner reopened for a readjustment of seats than merely for personal representation. This I cannot deny; but in the meanwhile we lose the opportunity of discussing personal representation in the present session—an opportunity which could not be refused to us if the whole subject of representation were on the tapis, but which we certainly shall not have if the question at issue is, by a previous understanding between the two great parties, confined to the extension of the franchise. I have given you my impression on the subject; but I cannot feel complete confidence in its correctness when I see yours to be different.
I shall be delighted to read your paper in the Fortnightly Review3 when I return to Blackheath. Were it sent here I probably should not receive it. The Pall Mall Gazette you kindly sent, never arrived. The Daily News was stopped four times in the six days of last week; and for about two months past, we have never received both the Spectator and the Saturday Review—very often neither. What has happened to increase the rigour of the French Government to the foreign press, I do not know; but there is certainly something. You doubtless noticed the interdiction of the Indépendance Belge,4 and of the principal liberal German papers, and the principle on which it was rested. If that principle means anything, it means the exclusion of all my English papers, except the Times which, for reasons best known to itself, is never seized.
I agree with you about Lorimer’s book.5 It is merely a weaker repetition of his former one.
I shall be very desirous to discuss with you all the points of London municipal reform, in which I shall have to take an active part. Beal6 told me that you had sent him “a little work” of your own7 “full of good matter on the question.”
Helen sends her kind regards to the Miss Hares. I am Dear Sir
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
908.
TO JOHN NICOLAUS TRÜBNER1
- Avignon
Jan. 15. 1866
Dear Sir—
I have received your letter of Jan. 12 for which I thank you & I accept all the conditions as mentioned in it.
It would have been more convenient to me to have made my corrections in the sheets of the first edition than in the proofs of the new, as I have more leisure now than I shall have a fortnight or three weeks hence; but I am willing to do whichever you prefer. If it is done from the proofs they had better be sent to Blackheath Park.
909.
TO ARTHUR LANKESTER1
- Avignon
Jan. 22, 1866
Dear Sir—
I regret that the extreme proximity of the date at which the meeting of the Commons Preservation Society2 is to be held makes it impossible for me to be present. I have all my life been strongly impressed with the importance of preserving as much as possible of such free space for healthful exercise, & for the enjoyment of natural beauty as the growth of population and cultivation has still left to us. The desire to engross the whole surface of the earth in the mere production of the greatest possible quantity of food & the materials of manufacture, I consider to be founded on a mischievously narrow conception of the requirements of human nature. I therefore highly applaud the formation of the Commons Preservation Society & am prepared to cooperate in the promotion of its objects in any manner which lies in my power.
910.
TO THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE HOSPICES D’AVIGNON1
- St Véran
le 23 janvier 1866
Messieurs—
J’ai eu l’honneur de recevoir votre lettre du 20 janvier.
Comme il est reconnu que la coupe fréquente des arbres affaiblit et épuise leur force de végétation ce dont j’ai moi-même, dans ce pays-ci, pu faire l’épreuve, j’avais sollicité la location des arbres attenant à ma propriété dans l’espoir de les préserver d’une coupe qui est sans doute, d’usage dans le pays, mais par des motifs purement économiques par rapport au bois. J’ose encore, messieurs, vous demander la permission de conserver ces arbres, sans en faire la coupe; mais dans le cas où pour des raisons quelconques la Commission ne voudrait pas les en dispenser je lui serais très obligé si elle voulait bien permettre que je fasse tailler la moitié seulement cette année et l’autre moitié l’année prochaine.
911.
TO THOMAS BEGGS1
- Blackheath Park
Jan. 30. 1866
Dear Sir
I am much obliged to you for sending me your Social Science paper,2 and the article on Cobden3 —the former I had read, Mr. Storr4 having kindly given me a copy, but I am glad to have one from yourself. The subject of it is one of the most interesting and important of the practical matters now before the public. Many things are pointing to a strong, and I hope a combined movement for the improvement of the dwellings of the working classes which will need all our exertions to forward it. I agree with you as to the necessity of some legislative measure to facilitate the procurement of sites; and I attach the same importance as you do to enabling working classes to be proprietors of their own dwellings. I hope you are on the Committee appointed by the Social Science Association, and are in communication with Mr Hare who has, as you know, given great attention to the subject, and who [has] a particularly strong opinion on this point.
My constituents have hitherto been very forbearing with me, but those who have exerted themselves in the manner you and others have done for my election because they thought me capable of promoting practical improvements, have the best possible claim on my time and attention when they have any improvements to propose. I beg that you will never scruple to communicate with me on any matter of public interest in which you think I can be of use; and I will always either do my best to help your object, or explain and discuss with you why I am unable to do so.
I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Thomas Beggs Esq
912.
TO HENRY REEVE1
- Blackheath Park
Jan. 30. 1866
Dear Sir
I regret that Mrs Austin should have had any annoyance or anxiety on the subject of the missing Notes of Lectures.2 They never were in her possession, having unfortunately been lent by me and lost by the borrower within a year or two after the Lectures were delivered.
The Notes were written next day from memoranda made by myself in the Lecture Room; and Mr Austin’s slow delivery and splendid articulation made it easy to report all the important passages nearly in his exact words. By these means I had the good fortune to preserve many valuable oral elucidations. There was only one lecture (I forget which one) at which I was unable to be present, and in that case Mr Austin kindly lent me his manuscript to enable me to fill up the vacancy. I never saw the MS of any of the others, nor did he see any of the Notes.
I am happy that the unusual length of my article3 is not an insuperable obstacle to its insertion.
The proofs should be sent to Blackheath.
I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
913.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Blackheath Park
Jan. 31. [1866]
Dear Sir
Your letter reached me late, owing to my having left Avignon before it arrived. I am most desirous to confer with you on the critical state of things respecting the education question,2 but I suppose I shall scarcely now be able to see you until we meet at the Political Economy Club on Friday.3 We can then fix a time and place for further talk.
If the ministers do not take care, they will commence the breaking up of their party by this measure.4
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
914.
TO [MONCURE DANIEL CONWAY?]1
Jan. 31. 1866
Dear Sir
The inclosed passage2 is the one which Mr Wendell Phillips seems to have had particularly in view. The remainder not only of the Preface, but of the book, may be regarded as a commentary on it.
I had already read the article in Harper’s Magazine3 —I need hardly say with how much pleasure and had guessed, though not with full assurance, its authorship.
I am Dear Sir
yrs very truly
J. S. Mill
915.
TO GEORGE GROTE1
- Blackheath Park
Feb. 4. 1866
My dear Grote
Unless I write now to thank you for your admirable article in the Westminster Review,2 I do not know when I shall be able to do so, as my time is already taken up, to a degree which you can very well understand both from theory and experience, though my constituents have hitherto given me very little trouble of any kind, and that little only for important objects. I write, then, while I can, to express some part of the pleasure it gives me that one whose good opinion and good feeling I value more than that of any other living man, should be able to write about me in the way you have done.3 I thank you, too, most heartily, for the justice you have done to my father.4 When your Kleine Schriften come to be collected, that passage will remain as one of the weightiest testimonies to his worth, and to the place he filled in his generation.
As to the points of difference between us on some minor matters of opinion, which occur in the course of the article, it will be a pleasure to talk them over with you some day. There is only one of them on which I yet see myself to have been wrong, viz. when I spoke of a beginning without a cause as being inconceivable by us. Of course, however, I did not mean inconceivable by a law of the mind, but only by an acquired association.
Have you seen Mansel’s critique (for I am told it is his) in Nos 1 and 2 of a new publication called the Contemporary Review?5 I should like much to know what you think of it, if you have read it.
My article on the Plato6 is in Reeve’s hands and accepted by him; which is a relief to me, as its length so much exceeds the usual Edinburgh Review dimensions, that I feared he might be unwilling to insert it without an impossible curtailment. I have seldom given so much time and pains to a review article, but it has been well employed if I have done any tolerable justice to the subject.
With our kind regards to Mrs Grote I am my dear Grote
yours ever truly
J. S. Mill
916.
TO HERBERT SPENCER1
- Blackheath Park
Feb. 4. 1866.
Dear Sir:—
On arriving here last week, I found the December livraison of your Biology, and I need hardly say how much I regretted the announcement in the paper annexed to it.2 What the case calls for, however, is not only regret, but remedy; and I think it is right you should be indemnified by the readers and purchasers of the series for the loss you have incurred by it. I should be glad to contribute my part, and should like to know at how much you estimate the loss, and whether you will allow me to speak to friends and obtain subscriptions for the remainder. My own impression is that the sum ought to be raised among the original subscribers.
In the next place, I cannot doubt that the publication in numbers, though it may have been the best means that presented itself at the time, has had an unfavourable effect on the sale, and that a complete treatise with your name to it would attract more attention, obtain more buyers, and would be pretty sure to sell an edition in a few years. What I propose is that you should write the next of your treatises, and that I should guarantee the publisher against loss, i.e., should engage, after such length of time as may be agreed on, to make good any deficiency that may occur, not exceeding a given sum, that sum being such as the publisher may think sufficient to insure him. With this guarantee you could have your choice of publishers, and I do not think it likely that there would be any loss, while I am sure that it could in no case be considerable. I beg that you will not consider this proposal in the light of a personal favour, though even if it were I should still hope to be permitted to offer it. But it is nothing of the kind—it is a simple proposal of cooperation for an important public purpose, for which you give your labour and have given your health.
917.
TO EDWARD WELMISLEY1
- Blackheath Park
Feb. 4. 1866
Sir
In reply to your letter of Jan. 31, I beg to express my willingness to take charge of the Bill for carrying into effect the arrangement which appears to have been made between the Government and the other parties interested.
I am Sir
very faithfully yours
J. S. Mill
Edward Welmisley Esq.
918.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- Blackheath
Feb. 7. 1866
Dear Sir
To take your last subject first. I have of late avoided giving my name to any of the Working Classes’ Exhibitions,2 as it seems to me that the thing is rather overdone; so many of these Exhibitions are now attempted that they stand in each other’s way, are apt to be unsuccessful in a pecuniary sense, and excite but little of the interest which was felt about the first things of the kind. If it would oblige you that I should give my name to the North London Exhibition I will very willingly do so on that account; but there is very little chance that my daughter and I can be present at the opening, or at any time during the exhibition, as we are almost sure to be abroad at the time.
Allow me to congratulate you on being Editor of the Family Paper,3 both as a rise in your position, and a great increase in the comfort of your daily work. I thank you for the pleasant things you have written about me in the Sydney Morning Herald,4 and for the letter on reform which you purpose addressing to me: Would it not be worth while to write it so that it might be published either in the Family Paper, the Working Man,5 or somewhere else? as a statement of the ideas of the best part of the working classes on reform would be important and interesting to many persons besides me.
Many thanks for the cuttings. I have seen Mr Conway’s article6 and the one in the Contemporary Review.7 The Blackwood8 I have not seen but expect to see.
With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
919.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath
Feb. 10. 1866
Dear Chadwick
I shall be happy to see you at the House at three on Monday, or at any time after four—as the debate being on the Cattle Plague,2 I shall not feel bound to pay any special attention to it.
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
920.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Blackheath
Feb. 13. 1866
Dear Sir
Your news is very important, and the move of the Presbyterian body promises well,2 if the Government is not yet irrevocably committed.3 I, on my side, have talked with Mr Grant Duff,4 who said he could hardly believe that the Government can meditate such a step as the one we apprehend. Not a single Scotch member (he said) would vote with them, and (he added) as their enemies are keenly watching to take the first opportunity of putting them in a minority they would probably be obliged to resign. The result of this and of much other information that reaches me, is to make me apprehensive that we may be more successful than we desire, and may perhaps break up the Ministry and lose the Reform Bill. This is not a sufficient reason against fighting the question of the Colleges to the utmost; but I attach great importance to not being supposed to have the smallest approach to an understanding or concert with those who will merely use our question as a means of effecting purposes which we should greatly lament. Nothing can be more proper than that you should apply to any and every influential politician whom you can get access to; but I am very anxious not to be held out to any one, even to sincere liberals, and much less to false liberals or Tories, as desiring to communicate with them on the subject. I have no objection to its being said to any person whatever, that I have a very strong opinion against the proposed changes. If any M.P. (even a Tory) chooses to open the subject to me, I will tell him my mind. One or two members have already done so; Mr Lowe5 did so the very day I saw you, and I thought he seemed disposed to take the initial step (by putting a question to the Government) without any further parley or consultation with us and our liberal friends. It is most clear to me that we, meaning myself and the other liberal members you mention, should endeavour to act directly on the members of the Government, and should avoid even the appearance of concert with any of those who would like to do them an ill turn. With regard to Sir Hugh Cairns,6 or any one on that side of the house, whatever they may choose to do should be quite apart from us. The same political instinct which influenced Lord Stanley,7 would probably make them feel that they had better appear as seconders than as originators of a move on this subject.
Many thanks for the pamphlet, which will be very useful to me.
I need scarcely say that this letter is confidential to yourself.
I am Dear Sir
yrs very truly
J. S. Mill
921.
TO THE SPEAKER’S SECRETARY1
Feb. 22, 1866
Sir,
I have had the honour of receiving an invitation to dine with the Right Honble the Speaker2 on Wednesday next Feb 28 but beg that I may be allowed to excuse myself from accepting it as I think it desirable that those members of the H. of C. who do not approve of the regulations in respect to dress at present in force should make their objection known to the Speaker, who I do not doubt will give to it whatever weight is justly due. I sincerely hope that in taking this mode of expressing the objection which I entertain to the practice hitherto followed I shall not be considered to be wanting in that respect and deference to the Rt Hon the Speaker which it is as much my wish as my duty invariably to observe.
922.
TO FREDERICK MILNES EDGE1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
Feb. 26, 1866
Dear Sir—
I have to acknowledge a letter from you dated Feb. 15 asking me to explain a passage of my Principles of Pol. Economy2 in which I express the opinion that a protecting duty, for a limited space of time, may be defensible in a new country, as a means of naturalizing a branch of industry in itself suited to the country but which would be unable to establish itself there without some form of temporary assistance from the state. This passage you say has been made use of by American protectionists as the testimony of an English writer on Pol. Economy to the inapplicability to America of the general principle of free trade. The passage has been used for a similar purpose in the Australian colonies,3 erroneously in my opinion but certainly with more plausibility than can be the case in the U. States; for Australia really is a new country whose capabilities for carrying on manufactures cannot yet be said to have been tested: but the manufacturing parts of the U.S., New England & Pennsylvania, are no longer new countries; they have carried on manufacturing on a large scale, & with the benefit of high protecting duties for at least two generations; their operatives have had full time to acquire the manufacturing skill in which those of England had preceded them; & there has been ample experience to prove that the inability of their manufactures to compete in the American market with those of Great Britain does not arise merely from the more recent date of their establishment, but from the fact that American labour & capital can in the present circumstances of America be employed with greater return & greater advantage to the national wealth, in the production of other articles. I have never for a moment recommended or countenanced any protecting duty except for the purpose of enabling the protected branch of industry, in a very moderate time, to become independent of protection. That moderate time in the U. States has been exceeded, & if the cotton or iron of America still need protection against those of the other hemisphere it is in my eyes a complete proof that they ought not to have it, & that the longer it is continued the greater the injustice & the waste of national resources will be.
I confine myself on the present occasion to the one special point which you have referred to me & do not enter into the fallacies of Protectionism generally or of American Protectionists in particular. But since you pay me the compliment of thinking that what is said on the subject in my Pr. of P.E. is read & listened to by some Americans, I beg to recommend to your notice the further explanations which I have added to the passage quoted by you in the last published (the People’s) edition of that work.4 I have directed the publisher to send you a copy & if the important journal with which you are connected, is pleased to attach any value to my opinion on the subject, that opinion will be found much more completely stated, with additional replies to Protectionist arguments in pp. 556 to 558 of the People’s edition.
F. Milnes Edge.
923.
TO MONTAGUE RICHARD LEVERSON1
- Blackheath Park
Feb 26 1866
Dear Sir,
I have gone through the Draft of a Bill,2 and I think it does you very great credit, containing some very valuable provisions respecting the mechanism of representative institutions. I also highly applaud the stand you have made for universal instead of manhood suffrage. As, however, several of the general principles on which the plan is founded, particularly ballot and electoral districts, are opposed to my opinions, I think it best not to connect myself in any way with the movement, and do not wish to have any letter of mine read at the Conference. The authors of the plan may be fully assured of my zealous cooperation on all the points on which their opinions and my own coincide.
I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly,
J. S. Mill
Montague Leverson Esq.
924.
TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE1
- Blackheath Park
March 6. 1866
My dear Sir
I have just had the pleasure of receiving from you and Mrs Gladstone a card of invitation for Wednesday the 21st. There are few things I more value than the opportunity of cultivating the degree of personal acquaintance to which you have done me the honour of admitting me; but I find it absolutely necessary, just at present, to avoid all engagements on the evenings which attendance in the House leaves me for other indispensable purposes. I hope to be allowed to indemnify myself on Thursday mornings after Easter for my present abstinence. I am
My dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
The Right Hon.
W. E. Gladstone M.P.
925.
TO WILLIAM LONGMAN1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
March 17. 1866
Dear Sir—
Your idea of a collected edition of my writings has much to recommend it, & I have sometimes thought of such a thing myself, but was inclined to think that the most suitable time would be after my death, as I am likely, so long as I live, to make material improvements in every new edition of my larger works. This objection however might be got over. But do you not think that the publication of such a series—each volume of which would of course be obtainable separate from the others—would almost entirely stop the sale of the current library editions of which, in the case of the Logic & Pol. Econ. the greater number of the copies are still on hand. Would it not, therefore, be best to adjourn the project of a collected edition until these editions are nearly sold?
It is satisfactory to find that the People’s Editions have not so much damaged as might have been expected the sale of the library editions. But the edition you propose would probably compete with the library editions much more successfully.
926.
TO J. GEORGE MAWBY1
Blackheath-park, March 17, 1866
Sir—
I have to acknowledge your note of the 11th instant. I have received many communications on the same subject from working men, and it gives me much satisfaction to find that so great a number of them are in the habit of giving intelligent attention to the foreign policy of the country. The question, which is the subject of your communication, is encumbered with great difficulties; and though if Mr. Gregory2 had divided the House I should have voted against him, I am not satisfied that the immunity of private property from capture would not on the whole be for the advantage if the Declaration of Paris3 must be maintained.
I agree with you in thinking this last the really important question, and I am decidedly of opinion that the relinquishment by the naval Powers of their most powerful weapon of defence against the great military Powers,4 can only be defended if it be true that the change of circumstances has made that weapon one which could no longer safely be used.
I am, Sir, yours faithfully,
J. S. Mill
Mr. Mawby
927.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1
- Blackheath Park
March 23. 1866
Dear Sir
I start for Avignon tonight, but if it should be the opinion of my friends in Westminster that a public meeting should be held during the recess2 for the purpose of making a demonstration in support of the Reform Bill I shall hold myself ready to return at a day’s notice in order to take part in it.
Probably however it may be thought that the first day after the recess, Monday 9th April, will be as good or even a better day for a political meeting in a Metropolitan district, than any day during the recess. Whatever may be determined on this point, I am in the hands of my friends.
I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Alderman Salomons3 has asked me for a copy of the Bill,4 which I suppose you will give him as a matter of course. If it suited your plans to send one also to Mr P. A. Taylor, who has asked me for a copy, it would give me pleasure.
928.
TO THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY1
- Blackheath Park
March 24, 1866
Dear Sir
I return the paper with my signature added, and am happy to join in the plan proposed for enabling Mr Spencer to continue the publication of his philosophical writings.2
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
929.
TO JOHN CAMPBELL1
- Avignon
April 4, 1866
Dear Sir—
The supposition that I approve of the bill empowering Govt to make loans for the improvement of the dwellings of the working classes is quite correct.2 If I thought that such a measure would injure the independence of the working classes or encourage their improvidence I shd strenuously oppose it. But the case seems to me to be one of a class of cases in which people require artificial help, to enable them afterwards to help themselves. The taste for better house accommodation has still to be created: & until it is created, private speculation will not find its account in supplying that improved accommodation. The aid of Govt is often useful, & sometimes necessary, to start improved systems which once started are able to keep themselves going without further help. I support loans from the public for the purpose in question (which is still more important morally than even physically) as I would support similar loans for the purpose of creating peasant proprietors, or (if necessary for the purpose) in aid of colonization. I think however that the loans ought not to be accessible only to Town Councils, but also to building companies or private capitalists under strict conditions & on proper security; and the Bill introduced by the Govt gives, I believe, the power of making such advances.
930.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Blackheath Park
April 9. 1866
Dear Sir
Your note of the 29th reached me at Avignon, but I could not answer it until my return here enabled me to tell you if Mr Sullivan’s pamphlet2 had been sent to me or not. I find that it has, and I have lost no time in reading it. After doing so, my opinion decidedly is that it requires an answer. It is written with some ability, and knowledge of detail; it does not manifestly exhibit want of candour, and as it makes some points on matters of fact, with apparent success (though none which are essential to the question) it will be largely used in the discussions, and will be represented as a complete answer to you3 and Whittle.4 There should, I think, be a reply to it in print if only to supply those who fight the battle in Parliament with answers to what will be brought against them. The fight will be a more arduous one than we thought; for several of the leading Tories, in the debate on Tests,5 shewed a disposition to adopt denominational instead of mixed education, and exhibited a decided sympathy with the movement of the Catholic bishops. If you reply, I have not the least objection to its being, as you propose, in the form of a letter to me.6
I am obliged to stop short, being very busy, as you may suppose at such a time as this.
Ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
931.
TO THOMAS CARLYLE1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
April 11, 1866
Dear Carlyle—
My answer to your note respecting Dr Löwe2 has been delayed by the necessity of finding time to rummage old papers in order to ascertain whether an impression I had of having already consented to a similar proposal from some other quarter, was well founded or not. I now find that in December 1861 I gave my assent to a translation of my book on Repr. Govt by a Dr F. A. Wille,3 who like Dr Löwe, had been engaged in the political events of 1848 & had for ten years afterwards been living in Switzerland. Dr Wille then informed me that his translation was partly printed & I am almost sure that it was published in the course of the following years. If a copy was sent to me I have it not at hand, but Dr Löwe could probably inform himself on the subject without difficulty. Dr Wille’s address at that time was Mariafeld (sic), Meilen, Zürich.
Please thank Mrs Carlyle for her remembrance of me. I have been sorry to hear a rather poor account of her health4 & to see by your Edinburgh address5 that your own is not quite satisfactory.6
932.
TO THE EARL OF CLARENDON1
- Blackheath Park
April 15, 1866.
My Lord,
I have had the honour of receiving your communication of the 9th inst. and am much gratified that the small offering2 which I had the opportunity of making to the London Library should have appeared to the Committee deserving of such an acknowledgment. It is probable that I may continue to receive from private friends or public authorities in the United States books and documents of a similar character to those which I had the pleasure of presenting, and since they are considered to be of value to the Library, I shall have great satisfaction in forwarding them as they arrive. A few have been discovered which were overlooked when the parcel was sent, and these I will at once despatch to the Librarian.
I have the honour to be your Lordship’s most obedient Servant,
J. S. Mill
933.
TO SAMUEL SULLIVAN COX1
- Blackheath Park, Kent
April 15, 1866.
Dear Sir
On my return to England I did not forget the promise in my letter of Dec. 21, but addressed myself to one of the highest statistical authorities in this country, Mr Newmarch, the associate of Mr Tooke in the later volumes of his admirable History of Prices,2 and a man of mark among our economists; that he is a warm freetrader I need not say. Mr Newmarch has furnished me with some publications in which you will find a great deal of the information you want respecting the operation of free trade in this country, and with a full review of the commercial history of the last year, forming a Supplement to the Economist newspaper of March 10,3 and written by himself. These I will immediately send (probably through Mr Trübner) to the New York address you gave me. I fear the unsatisfactory state of the reconstruction question, and the differences between Congress and the President, may delay for some time the progress which might otherwise have taken place more rapidly on the freetrade question. But every awakening of the national mind is sure to be favourable to the removal of prejudice; and I have no doubt that, if not a complete, yet a very considerable reform of the legislation on this subject, will before many years reward the exertions of yourself and the other enlightened men who have taken up the cause.
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Hon. S. S. Cox
934.
TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE1
- Blackheath Park
April 21. 1866
My dear Sir
I thank you very much for your kind invitation for Wednesday May 2, but I still find so much need of repose on the evenings on which the House does not sit (when those evenings are not absorbed by other necessary occupations) that I do not yet venture to accept an invitation for any evening. But if your Thursday mornings have commenced, I should have great pleasure in soon availing myself of one of them.
I venture to ask your acceptance of the inclosed paper2 (printed in the current number of the Edinburgh Review) the subject of which I know to be interesting to you, whatever may be the case with the execution. I offer it, not forgetting how long it must wait before you are likely to be able to give it even a cursory glance. I am
My dear Sir
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
935.
TO GEORGE GROTE1
- Blackheath
April 22. 1866
My dear Grote
You may well conceive what a gratification it is to me to find that you are so well satisfied with my attempt to condense into an article the principal ideas of your book. You had left so little to be done that the greatest success I could hope for was to throw in a sufficient number of fresh citations and illustrations and to put sufficient originality into the mode of turning the expression of your thoughts, to enable my repetition of them to have in some small degree the value of a confirmation by an independent inquirer.
Was I not lucky in being able to quote so capital a Platonic passage from Max Müller?2
I suppose you have read the review of your book in Fraser which was unfortunately the last production of Dr Whewell.3 So far as he differed from you he always seemed to me to be wrong; but it was very pleasant to see that, having some real knowledge of the subject, he gave so complete and so intelligent an adhesion to your novelties of opinion respecting the Sophists.
With our kind regards to Mrs Grote I am
My dear Grote
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
936.
TO HENRY PITMAN1
Blackheath Park, April 27, 1866
Dear Sir,—
A Liberal county member,2 to whom I have been speaking about the Suffolk experiment in Agricultural Co-operation,3 is very desirous to know more about it. I could not remember to what numbers of “The Co-operator” to refer him; but if you would kindly inform me of that, or of any other source of information which it would be well for him to consult, you would do, I think, a useful service to the cause.
I should be very glad if you would, at the same time, tell me how matters go on with yourself and “The Co-operator.”
As I know the great expense you are put to for postage, I take the liberty of enclosing a stamped envelope.—I am, dear Sir, very truly yours,
J. S. Mill
937.
TO WILLIAM LONGMAN1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
April 28. 1866
Dear Sir—
Your report of the sale of the books is extremely satisfactory—in the case of the book on Hamilton even embarrassingly so2 —for several elaborate criticisms & replies to it having appeared since the publication of the 2d edit.3 there will be a great deal to do by way of preparation for a third, whether this is published separately or as part of the collected edition you propose.
In regard to the collected edition the difficulty occurs to me, that it cannot at present be complete in consequence of the interest which Mr. Trübner has in the reprint of the essays on Comte. This seems to be a reason (in addition to others) for at least postponing the project until the sale of the book on Comte has considerably slackened, which it is sure before long to do; I am at present inclined to put off the subject & to take it into consideration a year hence with a view to Jan. 1st 1868 instead of 1867.
938.
TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE1
- Blackheath Park
May 1 [1866]
My dear Sir
As I mentioned to you my intention of availing myself of your kind invitation next Thursday morning, I think it best to tell you that I have a severe attack of influenza, to get rid of which I am told that I must confine myself to bed. I am afraid therefore I shall not only lose the pleasure of seeing you on Thursday morning, but what I regret still more, that of hearing your financial statement.2 I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
939.
TO THOMAS HARE1
- Blackheath
May 4. 1866
Dear Sir
I return Mr. Rathbone’s2 sensible letter. He certainly had every reason to presume that you would have influence with me or with any one else who knows you. But I have been obliged to answer Mr. Crosfield’s3 letter by a refusal, being compelled to refuse all engagements, and to put off even St. Andrews till next winter.4
I am better, and hope to be at the House on Monday and at the Committee5 if summoned; but as I am practically examiner in chief in the present passing stage of the business, it is not unlikely that Ayrton will not summon the Committee until he has assured himself that I can be present.
I am ever yrs truly
J. S. Mill
940.
TO HENRY PITMAN1
Blackheath Park, May 4, 1866.
Dear Sir,—
Many thanks for the pamphlets,2 which will be of the greatest use to Mr. Acland3 (the county member I mentioned), and perhaps to others.
The news of the Wolverhampton Plate-Locksmiths4 is most gratifying, and a fine example of what Co-operation can do.
Though I do not agree, so far as compulsory measures are concerned, with the U. K. Alliance,5 yet, since you do, I congratulate you on having obtained a sure income, compatible with the continuance of your most valuable services to Co-operation.—I am, dear Sir, yours very truly,
J. S. Mill
H. Pitman, Esq.
941.
TO CAROLINE E. LIDDELL1
6th May 1866
Madam,—
I am happy to hear that you and other ladies are disposed to assert your just claim to be represented in the body that taxes you, and I recommend to you to lose no opportunity of doing so. When men who wish to remove the invidious distinctions under which you labour offer arguments founded on the evident justice of your cause, we are constantly met by the reply that ladies themselves see no hardship in it, and do not care enough for the franchise to ask for it. I am glad to be able to say that I know several members of Parliament who wish to grant the franchise without distinction of sex, but I know many more who would be ashamed to refuse it if it were quietly and steadily demanded by women themselves. I am sorry to find that you disclaim being strong-minded, because I believe strength of mind to be one of the noblest gifts that any rational creature, male or female, can possess, and the best measure of our degree of efficiency for working in the cause of truth. But such mental powers and energies as we any of us do possess, ought to be employed in striving to remove the evils with which circumstances have made us acquainted; and a woman who is a taxpayer is the most natural and most suitable advocate of the political enfranchisement of women. I hope, therefore, that you will endeavour to strengthen the hands of those (and I know more than one) who have devoted their lives to working in your cause, by protesting against the injustice you suffer, whenever and wherever you can, both in society, and when occasion offers in public. If you could yourself write a petition (almost in the terms of your letter to me), and procure as many signatures to it as you can, I should be happy to present it to Parliament.2
942.
TO JOHN LOTHROP MOTLEY1
- Blackheath Park,
May 6th, 1866.
Dear Sir,
I am afraid you must have thought hard things of me for being so slow in answering your very friendly and most interesting letter of February 1st. Had your introduction to Mr. Holmes2 not already been sent, but depended on my answer, I should have written at once, if even only a line, to say how glad I should be both to see and know him, both as his father’s3 son, as your friend, and as one whose personal history has already been such as your letter intimates. Among the countless and inexhaustible blessings which you, from your national struggle, will in the end bring forth for the human race, it is one of the greatest that they have behind them so many who, being what your friend was, have done what he has done. Such men are the natural leaders of the democracy of the world from this time forward; and such a series of events, coming upon minds prepared by previous high culture, may well have ripened their intellects, as it cannot but have fitted their characters, for stepping into that vacant post and filling it with benefit to the world.
The new struggle, in which you are now engaged, that of reconstruction, is well fitted to carry on the work of educating the political mind of the country. I have learnt to have great trust in the capability of the American people at large (outside the region of slavery) to see the practical leanings of a political question truly and rapidly when the critical moment comes. It seems to me that things are going on as well and as fast as could be hoped for under the untoward accident of getting an obstinate Southern man, a pro-slavery man almost to the last, in the position of President.4 But the passing of the Civil Rights Bill5 over his head seems almost to ensure the right issue to the contest. If you only keep the Southern States out of Congress till they one by one either grant negro suffrage or consent to come in on the basis of their electoral population alone, they may probably then be let in in safety. But the real desideratum (in addition to colonization from the North) is the Homestead law which you propose for the negroes.6 I cannot express too strongly the completeness of my agreement with all you say on that point. Compared with these great questions, free trade is but a secondary matter; but it is a good sign that this also has benefited by the general impulse given to the national mind, and that the free traders are raising themselves for vigorous efforts. I am not anxious that this question should be forced on while the others are pending; for anything which might detach the Western from the Eastern States, and place them in even partial sympathy with the South, would at present be a great calamity.
I have often during the years since we met in Vienna7 wished that I could talk with you, but always found something more urgent to do than to resort to the unsatisfactory mode of communication by letter, and this is still more the case now that I have allowed new and onerous duties to be placed upon me. They are not nearly so agreeable to myself, and it remains to be seen whether they will be as useful as that of writing out my best thoughts and putting them into print. I have a taller pulpit now, but one in which it is impossible to use my best materials. But jacta est alea, I must make the best I can of it; and I have had thus far much more of what is called success than I could have hoped for beforehand.
I am, dear Sir,
Ever sincerely yours
J. S. Mill
943.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Blackheath Park
May 11 [1866]
Dear Sir
I am much better,2 and am now attending the House, but as I do not go there every day, and on Mondays and Thursdays have to attend a Committee3 from 12 to 4, it is difficult to make an appointment at the hour you mention. At present Tuesday is the first day I can mention, and that is uncertain, but if you do not hear from me previously, you will find me at the House on Tuesday at three. I am
Dear Sir
yrs very truly
J. S. Mill
944.
TO MONCURE DANIEL CONWAY1
- Blackheath Park
- Kent
May 15. 1866
Dear Sir
Will you and Mrs Conway do us the pleasure of coming down and dining with us on Sunday week (May 24th)? We dine at five, and there is a train from Charing Cross at 4.5 P.M.
I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
945.
TO EDWARD OWEN GREENING1
- Blackheath Park
May 18th 1866
I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 10th inst. inviting me to a Soirée to be held tomorrow, in celebration of the 1st. year’s successful working of the new limited liability company, “Greening & Co.”2 I regret my inability to attend on this interesting occasion; but beg to be allowed to express my warm approbation of the principle of associating all the persons employed by the Company, in the profits of the undertaking, and my congratulations on the success which has already attended your application of that principle.
946.
TO JOHN A. LEATHERLAND1
- Blackheath Park
May 19. 1866
Dear Sir
I beg to apologize for the delay in answering your note. I am greatly honoured by the opinion you express of my writings, and had I the necessary leisure, should be happy to read your volume of poems, as you wish me to do so.
My time however is so much occupied that I am obliged to defer looking at much that is sent me in those departments of literature to which I give most attention and I fear therefore it will be impossible for me to give the attention to your poems which you wish.
I am Dear Sir
yrs faithfully
J. S. Mill
Mr. J. A. Leatherland
947.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1
- Blackheath
May 19 [1866]
Dear Sir,—
I entirely approve and applaud the object of the meeting to be held on Monday next on Primrose-hill2 —that of encouraging and strengthening the Government in resisting all compromise in the leading provisions of the Reform Bill. I am greatly obliged by your very cordial invitation to attend the meeting, but my absence from town will prevent my being present at it.
I am, &c.,
J. S. Mill
948.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Crowcome, Somerset
May 21. 1866
Dear Chadwick
I am much obliged to you for the documents you forwarded and I hope to make good use of them.
I had no opportunity before leaving town of making the inquiries about Carlisle and Bristol, but I will do so as soon as I can.
The Commission respecting Middle Class Schools2 seems to be much in need of information and suggestions that you could give them. I have been talking with Acland,3 one of the members of the Commission, and found that he knew absolutely nothing of what had been done at Faversham.4 He promised that he would look up the case, which must have been reported on by one of their Assistant Commissioners. I could not remember where your account of it was,5 which I read with such extreme interest when it came out. Could you not write them a short letter, or send them papers about it, or, as the next best thing, cram me on the subject, for I am threatened with having a set of questions sent to me from them,6 which would be much better sent to you.
I am
Yrs very truly
J. S. Mill
Write to Blackheath as usual.
949.
TO EARL GREY1
- Crowcombe, Somerset
May 21. 1866
My dear Lord
The Reform Bill of the Government is no doubt a kind of makeshift which it would be difficult for persons of my opinions to defend as being the best thing in itself, and in the detail of which many improvements might be suggested, if it could be done without damaging the chance which the Bill has of getting through Parliament. Among other things, representation of minorities would be an immense improvement in this, as it would in any other scheme of representation. But supposing it desirable that such a proposal should be made in the House of Commons, I am not the right person to make it, in the shape to which you give the preference.2 If I were to originate any move for representation of minorities, it could only be in the form which alone, as I conceive, carries out the principle, that of Mr Hare’s system; which I believe to be practicable, though I am aware that you are of a different opinion. My inability to originate a proposal for the cumulative vote plan (which I regard as the next best) would be no hindrance to my supporting it if proposed by others. But I could only do so in the cases in which the constituency returns three members. There is, no doubt, much truth in your remark that where the two parties are of nearly equal strength, there is less injustice in giving one member to each than two members to the one which is slightly the most numerous, and none at all to the other. But it seems to me indispensable in the future interest of the principle of representation of minorities (which is particularly liable to be misunderstood and misrepresented) that a broad line should be drawn between it and any plan which makes a minority politically equal to a majority; and that this last should be absolutely disclaimed, as going beyond and in opposition to the principle. Unless this is done, the democrats of the old one-sided school3 will succeed in making the principle unpopular as an aristocratic contrivance to neutralise the extension of the franchise: though in truth it is exactly as much democratic as aristocratic, its effect being to limit the tyranny of the strongest power, whatever this happens to be.
I do not see, therefore, how I can in any direct way promote the object you have in view. I am
my dear Lord
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
The Earl Grey.
950.
TO THOMAS BEGGS1
- Porlock, Somerset
May 25. 1866
Dear Sir
Your note of May 22 followed me into Somersetshire. Having ascertained that I should not be wanted in the House on Thursday or Friday, I gave myself a whole week’s holiday in the only form in which a holiday does me any good, by long walks through beautiful scenery. I am sorry that you and your friends will have had the trouble of going to the House on Thursday to no purpose; but I shall be there on Monday, and every subsequent day for some time.
I should have been much surprised if you, having attended to Irish affairs, had come to any other conclusion about them than the one you express in your letter. I am very happy that you think my speech2 calculated to do good. The writer of the article you inclosed (for which I thank you) has well seized the leading points. But he is mistaken in saying that the speech was a surprise to the Irish members. The leaders of the National Party knew my opinions and offered, more than ten years ago to bring me into Parliament for an Irish County on purpose to advocate them.3 He is also mistaken in thinking that the Tory leaders went away to show disrespect to me. They went away because it was long past dinner time.
I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Thomas Beggs Esq.
951.
TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE1
- Porlock, Somerset
May 25. 1866
My dear Sir
Your letter found me yesterday at the further extremity of Somersetshire where I was wandering about the woody and heathy hills, to the great benefit of my health, and had arranged to continue doing so the whole week; not without having ascertained from Mr Brand2 that in his opinion a vote more or less would be of no consequence on Thursday or Friday.
I go entirely along with nearly the whole of your paper:3 on a point or two I need some further explanation which you could probably give in five minutes conversation at any convenient opportunity. It is quite clear that the objection made to the plan has no application, so long as we do not require to borrow a sum greater than the whole surplus on our Banking Account: since the extra million of charge occasioned by the plan, will not absorb any part of our surplus either on the Exchequer or on the Banking account, but will be provided for like the other expenses of the year, by the ways and means voted by Parliament.
On the other hand, if we at any time require to borrow a larger amount than our banking surplus, or in other words, than we can borrow from ourselves, it does seem to me, as at present informed, that the plan is pro tanto liable to the same objection as the old Sinking Fund. But this contingency, if we keep out of wars (or even if we have wars, but only short ones, at considerable intervals) will be altogether exceptional, and will, I think, be greatly outweighed by the advantage of tying down the nation to keeping up an extra revenue of a million for the express purpose of paying off debt.
In time of war, Operation B4 might, and probably ought to be suspended.
I am My dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Rt Hon. W. E. Gladstone &c &c
952.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1
- Blackheath Park
May 29 [1866]2
Dear Sir
If you are not engaged on Wednesday, June 6th, will you dine with us on that day at 7? If you will meet me at the House of Commons at ¼ before 6, we can go down to Blackheath together.
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
953.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath
May 31. 1866
Dear Chadwick
I have received the invitation I expected from Lord Taunton’s Commission2 —and shall be much obliged by any references you can give me to sources of information, or by any intimation of views of your own. When your proposal came about visiting the Limehouse schools, we were in Somersetshire; and at present it is extremely difficult for either of us to find time for it. I think I should learn more about the schools from any good account of them (if there be one) which you could refer me to, than I should pick up from a flying visit.
I read both the articles you sent with great interest, especially the conclusive and highly effective one from the Examiner.3
I should be very glad of a walk and talk with you as you propose, but it is difficult to fix a time for it just now.
ever yrs truly
J. S. Mill
954.
TO CHARLES ROSS1
- [Embossed] House of Commons
[June, 1866]
Dear Sir
I thank you very much for your note. The report of my speech in the Times, so far as I have been able to examine it, was so good, that I have lost nothing by not being able to substitute my own report for it. If I understand your note correctly it would not be open to you, if you took a speech from myself, to give slips to the other papers. I am afraid, if this is so, that it will generally prevent me from availing myself of your obliging offer to receive such communications from me. It is of much more importance to be well reported in the Times than anywhere else, but one is so much more certain of being so, that if one has to choose between sending one’s notes to the Times or to the other papers one would rather do it to the others.2 I am
yours faithfully
J. S. Mill
955.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- Blackheath
June 1. [1866]
Dear Sir
Be sure that I shall persist in opposing the Gas Bill,2 whatever the Committee may report3 —and I hope the Government will do so too, as one of them (I believe, Mr. Cowper),4 on the former discussion, expressed the opinion that Gas works ought to be kept out of towns and their immediate vicinity altogether.
I expect to be at the House every day next week and if you like to come at any time when the House is sitting and send in your name to me, I shall be happy to come to you.
ever yrs truly
J. S. Mill
956.
TO WILLIAM FRASER RAE1
- Blackheath Park
June 2. 1866
Dear Sir
I shall be happy to propose you as a member of the Political Economy Club. You may however have to wait some time before being elected, as there are several good candidates standing before you.2
The reason I do not give my speeches to the Times, is that the Times would keep them to itself, while the other papers give slips to one another. It would be a great piece of servility to give anything that depends on me to the Times alone; denying it to the papers with whose politics I agree, and which have acted in the most friendly manner to me throughout.3
Will you do us the pleasure of dining with us on Wednesday next (June 6) at half past seven? I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
957.
TO LADY AMBERLEY1
- Blackheath Park
June 3. [1866]
Dear Lady Amberley
I should much like to accept your kind proposal, if it were not that I have given a general invitation to two persons to dine with me at the House any day this week, and one or both of them may possibly choose Monday,2 the more so as they may be there on Monday to hear the debate. I therefore feel tied up until my engagement with them is fulfilled, or till the end of this week.
I am
Dear Lady Amberley
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
958.
TO CHRISTOPHER DARBY GRIFFITH1
Blackheath Park, 9th June 1866
Dear Sir,—
I am happy that, as I infer from your note of yesterday’s date, you are not indisposed towards the extension of the electoral franchise to women within the limits expressed in the petition.
The notice which I gave in the House yesterday2 goes as far as I think it prudent to go, on this subject, in the present session. As there is no chance that we can succeed in getting a clause for admitting women to the suffrage introduced with the present Reform Bill, it seems to me and to other friends of such a proposal desirable merely to open the subject this year, without taking up the time of the House and increasing the accusation of obstructiveness by forcing on a discussion which cannot lead to a practical result. What we are now doing will lay the foundation of a further movement when advisable, and will prepare for that movement a much greater amount of support in the country than we should have if we attempted it at present.
959.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Blackheath
June 13 [1866]
Dear Sir
If you are disengaged on Wednesday the 20th, will you dine with us at half past seven to meet some Americans, whom I think you will like to know if you do not already know them. Miss Hamilton,2 a granddaughter of the famous Hamilton—her two nieces,3 and Mr Schuyler,4 who is married to one of them—I am
Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
960.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- House of Commons Library
Wednesday
[June 13, 1866]
Dear Mr Plummer
It is most mortifying that we were beaten last night on the Gas Bill.2 I thought when the Government took our side we should be successful, but the influence of the Gas Companies, and the unwillingness of many members to set aside the decision of the Select Committee, were too much for us.
I found your letter at the House, but not your own petition, and I could learn nothing about it. But it would have made no difference.
I obtained several votes for the right side. But some who would otherwise have voted with us [said?] that the manufacturers are a still worse nuisance, and that the ground now given to the Gas Company would have been sure to be occupied by manufacturers.
I am Dear Mr Plummer
ever yrs truly
J. S. Mill
The papers are all wrong about my motion last night. I did not bring it in, but postponed it to Tuesday [next?]3
J.S.M.
961.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- Blackheath
Thursday night
[June 14, 1866]
Dear Mr Plummer
The House will be very impatient of an attempt to renew the contest on a subject of this sort after a decision, and will probably defeat us, in consequence, by a greatly increased majority.2 Nevertheless, if Mr Tite3 and the others who led the opposition to the Bill the other night are willing to oppose it again, I will join with them. Without their concurrence it would be a mere waste of time attempting it. I think our best hope now is the House of Lords, where the private pecuniary interests are not so powerful. In that House the demonstration you intend to make may have a considerable effect. I recommend a direct application to Lord Derby4 for his support.
I am very sorry that I shall not be able to see you next Sunday, as I am engaged through the whole day and evening, but if you can come to the House pretty early tomorrow (Friday) evening I will see you.
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
962.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Blackheath Park
July 3. 1866
Dear Sir
Immediately on receiving your letter I wrote to Mr Gladstone, and I inclose his answer,2 which I have only this morning received. I wrote also to Mr Fortescue3 giving him notice that I should ask him a question publicly in the House yesterday; but did not do so, since the private explanation which he gave me in the House shewed me, as his memorandum sent by Gladstone will shew to you, that all the mischief which could be done by the Government without passing a Bill through Parliament has been consummated.4 The supplemental charter received the Queen’s signature weeks ago. It empowers the Senate to give degrees to all comers. In order to enable these graduates to have any voice in the Government of the University, and to enable the Govt to enlarge the Senate, a Bill is required which Fortescue was on the point of introducing when the resignation took place.
You are better able than I am to judge whether any breach of faith has been committed. Fortescue maintains that the expression of intention given in their speeches was the notice promised, and a sufficient warning. We, who were holding back on account of the Reform Bill, certainly were led to expect a further notice: otherwise we should have brought the matter before the House at once, which would have been very disagreeable to the Govt. Whether treachery or misunderstanding, the fact is most unfortunate both in its direct and its indirect consequences. When you have made up your mind what is the best thing that can now be done, please let me know. I suppose the next step will be to put a question to the incoming Ministry.
The conclusion of your pamphlet which you sent to me in proof, is excellent.5 It adds new and good arguments to the old ones. But I suppose you will have to add a supplement to it now. In haste
yours ever
J. S. Mill
963.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath Park
July 3 [1866]
Dear Chadwick
I only received your note yesterday (Monday) on returning from the country. The Evidence is with Hickson, who wanted it for the same reason as yourself.2 I have written to him to send it to you as soon as he can spare it.
I am quite unable to propose any time for a talk on the subject unless you are able to come here early on Wednesday forenoon (for I expect a visitor later) or unless you can come to the House on Thursday before the hour of the Committee (twelve) or after the rising of the House—which will probably be between four and five. In haste
yrs ever
J. S. Mill
964.
TO LADY AMBERLEY1
- Blackheath Park.
July 4. [1866]
Dear Lady Amberley
Thursday will not be convenient, and perhaps you will kindly allow me to leave Tuesday week dependent on what is doing in the House that evening—especially as it is the day on which I hope to bring in the motion I have given notice of.2 I am
Dear Lady Amberley
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
965.
TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE1
- Blackheath Park
July 4. 1866
My dear Sir
Many thanks for your note and its inclosure.2 I saw Mr Fortescue in the House on Monday, and he gave me substantially the same explanations, differing however in one point from what seems to be your impression, for according to his statement the authority to the University to grant degrees to all comers is a completed fact. The admission of the new class of graduates to Convocation, and the increase of the numbers of the Senate, require the previous authority of Parliament; but these are, in the eyes of opponents, only secondary points, since the Government for the time being can, though more gradually, infuse any element into the Senate by the process of filling up vacancies. There has been an unfortunate misunderstanding in this matter, on one or on both sides. Whose fault it was I am unable to say; very probably ours. But the fact is that many Liberals who were opposed to the changes fully believed that the speeches to which Mr Fortescue refers were not the promised notice, and that in some shape (such as a notice of the introduction of the intended Bill) they should be otherwise warned before the last moment arrived; being anxious not to stir until the last moment, on account of the Reform Bill. I am afraid that the consciousness of having, or being thought to have, partly themselves to blame, will not tend to soften their feelings, or disincline them to blame others. I am
My dear Sir
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
The Right Hon.
W. E. Gladstone M.P.
966.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath
Friday [6? July, 1866]
Dear Chadwick
I send you by this post some of the most important parts of the Evidence,2 of which I have been able to obtain duplicate copies. Hickson will send the rest when he can spare it.
yrs very truly
J. S. Mill
967.
TO JAMES MARTINEAU1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
July 6. 1866
Dear Sir—
It would be very discreditable to any Englishman who watches the progress of opinion, & is capable of understanding the vast importance of speculative philosophy, to have remained ignorant of your contributions to it or of the influence you have exercised over the mode of thought of a considerable proportion of the few & scattered metaphysical students in this country. It would always give me much pleasure to bear testimony to your knowledge both special & general, your abilities, & your candid appreciation of opponents, of which I have had a striking instance in my own case.2 Unfortunately, however, if I were to volunteer that testimony on the occasion of the vacancy in University College,3 & if when given it were of any value to you, it could only be so by being prejudicial to another candidate4 who, though I have no reason to think his claims superior to yours in any other respect, would certainly teach doctrines much nearer than yours to those which I myself hold on the great philosophical questions. Now though this in itself is far from being a paramount consideration with me, the opportunities are so few & unfrequent of obtaining for opinions similar to my own their fair share of influence in the public teaching of this country that if I myself had a vote in the disposal of the professorship, I shd think myself bound, in the general interest of philosophical thought no less than of my own form of it, to give the preference to a candidate (otherwise sufficiently qualified) who would teach my own opinions, in one of the very few chairs from which those opinions would not be a peremptory exclusion. You are perfectly capable of entering into this feeling even if you do not approve of it, & I can only add that I do not think I have ever in any instance regretted so much my inability to support a similar candidature.
968.
TO J. GEORGE MAWBY1
Blackheath Park, July 6, 1866
Dear Sir—
I have read attentively your letter, and the printed correspondence which you sent, and which contains many things having an important bearing on the question to which it relates; but it seems to me to avoid a point which cannot be excluded from consideration, viz., how far a nation is bound by the unauthorized act of its representative when it has not disavowed that act at the proper time.2 You say, “the way to recal the undue words of a plenipotentiary would be to punish him for exceeding his powers.”3 But whether we ought or ought not to have done this, we did not do it; on the contrary, the few words of modified disapprobation which were uttered by a few public men, only brought into stronger relief the general assent, or at least acquiescence, which the Declaration of Paris4 received from our all constituted authorities. Surely if there ever was such a thing as a tacit recognition and confirmation of the act of an ambassador, we have it in this case. I am far from giving this consideration as conclusive; for, indeed, I hold the right of a nation to bind itself and its posterity permanently, even by an express treaty, to be much more limited than I believe it is generally deemed to be by those who share your opinions. But there is surely a difficulty here which I do not perceive that you have in any degree taken into account.
I am, dear Sir, yours very sincerely,
J. S. Mill
Mr. J. G. Mawby
969.
TO FRANCIS BOWEN1
July 10, 1866
Dear Sir
Your visit to London has occurred at a time at which I am unluckily unable to profit by it as much as I might have hoped to do, my time being almost entirely preoccupied for every day this week. But if it is not inconvenient to you, I could arrange to call on you at your Hotel some time on Saturday afternoon, say two o’clock. Should this not suit you, the only other thing I can at present propose is that we should meet on Monday evening at the House of Commons. I am
Dear Sir
yours very sincerely
J. S. Mill
970.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Blackheath Park
July 10. 1866
Dear Sir
I perceive that Sir R. Peel has given a notice,2 virtually for Monday next, about the proceedings on the subject of the Queen’s University, expressly including the hurried convocation of the Senate.3 This is probably done in concert with Mr Lowe and I think the subject is best in their hands. I do not think there would be the smallest use in my speaking or writing further to Mr Gladstone. The letter I wrote to him4 in answer to the one you saw, would make him fully aware of the damage which I consider to be done to the reputation of his Government by the disregard of what was, at least, supposed by the persons most concerned to be a pledge.
The subject is altogether a most unhappy one, and, in any event, full of mischief to the liberal cause. I am Dear Sir
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
971.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Blackheath Park
July 15. 1866
Dear Sir
The success of the motion in the Senate for postponement is very important.2 Is the postponement to a given day, or, as I find stated in a newspaper sine die? It is also important that it was moved by Sir R. Peel, as it shews him to be in earnest: and he has been backed by an article in the Times, no doubt written or prompted by Lowe.3
As they seem determined to go on with the subject, I think it is best in their hands. I will certainly support them in what I think a good cause, but I would rather not be the prominent person in a move which is very likely to break up the alliance between the Irish Catholics and the English Liberals, and perhaps keep the Tories in office for years. I am
ever yrs truly
J. S. Mill
972.
TO THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY1
- [House of Commons]
July 16 [1866?]
Dear Sir
Monsieur Barrère,2 the bearer of this note, and a highly esteemed and valued friend of mine, is a candidate for headship of the new International School to be established in France by your Association.3 I should think M. Barrère eminently qualified for such a post, both by his acquirements, his general character and disposition, and his great experience as a teacher both in England and in France. But he will himself more fully explain his qualifications. He is, I understand, very well known to Dr Leonard Schmitz.4
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Professor Huxley.
973.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Blackheath
July 19 [1866]
Dear Sir
I shall be at the Cobden Club dinner,2 but it will hardly be possible for us to talk of such matters there. I shall be at the House on Friday, and able to see you either while the House is sitting, or, if it suits you better, in the Library at any time between three and four.
ever yrs truly
J. S. Mill
974.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath
Saturday [July 21, 1866]
Dear Chadwick
This is to remind you that I hope to see you at the Committee on Monday,2 and to say that the Committee has appointed to meet at one instead of twelve.
yours ever truly
J. S. Mill
975.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- Blackheath
July 22 [1866]
Dear Mr Plummer
Could you and Mrs Plummer do us the pleasure of dining with us next Sunday at five? We should like to see you again before we leave England. I am
Dear Mr Plummer
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
976.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- Blackheath
July 25 [1866]
Dear Mr Plummer
I wrote to you on Sunday2 to ask if you and Mrs Plummer can give us the pleasure of dining with us on Sunday next at five, but as I directed the note to Belle Sauvage Yard3 and have not heard from you in answer, I am afraid it did not reach you. Will you kindly give me a line to say if you can come?
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
977.
TO EDMOND BEALES1
- Blackheath Park
July 26, 1866.
Dear Sir,
I congratulate you and all our friends on the yielding of the government.2 They deserve credit, especially Mr. Walpole,3 for having given way before it was too late.
I enclose £5 for the Defence Fund.4
I am,
Dear Sir,
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Edmond Beales Esq.
978.
TO EDMOND BEALES1
- Blackheath Park
July 28. 1866
Dear Sir
Some American friends of mine, chiefly ladies, are very desirous of being present at the meeting on Monday.2 Would you kindly interest yourself in getting them places on the platform? The party consists of Miss Hamilton, grandaughter of the celebrated statesman, her two nieces, and her brother in law, Mr Schuyler.3 An admission directed to G. S. [sic] Schuyler Esq., United Hotel, Charles Street, Haymarket, would find them. I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Edmond Beales Esq.
979.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath
Aug. 1. [1866]
Dear Chadwick
I found your Clause on returning late at night from the House on the day on which the Public Health Bill completed its passage through Committee.2 It was thus too late to do anything.
I will take care that your Evidence3 is sent to you for revisal.
yrs ever truly
J. S. Mill
980.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath
Aug. 5. 1866.
Dear Chadwick
I should be obliged if you could soon return my paper on Schools2 with any remarks and suggestions, as I wish to send it in before I leave England, which will be as speedily as possible after the prorogation.
I regretted, the other day, not having kept a copy of your Clause,3 as there was an unforeseen opportunity of rediscussing the subject on the bringing up of the Report.4 You will however, in all probability, do better with it than I could on that occasion have done.
yrs very truly
J. S. Mill
981.
TO H. CHOLMONDELEY PENNELL1
- Blackheath Park
Aug. 5. 1866
Mr Mill presents his compliments to Mr Cholmondeley Pennell, and approves the principle of uniting the greatest possible number of capable writers in the same publication, each under his individual responsibility: but Mr Mill’s engagements, both public and private, are so numerous and pressing, that he is unable to hold out any prospect of its being in his power to contribute to the intended publication.
982.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
Aug. 5. 1866
Dear Mr Plummer
I have read the essays which you sent,2 and I am glad that I was able (though not without some inconvenience) to find time for doing so, as they were very interesting and encouraging reading. All the seven essays deserve honourable mention, and if they were printed together in a volume, it would be a really valuable one, both for sound views and for arguments well worth considering in support of what I think unsound ones. But the only one to which, if I were the judge, I could conscientiously award a prize would be the one numbered 160, with the motto, “Knowledge is Power.” This, I think, is very decidedly the best, both in matter and style.
The one numbered 137, with the motto “Free Competition,” though by no means equal to 160, shews a remarkable degree of mastery over some not very obvious principles of political economy proving that the Sheffield artisan by whom it professes to be written, has studied that subject diligently and intelligently. If the writers were pupils in a school or students in an University, this one would perhaps deserve the second prize for his personal merits: but as an essay on the subject, and as a composition generally, I do not think it [superior?] if even equal, to several of the others. If the second prize is divisible, I should suggest divid[ing] it among the six: if not, I cannot venture to recommend any one of them as preferable to the rest. But if it is necessary to select one, you can hardly go far wrong.
I am Dear Mr Plummer
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
983.
TO J. ARTHUR PARTRIDGE1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
Aug. 8. 1866
Dear Sir—
I am sincerely obliged to you for sending me your book on Democracy2 which I will read as soon as I can find time for any reading not required by an immediate exigency.
The other subject of your letter, the possibility of an organization of the middle class reformers,3 is very important but I am afraid very difficult, as it is hardly possible for the advanced reformers to agree on a common creed & it would not be desirable that each shd put in abeyance the special points of his own. This observation applies to myself even more than to most reformers since my particular scheme has probably very few adherents as a whole, though almost every separate point of it has many. I can only say for myself that I shd always be eager to cooperate with all other reformers when I agree with them, & to go forward if necessary alone on those convictions of my own with which others may not agree, or to which they may not attach so much practical importance as I do.
984.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath Park
Aug. 9. 1866.
Dear Chadwick
I am greatly obliged to you for your notes. I have made use of them in improving my answers by various alterations and insertions.2 The main substance of the answers I am very glad to find that you approve.
I have sent in your name as a candidate for the Cobden Club.3 The Committee will meet in February for the purpose of filling up the list of members.
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
985.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1
- Blackheath Park
Aug. 10. 1866
Dear Sir
I am very deeply impressed with the absolute necessity of maintaining intact the convertibility of all bank notes; but whether payment in gold at ten days sight might not be a sufficient protection against the evils involved in inconvertibility, is a question fairly open to discussion, and on which I do not profess to have finally made up my mind. I am not, however, inclined to rate highly the positive advantages of such a relaxation of the existing law. But I shall be glad to read what may be said in its favour, either by the Chamber of Commerce of Birmingham2 or by any other mercantile authority. I am
Dear Sir
very faithfully yours
J. S. Mill
986.
TO CHARLES GAVAN DUFFY1
- Blackheath Park
Aug 11. 1866
Dear Sir
I had been hoping for some further communication from you, and now it has unluckily come on the very day on which I am leaving England for the Continent. I very much regret that circumstances have prevented us from meeting more frequently during your stay in this country; but, so far as regards Australian politics, I regret it chiefly on my own account, for on that subject I should have been almost solely a learner from you. If you have time to write to me at my address in France, Saint Véran, près Avignon, it would give me great pleasure to correspond with you.
I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
987.
TO HERBERT SPENCER1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Aug. 15. 1866
Dear Sir
The Jamaica Committee2 have decided that a short letter asking the public for subscriptions to form a Guarantee Fund of £10,000 shall be published with the signatures of some of those members of the Committee whose names would have a favourable influence on any part of the public.3 You are, in virtue of your subscriptions, a member of the General Committee, and your name, as one of those appended to the letter, would be of very great value, as it would add, to a great intellectual and moral weight, that of a position aloof from all the personal part of politics, and a character which no one would think of calling intemperate or fanatical. Merely in the list of subscribers your name is of great value, but if you would not object to allowing the use of it for the other purpose, please communicate with Mr. Chesson,4 the Secretary, 65 Fleet Street. He will send you the letter and the list of those who have given, or hereafter give, their names: the officers of the Committee of course, together with Bright, Goldwin Smith, Samuel Morley (probably) and several other members of parliament and liberal notabilities in the North of England.
I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
988.
TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
le 20 août 1866
Mon cher d’Eichthal
Votre lettre n’est parvenue à Londres qu’après mon départ. Depuis bientôt huit jours, je suis ici, et bien content, je vous jure, de pouvoir revenir à des occupations tranquilles. La vie parlementaire fatigue et dissipe l’esprit toujours pour l’exercer quelquefois.
C’eût été un vrai plaisir pour moi que de causer avec vous et de comparer nos impressions.
Je suis très indifférent aux pensées de ceux pour qui les événements du moment ne sont que des événements d’un moment; quand même ce moment s’appellerait un siècle. Mais ceux chez qui tout ce qui arrive se lie à une conception générale du développement humain—et c’est notre cas à tous deux—ceux-là ont toujours quelque chose à dire l’un à l’autre. Espérons que l’occasion nous en viendra.—Bien des amitiés à votre frère, et à Duveyrier, dont la santé altérée me fait de la peine.
Votre bien dévoué
J. S. Mill
989.
TO WILLIAM SCHOLEFIELD1
- Avignon
Aug. 20. 1866
Dear Sir
The Reform Meeting2 to which the Committee and yourself have done me the honour to invite me, seems likely to be a very important demonstration, but it is out of my power to take part in it in any other way than by the expression of my best wishes. Begging the favour of your communicating this reply to the Committee I am
Dear Sir
yours very faithfully
J. S. Mill
William Scholefield Esq. M. P.
990.
TO THOMAS DAVIDSON1
- Avignon
Aug. 21, 1866
Sir
You have probably thought me unfeeling, since your letter of July 17th seemed to me to deserve an answer, in having so long delayed it. The delay was not solely owing to the manner in which all my time was engrossed during the latter part of the session, for if I could have seen my way to any mode of helping your struggles, though only by advice, I would not have omitted to do so. But I felt as if any time would be soon enough to say no, while by waiting there might always be a faint chance of being able to say something better. There is but little, however, that I can say, and hardly anything that I can do. I have no power of obtaining government appointments, and little or no influence with those who can give literary employment. I am afraid, in the circumstances of the case, your chance of obtaining employment as a teacher is small. Translating is one of the most wretchedly paid of all kinds of literary work, and the market is so overstocked with translators (very bad ones, but few publishers know the difference) that it is almost impossible to get employment even at that wretched pay. I see only two things of much promise, in a literary capacity, open to those who are situated as you are, and in neither of these would your opinions be much of an obstacle. You might be able to form a connexion with some newspaper as subeditor, correspondent, or writer, ultimately perhaps leading to editorship; or you might be able to earn a subsistence by writing in periodicals. In the former I have no power of helping you, unless you had already done something which could be adduced as proof of your capabilities. In the second it is barely possible that I might be of use to you; that is, if you write an article and send it to me, then may be some review or magazine which if I think well of it, would take it on my recommendation, whereby the foundation might be laid for your becoming a habitual contributor. After a good deal of thinking, I can find nothing else to propose to you. Manuscripts can be sent here (Avignon, Vaucluse, France) by book post, or if sent to my house (Blackheath Park, Kent) they are sure to be forwarded, but possibly not in less than three or four weeks.
You mention having been favourably recommended to Professor Key.2 From a former slight acquaintance with him, I should not think him likely to be prejudiced against you on account of your opinions; though what his power of being of use to you might be, I do not know. I am
Yours very sincerely
J. S. Mill
Thomas Davidson Esq.
991.
TO ROBERT PHARAZYN1
- S[aint] V[éran]
Aug. 21. 1866
Sir—
The great occupation of my time in the latter part of the session has prevented me from more promptly acknowledging your letter of April 14. I am glad to find that a student & thinker, such as you evidently are, finds so much in common between me & himself. The author of the article in the W. R. from which you quote (who is not, as you suppose, Mr Lewes2 ) is quite right in saying that I have thrown no light on the difficulty of reconciling the belief in a perfectly good God with the actual constitution of Nature.3 It was not my business to do so, but if I had given any opinion on the point it would have been that there is no mode of reconciling them except the hypothesis that the Creator is a Being of limited power. Either he is not all powerful or he is not good, & what I said was, that unless he is good I will not call him so nor worship him. The appearances however of contrivance in the universe, whatever amount of weight we attach to them, seem to point rather to a benevolent design limited by obstacles than to a malevolent or tyrannical character in the designer & I therefore think that the mind which cherishes devotion to a Principle of Good in the universe, leans in the direction in which the evidence, though I cannot think it conclusive, nevertheless points. I therefore do not discourage this leaning, though I think it important that people shd know that the foundation it rests on is an hypothesis, not an ascertained fact. This is the principal limitation which I would apply to your position,4 that we shd encourage ourselves to believe as to the unknowable what it is best for mankind that we shd believe. I do not think it can ever be best for mankind to believe what there is not evidence of, but I think that, as mankind improve they will much more recognise two independent mental provinces, the province of belief & the province of imaginative conjecture, that they will become capable of keeping them distinct, & while they limit their belief to the evidence, will think it allowable to let their imaginative anticipations go forth, not carrying belief in their train, in the direction which experience & the study of human nature shews to be the most improving to the character & most exalting or consoling to the individual feelings.
I do not know enough of N. Zealand politics to enter on that subject with you. I think most people in England are now of opinion that the colony shd have perfect freedom to manage its own affairs, paying the expenses of its own wars. There is some fear that you will not be just to the aborigines, but a still stronger belief that if you are not we cannot effectually protect them. I hope you are not wrong in saying that there is no disposition to be unjust to them. But if so the New Zealand colonists are I believe the only “Englishmen under new conditions” who do not think any injustice or tyranny whatever, legitimate against what they call inferior races, at least if those races do not implicitly submit to their will. I will hope better things for New Zealand, but in this as in the other & greater matter my belief will depend on the evidence.
P.S. I have not forgotten Mr. Revans,5 to whom pray make my remembrances.
992.
TO THEODOR GOMPERZ1
- S[aint] V[éran]
August 22, 1866
Dear Sir—
Ever since the functions of a member of parliament have been added I may say almost in spite of myself, to my other avocations, my time has been so completely engrossed that I was obliged to postpone even the duty & pleasure of thanking you for the second volume of your most interesting & valuable Herculanean series.2 You will not be surprised that I have not yet been able to give to the new volume more than a cursory inspection. I am indeed reduced to wondering whether I shall ever be able to resume those quiet studies which are so prodigiously better for the mind itself than the tiresome labour of chipping off little bits of one’s thoughts, of a size to be swallowed by a set of diminutive practical politicians incapable of digesting them. One ought to be very sure of being able to do something in politics that cannot be as well done by others, to justify one for the sacrifice of time and energies that might be employed on higher work. Time will show whether it was worth while to make this sacrifice for the sake of anything I am capable of doing towards forming a really advanced liberal party which, I have long been convinced, cannot be done except in the House of Commons.
Meanwhile what a change in Germany!3 &, it may be said, in Europe: a change of which it is hardly possible for any foreigner or perhaps for any German, to divine the consequences. I am amazed at the confident omniscience of English journalists, periodical writers, & members of parliament, every one of whom thinks he perfectly sees all the consequences that are to issue from what has happened, forgetful that they themselves were mostly, when the war began, indignant denouncers of Prussia & sympathizers with Austria while they have now quite passed over to the other side. Rien ne réussit comme le succès. All the faults of Austria are now seen & people have ceased to care for the flagrant immorality of the contest on the Prussian side. They do not see, or they do not care, that the struggle was between an expiring feudality & a powerful Caesarism & that to wish success to the last even against the first is to cast out devils by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
I am very anxious to know what you think of all this. Few Germans are so impartial both by position & by character as you are. What is now likely to become of your country? It might be a greater country yet than it ever has been, but there seems to me a want of practical good sense, & comprehension of the situation in the counsels of the Court of Vienna which give little ground of hope. Are the Hapsburgs capable of learning from experience or of really fitting themselves into the circumstances of a new age? The abolition of the Reichsrath4 which many European liberals foolishly praised because it seemed a concession to Hungary, has proved to be the most fatal step that could have been taken, because, as might have been foreseen, it destroyed all faith in the durability of a concession once made. It shewed that the Imperial family did not deem itself bound by a Constitution once granted. The hopes I had begun to form for Austria sunk to a very low ebb from that day.
I expect to be at Avignon till the end of this year & shall be very happy if you have time & inclination to write to me.
993.
TO JOHN BAXTER LANGLEY1
Avignon, Sept. 10th, 1866
Dear Sir,—
Your letter of Aug. 30th, did not reach me until too late to send a letter which could be read at the meeting in favour of a Testimonial to Mr. Beales. I think it quite right that reformers should make compensation to Mr. Beales for the pecuniary loss to which he has been subjected in consequence of the prominent part he has taken in urging the claims of the working classes to representation in Parliament.2 I see no force in the reasons assigned as a justification of this treatment of Mr. Beales. Strong political convictions are not considered a disqualification in much higher judicial offices than that of Revising Barrister,3 nor are ever likely to be so considered except when the opinions are on the side opposed to the ruling powers. To exclude from the seat of justice all who are decided politicians would be to keep out all the fittest men, for who in the present state of the world is without strong political opinions of some sort, except because he is wanting either in the mental cultivation or in the public spirit requisite for taking due interest in the subject. And to say that the opinions shall be an exclusion because they are known and avowed would be still more absurd, since it is precisely when they are known to the world that there is least danger of their exercising an improper bias on the judgment. Besides, even if the reason were good against appointing an active politician for the first time, it cannot hold against retaining him who having been appointed has, by the acknowledgement of even adversaries, proved his impartiality by his conduct.—I am, dear sir,
Yours very faithfully,
J. S. Mill
994.
TO J. GEORGE MAWBY1
Avignon, Sept. 10, 1866
Dear Sir,—
I thank you for your interesting and valuable letter of the 23rd ult.2 The considerations brought forward in the latter part of it are much to the purpose, and will materially assist me in making up my mind on the question to which you justly attach such high importance.
If, as you seem to have shown, Russia has, in the matter of Circassia,3 violated the provisions of the Declaration of Paris,4 it remains to be seen whether France, the only other great naval Power which was a party with us to the Declaration, is willing to join with us in getting rid of it. You and your friends seem to anticipate no difficulty on this point; and I certainly think that the Right of Search may, under many circumstances, be valuable to France as well as to England. But I cannot share your confidence in this matter, remembering how French Governments, and especially the first Napoleon, have inveighed against England for exercising this right, and have prided themselves on vindicating against us what they called the liberty of the seas.
Mr. Disraeli’s statement,5 referred to in your postscript, seems to me, as it does to you, to give ground for hope that this great question is not closed.
I am, dear Sir, yours very truly,
J. S. Mill
J. G. Mawby, Esq.
995.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Sept. 10. 1866.
Dear Mr Plummer
Many thanks for your note of Aug. 14 and the article from the Working Man inclosed in it.2 The writing is that of one whose praise is worth having, but he rather overstates the share I had in getting the Industrial Societies Act passed.3 Mr Hughes, in his generosity, had already given me too much of the credit which justly belonged to himself and his friends. My evidence certainly helped them, but I was not examined for “a whole week”: my examination only lasted a day,4 and the transaction is altogether too highly coloured.
If you thought the parliamentary papers so bulky, what would you have said if you had had the whole? A much greater bulk than what I sent to you had unluckily been otherwise disposed of before you spoke to me on the subject. But you will probably find some of them useful.
Will you kindly send me by post the biographical notice of me which you wrote for Messrs Cassell?5 I have been asked by a Geneva editor for biographical particulars, and I do not know of anything so suitable for sending to him as your paper, but I have no copy of it here.
With our kind remembrances to Mrs. Plummer, I am
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
996.
TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
le 20 septembre 1866
Mon cher d’Eichthal
Je suis à Saint Véran, et je compte y rester jusqu’à la fin de l’année et au delà. Vous serez le bienvenu si vous voulez bien y venir. Il serait bon de m’avertir quelques jours d’avance, afin que je ne sois pas exposé à choisir, sans le savoir, le moment de votre arrivée pour une de ces excursions que j’ai l’habitude de faire. A l’hotel d’Europe on vous indiquera ma demeure.
Vous êtes maintenant un des plus anciens amis qui me restent. Nous avons non seulement beaucoup d’idées mais encore beaucoup de souvenirs en commun, à partir de celui de notre jeune ami Eyton Tooke,2 que nous perdîmes d’une manière si tragique il y a 36 ans. J’ai toujours mieux aimé les vieux amis que les nouveaux, et vous ne faites pas exception à la règle.
Votre affectionné
J. S. Mill
997.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Sept. 20. 1866
Dear Mr Plummer
Many thanks for the copy of the biographical notice.2 I am very sorry to hear of the backslidings of the firm in Belle Sauvage Yard,3 and of the probable failure of the Working Man,4 which is both unfortunate in itself and a special disappointment to you. I hope that, even on the worst supposition the personal inconvenience will only be temporary, but you will feel very much the loss of a position which at one time seemed to promise so much usefulness.
I am obliged to you for sending your Ode. It was really worth writing, for there is both sense and spirit in it, and a degree of energy as well as of melody which justify writing in verse.
I am Dear Mr Plummer
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
998.
TO JOHN MORLEY1
Sept. 26. 1866
Dear Sir—
I am much obliged to you for your article2 though I do not altogether agree with it. I presented the petition,3 not because I concurred in its sentiments, but because it came from people who were entitled to be heard, & on the last day of the session they could not find any other member whom they thought suitable. I approved of all Lord Dalhousie’s annexations,4 except that of Kerouli which never took effect, having been at once disallowed from home & indeed Lord D. himself gave it up before he knew of its having been negatived. My principle was this. Wherever there are really native states, with a nationality, & historical traditions & feelings, which is emphatically the case (for example) with the Rajpoot states, there I would on no account take advantage of any failure of heirs to put an end to them. But all the Mahomedan (Rampore excepted which descends from Fyzoola Khan the Rohilla chief) & most of the Mahratta kingdoms are not of home growth, but created by conquest not a century ago5 & the military chiefs & office holders who carry on the government & form the ruling class are almost as much foreigners to the mass of the people as we ourselves are. The Scindia & Holkar families in Central India are foreign dynasties, & of low caste too, Mahrattas who have usurped provinces from their native dynasties of Jats, Goojars, Boondelas &c. The home of the Mahrattas is in the South, & there is no really native Mahratta kingdom now standing except Kolapore. In these modern states created by conquest I would make the continuance of the dynasty by adoption not a right nor a general rule, but a reward to be earned by good government & as such I would grant it freely.
All this however was changed by Lord Canning’s promise,6 which I thought at the time, & still think most ill advised. And even if right otherwise I think it ought to have excepted states actually created by our gift, as Mysore was.7 In such cases we are by right the sole interpreters of our own deed of gift. All arguments grounded on vague phrases of that most plausible and successful of political humbugs Lord Wellesley,8 count with me for nothing. He would have taken the whole country outright had he dared, but Parlt had then very recently made a solemn declaration against territorial acquisitions in India & his object was to throw dust in the eyes of Parlt & take the country as far as it could be done while pretending not to do it. The only practical question with me is, does Lord Canning’s promise to the native princes which waived our right of escheat, fairly & reasonably include this particular case? Opinions among experienced Indians are divided on this point & I have not yet thoroughly examined the documents. I therefore have not made up my mind though I much fear our faith is committed beyond recal[l].
In one thing I fully agree with you: that whenever we sanction an adoption we ought to undertake the education of the young successor & train him to public business under a judicious and experienced Resident. This has been done in a good many instances & often with very considerable success. Travancore which you mention is only one of a number of cases in point (if we did educate the chief himself, which I forget)9 & though the princes so trained usually degenerate more or less in the lapse of years, they almost always remain much better than the miserable creatures brought up in the zenana.10 One native chief within a recent period before succeeding to his inheritance filled responsible offices in our territories & he immediately commenced introducing the best parts of our system into his own.
999.
TO CHARLES GAVAN DUFFY1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Oct. 2. 1866
Dear Sir
I feel it a very high compliment that you should wish to know my opinion on a point of conscience, and still more so that you should think that opinion likely to be of any assistance to you in the guidance of your own political conduct.
The point mentioned in your letter is one which I have often and carefully considered, for though my own course in public matters has been one which did not often call on me to cooperate with anybody, I have reflected much on the conditions of cooperation, among the other requisites of practical public life. The conclusion which I have long come to is one which seems rather obvious when one has got at it, but it is so seldom acted on, that apparently most people find it difficult to practise. It seems to me, in the first place, that a conscientious person whose turn of mind and outward circumstances combine to make practical political life his line of greatest usefulness, may, and often ought to, be willing to put his opinion in abeyance on a political question which he deems to be, in the circumstances of the time and place, of secondary importance: which may be the case with any question that does not, in one’s own judgment, involve any fundamental principle of morality. But, in consenting to waive one’s opinion, it seems to me an indispensable condition that he should not disguise it. He should say to his constituents and to the world exactly what he really thinks about the matter. Insincere professions are the one cardinal sin in a representative government. If an Australian politician wishes to be in the Assembly for the sake of questions which he thinks much more important, for the time being, than that of protection, I should hold him justified in saying to a constituency “I think protection altogether a mistake, but since it is a sine qua non with you, and the opposite is not a sine qua non with me, if you elect me I will not oppose it”. If he conscientiously thought that the strong feeling of the public in its favour gave them a right, or made it expedient, to have its practice tried, I should not think him wrong in promising to support it; though it is not a thing I should lightly, or willingly, do. He might even, for adequate public reasons, consent to join a Protectionist ministry, but only on condition that protection should be an open question—that he should be at liberty to speak his mind publicly on the subject.—The question of expediency in these matters, each must decide for himself. The expediencies vary with all sorts of personal considerations. For instance, if he has considerable popular influence, and is, in all other respects than this, the favourite candidate, it will often be his most virtuous course to insist on entire freedom of action, and make the electors feel that they cannot have a representative of his quality without acquiescing in his voting against some of their opinions. The only absolute rule I would lay down, is not to consent to the smallest hypocrisy. The rest is matter of practical judgment, on which all that can be said is, Weigh all the considerations and act for the best.
I am Dear Sir
very sincerely and respectfully yours
J. S. Mill
Hon. C. Gavan Duffy.
1000.
TO DAVID URQUHART1
- S[t] V[éran]
Oct. 4. 1866
My dear Urquhart—
I am really obliged to you for the sight of Mrs Urquhart’s letter.2 I wish it were read by every person in the British Isles. Let me also beg you to thank your two friends3 if they are still with you, both for their subscriptions4 & for their letters. I feel a real respect for men who not only have a conscience, but whose conscience makes them feel that they are personally responsible for their actions & cannot shift off that responsibility upon the shoulders of superiors.
It is a real pleasure to me to find you & myself in thorough & hearty cooperation, even were it only on one subject. But the principle which actuates both of us on that subject is progressively important, & extends far beyond the particular case. You approve of my speech5 because you see that I am not on this occasion standing up for the negroes, or for liberty, deeply as both are interested in the subject—but for the first necessity of human society, law. One would have thought that when this was the matter in question, all political parties might be expected to be unanimous. But my eyes were first opened to the moral condition of the English nation (I except in these matters the working classes) by the atrocities perpetrated in the Indian Mutiny6 & the feelings which supported them at home. Then came the sympathy with the lawless rebellion of the Southern Americans in defence of an institution which is the sum of all lawlessness, as Wesley said it was of all villainy7 —& finally came this Jamaica business the authors of which8 from the first day I knew of it I determined that I would do all in my power to bring to justice if there was not another man in Parlt to stand by me. You rightly judge that there is no danger of my sacrificing such a purpose to any personal advancement. I hope I shd not be so base even if I cared for personal advancement, but as it happens, I do not.
When I last heard from the Cm they had raised £3200 though no appeal had yet been made to the general public. It must be considerably more now; & I have good hopes that we shall be near enough to getting the £10000 we ask for, to bring the Jamaica question within the reach of those of us who are most in earnest. The paper which I enclose contains only the first subscriptions. I am glad that our manifesto has raised your opinion of Goldwin Smith. I do not by any means agree in his practical conclusions as to the colonies,9 though many of his premises are too true. But he is a man of strong moral convictions which he is not afraid to act upon & has a decided power of leading others—provided they do not require to be conciliated first.
The Preston10 Cm did send me the placard which is excellent.
1001.
TO THOMAS PERRONET THOMPSON1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Oct. 10. 1866
Dear Sir
I agree with you as to the importance of consulting the case of Governor Wall,2 and I doubt not that our law advisers have made themselves well acquainted with it. I presume, and think I remember, that it is in the State Trials. If so, that is by far the most convenient place in which to study it.
The expensiveness of the attempt to get justice done in the Jamaica matter, arises from the necessity of bringing a number of witnesses from Jamaica to London, and maintaining them there until no longer required. Our lawyers’ bills will doubtless be heavy, but will, for aught I know, not exceed as many hundreds as we are obliged to ask for thousands. We may possibly not require the whole £10000, but we thought, after consideration, that it would not be safe to ask for less.
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
General Thompson
Your old constituents at Bradford are doing nobly in this matter—they surpass everybody else.
1002.
TO [DANIEL O’DONOGHUE?]1
Avignon, Oct. 20 [1866]
Dear Sir—
I could hardly have received any invitation of a public kind which I should have had so much pleasure in complying with as that in your letter of the 4th instant, which has only just reached me. I feel as grateful as if I were myself an Irishman to whoever does any service to the cause of Ireland, and there is no one who has better earned the gratitude of Irishmen than Mr. Bright, were it only by his noble speech on the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill.2 I regard the honor which you are paying him3 as an important step towards establishing that sympathetic co-operation between the English and the Irish liberals, a beginning of which was happily made in the last session, and which is not only essential to the early attainment of the legislative improvements, required by both countries, but is in itself of the most auspicious promise for the permanent well-being of the whole empire. Ireland does not, however, stand in need of such a voice as mine to assist her in doing honor to her eminent friend; and I am prevented from availing myself of your invitation, not merely by distance, but by the much more serious obstacle of pressing occupations, which require the devotion of all my time up to the reassembling of Parliament.—I am very sincerely and respectfully yours,
J. S. Mill
1003.
TO DAVID URQUHART1
- S[t] V[éran]
Oct. 26. 1866
My dear Urquhart—
I thank you sincerely for your letter. The actual experience of one who has had so much of it, & of so unusual a sort, is sure to be worth having & worth meditating on.
Your letter makes me wish to give you an equally explicit statement of my own way of thinking, so far as it is different from yours. And I think I can trust myself sufficiently not to be afraid that my having done so will raise any obstacle of amour propre in my own mind to prevent me from changing any part of that way of thinking which can be shown to be wrong. I feel as strongly as you the absence of control over the executive in matters of foreign policy, & the absolute inutility & nullity, as far as that is concerned of any change of Ministers. I shd never dream of telling the working or any unrepresented classes that they have no power unless they can get the suffrage, & I do not ascribe the prodigious superiority of their moral sentiments on such matters as Eyre, the Indian Mutiny,2 &c. over the classes socially above them, to any intrinsic superiority of moral excellence. But I do not believe that the bad feelings, or absence of good feelings, in the others, arises from their having votes. I ascribe it to the sympathy of officials with officials & of the classes from whom officials are selected with officials of all sorts. I ascribe it also to the sympathy with authority & power, generated in our higher & upper middle classes by the feeling of being specially privileged to exercise them, & by living in a constant dread of the encroachment of the class beneath which makes it one of their strongest feelings that resistance to authority must be put down per fas et nefas.3 I do not believe that feelings of these kinds would exist where there was no privileged class, & where no one had more political influence of a direct kind than his mere vote gave him. There is much in American politics that is regrettable enough, but I do not observe that there is a particle of the English upper class feeling that authority (meaning the persons in authority) must be supported at all costs; & American foreign policy is all above board & in broad daylight. So, I believe would that of England be, if the working classes had votes. I am no worshipper of those classes & they know it. I have written & published harsh truths of them,4 which were brought up against me in meetings of the working classes during my election & I never was so much applauded by them as when I stood to what I had written & defended it. They are not yet politically corrupted by power. I doubt not that they would be corrupted like other classes by becoming the paramount power in the country, though probably in a less degree because in a multitude the general feelings of human nature are usually more powerful & class feelings proportionately less so than in a small body. But I do not want to make them predominant. I see the country under the leadership of a higher & a middle class who, by long disuse of attempting or wishing to do their duty as managers of the national affairs have become incapable of doing it, & I am hopeless of any improvement but by letting in a powerful influence from those who are the great sufferers by whatever evil is done or is left uncorrected at home & who have no personal or class interests or feelings concerned either in oppressing dependencies, or in doing or conniving at wrong to foreign countries. I could write at great length on all this, but it is not my object to defend my view of existing English politics, my object is to enable you whom I respect, to understand the source from which that view proceeds in my own mind. As for those whom I do not respect, a category which includes the great majority of public men & public writers, I should never take the trouble to give any other explanation of myself to them, than that which I hope my conduct will give.
I return, with thanks, the answer to Mrs Urquhart’s letter on Jamaica.
1004.
TO GEORGE GROTE1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Nov. 12. 1866
My dear Grote
Were I to be appointed to the Council of the University of London, the chief advantage which I should anticipate would be that there would be an additional vote and voice to support you on critical occasions. That I could, in case I survived you, be to any effectual purpose your successor, is very improbable. Such an influence as yours is, can only be acquired by many years of assiduous devotion, such as you have given, to the business of the institution.2 Moreover, influence over such people as your colleagues in the Senate can, by any one who has no claims to it but personal ones, only be acquired by keeping constantly working at them, and wearing away by perseverance the obstacles in their minds. He must not only accustom them to look on him as a main prop, and the chief working mind of the institution but must keep himself in frequent personal communication with them, and bring social influences to bear on them. All these things would be not only in the highest degree distasteful, but practically impossible to me; and I do not see any reasonable prospect of doing as much for our objects as would make it good economy in me to give the time and trouble that would be necessary for effecting even such good as might be practicable.
The help, however, which I might give to good objects as an auxiliary to you, would be a strong inducement to me to accept your proposal; and were I not in Parliament I would do so without hesitation. As it is, however, my attending the Senate, even if limited to the two important days which you mention, would have the effect of exactly depriving me of the Easter vacation. It is hardly possible for any one who does not share my life here, to estimate the greatness of the sacrifice that being detained in England at that time would be to me, or to know in how great a degree that break in the dreary six or seven months of London, helps to keep up my health, spirits, and working power for what I have to do there. I am willing, for any object which would make it my duty, to add this sacrifice to the great one I have already made. But it is not clear to me that it is my duty to do so for the amount of good which I can see my way to effecting by means of it. As long as you are able to continue your active exertions in the Senate, there is not much danger that the ground already gained will be lost. And without you I see little prospect that any influence I could ever have would supply your place. It is, however, very desirable that there should be some one in the Senate who would give you a more effective backing than you have at present. But there are others besides me who could do this. Bain being unattainable,3 have you ever thought of Herbert Spencer?4 He is as anti-clergymanish as possible; he goes as far as the farthest of us in explaining psychological phenomena by association, and the “experience hypothesis”; he has a considerable and growing reputation, much zeal and public spirit, and is not, I should think, more suspect on the subject of religion than I am. I think he would be of great use in the Senate on the subjects on which you most need to be supported, and a very valuable acquisition otherwise. I do not know whether the duty would be agreeable to him, but from the little I know of his tastes and habits, I should expect that, rather than the contrary.
I am very glad that a majority of the Council of University College have established the principle of confining the Moral Philosophy professorship to laymen. I wish you had been able to get in Robertson,5 but you may still succeed in this, if the advertisements fail, as they probably will, to attract any candidate of greater prestige.
When Martineau determined to become a candidate, he wrote to me, asking for a testimonial. I wrote him a letter in reply,6 saying such complimentary things as I could say with truth, but declining to give him a testimonial, on the ground that I did not think it right to aid a person of his philosophical opinions in getting appointed to one of the few professorships in Europe that are open to a person of mine. Soon after, I received a letter from Hutton,7 saying that Martineau, having gone ahead, had charged him (Hutton) with sending in his testimonials and asking leave to send in my letter to Martineau as one of them. To which I answered that this would really be doing what I had declared myself unable conscientiously to do, and I therefore refused; to his considerable displeasure.
I hope the Aberdeen students will do themselves the honour of electing you.8 I am in more need of a model for my own Rectorial Discourse than capable of affording one to others, for though I have put into it a good deal that may be useful, I think it is very likely to disappoint expectation.
I am glad to see the announcement of a second edition of the Plato. I see, every now and then, traces of its influence both in English and in French writings.
With our kind regards to Mrs Grote, I am my dear Grote
Ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1005.
TO ROWLAND G. HAZARD1
Saint Véran, Avignon Nov. 16. 1866
Dear Sir
I am greatly obliged to you for your letter of Oct. 22, and still more so for the printed one2 which I subsequently received. It is a real pleasure to have you for an antagonist, for you see the true gist of a question, do not trifle on the mere surface of the subject, and your arguments are real arguments addressing themselves to the real points in dispute and not to imaginary ones. If I had more time I might perhaps go into the subject fully, and answer you at as much length as you have answered me. But being obliged to economize my working power, I will not go down to the foundations of our difference, on which we are not likely to convince one another; if we ever change it will rather be in consequence of the progress of our own minds. I will merely touch on a few points which drew my attention in reading your essay.
1. As to your argument, that our knowledge of our own power to move our muscles cannot be derived from experience, because to obtain that experience, we must already have voluntarily moved them.3 My way of meeting that difficulty is this. I believe, with Hartley4 and Professor Bain, that all voluntary motions were originally automatic, produced by the stimulus of sensation, without what we call volition. For the process by which an idea, or reminiscence in the mind, gains that power over our muscles which was at first possessed only by sensations, I must refer you to the authors I have named, especially Mr Bain “The Emotions and the Will”, who is by far the fullest. If you have time to read him, you will see that experience of the sequence between a thought or desire and a motion may very well be (and, as we think, must be) complete before the thought or desire grows into a will.
2. You say that there are only two things to which we attribute power: viz. intelligence, and matter in motion.5 But there are many cases in which we regard as a cause of motion, matter which is not in motion, or (if there be no matter not in motion) which does not produce other motion by its own motion, but independently of it. For instance, the sun causes the motion of the earth: but, though the sun is now known to have a proper motion, it is not by virtue of that motion that it attracts the earth: if it were immoveable it would do so equally. Just so a magnet makes iron move towards it by its mere proximity. True the magnet moves round with the earth’s rotation and revolves with it about the sun, but it would attract the iron just the same if those movements were suspended. So, again, heat and light are causes, and active forces: the modern opinion indeed is that heat and light are matter in motion, but they were just as much conceived and known as active forces before that opinion grew up. I think this consideration materially affects your theory, for the natural agencies which have always been conceived as powers, agree in nothing but in being the observed antecedents of motion or change.
Most of your arguments against my chapter on causation6 I have anticipated in the chapter itself: but
3. You misunderstand my expression “as long as the present constitution of things lasts.”7 You do not appear to see that the extinction of the sun’s light would not be, in my sense, a change in the present constitution of things. As long as all the properties of matter remain the same, and are governed by the same laws, no modification which those laws may produce in the concrete bodies surrounding us is a change in the constitution of things. Consequently I do not admit that we believe that “while the present constitution of things lasts night will invariably precede day”.8 It will only do so if the sun continues to give light, and if no other body of a similar nature comes into our region, or we into its region, of the universe. Night, though an invariable, is not an unconditional antecedent of day.
4. You say “As soon as we find that night can for a time exist without producing day, we perceive that it cannot be the cause of day.”9 Then sunrise is not the cause of day either; for the actual sunrise has taken place for some time without producing day, viz. the time necessary for a ray of light to travel over the intervening distance.
5. You say “if the whole aggregate antecedents are the cause of any effect, then, as at each instant the whole antecedents are the same at every point of space, the effects should be everywhere the same.”10 This, I think, you will see, is an oversight. The whole antecedents are not the same at every point of space; for, the antecedent condition of an effect is not the mere happening of an event somewhere, but its happening in a certain degree of proximity to the scene of the effect; and antecedents of this sort cannot be the same for any two points of space.
I throw out these remarks merely as matter for your own mind to work on. If they do nothing else, they will suggest answers from your point of view, and will help to render your side of the argument more complete.
It is unlucky that your visit to England should have occurred while we are away; for we shall not have returned by the time you mention, and I fear you are not likely to visit this side of the Channel before you recross the Atlantic: otherwise you would be warmly welcomed at our little place. Does the notice prefixed to your printed letter include me? if so, I will return it through Messrs Baring.
I am Dear Sir
ever yours sincerely
J. S. Mill
R. G. Hazard Esq.
1006.
TO JOHN MILLS1
- Avignon
November 16, 1866.
Dear Sir,—
I have only just received your letter of the 15th in reply of mine. Your pamphlet2 reached me by the same post, my answer is therefore too late for the purpose for which you requested it. I am the more sorry for this, as you have thought it right to mention in a note that you had been told I had changed the opinion which you quoted from the last edition of my “Political Economy”,3 and I should have been glad if you had mentioned such a statement, you should have been able to contradict it. I hold to the passage you quoted in every respect; it still expresses my opinion as correctly as it did when I first wrote it.
I am faithfully
J. S. Mill
1007.
TO THOMAS HARE1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Nov. 18. 1866
Dear Mr Hare
I have been in debt to you for two letters, I am ashamed to think how long: but when one is as busy as I am, and has also so many letters to write, the friends one values most are apt to be last served, if there is nothing in their letters requiring to be answered immediately. You, also, have been working hard, and with great efficiency, for and at the Social Science meeting.2 The ignorance of the very A B C of the subject which was shewn by the speakers on the other side, struck me even in the newspaper reports, and your letter shews that this ignorance is accompanied by a false opinion of knowledge. Lord Robert Montagu’s3 confounding your plans with the mode of election which is of all others most different from it, and most opposed to its principle, is very illustrative of the manner in which English politicians, especially of his class, make themselves acquainted with new ideas. They just snatch up some one feature—in this case, the voting for many candidates instead of only two—and then fancy they are masters of the whole thing. What I most want to say to you is this: There will, in all probability, be a Tory Reform Bill, and whatever may be its quality, no moving of amendments or raising of new points will in the case of a Tory bill be regarded by Liberals as obstructiveness, or as damaging the cause. Then will be the very time to bring forward and get discussed, everything which we think ought to be put into a good Reform Bill. I am anxious, therefore, to hear what, in your opinion, would be the best way of bringing your plan before the House in the approaching session. Perhaps the mode you mention, that of moving for a Committee, would do best; for as Disraeli will be glad to curry a little favour with the independent liberals, and not sorry to gain a little time, we have more chance of getting our Committee, than perhaps we should at a future time. If a Committee is granted, we will get Fawcett and any other friends put on it, and I will devote myself as much as I am able to working it, and extorting a real discussion of the plan from the witnesses. If you think this the best way, should the motion be for a Committee on your plan alone, or on representation of minorities generally?
I suppose you saw in how excellent a way Lord Hobart returned to the subject in his article on Bribery in the November McMillan.4 Mr Schuyler5 says in a letter I have just received from him, “I have been carefully reading Mr Hare’s book, and yours on Representative Government. For our country, I think Mr Hare’s plan would have to be modified so far as to confine the choice of members to districts of the country, like our present congressional districts—perhaps to States—and this because of the great extent of our country and the sparse population of most parts of it—” (He probably means that the people do not know the notabilities of any State not their own)—“Otherwise I can see no drawback to all the advantages it undoubtedly would give. I shall do what I can to bring it into public notice at home.”
With our kind regards
I am Dear Mr Hare
Ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1008.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Nov. 21. 1866
Dear Sir
My daughter, from whom you have already more than once accepted articles, has written one on the claim of women in independent circumstances to the suffrage,2 which she sends by this post and places at the service of the Westminster Review if you are disposed to insert it. It is written, as you will see, with a practical object, to aid the parliamentary movement which will probably be made in the next session, and it takes, therefore, mainly the constitutional ground and that of analogy to English institutions, taking only incidental notice of the broader and higher principles on which the claim may be rested. It is desirable that the article, if accepted, should be in the January number, as the number following may perhaps be too late for the immediate occasion. I am
Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Dr Chapman
1009.
TO ROBERT WERE FOX1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Nov. 23, 1866
Dear Sir
On returning home the other day, I regretted to find that you and your ladies,2 after taking the trouble to come, and staying some time for the purpose of seeing me, had gone away disappointed: I should certainly have made an attempt to find you before you left Avignon, if it had not been already too late. The recollections left by my former intercourse with your family are too pleasant for me not to have pleasure in reviving them. I was sorry to hear that your visit to the South was for the sake of Miss Caroline’s health—I hope only by way of precaution. The winter climate of the South East of France is, I think, excellent for chronic weakness or delicacy, but inferior to many other of the resorts of invalids in case of actual disease, either pulmonary or bronchial: and whenever there is any facility in taking cold, great care is required. But Hyères, in the opinion of medical men, has in a less degree than Nice the defects which are common to both. At all events it will have, in your case, the advantage of being a very complete change; for the type of its climate is the very opposite of that of Cornwall.
I am afraid we shall have left this place for England before you turn your faces homeward; but either in England or here I should always be happy to see you, or to serve you in any way in my power. I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1010.
TO HERBERT SPENCER1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Dec. 1. 1866.
Dear Sir
Dr Cazelles,2 a very intelligent medical man, residing at St. Giles, near the mouth of the Rhone, who has translated (excellently well, as far I am competent to judge) one of the principal writings of Moleschott,3 and has just finished translating my book on Hamilton, proposes, if you will give him permission, to translate your First Principles, and your Psychology. His ultimate scheme is rather an extensive one—to publish in French the whole series of the Association Psychologists, from Hartley downwards, beginning with you and Bain: and he has the consent of Germer Baillière, the publisher of the series of Philosophie Contemporaine, to publish translations of Bain and you by Dr Cazelles. I have formed a very favourable idea of his capacity; his philosophical opinions are completely of the Experience school, and I know by my own case that he does not linger over what he undertakes, but sets about it with a will, and gets through it. Dr Cazelles means to write to you himself, and will most likely send you his translation of Moleschott. Unless you have already some competent person in view, I do not think you would be likely to regret having accepted Dr Cazelles’ proposal.
I am Dear Sir
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
Herbert Spencer, Esq.
1011.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Dec.2.1866
Dear Sir
Many thanks for your letter. My daughter intended all along to insert a heading in the proof.2 She had some thought of heading the article with the Report of the General Committee of Petitions in which the Ladies’ Petition was printed: but we have not the series of those Reports by us, and we do not know which of them is the one that contains it.
I am sorry to hear that you are in any difficulty about the Review, and should be very glad to hear further about it. Knowing how little support there is for a Review of advanced opinions, I have always thought it eminently honourable to you that you should have been able to carry it on for so many years, and to make it as good as it has been through all that time. I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Dr Chapman
1012.
TO GEORGE GROTE1
- S[aint] V[éran]
Dec. 2, 1866
My dear Grote—
I am very happy that you think my objection to being proposed for the Senate fair & reasonable. With regard to Spencer,2 Bain’s judgment will be a great help to you in the matter. I have not seen very much of Spencer, but what I have seen adds to the favourable side of the impression his writings make on me. I am not inclined, from anything I know, to consider him as on the whole disposed to magnify his differences from others whose philosophical opinions are allied to his own. He did so in the case of Comte, whom he knew very imperfectly. But in his controversies with me3 it is rather I who have magnified the differences, & he who has extenuated them. With regard to his reputation, no doubt it has not yet reached its height, but it is constantly growing. His is the rising philosophical name at the present & will probably stand very high ten years hence—& it is rather with a view to the future than to the present that additional thought is wanted in the Senate.
I have read several of the attacks on the Council about Martineau4 with much disgust at their extreme unfairness. There was, however, in the Morning Star of Nov 28th a leading article on the subject,5 as good & as much to the point as if it had been written by one of ourselves. In case you have not seen it, I inclose the article. Though the writer has evidently seen my letter to Martineau, I have no idea who he is. It may be the editor, Mr. Justin McCarthy,6 who, judging from two articles which he wrote [long?] ago in the W.R., on Voltaire & on Buckle,7 is a man of very considerable ability & very good opinions.
1013.
TO ALEXANDER VANCE1
- Avignon
Dec. 2, 1866
Sir
I am obliged to you for your book. I have not had time to read more than the Introduction, but that is enough to convince me that your idea is a good one, and that you have done a useful thing.
I am Sir
Yours very sincerely
J. S. Mill
Alex. Vance Esq.
1014.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Dec. 6. 1866
Dear Sir
My daughter has put a heading to the article,2 and returns the corrected proof to your address by this post. She would be much obliged to you if you would allow twelve separate copies to be made up (at her expense) and sent to her here, as early as convenient.
I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Dr. Chapman
1015.
TO THOMAS HUGHES1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Dec. 18. 1866
Dear Mr Hughes
The idea of exhibiting in detail the practical need of reform, and answering the objections to it, in a volume of short essays,2 seems to me a very good one. If as well executed throughout, as from the persons engaged in it, some parts of it are sure to be, there is reason to hope that it will not only help Parliamentary Reform in the coming session, but will also hoist the flag of a future party of practical reformers, in anticipation of the time for following Parliamentary Reform to its consequences. It is impossible, however, that I should write anything for the collection, as I have work in hand that will require all my time up to the opening of Parliament.
With regard to the two departments for which I am asked to recommend writers, No 4 of the A series will, I think require to be divided. For Poor Law and Sanitary Reform, Mr Chadwick is the right person, if he can be prevailed on: if not, he is the person most competent to recommend some one else. For Municipal Reform, I should propose my constituent Mr James Beal, who has paid great attention to the subject, and understands it well: or, failing him, perhaps Mr Horton.3 9 C, “the House of Commons and Taxation”, I think I would omit altogether. There is no longer much to complain of in the conduct of the House of Commons, under the guidance of Mr Gladstone, on this subject; and any one who took it up with that idea, would probably do so on the wrong principles of the Liverpool Financial Association.4 The worst things the House of Commons is now chargeable with on the subject of taxation, are the non-extension of the Probate Duty to real property, and the levying of the Succession Duty, in case of settled property, on the life interest only: and these points, I think, would come in better, à propos of something else.
No 1 of the B series, which was destined for me, would be an excellent subject for Mr Goldwin Smith.
I think you would find Professor Cliffe Leslie a valuable coadjutor. He is an excellent popular expositor of scientific thought, one of our best political economists, and has thought much and well on several of the proposed subjects, the land laws being one.
If I think of anything else worth writing, I will write again. I am
Dear Mr Hughes
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1016.
TO GEORGE GROTE1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Dec. 25. 1866
My dear Grote
I am much obliged to you for giving me the history of the struggle which ended in the appointment of Robertson.2 “Those who exerted themselves to get the professorship suppressed because their candidate was rejected, have certainly given their measure by it, and a very wretched one it is.”3 As Helen said when she read your letter, it is like the Judgment of Solomon: we see on which side the real case for the institution and for the subject is; for there is probably not one of us who would not have voted for Martineau rather than lose the professorship altogether. I am truly happy that you were sufficiently well supported to avert either result.
I do not know whether the younger men are, as you think, inferior to those who were formed between 1820 and 1832; it is hardly possible to judge until they shew what they are when they reach the same age, for the more various culture of more recent times causes people to ripen slowly. We must not forget either, that your experience and mine of the older set includes the very best of them—those who were formed under the Benthamic influence. There was, in general, Kimmerean darkness then, beyond the region to which that influence, directly or indirectly, extended.
I have got through fully three fourths of the revision of the Hamilton for the new edition.4 I have corrected some minor matters; but the wish you expressed, on Hamilton’s account, that some one might be able to clear him from a part of the inconsistencies and other errors laid to his charge, has not been realized to the extent that might reasonably have been expected. Mansel,5 in particular, is perpetually crying out that I have misunderstood Hamilton, but the points on which he makes out even a plausible case of misunderstanding are extremely few and small. Some of the new matter I have inserted will, I think, add to the intrinsic value of the book, independently of repelling objections.
Among the books I have had occasion to read in connexion with the subject is one lately published by Chapman and Hall, called “Inquisitio Philosophica, an Examination of the Principles of Kant and Hamilton by M.P.W. Bolton,”6 which is on our side, and attacks Mansel, and which I think you would like very much. The writer is a scholar, well read in the history of philosophy as well as in philosophy itself, is particularly good at stating correctly and clearly both sides of a case, and though he does not always profess to decide between them, shews plainly enough that he holds with the inductive school, both in their philosophy and in its consequences. I have mentioned his book to Bain.
In referring to the article in the Westminster, on Hamilton and me,7 am I at liberty to speak of it, either directly or by a circumlocution, as yours, or, as attributed to you? Unless you would rather I did not, I should like to be allowed to do so, not only on account of the value of your expressed approval of the book, but for the sake of the opportunity of expressing my sense of that value.
I hope Aristotle8 is profiting by the termination of your troublesome and anxious contest.
With our kind regards to Mrs Grote, who I hope is now quite recovered, I am
my dear Grote
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1017.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- S[aint] V[éran]
Dec. 29. 1866
Dear Chadwick—
Let me begin by requesting you to thank Miss Chadwick very heartily from me for the trouble she took in writing to me as your representative. I am extremely sorry for the cause which rendered her aid necessary; most of all on your own account. The loss of what you would have written & done during the interval is also much to be regretted, but on the whole you, like myself, have had less than the average share of interruption in your work from ill health.
I have, as you know, always agreed with you as to the importance of introducing military drill into schools, though I should be a little frightened at it if I thought it would do what in your present paper2 you say it sometimes does—make the majority of the boys wish to be soldiers. There can be no doubt also that by this means the purposes of an efficient reserve would be attained without either the expense, the loss of productive power, or any other of the evil consequences of increased armaments. But for that very reason it will not be listened to by any of the Continental governments except possibly Italy. Those governments do not want a real defensive force; they want an aggressive force; they want to have the very largest body of adult soldiers ready for service anywhere, whom they can afford to pay, & your arguments will be of no avail except to the French & Prussian liberals to use, against their governments. In that respect they may be very useful & I think copies might usefully be sent to the Temps newspaper, to Jules Favre,3 Jules Simon, Carnot,4 Garnier Pagès,5 Lanjuinais,6 &c. and to Twesten,7 Schultze-Delitsch,8 Jacobi,9 & any other of the best liberals in the French & Prussian chambers. It was a good idea sending a proof to M. Wolowski10 for the Institute & if you were to give him a copy for M. Rouher11 there might be a chance of Rouher’s reading it. The idea of employing soldiers in civil work is not new in France, & it has been much discussed. You will find many minds prepared for it. I do not at present see any service that I can be of in the matter, at least by writing. I do not understand military subjects & can carry no authority upon them. But I will most willingly move for your paper & may take that opportunity of speaking my mind on the matter as a question of education.12 Hoping for a better account of you before long I am
1867
1018.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Jan.1. 1867
Dear Sir
I am most desirous to find out what can be done to relieve you and the Review from your present difficulties.2 Besides the importance of the Review to the friends of progress, you have a very strong personal claim on them, not only by what you are likely to do, but by what you have already done. Any help in my own power to give, would go but a little way: and unfortunately my personal connexion does not lie among monied people. Most of my radical allies in the House of Commons who are men of wealth, and who are chiefly Yorkshire and Lancashire manufacturers,3 care for little except practical matters and politics: the most characteristic feature of the Westminster Review, its freedom of speculation in religion and philosophy, would rather be distasteful than a recommendation to most of them; while many who like this, do not like its radicalism. I do not know whether there is any other M.P. except Mr Stansfeld,4 whom there would be any use in taking into our councils. Him you probably know. The only other persons I can think of to consult with are Mr Grote and Mr Herbert Spencer. With both of these, however, it is likely that you are already in communication. If you give me permission to consult with them and with Mr Stansfeld, I will write to these three, and will inclose to Mr Grote your letter to me, with a request to pass it on. In the meanwhile, if I think of anything else, I will write to you again; and I hope you will mention to me anything that occurs to yourself.
I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Dr Chapman
1019.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Jan. 8. 1867.
Dear Sir
I have received your second letter,2 and require a little more time to consider what is best to be done. In the meantime there are two questions I should like to ask. The first is—Is it in your opinion undesirable, or would it be disagreeable to you, that I should consult on the subject with Mr Herbert Spencer? or do you merely think that it would be of no use? The other point is this. There is one essential element of the question about which I should certainly be asked by every person to whom I might speak on the subject; the present pecuniary position of the Review. What is now its sale? and do the proceeds suffice to pay the actual expenses, or is there a fresh deficit every quarter, to be added to the debt against which you and the Review are now struggling? If you will do me the favour to answer these questions, I will then write to you again without delay. I am
Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Dr Chapman
1020.
TO JOHN TULLOCH1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Jan. 9. 1867
Dear Sir
I duly received your kind note, as well as the Essays,2 about which I hope in two or three days to be able to write to you.
I propose leaving London by a night train on the 30th which will bring me to St Andrews some time in the forenoon of the 31st;3 and leaving again on Saturday afternoon or evening; and I shall have great pleasure in accepting your kind invitation. I am
Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Rev. Principal Tulloch
1021.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
Jan. 13. 1867
Dear Sir
As you kindly leave the question of consulting with Mr Spencer2 to my judgment, I will do so or not as it may seem to me, from future circumstances, advisable. Mr Octavius Smith3 I am not acquainted with, and have no direct access to. Indeed I am acquainted with very few monied people, well affected to the principles of the Review. Do you know Mr P.A. Taylor? and what should you think about my consulting with him?
In any case, I think it advisable not to attempt doing anything by letter but to wait for personal communication. And I am not hopeful about doing much, depending, as I must, on only one or two people for not only subscribing themselves, but getting subscriptions from others. What occurs to me in the meantime is this. One of your ideas was to raise £600 on a mortgage of the Review for five years, on condition that repayment should commence then, at £100 a year. If you are inclined to try this as an immediate answer, I would propose to take the mortgage myself, without interest. This would enable you to get rid of the pressing demands; to save something (I suppose) in interest; and we should have two years before us in which to look out for the remaining £500, besides the chances of an increase of your practice in that time.
That is glorious news about diabetes.4 If you can even occasionally cure such an intractable and fatal disease by your remedy, you will surely end by having a great practice. That you will leave a great name behind you as an alleviator of suffering and an improver of the medical art, is now, I think, almost certain.
I shall remain here till the 24th of January, and therefore letters can safely be addressed to me here until the 22nd
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Is it any secret who wrote the article “Social Reform in England”?5
1022.
TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
le 17 janvier 1867
Mon cher d’Eichthal
Je vous remercie bien de l’envoi du journal contenant la prédication du P. Hyacinthe.2 Je suis bien aise d’avoir eu un échantillon de ce prédicateur, quoique cet échantillon ne m’ait pas donné de lui une haute idée. Quant à la question de la population, je suis heureux de voir que vous et moi sommes si parfaitement d’accord là-dessus.
Le règlement du nombre d’enfants dans les familles me paraît, comme à vous, aussi important au point de vue de la moralité qu’au point de vue économique, et même, dans les circonstances actuelles de l’humanité bien davantage; car d’un côté le grand accroissement de la richesse, et de l’autre côté l’habitude croissante de l’émigration ont fort atténué l’importance de la question de la population économiquement parlant.
Je compte être à Paris pendant quelques heures le 26 janvier, et j’irai bien certainement vous trouver chez vous dans le courant de la journée probablement vers midi ou une heure. Je vous prie de la part de ma fille de remercier Madame et Mademoiselle d’Eichthal de leur aimable offre, dont elle serait très heureuse de profiter si notre séjour à Paris devait être un peu plus prolongé: mais ce séjour n’étant habituellement que d’une seule journée entre deux voyages, ma fille l’emploie le plus souvent au repos.
Croyez, mon cher d’Eichthal, toujours votre bien dévoué
J. S. Mill
1023.
TO W. L. (JOHNS?)1
- Avignon
Jan. 22. 1867
Dear Sir
I have had the honour of receiving your communication of Oct. 21 on the subject of your plan for promoting a large emigration from Great Britain to New South Wales. I have, as you are aware, strongly advocated a national scheme of self-supporting emigration,2 based on the fund derived from the sale of waste lands in the Australian colonies: but, in the plan I proposed, no expense, beyond a temporary advance, would have been incurred by the mother country. In the present altered state of the labour market in Great Britain and Ireland, occasioned by the great increase of spontaneous emigration, our politicians have grown more afraid of under than of over population; and I am convinced that no scheme for aiding emigration at the public expense would now be listened to. Whatever is done to promote emigration to Australia, must now be done from the Australian side: and your plan might very properly engage the consideration of the Colonial Governments. Of the particular machinery which you propose, I cannot be so capable of judging, as those on your side of the water.
I am Dear Sir
Yours very faithfully
J. S. Mill
W. L. (Johns?) Esq.
1024.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN1
- Blackheath Park
Jan. 29. 1867
Dear Sir
I inclose a Draft of a mortgage deed,2 prepared by my Solicitor.3 It was drawn up without any reference to the former deed, and he has made it longer and (it seems to me) somewhat less clear than the former one, which I return herewith. Perhaps you will kindly look at the Draft, and return it to me with any remarks or suggestions which occur to you, between this and the 5th of February, on which day I shall return here from St Andrews. Please fill up in the manner most convenient to yourself the dates which are left in blank.
I am sorry that I have not the smallest or most indirect knowledge of any one of the Directors of the Mutual Life Assurance Society. I could perhaps (if it would be of any use) get at their medical officer, Dr Brinton,4 who I hope is not the one whose death makes the vacancy. With your professional claims, and such testimonials, you ought to have a good chance. I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1025.
TO SPENCER H. WALPOLE1
- Blackheath Park
Jan. 29. 1867
My dear Sir
On arriving from abroad I found the communication which you have done me the great honour of addressing to me on the subject of the intended Royal Commission of Inquiry into the questions connected with Trades Unions.2 The importance of such an inquiry cannot be overrated; and that you should wish to include me in the number of those to whom it is to be entrusted, would be of itself a proof of your desire that it should be so conducted as to do complete justice to the artisans’ side of the question, equally with that of the employers.
Were the inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons (though a much less efficient mode of investigation) or were its operations likely to be terminated within the Parliamentary season, I should feel bound in duty to accept the honourable office of taking a share in them. It is, however, next to certain that the proceedings of the Commission not only cannot be concluded before the end of the session, but will be carried on with much greater activity during the recess. And it is extremely important to me to preserve the smaller half of the year for occupations, other than political, which I do not think it right to abandon; while I have a strong conviction that to pass some months of every year in the South is essential to the preservation of my health.
It seems to me, also, that the greater part (at least in discussions) of the investigations of the Commission will be of a quasi-judicial character, for which I am not aware that I have any special aptitude. If I could be of use, it would rather be in drawing conclusions from the evidence when taken, than in helping to take it. There are others whose presence in the Commission would be, as much as mine, a guarantee to the working classes that justice would be done to their opinions and objects: for instance, Mr Fawcett,3 who has made the subject one of his chief studies, who knows the workmen’s side of the question (we all know the other side) and who is much trusted by them.
You are very fortunate in the President you have obtained for the Commission.4 It is sure to do much good; and though I am not able to accept a place in it, no one will more heartily rejoice if its inquiries lead to more correct opinions or improved legislation on so vital a subject, and no one will join more cordially in applauding and thanking the present Government for every step they take in that direction. I am
my dear Sir
very sincerely and respectfully yours
J. S. Mill
The Right Honourable
S. H. Walpole, M.P.
&c &c
1026.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN1
- Blackheath Park
Feb. 6. 1867
Dear Sir
I will direct my solicitor to make the alterations you suggest, and to prepare the deed for signature without loss of time.2 My solicitor says the mortgage should be registered at Stationer’s Hall, which he undertakes to see done.
In your note to my daughter concerning the reprint of her article3 you were kind enough to say that you had made an arrangement with Mr Trübner. My daughter thanks you very much for the trouble you have taken, and would be glad to know more exactly what the arrangement was, and also whether the printing, paper, &c. are to be paid for to Mr Trübner, or to whom else, as she wishes to pay for them at once. She would like to have twenty copies sent to her here.
I met with an interesting coincidence with your pathological speculations the other day on the part of an intelligent and philosophic medical man in the South of France. He has not had any cholera patients, but had made up his mind, if he had to treat them on the same principle as you, that of drawing away the congested blood from the spinal region—only he had not thought of the ice plan, but meant to do it by introducing atropine in the subcutaneous region, which he has found in other cases to be a means of producing that particular effect on the bodily economy. I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Dr Chapman
1027.
TO ARNOLD RUGE1
Febr. 7, 1867
Dear Sir,
The historical fragments left by Mr. Buckle, and which my daughter (not myself) is engaged in editing, have been in part published in Fraser’s Magazine for this month.2 More will probably be printed hereafter in a small octavo volume.3 I need hardly say that my daughter would most gladly do what she could to promote any wishes of yours with regard to them.4 And if you have Mrs. Allat’s5 consent, without which of course we should not be justified in doing anything, she will forward the proofs to you when they are ready for publication.
I am very thankful for your kind expression of approbation and sympathy in regard to my public conduct. You will easily understand that I look upon the House of Commons not as a place where important practical improvements can be effected by anything I can do there, but as an elevated Tribune or Chair from which to preach larger ideas than can at present be realised.
I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1028.
TO HENRY S. BRANDRETH1
B[lackheath] P[ark]. Feb. 9. 1867.
Dear Sir,
Your question respecting the obligation of veracity on the utilitarian view of ethics2 seems, if I understand it rightly, to proceed on a misapprehension of the utilitarian standard. The test of right on the happiness principle is not the pleasure of doing the act which is declared to be right, but the pleasurable or painful consequences to mankind which would follow if such acts were done; & these, in the case you put, could not be enunciated in any general rule, because they depend on varying circumstances. There are cases in which martyrdom is a useless self sacrifice, & a sacrifice of other means of doing real good. There are other cases in which the importance of it to the good of mankind is so great as to make it a positive duty, like the act of a soldier who gives his life in the performance of what is assigned to him. There are cases again where without being so necessary as to be, on the utilitarian ground, an absolute duty, it is yet so useful as to constitute an act of virtue, which then ought to receive the praise & honours of heroism. The duty of truth as a positive duty is also to be considered on the ground of whether more good or harm would follow to mankind in general if it were generally disregarded and not merely whether good or harm would follow in a particular case.
1029.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Blackheath Park
Feb. 9. 1867
Dear Mr Cairnes
We are truly grieved to hear of your suffering so much. You do not mention to what place in the South of France you are going. If to Pau, you must not be disappointed if you do not find your health greatly improved by it. The climate of Pau is damp, and dampness is, I am afraid, bad for rheumatism.
My daughter is very much pleased that you think favourably of what she has been doing. We have been made very happy by the adhesion of the Daily News,2 in an admirable article for which the cause is evidently indebted directly to Mr Hill,3 and indirectly to you.
I need not say how glad I am that you like my Address.4 Nor, I hope, need I say how earnestly I desire your speedy restoration to health. You can ill be spared from among us even for a short time.
With our best regards to Mrs Cairnes I am
Dear Mr Cairnes
ever truly yours
J. S. Mill
1030.
TO THE REV. THOMAS W. FOWLE1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
Feb. 9. 1867
Dear Sir—
I agree entirely with the general principles & spirit of your letter received yesterday. I think it highly desirable that the New Testament, & those parts of the Old which are either poetical or properly historical, should be taught as history in places of education;2 & so far my only difference with you would be that nearly all teachers, both churchmen & dissenters, being as yet far short of the enlightened views which you entertain on the subject, would at present be sure to teach & inculcate all that is contained in those books not as matter of history but of positive religious belief. There are, however other parts of the Old Testament viz. those which scientific knowledge or historical criticism have shewn not to be, in any proper sense of the word, historical, the book of Genesis for example; & I do not think it right to teach these in schools even as history, unless it were avowedly as merely what the Hebrews believed respecting their own origin & the early history of the world.
1031.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
Feb. 9. 1867
Dear Mr Plummer
I have to congratulate you on the birth of your daughter, and at the same time to condole with you on the failure of the Working Man2 and on the termination of your engagement with Messrs Cassell. What have you in view for your next employment? I wish it were in my power to help you to a position of profit and usefulness.
I am glad to hear of a local Jamaica Committee, and of your being a member of it. I think you should decidedly offer yourself as a witness to the Trades Union Commission.3 They will find few who know so much of the subject and feel so impartially on it. There must often be witnesses quite as hard of hearing as you are.
With our kind regards to Mrs Plummer, I am
dear Mr Plummer
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1032.
TO HERBERT SPENCER1
- Blackheath Park
Feb. 9. 1867
Dear Sir
I am very happy that you think so favourably of the St Andrews address, except on one point. In regard to classical instruction, I do not altogether agree with you that the side favourable to it is too strong;2 for I think there is a growing reaction to the opposite extreme, producing a danger on that side which being the side most in harmony with modern tendencies has the best chance of being ultimately the stronger.
I am most happy to hear that there is a chance of reviving the scheme of the Reader.3 I agree with you as to the desirableness of taking time to mature the plans, so as to avoid the mistakes made with the Reader, through which the subscriptions were expended without a fair trial of the experiment. I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Herbert Spencer Esq.
1033.
TO ROBERT HERBERT STORY1
Feb. 9. 1867
Dear Sir
Allow me to thank you for the book2 you have been so good as to send, and which I am quite prepared to find very interesting. I am sorry that the occupations, parliamentary and other, which press on me, are not likely soon to leave me the leisure necessary for reading it.
I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Rev. R. H. Story
1034.
TO WILLIAM GEORGE WARD1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
Feb 9 1867
Dr Sir
The Dublin Review reached me duly & I thought I had acknowledged it. The article on Jamaica2 was excellent. I am very happy that you feel with me so strongly on that subject. I am glad too that you like the St. Andrews Address.
I wish I had seen your article on Free Will3 while I was revising my book4 for a new edition and replying to other critics. You would have been a much worthier adversary than most of those I have had.
1035.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN1
- Blackheath Park
Feb. 10. 1867
Dear Sir
I have communicated to my solicitor your remarks and wishes on the subject of the registration of the mortgage.2 In the meantime I have received from him the inclosed letter. I do not remember the exact import or effect of the words which you wished omitted. But he says that even as the draft originally stood, it would not have pledged the back stock, or any monies still to come in from the back numbers.
I inclose a cheque, for which the deed of mortgage will be the receipt, and I am Dear Sir
yrs very truly
J. S. Mill
Dr Chapman
1036.
TO WILLIAM GEORGE WARD1
- Blackheath Park
Feb. 11, 1867
Dear Sir—
I shall be very glad to see the proof of your article2 & I only regret that the pressure on my time during the session will make it impossible for me to take notice of it in the forthcoming edition of my book.3
1037.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Blackheath Park
Feb. 13. 1867
Dear Mr Cairnes
I shall be happy to support your friend Mr Courtney2 if I am able to attend the Club. There is at present a vacancy by the death of Mr Cowell.3
The progress of the cause of women’s suffrage, both here and in the United States, is indeed wonderful. It is a great encouragement to those who have been working uphill.
I hope you will let me hear from you now and then.
With the most earnest wishes for your early and complete restoration to health. I am
Dear Mr Cairnes
yours ever truly
J. S. Mill
1038.
TO EDWARD WALFORD1
- Blackheath Park
Feb. 14, 1867
Dear Sir
Want of time, combined with dislike for the operation, has obliged me to refuse all proposals from photographers to take my likeness, except in one instance, when I sat to Mr Watkins2 of Parliament Street, from whom any one who wishes for a photograph of me can obtain one. I hope, therefore, that you will excuse me if I decline to sit to Mr Edwards.3 I am
Dear Sir
yours faithfully
J. S. Mill
Edward Walford Esq.
1039.
TO WILLIAM GEORGE WARD1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
Feb. 14, 1867
Dear Sir—
I have read your article2 with very great interest. You are the clearest thinker I have met for a long time who has written on your side of these great questions. And I quite admit that your theory of divine premovement is not on the face of it inadmissible. Your illustration of the mice inside the piano is excellent.3 The uniform sequences which the mice might discover between the sounds & the phenomena inside would not negative the player without. But you only put back the collision between the two theories for a certain distance. It comes at last. At whatever point in the upward series the unforseeable will of the divine musician comes in, there the uniformity of physical sequence fails: the chain has been traced to its beginning; a physical phenomenon has taken place without any antecedent physical conditions. Now what would be asserted on the other side of the question is, that the facts always admit of, & render highly probable, the supposition that there were such antecedent physical conditions, & that there has been no ultimate beginning to that series of facts, short of whatever beginning there was to the whole history of the universe.
We do not pretend that we can disprove divine interference in events, & direct guidance of them. All our evidence is only negative. We say that so far as known to mankind everything takes place as it would do if there were no such direct guidance. We think that every event is abstractedly capable of being predicted, because mankind are in each case as near to being able actually to predict what happens as could be expected, regard being had to the degree of accessibility of the data, & the complexity of the conditions of the problem.
I cannot perceive in your article any errors in physics. But I am not a safe authority on matters of physical science. Astronomers now think that they can predict much more than eclipses & the return of comets—their predictions reach even to the dissipation of the sun’s heat & the heaping up of the solar system in one dead mass of congelation. But I hold all this to be at present nothing more than scientific conjecture. All that is required by your argument is that the possibility of absolute & categorical prediction should be, as yet, confined to cosmic phenomena. This, I believe, all men of science admit, & I indorse everything on that subject which is said by Mansel in your note.4 Scientific prediction in other physical sciences is not absolute, but conditional. We know certainly that oxygen & hydrogen brought together in a particular way will produce water, but we cannot predict with certainty that oxygen & hydrogen will come together in that way unless brought together by human agency. The human power of prediction at present extends only to effects which depend on a very small number of causes. Astronomical phenomena do depend on a very small number of causes, & consequently can be predicted. Most other physical phenomena can be predicted with the same certainty provided we are able to limit the causes in question to a very small number. This power of prediction you have not, I think, allowed for in your Essay. Yet it surely is all important. For if the effect of any single cause, or of any pair or triad of causes, can be calculated, the joint effect of a myriad of such causes is abstractedly capable of calculation. That we are unable practically to calculate it is no more than might be expected, at least in the present state of our knowledge, however calculable it may in itself be.
With regard to free will, you have not said much that affects my argument. I am not aware of having ever said that foreknowledge is inconsistent with free will. That knotty metaphysical question I have avoided entering into, & in my Logic I have even built upon the admissions of the free will philosophers that our freedom be real though God foreknows our actions.5 You simplify the main question very much by your luminous distinction between the spontaneous impulse of the will, which you regard as strictly dependent on preexisting mental dispositions & external solicitations, & what the man may himself do to oppose or alter that spontaneous impulse. The distinction has important practical consequences but I see no philosophical bearing that it has on free will; for it seems to me that the same degree of knowledge of a person’s character which will enable us to judge with tolerable assurance what his spontaneous impulse will be, will also enable us to judge with about an equal degree of assurance whether he will make any effort, & (in a general way) how much effort he is likely to make, to control that impulse. Our foresight in this matter cannot be certain, because we never can be really in possession of sufficient data. But it is not more uncertain than the insufficiency & uncertainty of the data suffice to account for.
Thanking you very much for giving me the opportunity of reading your very able & interesting speculation I am &c.
1040.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN1
- Blackheath Park
Feb. 16 [1867]
Dear Sir
The best train to come by on Sunday will be the North Kent train which leaves Charing Cross at 1.5, as it is the earliest after 9.45, and as I am not sure that I shall be alone later in the afternoon. From the Blackheath station to my house (the last but one in Blackheath Park) is about ten minutes walk. I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Dr Chapman
1041.
TO GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE1
- Blackheath Park
Feb. 16. 1867
Dear Sir
I accompanied the deputation which waited on Mr Walpole yesterday,2 and we found it useless to press on him the appointment of any additional members of the Commission, as he had already once cancelled a Commission already signed by the Queen, in order to issue a new one with Mr Harrison’s3 name in it, and was unwilling to take the same step a second time. I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
G. J. Holyoake Esq.
1042.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1
- Blackheath Park
Feb. 18, 1867
Dear Sir
Many thanks for the cards for your Lecture2 which you were kind enough to send. It would have been a real pleasure to me to make use of them, but unfortunately there is no prospect of my being able to do so. Shall I return the cards to you? I am
Dear Sir
yours very sincerely
J. S. Mill
1043.
TO THOMAS HARE1
[Before Feb. 19, 1867]
. . . received your note I had been planning a Resolution to move in the Committee of the House if the Government Resolutions ever get that far.2 I am disposed to go straight up to the main position, and move the Resolution annexed. The objection to yours is, that it will be impossible to keep the discussion of it . . . . [personal?] representation, which everybody except ourselves and the extreme Radicals is opposed to, and which, in fact, is not desirable or admissible except in conjunction with your option. I think it is now time to move directly the leading principle of your plan, to which all the rest of it is merely subsidiary.
Mr. Ware3 was very much pleased by his interview with you.
I hope you have quite recovered from your indisposition. I am Dear Mr. Hare
ever yrs truly
J. S. Mill
1044.
TO THOMAS HARE1
- Blackheath Park
Feb. 19. 1867
Dear Mr. Hare
I am most happy that you approve so completely of my intended Resolution.2 As I understood from Mr. Gladstone’s speech yesterday evening3 that the Government will be allowed to proceed with their Resolutions, I shall give notice of mine tonight.4
We look forward with pleasure to seeing you on Sunday. I am Dear Mr. Hare
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1045.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN1
- Blackheath Park
Kent
Feb. 20, 1867
Dear Sir
My friend Mr Kyllmann of Manchester writes to me that having been spoken to by Mr Jacob Bright,2 he has succeeded in raising among his friends £80 for the Review, and expects to receive £20 more. This is so much further towards the sum wanted,3 and I thought you would be glad to be informed of it at once. I am Dear Sir
yrs very truly
J. S. Mill
Dr Chapman
1046.
TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE1
- Blackheath Park
Feb. 21. 1867
Dear Mr Christie
There are a great many important features in your plan and I will endeavour by its help to think the subject out in a practical point of view as soon as leisure is given us from the urgency of the present contest.2 No one will give his mind to a detailed scheme for checking bribery at the present moment; but there is a very strong sense that it ought to be one of the first things done after passing a reform bill. You will have seen how strongly Mr Gladstone has already in the House, expressed his sense of its necessity.3 I am
Dear Mr Christie
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1047.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1
- Blackheath Park
Kent
Feby 27th 1867
Sir
I have not leisure to go at length into the subject of your letter, but I spoke of Dr Arnold2 as a practical reformer precisely because I think that it was in practice rather than in theory that his work and his influence were most beneficial. I look upon the example he set of friendly intercourse between master and scholars, and of effort on the part of the teacher to arouse moral ambition in his pupils, as of great practical value; and if generally followed, sure to produce (as I think it has already produced) a considerable reform in the whole method and results of school teaching.
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1048.
TO HENRY I. ROWNTREE1
[March, 1867]
I hope you will permit me to observe that the principle that “it is unjust that the great bulk of the nation should be held amenable to laws in the making of which they have had no voice,” cannot stop at “residential manhood suffrage;” but requires that the suffrage be extended to women also. I earnestly hope that the working men of England will show the sincerity of their principles by being willing to carry them out when urged in favour of others besides themselves.
1049.
TO WILLIAM RANDAL CREMER1
B[lackheath] P[ark] March 1, 1867.
Dear Sir—
I am sorry to say that the proceedings at the meeting of Delegates reported in the Star2 of Feb. 28, a meeting promoted by the Reform League3 & at which members of its Council were the chief speakers, make it necessary for me to withdraw the paper which I had expressed my willingness to sign: because I can no longer say with sincerity that an agitation conducted in the manner proposed at that meeting would be beneficial to the cause of Reform.
The speeches delivered at the meeting were characterized by two things: a determined rejection beforehand of all compromise on the Reform question, even if proposed by the public men in whose sincerity & zeal as reformers you have repeatedly expressed the fullest confidence, & a readiness to proceed at once to a trial of physical force if any opposition is made either to your demands or to the particular mode, even though illegal, which you may select for the expression of them.
It is best that I shd express my opinion plainly & unreservedly on both these points. My conviction is that any Reform bill capable of being passed at present & for some time to come must be more or less of a compromise. I have hitherto thought that the leading minds among the working classes recognized this, & though frankly declaring that nothing less than the whole of what they think required by justice will finally satisfy them, were aware that such ultimate success can only in this country be obtained by a succession of steps, and that a large portion of the middle and some portion of the higher classes may be carried with them in the first step, & perhaps in every successive step, but would certainly resist a passage all at once from the present distribution of political power to one exactly the reverse, the effects of which they feel quite unable to foresee. All this the speakers at the meeting on Thursday either forgot or entirely disregarded.
But even if I thought them right on this point I shd think them utterly & fatally wrong in the course they adopted of directly instigating the mass of reformers to seek the attainment of their object by physical violence. One of the leading speakers proclaimed superiority of physical force as constituting right, & as justifying the people in “riding down” the ministers of the law; & the speaker who followed him emphatically expressed concurrence in his treatment. I do not impute to the meeting the monstrous doctrine of these two speakers. But unless misreported, the general tone was that of a direct appeal to revolutionary expedients. Now it is my deep conviction that there are only two things which justify an attempt at revolution. One is personal oppression & tyranny & consequent personal suffering of such intensity that to put an immediate stop to them is worth almost any amount of present evil & future danger. The other is when either the system of government does not permit the redress of grievances to be sought by peaceable & legal means, or when those means have been perseveringly exerted to the utmost for a long series of years, & their inefficacy has been demonstrated by experiment. No one will say that any of these justifications for revolution exist in the present case. Yet unless the language used was mere bravado, the speakers appear to have meant to say that the time has already come for revolution.
I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of these things; I believe them to be the result of feelings of irritation, for which there has been ample provocation and abundant excuse. But however natural irritation it may be, things done or said under its influence are very likely to be repented of afterwards. This, however, is for you to judge of. I do not claim the smallest right of offering advice to you or to the League, but you have asked me to express, in a written document, approbation of the general character & effects of your agitation, & as it is impossible for me to do this when it has assumed a character of which I decidedly disapprove, I have thought it best to explain candidly the reasons why I must now decline to comply with your request.
1050.
TO JAMES GARTH MARSHALL1
- Blackheath Park
March 3. 1867
Dear Sir
Excuse the long delay in answering your letter of the 22nd ulto. I have really had no time, during the interval, to write anything which would bear delay.
I quite agree with you that in proposing Mr Hare’s scheme, a suggestion should be made for its tentative introduction on a limited scale. Mr Hare has himself made several such suggestions, and particularly that of giving every qualified elector the option of being registered either locally as at present, or as a member of a national constituency. The new mode of voting would be applied only to those who chose the latter, and who in the commencement at least, would probably be a select and not very numerous body. This suggestion seems to me preferable to that of trying the experiment on a distinct category of electors composed of the professional and specially educated classes; on account of the serious objections that exist to any mode of officially recognising the special representation of classes. But if such a category of electors were going to be created, I certainly think that the application of Mr Hare’s plan to it might usefully be proposed.
I do not at all agree with you that small minorities in the nation have not a claim to the means of getting themselves specially represented in Parliament. I regard the maturing of opinions by public discussion as one of the most important functions of the House of Commons. And as to the danger of loss of time by the discussion of mere absurdities, there is a sort of voluntary police in the H. of Commons which is only too effectual in setting bounds to any discussion that is felt to be a bore. There are few who would be willing to occupy the position in the House of Mr Whalley,2 though his follies, I am afraid, are far from being those of a very small fraction of the public. I do not believe that any opinion, entertained by very few, would be able to obtain more than an occasional and rare hearing in the H. of C. unless it had for its organ some member generally respected & looked up to. I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
J. G. Marshall Esq
1051.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
March 3. 1867
Dear Mr Plummer
I shall have much pleasure in giving you an introduction to an old friend of mine at Paris, M. Gustave d’Eichthal,2 who knows England and the English language well, will be interested in you and your history, is well qualified to advise you, and can give you other introductions if you require them. If you will let me know when you are going, I will send you a letter to him.
I am happy to hear a good account of your prospects. There is a great heap of parliamentary papers ready for you, if they continue to be useful. Shall I send them to Homer Terrace?
With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer, I am
Dear Mr Plummer
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1052.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath Park
March 5. 1867
Dear Chadwick
I supposed you knew the time fixed for the Committee on Mr Hardy’s bill.2 I am sorry to say it is next Thursday. I have not heard whether it is likely to be further put off.
I have been in communication with various people on the subject, among whom Dr Stallard,3 as far as he goes, seems to agree very much with you, while Beal4 and his Vestry attack the bill on the old anti-centralization notions, as interfering too much with the guardians. I had to fight a deputation of them in the tea room along with eight or ten metropolitan members, most of whom went with me against them. But the deputation also are for merging the separate boards in one. Their strongest objection was to the nominees. What do you think of that part of the plan? Could a better system of inspectors be substituted for it?
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1053.
TO WILLIAM LONGMAN1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
March 6, 1867
Dear Sir—
I agree to the terms mentioned in your note of March 4 for the people’s edition of the Address.2
Please send a copy of the People’s Ed. of “Pol. Economy” to Mr W. Dixon,3 care of Mr Radford, 7 Red Lion Street Clerkenwell E. C. charging me as usual with all expenses.
1054.
TO RICHARD RUSSELL1
March 6th, 1867
Dear Sir—
I do not see that the fact that it may become expedient at some future time to admit women to the House of Representatives can be any bar to admitting their claim at present to be electors. Any objections to the meeting of persons of both sexes for the purpose of legislation are such as naturally tend to diminish with a higher state of civilization. In some countries the sexes are still separated at church; in the East the influence of sex is so strong that even family life is rendered impossible by it, and brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, are separated, and men and women can only associate together in the single relation of husband and wife. But we have proved by experience that exactly in proportion as men and women associate publicly together in a variety of relations not founded on sex, their doing so becomes safe and beneficial, and raises the tone of public morality. I am disposed to think that no legislation is needed to prevent women from becoming members of parlt for that before any woman is likely to be chosen by a sufficient number of electors, public opinion will ensure sufficient propriety of sentiment in the House of Commons to make her presence there perfectly harmless.
As to the objection that men & women might on some occasions differ collectively, and that the women might have their own way, it has much less force than the similar objection to the working classes, because men and women are much more likely to be evenly balanced in number than the poor & the rich. I cannot see how arranging that men shall always have their own way in everything can in justice be the proper way to prevent women from occasionally having theirs. There is a more even balance between men and women than between any other two classes and therefore the attainment of justice through equal representation may be more easily trusted to the reason & right feeling of the best among each acting as a check to violence or party feeling on either side.
I should object to the plan of a subordinate house of representatives for women just as I should object to any such plan for working men, and just as I should object to placing the House of Commons in any such subordination to the House of Lords. I dislike all merely class representation, and I still more disapprove of all class subordination. Moreover one of the useful functions of a H. of Representatives is discussion, and the representation of women’s point of view whether through male or female representatives is part of what would be gained by admitting women to the suffrage. And it is not merely in the H. of C. but also even in the tone of electioneering and popular politics that the admission of new elements to the national life is of importance. New topics get discussed and old ones from new points of view. Different classes of electors are aroused to interest, and to influence one another. Shutting their representatives up separately, even if with equal powers, would be to weaken the educational influence of political contests, and at the same time to intensify their bitterness.
1055.
TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL1
- Blackheath Park, Kent
le 8 mars 1867
Mon cher d’Eichthal
Je viens de donner une lettre de recommandation auprès de vous à M. John Plummer,2 qui se rend à Paris comme représentant de plusieurs associations ouvrières, dans l’espoir d’obtenir pour elles certaines facilités, dont je ne sais pas précisément la nature, par rapport à l’Exposition.3 Je me rappelle le grand intérêt que vous avez pris, il y a bien longtemps, à Rowland Detrosier.4 M. Plummer est un homme encore plus remarquable. Il a été longtemps simple ouvrier dans une petite ville de province. Il a commencé à écrire sous la stimulation d’une vive indignation contre certains procédés d’un Trades Union. De là, il a été toujours en progrès; il est maintenant écrivain et journaliste, et ses écrits, sur toutes les questions qui intéressent particulièrement la classes ouvrière, sont remarquables par leur bon sens, par leur philanthropie éclairée, et même par la pureté de leur style. Malgré les désavantages, non seulement de sa position mais de sa personne, car il est boiteux et un peu sourd, il a une influence considérable parmi les classes ouvrières, surtout en matière sociale et économique, car, quoique radical, il s’occupe moins de politique que des questions d’éducation et de progrès moral et intellectuel. Je suis sûr que vous ne le connaîtrez pas sans éprouver pour lui un vif intérêt; et si vous pouviez l’aider à obtenir ce qu’il désire, j’en serais vraiment reconnaissant.
J’ai vu hier Monsieur votre fils,5 pendant un quart d’heure à la Chambre. Je compte causer avec lui plus au long à son retour de Liverpool.
Votre affectionné
J. S. Mill
1056.
TO THOMAS HARE1
- Blackheath Park
March 8. 1867
Dear Mr. Hare
The best plan, I think, will be for me to give notice, on Monday next, that I shall, in the course of the Reform discussions, call the attention of the House to the principle of Personal Representation.2 I will then put your clauses in the paper immediately after the production of the Bill.
I am Dear Mr. Hare
yours ever truly
J. S. Mill
1057.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
March 8, 1867
Dear Mr Plummer
I inclose a brief introduction to my friend M. d’Eichthal. I write to him by today’s post at greater length,2 in order to tell him more particulars about you than could well be put into a letter which he will only read at the moment of receiving your visit.
I have no power of introducing you to any one who has access to the Emperor, as my political opinions have always prevented me from cultivating an acquaintance with any of his adherents. Perhaps some of your other friends may have more power of being useful to you in this capacity; and it would be worth while for you to mention your wish yourself to M. d’Eichthal, as he may perhaps be able to help you.
I will look out the Parliamentary papers and send them to you as soon as I have time.
Our kind regards to Mrs Plummer.
I am Dear Mr Plummer
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1058.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath Park
March 9. 1867
Dear Chadwick
You will have seen that you were mistaken about what Mr Hardy did on Thursday,2 and that the [substantive?] discussion in Committee commenced last night.3 In the course of it, I had opportunities of enunciating several of the true principles of administration (though I am very imperfectly reported—the Star report4 is the best) and I shall bring out others of them on Monday5 when the Committee is to be resumed and when it will get to the position and mode of appointment of the medical officers. None of the reports give (what I said very emphatically) that, for the executive duties, the only persons to be relied on are the paid officers, and that the use of boards is to look after those officers.
Mr Hardy tells me that Miss Nightingale’s paper6 is already before the House annexed to the Cubical Space Report.
Thanks for your article, which I will return shortly.
yrs ever truly
J. S. Mill
1059.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1
- Blackheath Park
March 11th 1867
Dear Sir
You are evidently a real student and I wish that all who read my books would scrutinize them with the same strictness.
In quoting the passage from De Quincey2 I did not mean to make myself answerable for all it contains, but only for so much of it as is recognized in my own introductory sentences. I thought it in the main right and well fitted to carry the reader into the very heart of the subject, and when there to set him looking about and thinking for himself, which opinion is confirmed by the effect it has had upon you. I do not think that Mr De Quincey has in this passage given a correct expression to the whole of the truth, and on the particular point which is the subject of your letter my opinion agrees with that which, if I rightly understand your letter, you have arrived at.
Yours faithfully
J. S. Mill
1060.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath Park
March 12. 1867
Dear Chadwick
The time had passed for moving your amendment in Committee but I have put it on the notice paper (to the great satisfaction, among others, of Dr Stallard) to be moved on bringing up the Report.2 I shewed it first to Mr Hardy, who said that the plan was ‘what we shall certainly come to.’
What I said is better reported this time than last,3 though briefly.
The Bill is now through Committee, and one of Mr Hardy’s own amendments4 has given the Poor Law Board, to a great extent, the power you want, of classifying without district restrictions.
ever yrs truly
J. S. Mill
1061.
TO THOMAS HARE1
- Blackheath Park
March 15. 1867
Dear Mr Hare
Disraeli said last night in answer to a question, that the Reform Bill would be in the hands of members on Tuesday morning.2 It seems likely that its provisions will include cumulative voting. If so, our clauses ought to be moved as an amendment on that. I think the clause giving power to the Speaker of framing rules should stand and I expect to be able to suggest some other improvements in the draft.3 As I gave my notice in general terms last night,4 the middle of next week will be soon enough for putting the actual clauses on the paper. I will call on you at your office as soon as possible after we have the Bill. I am
Dear Mr Hare
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1062.
TO WILLIAM WOOD1
- Blackheath Park
March 15th 1867
Dear Sir
Among the many letters on Reform which I have received since the subject assumed a practical aspect, none has given me so much pleasure and none I think has shown so true a perception of important principles and distinctions as yours. I am not aware that I differ essentially from anything which your letter contains though I should sometimes express the same, or an equivalent meaning in different words.
If you have time and are inclined to write further to me on the subject, specifying the particular mode which occurs to you of giving effect to the principles of representation laid down by you, it will give me much pleasure to hear from you.
I am dear Sir
yours truly
J. S. Mill
1063.
TO RICHARD RUSSELL1
March 20, 1867
Dear Sir
I am glad to find that considering women essentially inferior to men and therefore requiring that the constitution shall recognise the domination of men over women, you are yet willing to grant to women a right to advise men how to govern them; and that you think they ought to be permitted larger liberty and privileges than they at present enjoy.
Your point of view is quite reasonable and complete in itself; I have only one fault to find with it—I think it a mistaken one. I see no reason for believing women to be inferior to men, and I do not believe them to be so. You will of course see that it would be impossible for me to find time to enter with you into a discussion on the fundamental equality of the two sexes, it will be sufficient to indicate to you that this is the true point on which we are at issue.
H.T. [for JSM]
1064.
TO JAMES ANTHONY FROUDE1
- Blackheath Park
March 21, 1867
Dear Sir
I hope it is not in consequence of indisposition that you are going abroad.2 If it is not, I congratulate you on the prospect.
My daughter desires me to say that she hopes to be able to send the second instalment of Buckle3 by Easter. It may, however, be further delayed by the endeavour to fill up blanks left in the MSS. requiring reference to various books not immediately accessible.
The series of Reform papers4 have hitherto been excellent and you must have been both judicious and fortunate in your selection of writers. I am not aware at present that I can make any suggestion as to subjects, or recommend any writers but those whom I mentioned in a former letter. I will however think about it, and if anything further occurs to me, I will let you know before Thursday, as it will not be possible for me to have the pleasure of dining with you, the demands on my time being more pressing than ever; not to mention that on Monday, and probably on Tuesday, my presence in the House will be absolutely necessary.
I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
J. A. Froude Esq.
1065.
TO GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE1
- Blackheath Park
March 21, 1867
Dear Sir
I have heard nothing of your petition2 since I returned it to you in the lobby, but I will make particular enquiry about it today in the House.
I am Dear Sir
yrs very truly
J. S. Mill
1066.
TO GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE1
- House of Commons
Friday [March 22, 1867]
Dear Sir,
I have just presented your petition,2 and stated its contents, incorporating some of the most striking expressions in it. I have not moved that it should be printed, as I am told that this is only done when it is intended that a motion should be grounded on the petition; but it is sure to be printed by the Committee of Petitions and sent to every member with their periodical report.
I am Dear Sir
Very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1067.
TO GEORGE GROTE1
- [Embossed] House of Commons Library
Wedy [? 26 March 1867]2
My dear Grote
We shall be delighted to see you on Sunday. I will send you Herbert Spencer’s address not having the number by me. It is Queen’s Gardens Hyde Park.
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1068.
TO THOMAS HARE1
- Blackheath Park
March 26. 1867
Dear Mr Hare
I understood you to say one day in conversation, that the majority of the old deeds of endowment of schools included girls as well as boys,2 but that this part of the original design has been allowed to fall into desuetude. Am I right as to the fact? If so, I shall make use of it in my speech on the representation of women.
I was glad to see your hand again in the Daily News.3 Helen asks me to beg you to be kind enough to tell Miss Hare that there is now no chance of the women’s suffrage debate coming on next Thursday, and it is not likely even for next week.4 I am Dear Mr Hare
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1069.
TO HERBERT SPENCER1
- Blackheath Park
March 26. 1867
Dear Sir
Mr Grote has promised to dine with us on Sunday April 7th and this being one of the Sundays on which I understood you to say that you would be in town, we hope to have the pleasure of seeing you on that day. We dine at five o’clock.
I am Dear Sir
Very truly yours,
J. S. Mill
Herbert Spencer, Esq.
1070.
TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL1
March 28, 1867
My dear d’Eichthal
This line will introduce to you Mr Theobald,2 at present of Balliol College, Oxford, the son of a very old friend of mine3 who has spent the greater part of his life in India. Mr Theobald is studying for the bar, and during the few weeks which he is able to pass at Paris, he is anxious to see all that he can of the judicial proceedings of the French courts as well as to improve his knowledge of the French language and of French affairs in general. I could not possibly address him to any one more competent to advise and aid him, or more disposed, as I know, to do him any kind office for my sake and for his own.
I am
my dear d’Eichthal
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1071.
TO RICHARD RUSSELL1
2nd April 1867
Dear Sir—
I am glad to find that you agree with me in thinking that there is no sufficient evidence that women are morally or intellectually, or essentially inferior to men. But in that case I am afraid I no longer think your theory reasonable so far as it goes, and complete in itself.
I do not think it indisputable that the physically strongest must necessarily be dominant over the physically weaker in civilized society, since I look upon it as the fundamental purpose of civilization to redress as much as possible all such natural inequalities, and I think the degree to which they have been redressed as one of the best tests of civilization.
Nor is superior physical strength invariably even at present the ground of political supremacy, for I suppose there can be little doubt that negroes are physically stronger than white men. But superiority whether of physical strength or of intelligence, having once given any sub-division of humanity an advantage over another it is always difficult for the dominant class to see that their own particular superiority does not justly entitle them to limit the freedom or check the development of those who chance to be inferior to themselves in some respects. To see this it is necessary to admit in some form or other the law of justice or of the general good as the final test, but I do not at all despair of mankind as a whole becoming capable of recognising it as such, as I understand you yourself to do. I must beg you to excuse the brevity with which I am obliged to write.
1072.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath Park
April 5. 1867
Dear Chadwick
Your plan of registration would be cheap and effectual and might have answered under the old constitution of the Poor Law Board; but it would never be consented to, nor would be admissible, to place the whole registration of the country under the supreme control of a member of the existing Cabinet, whatever it might be.
The subject of expenses of elections will certainly come on this year, unless there is an early dissolution. A paper in the next number of Fraser2 would, I have no doubt, be quite in time for it.
I return your paper by book post, and along with it the evidence of Chamberlain Scott,3 which please return
In haste
ever yrs
J. S. Mill
1073.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1
Blackheath Park, April 5, 1867
Dear Sir,
It is impossible for me to find time for attending the meeting on Saturday,2 but I heartily agree in the demand for an efficient lodger franchise3 and I trust that the House will insist on its introduction in any Reform Bill which it allows to pass.
I am
Yours truly
J. S. Mill
1074.
TO EDWARD TRUELOVE1
- Avignon
April 16, 1867.
Dear Sir
I hardly think there would be any use in putting the question you propose to the Government, as they would only return a blunt negative. But the subject ought to be brought in a direct manner before the House at an early period. Perhaps the best time, if a Reform Bill passes, would be in the first session of the Reformed Parliament.
I am not surprised, though very glad, to hear that you and the ladies of your family are strongly interested in favour of the admission of women to the suffrage. I am dear Sir
yours very sincerely
J. S. Mill
Edward Truelove, Esq.
1074A.
TO FREDERICK J. FURNIVALL1
- Avignon
April 21. 1867
Dear Sir
Owing to my absence from England, I have only just received your letter. I inclose a note addressed to yourself,2 which will probably answer your purpose as well as anything which I am competent to write. Wishing you success I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1074B.
TO FREDERICK J. FURNIVALL1
- Avignon
April 21. 1867
Dear Mr Furnivall
The House of Commons will be very fortunate if it finds a person of higher qualification than yourself to fill the vacant office of its Librarian.2 What are the special requisites for the charge of that particular Library I do not know; but if a life largely devoted to philological erudition, and especially to the history of the English language and literature,3 is among them, your publications, and the trust confided in you by the Philological Society,4 are better evidence in your behalf than even the very distinguished testimonials which you possess. I may perhaps be allowed to add, that your enlightened and zealous participation in one of the most useful movements for the educational and social improvement of the working classes, indicates a habit of mind which turns all literary knowledge and acquirements to the most valuable practical ends.
I am Dear Mr Furnivall
very sincerely yours
J. S. Mill
F. J. Furnivall Esq.
1075.
TO THOMAS HUGHES1
- Saint Véran, Avignon
April 21. 1867
Dear Mr Hughes
I am very glad to hear of the merit and success of the Frame Makers’ and Gilders’ Association,2 but I have no intention whatever of taking a new house, and am not likely to be in the way of becoming a customer of the Association. Were the case otherwise, your recommendation, and what you say about them, would be strong inducements for giving them a trial. I am
Dear Mr Hughes
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1076.
TO AUGUST JOANNY CHAPÉ1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
April 28. 1867
Dear Sir
I have been a long time without answering your letter of Jan. 12 & you have been very patient under the delay. I am so busy that it is with difficulty I have found time to read your MS. To write to you what I think on the different topics of it would be impossible for it would require nothing less than a treatise to explain how far I think you right & how far wrong on all the greatest subjects, religious, political, & social, which can possibly occupy the thoughts of an intelligent human being. Let me say however that I think the production very creditable to you, that I advise you by all means to continue thinking, reading, & studying; but I hesitate to advise you to publish, because I think you will very probably acquire additional thoughts which will modify some of those that you have stated with so much vigour, & on many points with so great a foundation of truth. You will also, by persevering self culture, acquire constantly greater power of doing justice to your thoughts by your mode of expressing them. Had I time I shd be very glad to correspond with you, & discuss those great matters of speculation but my pressing occupations forbid any such hope.
I will return your MS, to any address you may give.
1077.
TO HENRY FAWCETT1
- Blackheath Park
May 1. 1867
Dear Mr Fawcett
Allow me to express my sincere congratulations on the fortunate event2 which I have learnt from the newspapers, and my warmest wishes for your happiness and that of the lady who has joined her destiny with yours.
It will give me great pleasure to repeat my congratulations personally. Would it be convenient and agreeable to you and Mrs Fawcett to dine with us here on Sunday the 12th at five?
The Liberal party is at sixes and sevens, but things are not, I think, so bad as they look. The women’s suffrage question may perhaps come on as early as Monday.3 I am
Dear Mr Fawcett
yours ever truly
J. S. Mill
1078.
TO WILLIAM WOOD1
- Blackheath Park
Kent
May 1st 1867
Dear Sir
Want of time has hitherto prevented me from complying with your request that I would acknowledge receipt of your last letter, which I would gladly do at greater length than is possible for me at present.
I think with you that the plan of Reform proposed in your letter is far preferable to that of the present Govt. I presume that your household suffrage would include women who are householders. I am glad to hear that you are against the Ballot. For other points I would refer you to Mr Hare’s book2 and my own volume on Representation.3
I shall hope to hear from you again, and to be able at a more favourable moment to reply more fully to any communications with which you may favour me.
I am dear Sir
yours truly
J. S. Mill
Mr. William Wood
1079.
TO THOMAS HARE1
Blackheath Park, May 6, 1867
Dear Mr. Hare—
I greatly regret that the absolute necessity of my being present at a most critical debate and division on the Reform Bill2 makes it impossible for me to attend our poor friend’s funeral. His loss is most grievous, not only to those who were so fortunate as to know him, but to the great political, social and philosophical principles to which he was so deeply devoted. I have known few men throughout life with minds so open to reason and evidence, so constantly in the foremost rank of human progress, or whose feelings so entirely went along with their principles in inspiring that ceaseless activity in working for what they deemed right, by which in all ages the great victories have been won for truth and justice. Manchester will long have cause to mourn the loss of Max Kyllmann, and England would mourn for him too, if his unostentatious worth, and his unflagging zeal in the promotion of all important movements in opinion, could be known as widely as they deserve to be.—I am, dear Mr. Hare, ever truly yours,
J. S. Mill
Thomas Hare Esq.
1080.
TO EDWARD KYLLMANN1
- Blackheath Park
May 6, 1867
Dear Mr Kyllmann
I have seldom been more shocked by any similar event than I was by the melancholy loss of your poor brother. Most gladly would I shew in any way my profound respect for his memory and my sympathy with his poor wife but tonight, debate and division are unhappily among the most critical in the whole progress of the Reform Bill, making it absolutely necessary for me to be present, and to remain to an hour which would make it impossible for me to arrive at Manchester in time.
I am, Dear Mr Kyllmann with the deepest sympathy
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1081.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1
May 10, 1867
Sir
My letter did not amount to a promise that I would support the proposal to omit the word ‘certificated’ in the clause giving the franchise to attornies,2 though it expressed a willingness to entertain the question.
The Chelsea garden grievances which you complain of are a proper subject for a memorial to the Home Secretary or a petition to parliament, either of which I should be happy to present if it should be desired that I should do so rather than one of the members for Middlesex.3
I am Sir
Yours faithfully
J. S. Mill
1082.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN1
- Blackheath Park
May 14, 1867
Dear Sir
From the length of time which elapsed without my hearing further from you on the state of your affairs as connected with the Review,2 I had hoped that things had in some way assumed a better aspect, but I am sorry to find that the very reverse is the case. I shall be anxious to hear the results of your communication with Mr Jacob Bright, my own prospects of being of use in the matter by any influence with monied people being, as I have said from the first, anything but promising. But I will endeavour to do what little I can, and will keep you informed of anything I have to tell. I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Dr Chapman
1083.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath Park
May 19. 1867
Dear Chadwick
From the turn which events are taking, there is now, I think, no prospect whatever of an early dissolution.2
In thinking of the various possibilities of your return to Parliament, it has occurred to me that one of the most promising might be, to offer yourself for one of the two Parliamentary boroughs into which the Tower Hamlets are to be divided.3 One advantage of this is that you would not displace any existing member, whose friends would oppose you: another is, that there are no preponderant or commanding local interests in a metropolitan borough.
Another chance would be to try against Doulton4 for Lambeth. Almost any presentable candidate standing as a supporter of Reform and of Gladstone, could probably succeed against Doulton if he were the first in the field.
It is feared that the University of London will return Fowler,5 the late Tory candidate for the City, who is an alumnus of University College, and takes an active part in its affairs and in those of the University.
I am Dear Chadwick
yours ever truly
J. S. Mill
1084.
TO HERBERT SPENCER1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
May 24. 1867
Dear Sir—
I write now to ask a favour of you, which however I am certain before I ask it you will grant if it can reasonably be granted. My daughter has formed a plan for publishing a series of papers on the representation of women, which she would like to consist of the following:
- 1. Mrs Mill’s paper from the Westr on the Enfranchisement of women2
- 2. Mr Spencer’s chapter on the rights of women from “Social Statics”3
- 3. Passages on the same subject from Mr Bailey’s “Rationale of Repr”4 with Mr Mill’s speech in the H. of C.5 & passages from “Repr. Govt”.6
- 4. Miss Becker’s article on Female Suffrage from Contemp Rev.7
- 5. Mrs Bodichon’s papers read at the Soc. Science Assn.8
- 6. Miss Taylor’s article on the Claim of Englishwomen to the franchise.9
If the consent of these different writers can be obtained, she proposes to get them reprinted in a uniform series & published by Messrs Trubner at a very low price; probably 1 d. each.10
Can you consent to the publication in this form of your chapter, without which my daughter says the series would want solidity.
1085.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Blackheath Park
May 26. 1867
Dear Mr Cairnes
We were very happy to hear of the improvement in your bodily state which you mention in your letter of the 20th.2 I should hope, most earnestly, that you will not omit any measures whatever that promise a chance of improvement, nor allow yourself to remain in any circumstances in which you do not think you find some improvement going on. I know by experience how much may be done by energetic measures, and while I have great faith in the power of intelligent medical men over disease, I would never place faith in any individual one, under whose treatment I was not progressing. I think one ought to use one’s own intelligence in seeking for remedies, and to use the advice of the best doctors as a guide and help to one’s own judgment. It pained me to hear that you were not making progress at Pau. It is possible that the climate of that place is not sufficiently bracing for you, and that the keen stimulating air of Nice, so dangerous in some cases, and so magically beneficial in others, might be of use in yours. Dr Gurney of Nice is a man of whose professional abilities I have a very high opinion, and whose long residence at Nice makes him a very good judge of the cases [in] which stimulating air may safely be tried, while I know that he sends away patients who he thinks have been injudiciously sent there by other medical men. If you should at any time think of trying the effect of dry bracing air in warm climates, such as that of Nice, Egypt, Malta, &c. you might perhaps like to hear Dr Gurney’s opinion of it in reference to your own case, and I am certain that if you wrote to him mentioning that I begged you to do so, you would get a very intelligent and disinterested opinion. I am so desirous that you would leave no means untried that I hope you will excuse me for mentioning this.
As the volume of Dissertations3 has not been forwarded, and as you have not read the paper on Plato,4 I will send you a separate copy of it by post. I had already desired that the new and enlarged edition of the book on Hamilton5 should be sent immediately on publication to the care of Major Cairnes6 at Pau.
You will have seen the debate on the representation of women.7 The minority of 73 (which would have been near 100 if the division had not taken place unexpectedly at a bad time of the evening) is most encouraging, and has put its members and many other supporters in great spirits. The greatest triumph of all is getting [John] Bright’s vote: ten days before, he was decidedly against us.
We are not yet safe from the gross blunder as well as crime of shedding the blood of Fenian prisoners. The Government had decided, by a majority, to hang Burke.8 About 50 M.P.’s, of which I was one, went as soon as possible to intercede with Lord Derby,9 and at this time of writing I do not yet know what is the result. If they have not given in we shall attack them furiously in the House tomorrow.
As to Lord Naas’ bill,10 it does so very little that nobody seems to wish it to pass, except, probably, himself: I think, however, that it had better pass, because it contains the principle of giving compensation for improvements beneficial to the landlord, though made without his consent. But there are symptoms of the Government’s giving way on this point, and if they do, the Bill will be a mere authority to lend public money, even if ostensibly to tenants, yet really to landlords, for improvements by which landlords alone will benefit, except so far as everybody is benefitted by any agricultural improvement.
I hope you do not depend on the Times or Galignani for all your news. Probably you see the Daily News. Not only that, but the Star, and even the Telegraph, are much fairer, have often better reports and contain much that the Times does not choose to give.
With our kind regards to Mrs Cairnes, whose health we were happy to hear had improved.
I am Dear Mr Cairnes
yours most truly
J. S. Mill
May 30. I kept the letter open to be able to say that Burke’s life is spared. But we had to threaten that some of us would go down to Balmoral.11
1086.
TO THOMAS HARE1
- Blackheath Park
Monday
[May 26, 1867]
Dear Mr Hare
I write merely to remind you that the question of Personal Representation is very likely to come on next Thursday2 and that your name is on the Speaker’s list.3
ever yours truly,
J. S. Mill
1087.
TO JOHN NICHOL1
May 26, 1867
Dear Sir
It would give me much pleasure if you would take dinner with me at the House of Commons on Tuesday at seven. Under the new arrangements I shall be free from 7 to 9, and I have asked Prof. Bain to join us.
I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1088.
TO JOHN ALLEN1
- Blackheath Park
May 27. 1867
Dear Sir—
I do not anticipate that women would be made less valuable in the house by having their minds directed to the great concerns of mankind: but quite the contrary, wherever men’s minds are employed as much as they ought to be on those great concerns.
Neither do I think that the adaptation of the work of each person to his or her special endowments or position is a thing to be preappointed by society. I believe that perfect freedom will adjust these things far better than any general regulation can.
Perhaps I do not differ so much from you as you suppose, as to what is likely to be permanently the main occupation of a very great majority of women. But I do not think that the majority should give laws to the individual action of the minority.
I do not undervalue “what teachers of religion can effect”. I rate it most highly, but what they do effect I rate very low. An example of what they might do has been given lately by the Independent Church at Totnes,2 in severely rebuking those of its members who have been implicated in bribery, and only not expelling them from its communion because they expressed the deepest penitence, and determination never to offend in that manner again. This gave me the rare satisfaction of finding an existing Church, or branch of a Church, who are actually Christians. I am, Dear Sir, with many thanks for your kind and courteous expressions towards myself,
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
The Venerable
Archdeacon Allen.
1089.
TO HELEN TAYLOR1
- House of Commons
May 27, 1867
Dear—
All is as it should be. Disraeli, in answer to the O’Donoghue,2 has announced the Queen’s consent to the remission of the capital sentence:3 & if he had not, the O’Donoghue, Sir John Gray4 and two others were prepared and determined to go to Balmoral tonight.
My regards to pussy.
Your ever affectionate
J.S.M.
1090.
TO EDWARD OWEN GREENING1
- Blackheath Park
30 May 1867
The introduction of the Co-operative trading principle for the supply of things required by the cultivators of the land will be very useful, both in itself, and, as a possible preparation for Co-operative Farming.
I am glad that there is no rivalry between your paper2 and Mr Pitman’s,3 but I would be glad to hear that a union had been affected between them. I am sorry to say I have no time to send any communication to either.
1091.
TO G. W. SHARP1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
June 1. 1867
Sir—
In answer to your letter of May 27 I beg to say that the passage you refer to in my speech at St James’s Hall was correctly reported.2 And I do not know how anyone could express himself otherwise who believes, as all Englishmen do, that insurrections & revolutions are sometimes justifiable. I will only mention, as cases about which there is scarcely any dispute in this country, the resistance to Charles I; our own Revolution of 1688; the Polish insurrections; & the Italian revolutions by Garibaldi & his friends.
I did not mean that all insurrections, if successful, stand exculpated; the rebellion of the American slaveholders would have been equally guilty & even more detestable if it had succeeded. What I was arguing for was that even those revolutionists who deserve our sympathy, ought yet for the general good, to be subject to legal punishment if they fail.
1092.
TO WILLIAM TODD1
London, Blackheath Park, June 1, 1867.
Dear Sir,—
The superiority of the qualification, by direct taxation, over that by local rating,2 has been made still more obvious by the recent discussions, than it was before; and I have met with many, in Parliament and out of it, who think so, including one member of the present Government. But the almost certainty we now have of really passing a large Parliamentary Reform, depends on our letting the Government have their way on the point which they have chosen to proclaim as the principle of their bill, and the only thing they cannot give up. In the very first session of the Reformed Parliament, the question will probably be revived, as the parishes will not like to lose the convenience of collecting the rates through the owner; and the desire to reintroduce the compound householder, without refusing him a vote, will probably lead to a movement in favour of some other condition, such as yours would be. To discuss it, on this Reform Bill, would be to complicate the subject with a long discussion about taxation and finance, which neither Parliament nor the country would, at the present moment, support.—I am, dear Sir, yours very sincerely,
J. S. Mill
Mr. William Todd, Gateshead.
1093.
TO JOHN NICOLAUS TRÜBNER1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
June 1. 1867
Dear Sir
I was not aware that anybody was reprinting the speech.2
We have said nothing yet about the conditions of publication, & I leave it entirely to your choice whether you prefer to publish it at half profit, taking the risk, or to publish it on my account.
My daughter, Miss Taylor, would be glad to know whether you would publish, on her account, a new edition of her pamphlet3 in smaller type on a cheaper quality of paper so as to be sold for a penny. She would be obliged by your giving her an estimate of the cost of such an edition of 3000 copies & informing her of the difference which is made in the cost by any increase in the number of copies.
[P.S.] Please send a copy of the speech as soon as published to Mr Hansard4 in the Row.
1094.
TO WILLIAM WOOD1
- Blackheath Park
June 1. 1867
Dear Sir
Your letter of May 20 interested me very much as the preceding ones did. You seem to have profited much by your really solid reading, and to have made excellent use of your powers of thought; and I shall be most happy to hear from you on the other subjects you mention. My immediate object in writing is to say that though it is very honourable to you to have relinquished your intention of going to the Paris Exhibition,2 it is really desirable that you should go, as there is much to be learnt in that way also by a thinking person like yourself: and to make up for the delay it may cause in stocking your bookcase, I would with the greatest pleasure lend you, say for six months at a time, any standard books I have in my library which may be interesting and useful to you which I am not immediately using. If you would let me know the subjects which you would like to study at present, I could probably recommend to you some of the best books there are on it. I am
Dear Sir
yours very sincerely
J. S. Mill
Mr. William Wood
1095.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1
- Blackheath Park.
June 2. 1867
Dear Madam
It is impossible for me to bring forward the Cumulative Vote as a substitute for Personal Representation, which in my opinion attains the same specific object far more completely, and has many additional recommendations, both moral and political, which the Cumulative Vote has not.2 The Cumulative Vote, however, under the necessary condition of three members to a constituency, is to be proposed by Mr Hughes,3 and I shall vote for it as the second best proposal: whether I shall say anything on that occasion will depend on circumstances, but much of what I have said for Mr Hare’s plan will be argument for the Cumulative Vote.
I am sorry that the Representation of Women has not the benefit of your support. No doubt, there are plenty of women, as there are of men, who are at present very insufficiently qualified for the exercise of political judgment; but their exclusion from the suffrage does more than anything else to perpetuate that incapacity, by stamping it with the approbation of Society. The removal of that stamp would make women feel entitled to exercise their minds on politics, and they would very soon know quite as much on the subject as men know; which they never will do while society and the law warn them off the ground.
I am Dear Madam
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1096.
TO SAMUEL N. WOOD1
- Blackheath Park, Kent
June 2, 1867
Dear Sir:
Being one who takes as deep and as continuous an interest in the political, moral, and social progress of the United States as if he were himself an American citizen, I hope I shall not be intrusive if I express to you as the executive organ of the Impartial Suffrage Association,2 the deep joy I felt on learning that both branches of the Legislature of Kansas had, by large majorities, proposed for the approval of your citizens an amendment to your constitution, abolishing the unjust political privileges of sex at one and the same stroke with the kindred privilege of colour. We are accustomed to see Kansas foremost in the struggle for the equal claims of all human beings to freedom and citizenship. I shall never forget with what profound interest I and others who felt with me watched every incident of the preliminary civil war3 in which your noble State, then only a Territory, preceded the great nation of which it is a part, in shedding its blood to arrest the extension of slavery.
Kansas was the herald and protagonist of the memorable contest, which at the cost of so many heroic lives, has admitted the African race to the blessings of freedom and education, and she is now taking the same advanced position in the peaceful but equally important contest which, by relieving half the human race from artificial disabilities belonging to the ideas of a past age, will give a new impulse and improved character to the career of social and moral progress now opening for mankind. If your citizens, next November, give effect to the enlightened views of your Legislature, history will remember that one of the youngest States in the civilized world has been the first to adopt a measure of liberation destined to extend all over the earth, and to be looked back to (as is my fixed conviction) as one of the most fertile in beneficial consequences of all the improvements yet effected in human affairs. I am, sir, with the warmest wishes for the prosperity of Kansas,
Yours very truly
J. Stuart Mill
1097.
TO HENRY FAWCETT1
- Blackheath Park
June 7. 1867
Dear Mr Fawcett
Much as I sympathize with the object of the Select Committee on the University Bill,2 I would rather not serve on it, as I have much work on my hands, and there are many who would be much more useful on the Committee than I could be.
I am
Dear Mr Fawcett
ever yrs truly
J. S. Mill
1098.
TO JOHN NICOLAUS TRÜBNER1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
June 7. 1867
Dear Sir
Will you kindly have a page of the “Claim of Englishwomen to the Suffrage”2 set up on specimen paper?
The two copies of the Speech3 have not yet arrived. I should be glad to have a dozen for the present.
With regard to the conditions of publication whichever of the two modes you prefer will be agreeable to me.4
1099.
TO HELEN TAYLOR1
- Saffron Walden
Sunday morning
[June 9, 1867]
Dear—
the Spectator you kindly sent came safe. We2 have, as you see, splendid weather and things have gone prosperously with us thus far except as to my neuralgia, which came on as usual after the first half hour’s walking and remained much the same as in our bad days in the [Lebern?]3 (bad in that respect but glorious in all others). And, what is worse, I have it already this morning before starting, from the mere exertion of dressing. I am obliged therefore to take a fly today to carry us out a certain distance and begin our walk from thence though if I had been in proper condition we would have done it all on foot. We have determined to remain here the whole time, as none of the other places we wish to go to are too distant for excursions from hence. So any letters or newspapers posted on Monday will reach me if sent here. It is unnecessary to post any on Tuesday. With love to pussy, your ever affectionate
J.S.M.
1100.
TO HELEN TAYLOR1
- Saffron Walden
Monday evg
[June 10, 1867]
I wrote yesterday morning rather gloomily, dear, so I write again to say that the fly plan answered perfectly, that I have had quite as much walking yesterday and today as on Saturday, but having it by portions at a time & separated by considerable rests, I have had but little pain. The country is not pretty, though it has pretty bits here and there; but we have thriven well botanically, having found two rare plants yesterday and two today, being four out of the five we hoped for. We hope to find the fifth tomorrow. I have been thinking very often of you and puss, and hoping that the PMG [Pall Mall Gazette] would put in your letter.2 As for work I have been too tired each evening to do any except reading reviews, and I must work double tides when I get back; hoping that there will not be an extraordinary number of pressing letters and that the Bankruptcy bill3 will not get on too fast in Committee. If my turn does not come until Monday I am safe. Adieu dear till Wednesday.
Your most affectionate
J.S.M.
1101.
TO FREDERIC HARRISON1
June 16, 1867
[Mill entirely approved of my Six Letters on Martial Law2 —published by the Committee in 1867; and he was good enough to write (June 16, 1867):] . . . your aid and counsel are of great value to the Committee . . . .
1102.
TO DR. WILLIAM W. IRELAND1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
June 22. 1867.
Dear Sir—
I am very glad to receive so favourable an account of your health & to know that you fully share the feelings I expressed respecting the monstrous excesses committed & the brutal language used during & after the repression of the Indian mutiny.2 It is a duty to speak one’s mind openly concerning these things when there is a proper opportunity and the abusive attack made by some of the military officers in the House on a petition which referred in a very mild manner to these horrors, not only gave the opportunity, but would have made the omission to use it a disgraceful piece of cowardice.
1103.
TO JOHN NICOLAUS TRÜBNER1
- Blackheath Park
June 23. 1867
Dear Sir
Please send, at my expense, twelve copies of the Speech2 to Mr Fitzgerald,3 office of the City Item, Philadelphia; and 100 copies to Miss Becker,4 10 Grove Street, Ardwick, Manchester.
My daughter approves of the specimen you sent & decides to have 5000 copies of her pamphlet5 printed at the expense stated in your estimate. As she reprints it chiefly for distribution & does not look for a remunerating sale she fixes the price at a penny & cannot expect that a publisher shd take the risk, but she desires me to ask on what condition you would be willing to publish it on her account.
She sends a title page and would wish to see a proof.
1104.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Blackheath Park
June 30. 1867
Dear Mr Cairnes
Many thanks for your kind and interesting letter of June 10. Since then we have twice had news of you through Thornton. I should think Barèges a very desirable place to try, as regards specific influence on your complaint, though all the Pyrenean climates are moist and relaxing. With regard to Montreux, I have been there, and remember its situation, which seemed sheltered, but I should have thought that no place in the Alps could have a climate mild enough in winter for a weak chest, or dry enough at any season for a rheumatic patient. However you will doubtless make all necessary enquiries and only act on the advice of good medical men well acquainted with the place.
You will have seen that Fawcett did not fail to bring on his motion for opening Trinity College.2 You will also have seen the amendment which Monsell moved;3 and I am very desirous to know what you think of it. My present impression is that though constituting a change for the worse, it is less bad than the plan of the late Government because it is compatible with making the governing body of the proposed University impartial, and unconnected with the Colleges; excluding ultramontane Catholics, or at all events greatly diminishing their influence: and less bad also than the plan to which the present Government seem inclined, that of giving a charter to the Catholic University, because that would lead to a bidding for students by lowering the standard required for degrees in all secular subjects. But I wait to hear your opinion before forming any decided one of my own.
I never expected any better reception in Parliament or the press for Personal Representation than it has met with. Considerable good has notwithstanding been done, and the plan is becoming known, and obtaining serious consideration from many who had not previously attended to it. The Women’s question has been a most decided and important success, and it is truly astonishing how the right opinion is spreading both among women and men since the debate. We are now forming a Society in London for the Representation of Women,4 and hope to get others formed in Edinburgh, Dublin and elsewhere (there is already a most efficient one in Manchester, which obtained the majority of the 13500 signatures to this year’s petitions). The proposed Society will probably be composed of an executive committee of ladies, a General Committee of both sexes subscribing one guinea a year, which will be the ultimate governing body, and ordinary members who will only subscribe a small sum per annum, will receive the reports and circulars, but have no part of the management. The chief members of the Executive Committee will be Mrs P. A. Taylor,5 Miss Cobbe, Mrs Stansfeld6 and Mrs Fawcett. My daughter and I will be on the General Committee. Will you and Mrs Cairnes give us leave to put your names upon it? and can you give any help for the formation of a Society in Dublin?
It would have given you great pleasure had you been at the Garrison breakfast,7 and heard, especially Bright, and Garrison himself. I wished for you, too, at the splendid Reform meetings at St James’s Hall,8 if only to see and hear the admirable feelings of the people respecting Ireland. A propos, at the last meeting Mrs Law9 addressed them in favour of the political equality of women, and was not only loudly applauded but when she asked all who were in favour of it to hold up their hands, nearly the whole of the multitude who were present did so. Is not that worth having worked for? I am
Dear Mr Cairnes
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1105.
TO JOHN COLAM1
June 30. 1867
Sir
In reply to your communication of the 28th I beg to express my regret that it will not be in my power to attend the annual meeting of the Society.
I am Sir
Yours very faithfully
J. S. Mill
J. Colam Esq
1106.
TO GEORGE JOHN GRAHAM1
- Blackheath Park
June 30. 1867
Dear Graham
It gives me great pleasure to be of any use to you, but your deposit of securities deprives me of even the small merit of trusting you.
I shall be glad if I am able to do anything for young Bisset2 in regard to the India Office, though I have not yet had an opportunity of ascertaining whether it is in my power. I fear, indeed, that his interpretation of the limit of age is incorrect.
I am Dear Graham
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1107.
TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN1
- Blackheath Park
July 3. 1867
Dear Sir
A very remarkable working man,2 of Hanley in the potteries, who is a correspondent of mine, wishes to go through a “course of geometry, theoretical and practical”, with a view, inter alia, to what he calls his bread studies “the application of science and art to the production of pottery”: and he asks me to recommend to him the book or books which would be most useful to him. I need hardly say that I am very ill qualified to do this from my own knowledge, and I therefore venture to ask of you what answer I had better give to his question. I only know him (Wood is his name) from several long letters I have received from him; but these shew me that he is a student and a thinker, and that in recommending books to him, it is not necessary to adapt oneself to an inferior capacity; but it is, no doubt, desirable to keep practical application constantly though not exclusively in view.
Hoping that you will excuse the liberty I take, I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Augustus De Morgan Esq.
1108.
TO ROBERT W. OLLIVIER1
July 3rd 1867.
Dear Sir
I should certainly endeavour to find time for assisting any movement among my Constituents which I think of public importance and with which I am able to sympathise.
But any movement for attempting to interfere with the full liberty of the Sovereign in the disposal of her private life so long as the example given is not mischievous, I should look upon with the very strongest disapproval.
I can conceive nothing more likely to be immoral & mischievous in its whole influence on society than any attempt to exact luxurious expenditure as a duty from those placed in high station; and I believe I am not expecting too much from the morality, the public spirit, & the patriotism of those tradesmen who make an immediate profit from such expenditure, in believing that they will be content to live by ministering to the store of luxury & pleasure which is a strong & universal principle in human nature, without seeking to stimulate artificially what if not kept within close bounds, is the ruin of public & private happiness & morality.
I do not hesitate to say that from the point of view of political economy, the notion entertained by many that such artificial stimulus is good for trade, is founded in error. All which it really does is to transfer gains from some dealers & tradesmen to others; while by encouraging expenditure which is not reproductive, it tends to diminish instead of increasing the employment for labour & the general wealth of the country.
And even if my convictions on these points were different from what they are, I should still think that the private affections—I will go further & say the personal tastes—of a Constitutional Sovereign are entitled to the respectful acquiescence of the people and ought never to be interfered with until at least they lead to conduct which would excite moral disapprobation, or entail legal penalties on private individuals.
1109.
TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL1
- Blackheath Park, Kent
le 4 juillet 1867
Mon cher d’Eichthal
Je suis honteux d’avoir si longtemps tardé à vous remercier de vos aimables attentions à M. Théobald2 et à M. Plummer3 et à répondre à votre lettre du 19 avril. Vous savez, du reste, ce que c’est que la vie parlementaire dès qu’on la prend au sérieux, et vous concevez jusqu’à quel point elle nuit à la correspondance. Aujourd’hui même je suis forcé d’être très bref. D’abord j’applaudis à votre Association pour l’encouragement des études Grecques en France,4 et puisque vous croyez que l’adhésion d’un étranger peut servir à quelque chose, je vous prie de proposer mon nom, et je vous ferai parvenir par la première occasion la cotisation annuelle. Il n’y a guère lieu, quant à présent, à quelque chose de semblable en Angleterre, où les études grecques sont suffisamment encouragées. Il est vrai que les méthodes d’enseignement ont besoin d’une réforme radicale, mais les savants et les professeurs les plus éclairés y travaillent déjà, et je crois que nous sommes à cet égard en voie de progrès, un peu lent à la vérité, comme d’ordinaire dans ce pays-ci.
Maintenant laissez-moi vous témoigner le plaisir véritable que m’a donné la noble protestation que vous avez publiée contre la recrudescence de l’esprit guerrier et des haines nationales dont la France naguère semblait menacée.5 Vous avez été presque le premier à vous prononcer en ce moment critique, et ce fut pour moi une grande joie que de voir avec quelle énergie la voix d’une grande partie de la nation a répondu à cet appel. On ne pourra plus désormais accuser la nation française de velléités guerrières et perturbatrices. Quoique dans beaucoup d’esprits l’honneur national reste encore trop attaché à la réputation d’être puissant pour nuire aux autres peuples, il y a évidemment très peu de Français qui désirent se servir de cette puissance.
J’espère, mon cher d’Eichthal, que vos sollicitudes sur la santé de Madame d’Eichthal se sont heureusement dissipées et que la vôtre est toujours bonne.
Bien des amitiés à votre frère
tout à vous
J. S. Mill
1110.
TO PARKER PILLSBURY1
Blackheath Park, Kent, July 4 [1867]
Dear Sir:
In acknowledging your letter of Feb. 18, I am ashamed to see how long that acknowledgment has been delayed. Your letter arrived in the thick of the parliamentary conflict, and I have ever since been so fully and engrossingly occupied, that I have had no time to write any letters but such as are indispensable, nor had I any leisure to write anything which would have been worth offering to be laid before the anniversary meeting of the Equal Rights Association.2 Since that time, however, many things have happened, and among others the debate in the House of Commons on the motion for giving the suffrage to woman. The unexpectedly large minority which the proposal obtained, and the thought and discussion which it excited in quarters where the subject had never been thought of before, have given an immense impulse to the question. Numbers both of men and women in all ranks have since given in their adhesion to the movement; and agreement with it is rapidly becoming a badge of advanced liberalism.
I need not say with what pleasure I learned, both from your letter and from many other sources, the great progress which the question is making in the United States, where the disabilities of women are now the only remaining national violation of the principles of your immortal Declaration of Independence; nor need I describe the feelings caused in me by the assurance of yourself and others that the essay published in the Westminster Review in 18513 has been in America, as it has been here, one of the most powerful agents in placing the question in the position it now occupies.
I am, dear sir, yours sincerely and respectfully,
J. S. Mill
Parker Pillsbury Esq.
1111.
TO WILLIAM WOOD1
- Blackheath Park
July 9. 1867
Dear Sir
As I have not myself sufficient knowledge of recent works on geometry to be able to direct you to the books best adapted for your purpose, I have consulted my friend Mr De Morgan,2 the late Professor of Mathematics at University College London, who is not only one of our best mathematicians but a distinguished thinker on other important subjects. He was much interested by what I told him of you, and suggests that you should write directly to himself, stating in some detail both what you know and what you want. In doing so, you should specify what you know, whether much or little, of arithmetic, geometry, algebra, and physical science, as well as anything else you may like to tell him of your general knowledge and mental habits. His address is Augustus De Morgan Esq, 91 Adelaide Road, London, N. W.
I am very glad that you have so just and clear an appreciation of the true character and merits of Mr Hare’s system, and that you are making it known among your friends and fellow workmen. It is in that way that truth gets on. I am obliged to be brief, but I shall always be happy to hear from you at any length. Continue to direct here, as, when I am abroad, letters are forwarded to me at least once a week. Do not send stamped envelopes. I am Dear Sir
yours very sincerely
J. S. Mill
Mr William Wood
1112.
TO HENRY FAWCETT1
- Blackheath Park
July 17. 1867
Dear Mr Fawcett
I entirely agree with you about the unsatisfactoriness of Lord Stanley’s answer, and I meant to give notice of a further question the next time I am at the House, which will be on Friday.2
I am, on the whole, rather against carrying the subject of the Sultan’s ball any farther.3 It is by no means the strongest case of charging India with expenses that if incurred at all, should be borne by England; and many who might support us in other cases would probably consider the reason given by Northcote, that the civility is in return for assistance given to telegraphic communication with India, a sufficient justification for charging India with the expense. But what weighs with me more than this, is that, very possibly, Northcote did not tell us all. The real fact is that the Sultan has done his part in the telegraphic business very badly; he will not allow English telegraph clerks, and his Turkish ones perform the duty abominably. Perhaps, therefore, under pretence of thanking him for what he has done, the real object is to induce him to do better, and there may be a plan for coaxing him into concessions by putting him in good humour, which any further opposition might unwittingly obstruct. What you have already done has been very useful; the disavowals which it has elicited have wiped off part of the stain on our character, and it would perhaps be as well to let the matter rest for the present. I am
Dear Mr Fawcett
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1113.
TO EDMOND BEALES1
July 22. 1867
Dear Sir
I have already, by sending a subscription, given in my adhesion to the determination of the Reform League2 to employ its organization in promoting the registration of the Liberals, who will become entitled to the suffrage under the new Reform Act. With regard to the further object of promoting the election of candidates professing advanced Liberal principles I should be glad if not only the Reform League, but all the other organisations of Reformers throughout the country would keep themselves in existence for that purpose—There will be ample work for all of them and I only hope that they will not confine their support to candidates who adhere to their own particular programme, but will extend it to advanced Liberals of all shades, a close union of whom among themselves was never more needed than it will be at the first General Election under the new Act. I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Edmond Beales Esq.
1114.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath Park
- Kent
July 22. 1867
Dear Chadwick
Mr Stansfeld is a graduate,2 but he has been interesting himself for Mr Bagehot,3 and, I think, joined in the requisition to him. The other two I will speak to. I shall be glad to help in drawing up a requisition, but it seems necessary that it should be (at least nominally) prepared by members of the constituency.
Many thanks for the copy of your report.4 I have just finished reading it with great interest. I think it might be made useful for your candidature.
Ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1115.
TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN1
- Blackheath Park
- Kent
July 22. 1867
Dear Sir
After receiving your answer to my note,2 I wrote to my Hanley correspondent, Mr W. Wood, and he has probably written to you by this time. If he has not, it will be because he may wish to write at greater length than he has immediately time for. But I feel quite confident that you will hear from him. With many thanks for your kind interest in the matter, I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
A. De Morgan Esq.
1116.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Blackheath Park
July 23. 1867
Dear Mr Cairnes
I am much obliged to you for your most interesting letter which I have shewn to Fawcett and shall shew to others who are interested in the Irish education question—which question I am sorry to say looks very ill. I hope soon to write to you about it at length. But my present object is different. I have heard that you have written to the authorities at University College expressing a fear that you may be obliged to resign the Professorship.2 Now even a chance of your being able to resume its duties is so valuable that I entreat you not to resign in the present season at least. I am aware that Waley3 declines going on for another year, but our friend Leslie is ready and desirous to take the duty as your locum tenens, and if you are willing to go on with a substitute for another year and to recommend Leslie as that substitute, there can, I think, be no doubt that the arrangement would be accepted. The inestimable chance would then remain of your being able to take the duties; and Leslie is, next to you, by far the fittest person I know to fill the place, among those who would take it.
Excuse my brevity, as I am obliged to go to the House unexpectedly early to give all the opposition I can to the bill about the Parks.4 I will write again very shortly and am
Dear Mr Cairnes
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1117.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
July 25. 1867
Dear Chadwick
I spoke to O’Reilly2 yesterday, within five minutes after he came into the House. Unfortunately he had already engaged himself to Fortescue3 and others to support Bagehot, otherwise he is almost sure he should have supported you. The O’Donoghue he thinks is not a graduate. Sir Colman O’Loghlen is,4 but he is on Lowe’s Committee.5 They both, however, say that an attempt will be made to induce Gladstone to let himself be proposed and that all are likely to give way to him. I am greatly afraid that many who might have supported you are thus preengaged. But that is no reason for not bringing your name forward, if your medical and educational supporters can make up a tolerable list of signatures. I am Dear Chadwick
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1118.
TO WILLIAM LONGMAN1
- H[ouse] of C[ommons]
July 25. 1867
Dear Sir—
My daughter would be glad to have some separate copies of the second instalment of Mr Buckle’s remains which will be in Fraser’s Magazine for August2 & of the third also as soon as published which I understand will probably be in September.3
A friend of mine who has been engaged for many years in making a collection of the proverbs of all nations,4 has asked me for an introduction to you with a view to its publication. His name is Irvine & the only writings he is known by are botanical but he is a man of much Scotch shrewdness & extensive linguistic acquirements. If you think it might suit you to entertain the subject, Mr Irvine would be glad to call on you with part of his MS.
1119.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Blackheath Park
July 30. 1867
Dear Mr Cairnes
I am most happy that you have given up your intention of immediately tendering your resignation,2 and I most earnestly hope that improved health may render it unnecessary for you to do so for a long time to come. In regard to Leslie, I am very sorry to hear that his recent relations with you have not been cordial. No one has expressed himself more feelingly than he has done about your illness. I am certain that if he were allowed to supply your place, he would feel that he was not only not conferring, but receiving a favour, and one of great value to himself, as a means of making himself better known. He will be, I am sure, very thankful for your willingness to bear testimony to his fitness, which he scrupled to ask you to do, because, as he said, you might possibly have some other person in view whom you might prefer to him. I will say nothing to him until I hear again from you. I am still obliged to delay writing to you on the education question.
I am Dear Mr Cairnes
ever truly yours
J. S. Mill
1120.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath Park
- Kent
July 31. 1867
Dear Chadwick
It is not the O’Conor Don,2 but his brother,3 who is a graduate of the University. The O’Conor Don says he will speak to his brother, but is afraid he is already pledged to Bagehot. Grant Duff4 was not at the House yesterday, but I have written to him in strong terms, and will speak to him at the first opportunity. Continue to let me know anything I can do.
ever yrs truly
J. S. Mill
1121.
TO GEORGE JOHN GRAHAM1
- Blackheath Park
- Kent
July 31 [1867]
Dear Graham
I suppose your packet2 was mistaken for printed matter by my servants at Avignon, as they have not forwarded it to me here. I have written by today’s post to order all doubtful packets to be sent at once, and suppose it will arrive about Thursday. Whenever it arrives I will execute the document and send it to you.
Ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1122.
TO GEORGE GROTE1
- Blackheath Park
July 31, 1867
My dear Grote
I inclose a note which I have just received from Mr Waley. I had myself also had a letter from Prof. Cairnes in which while assenting to my strong recommendation not to resign the Professorship at present, he expresses his opinion that Leslie would be a very proper substitute.2 I have written again to Cairnes and am waiting for his reply, which will probably bring a formal recommendation of Leslie if this has not been already sent to the Secretary.
I am extremely glad that you were able to induce the Council to take no step on the subject of Professor Beesly.3
I am my dear Grote
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1123.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Blackheath Park
Aug. 1. 1867
Dear Mr Cairnes
I thank you for your very kind note of the 29th but you were not at all wrong in the request you made to me nor did I for one moment think you so. I was glad to be able to assure you in my note of yesterday,2 that I know Leslie desires the arrangement on his own account, and has not the smallest idea of conferring a favour, but would feel, on the contrary, that he was receiving one by your recommendation. I hope to be able soon to write to you at some length.
I am Dear Mr Cairnes
ever truly yours
J. S. Mill
1124.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- H of C Library
Friday
[August 2, 1867]
Dear Chadwick
Grant Duff2 is, most unfortunately, pledged to Bagehot, otherwise I really think he would have supported you. He says that, to give you a chance, your address3 ought to be out directly. As for the ballotting among the candidates4 that is not likely to occur unless a Tory, or some person in every way objectionable, should start.
I have not yet been able to see Cheatham.5
Ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1125.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- [Embossed]
- House of Commons
Friday
[August 2, 1867]
Dear Chadwick
Cheatham is not a graduate of Un. Coll. but his son is,2 and I hope that what I have said to the father will get you the son’s vote which appears luckily to be disengaged.
I should think Bristol hopeless, but if any one speaks to Berkeley3 it had better be some other person rather than I, for though he is very civil to me, he regards me as a stumbling block in the way of the ballot, the political matter he cares most for.
Lubbock’s4 friends are stirring, but if he finds there is no chance and retires, some of them (being scientific people) might probably prefer you to Lowe or Bagehot. I am
yrs very truly
J. S. Mill
1126.
TO LORD HOUGHTON1
Blackheath Park, August 2nd, 1867.
Dear Lord Houghton,—
A society is in course of formation to carry on the movement for admitting women to the suffrage,2 to which, I know, you are favourable, and it will be of great value to the society if you would give your adhesion to it by allowing me to add your name to the General Committee. Business will be conducted by the Executive Committee of ladies, and the members of the General Committee are responsible for nothing except approval of the object and an annual subscription of a guinea. My daughter and I are on the General Committee, and it would give me great pleasure to be allowed to enrol you on the list.
Very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1127.
TO HERBERT SPENCER1
- Blackheath Park
Aug. 2. 1867
Dear Mr. Spencer
A society is in course of formation for the admission of women to the Suffrage. The executive committee consists of ladies, but there will be a General Committee, the members of which will incur no obligation or responsibility beyond an annual subscription of a guinea, but who, by giving their names, will express their approval of the object. My daughter and I have joined the general Committee. Will you allow us to add your name to the list, either of the General Committee, or of the ordinary members? I am
Dear Mr. Spencer
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1128.
TO MARY THOMPSON1
- Blackheath Park
- Kent
Aug 4. 1867
Dear Madam
You will be glad to hear that a Society has been formed to continue the movement for the admission of women to the suffrage, and I should be very happy to be allowed to add your name to the General Committee, of which my daughter and I are members. No responsibility is incurred except the annual subscription; but the General Committee is the body which will hereafter elect the Executive Committee. I am
Dear Madam
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Miss Thompson
1129.
TO WILLIAM THOMAS THORNTON1
- [Embossed]
- House of Commons
Aug. 6. [1867]
Dear Thornton
I will not thank you for your kind and hearty response about the Women’s Suffrage Society. I will only say that it is like yourself.
Concerning Mr Hare’s plan, although opinion on the subject is making great progress, I fear it is hardly ripe, especially among members of parliament, for forming an organized combination. When we can muster a little stronger it will be worth while to begin.
I need not say how earnestly I hope that your excursion may entirely restore your health and working power, and give you all the pleasure you can desire. I am
Dear Thornton
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1130.
TO LORD HOUGHTON1
After August 7, 1867
Dear Lord Houghton—
I am very glad that you are willing to be on the General Committee of the Women’s Suffrage Society.2 The grounds of justice and of principle for removing the disabilities of women cannot be better stated than in your words, and in those of Lady Houghton cited in your note. Would it be too much to ask the benefit of her name along with yours on the General Committee? I am not uneasy about the future fate of representation of minorities, for the working men do not share the indifference of the middle class to superior cultivation, and are much more willing than the middle class to give full and thorough-going effect to a principle. Hughes stated at the meeting on Wednesday3 that the question was debated at the Working Men’s College, and after several discussions was at last decided in favour of representation of minorities. The only plan which fully and fairly carries out the democratic principle is Mr. Hare’s, and that is now rapidly making way among thinking people.
Very truly yours,
J. S. Mill
1131.
TO MARY CARPENTER1
- Blackheath Park
Aug. 9. 1867.
Dear Madam
In case you should not have received the Prospectus of the Society now forming to promote the movement for the admission of women to the suffrage I take the liberty of inclosing it and of saying how much pleasure it would afford me if I might be permitted to add your name to the General Committee of which many of my friends are members.
Those who form the General Committee incur no obligation as to work or time, or anything but the annual subscription. The object of the Society is strictly limited to obtaining the suffrage for women who fulfil the same conditions as male electors: but the most important effect of gaining this political object would be the influence it would have on the social disabilities and the general social position of women.
I am, &c.
J. S. Mill
1132.
TO FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE1
- Blackheath Park
Aug. 9. 1867
Dear Madam
As I know how fully you appreciate a great many of the evil effects produced upon the character of women (and operating to the destruction of their own and others’ happiness) by the existing state of opinion, and as you have done me the honour to express some regard for my opinion on these subjects I should not like to abstain from mentioning the formation of a Society aimed in my opinion at the very root of all the evils you deplore and have passed your life in combating.
There are a great number of people, particularly women, who from want of the habit of reflecting on politics are quite incapable of realizing the enormous power of politics, that is to say, of legislation to confer happiness and also to influence the opinion and the moral nature of the governed.
As I am convinced that this power is by far the greatest that it is possible to wield for human happiness I can neither approve of women who decline the responsibility of wielding it, nor of men who would shut out women from the right to wield it. Until women do wield it to the best of their ability, little or great, and that in a direct open manner, I am convinced that the evils of which I know you to be peculiarly aware can never be satisfactorily dealt with and this conviction must be my apology for troubling you now. I am
Dear Madam
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Miss Nightingale
1133.
TO LORD BROUGHAM1
- Blackheath Park
Aug. 10. 1867
My dear Lord Brougham
Though I do not positively know whether you are favourable to the movement for opening the suffrage to women, I presume so far on the congeniality of that proposal to your large and liberal feelings on political and social questions, as to venture on sending you the Prospectus of a Society now forming to promote the object. The work of the Society will be done by the very efficient Executive Committee of ladies, but there is a General Committee, of which I am myself a member, and which many friends both in and out of Parliament have joined; and it would give me great pleasure if you would permit me to add your name.
I was very happy to hear that you had returned to England in good health. I am
My dear Lord Brougham
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
I have among my books a Delphin Lucretius2 which I rather think was borrowed by my father from you. I ought to have asked you long ago whether this was the case. If my impression is correct, perhaps you will kindly inform me where to send it.
1134.
TO THE REV. STEPHEN THOMAS HAWTREY1
- B[lackheath] P[ark]
Aug. 10. 1867
Dear Sir—
I thank you for your two little books,2 & regret that until within the last few days I have been prevented from reading them by mere want of time & by no means through indifference to their contents.
You have not misunderstood my meaning in the St Andrews address though the very concise manner in which I was obliged to express everything in that paper may probably have given you a partially incorrect impression of my opinions on education generally. There is much in your view of the subject with which I heartily agree. Your strictures on the system of French schools by which the boys are never for an instant out of the sight or free from the direct control of a master I entirely agree in & I have long thought that while French schoolboys, on the average, are better taught & learn more than English boys, the freer system of English schools has much to do with the superiority of England over France in the love & practice of personal & political freedom. I also agree to the full in your & Dr Hook’s3 principle that real education depends on “the contact of human living soul with human living soul.” But I am entirely sceptical as to the possibility of accomplishing this in any very considerable degree in a numerous school. Even the family if it consisted of 200 or 300 boys could not possibly accomplish it. A wise & zealous master may no doubt acquire a certain amount of beneficial moral influence over the boys & may come into really close contact with the minds & characters of a few among them. In the former of these points if not in both, St Mark’s School appears to have been signally successful; & the principles on which it appears to be conducted are well calculated to attain whatever such success is attainable. But while I applaud both your theory & your practice I have the less hope of finding my opinion radically altered by them because you seem to me to regard Eton as a favourable specimen of what a school can do in the way of moral & religious training; an opinion from which all that I know of the kind of article turned out annually from Eton into the higher walks of life in this country leads me strongly to dissent.
1135.
TO MONCURE DANIEL CONWAY1
- Blackheath Park
Aug. 11. 1867
Dear Sir
I thank you for the cuttings you kindly sent. Mr Greeley’s notion of two separate legislatures,2 one of men and the other of women, is unwise enough, though there are points in the article which make one feel indulgently towards the writer. I have met with an Englishman who had a similar notion.3 I suppose one might search long before finding a third.
I hardly think (to carry on your metaphor) that it is worth while to fire at such a long range on a position so little formidable. Perhaps to write against the proposal as a serious thing might be the way to make it one. Moreover I have too much on my hands at present. I shall be glad to hear if you find that the suggestion does any mischief. But I am more inclined to think that whatever leads people to turn over a great question in every possible way, is likely on the whole to be useful.
I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1136.
TO SAMUEL SULLIVAN COX1
Aug. 12.1867
Dear Sir
This letter will be presented to you by my political and personal friend Lord Amberley, who is visiting your country2 to acquire that knowledge of it which is so necessary to an European and especially to a British Statesman. No one is likely to make a better use of such knowledge than Lord Amberley, for he has purposes and abilities which make him perhaps the most promising of all our rising politicians.
Lord Amberley is kind enough to take charge of the book and photograph which you did me the honour to express a wish to possess, I am ashamed to say how long ago. But I have been so overloaded with work ever since, that this and many other things, though not forgotten, have been postponed. I have never yet thanked you for the kind present of your speeches3 which I hope hereafter to study much more than I have been able to do hitherto. I am
Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Hon. S. S. Cox
1137.
TO RALPH WALDO EMERSON1
- Blackheath Park, Kent
Aug. 12. 1867
My dear Sir
I give this letter to my friend Lord Amberley, not so much for his sake, for he would easily obtain abundant introductions to you, as to make use of the privilege of writing to you which was kindly conferred on me by the letter I had the pleasure of receiving from you last year.2 Few Englishmen, especially few Englishmen in political life, are more worthy of the privilege of knowing you than Lord Amberley3 who, while he is one of the very best of our rising politicians, is even more interested in the intellectual movement of mankind than in the political. He is likely to keep always in the front rank of his cotemporaries, and I fully share the general hope of his friends that he will be as useful to the coming generation as his father has been to that which is past.
I wish I could share with him the pleasure and benefit of hearing from your own lips your commentary on the present state and prospects of mankind. To me it seems that our two countries, on the whole the two most advanced countries of the world, have just successfully emerged from a crisis essentially similar, though by much the gravest and most trying in the United States; which has shaken up and dislocated old prejudices, set the stagnant waters flowing, and the most certain consequence of which is that all the fundamental problems of politics and society, so long smothered by general indolence and apathy, will surge up and demand better solutions than they have ever yet obtained. To those who, like me, regard stagnation as the greatest of our dangers, and the primary source of almost all social evils, this is a very hopeful and promising state of things; but it will make a most serious demand upon the energies of all cultivated minds, to obtain for thoughts which are not obvious at first sight, their just share of influence among the crowd of notions plausible but false or only half true. I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
R. W. Emerson Esq.
1138.
TO JOHN PLUMMER1
- Blackheath Park
- Kent
Aug. 15. 1867
Dear Mr Plummer
I will immediately send you the papers you ask for, in another parcel of Parliamentary papers. The former I must ask you to return when done with, as I shall require to study them. The addresses you intend writing will, I have no doubt, be of great use. I thank you for the article in the Liverpool Albion,2 which I had not seen. I spoke on the Indian Budget debate,3 but not on the Orissa debate,4 as I think it a good rule not to speak when there are other people capable and desirous of saying what one wishes should be said.
I am Dear Mr Plummer
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1139.
TO JOHN NICHOL1
- Blackheath Park
- Kent
Aug. 17, 1867
Dear Sir
I thank you very much for your two letters, and have had great pleasure in sending your name for the General Committee. All that you say on the women’s suffrage question I agree with so completely, that it is quite unnecessary for me to say anything more on the subject.
With regard to the projected Society for the encouragement of free inquiry and discussion,2 those who live in Scotland are the best judges of the value and seasonableness of the proposal. As far as I can presume to judge, I should think such a Society very desirable, but I feel some doubt whether my temporary connexion with one of the Scotch universities3 would prevent it from being thought a kind of intrusion in me to occupy so prominent a position in it as you propose. Perhaps you will allow me to suspend any positive answer at present and will in the meantime kindly inform me of the reception which the project meets with, and the progress it makes towards realization. I am
Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
P.S. As we leave England in two or three days, perhaps you will kindly send your subscription to the Treasurer, Mrs. P. A. Taylor, Aubrey House, Notting Hill, London.
1140.
TO DAVID AMES WELLS1
Aug. 18. 1867
Dear Sir
I think that a country can sometimes, by taxing its exports, make foreigners pay a part or even the whole of the tax. I have discussed this question in the first paper of a volume entitled “Essays on some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy”, and have there, as I think, shewn that even a tax on imports is not, of necessity, wholly paid by the home consumer, but that a part of it is sometimes paid (not by the foreign producer, but) by the foreign consumer of the country’s exports.
But these things, though abstractedly true, are too much interfered with by other agencies to be of much importance in practice. To confine myself to the case of exports: it is clear that a country can only make foreigners pay a tax on articles in which it possesses a superiority so preeminent that it has no competition to fear. Even then, foreign countries which cannot produce the article at all, or not at such a price as to compete with the taxed producer, may be able to produce some substitute for it, or something which will be accepted instead of it. In the present day, when there are so many exporting countries, and when the advantage of one country over another in any article is generally limited to a small margin, the attempt to tax exports almost always leads to the total or partial loss of that branch of trade. The latest considerable experiment of this kind that I remember in any part of the British possessions was in Ceylon. That island was supposed to have a natural monopoly of cinnamon, and for many years it derived a large revenue from an export duty; but in the end other nations either grew cinnamon, or used something else instead: the tax had to be repealed, and the trade, nevertheless was reduced to comparative insignificance.
I am leaving England for the Continent just when you are returning and cannot hope to meet you again this season; but I hope that our acquaintance will not be dropped and that we shall correspond on the many important subjects in which we feel a common interest. I am
Dear Sir yrs very truly
J. S. Mill
D. A. Wells Esq.
1141.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath Park
- Kent
Aug. 20. 1867
Dear Chadwick
I have made a great many minor alterations in your address,2 both for the sake of clearness and brevity, though it is still longer than I like. For greater legibility I have made most of the alterations in ink, but of course subject to your own judgment. The passages that I have struck out encumber the case more than they strengthen it; at least, that is my opinion. I have also made some slight alterations in the letter which is to be addressed to myself.3 I hope the reply to it, which I inclose,4 will meet your wishes, and be useful to your candidature.
Letters sent here will be forwarded to me wherever we are. I am
Dear Chadwick
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1142.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Blackheath Park
- Kent
Aug. 20. 1867
Dear Chadwick
I think you eminently entitled to offer yourself as a candidate for the House of Commons; and, while I should rejoice to see you elected by any constituency, I should deem it highly appropriate that you should be returned by the University of London, one of the few bodies which, being emancipated from all local influences, are peculiarly called on to guide their choice exclusively by the capability of a candidate to render important public service.
The services you are capable of rendering, are of the precise kind which will be most needed under our reformed Constitution. It is generally felt that one of the most pressing occupations of the new Parliament will be the better organisation of the machinery of government, which at present, from defects of construction, produces almost the minimum of beneficial result, at almost the maximum of cost. No one whom I know of has devoted so great a portion of his life, or so great an amount of mental power, as you have done, to the study of the scientific principles of administration. The course of your official life has continually brought you into contact with the most difficult administrative problems, and you have so well used the opportunities it afforded, that among all the administrative questions which you have touched (and they are both numerous and of the highest importance) there is hardly one on which you have not originated thoughts and suggestions of the greatest value; some of which have been carried into effect with distinguished success, while the merit of others has been manifested by the consequences which have followed their neglect. On several of the most important branches of public administration, you add to your knowledge of principles a knowledge of details which few can rival. I need only mention the sanitary department, the importance of which, now so widely recognised, you were among the very first to press upon a careless public; the various branches of the administration of relief to the destitute; and many parts of the great subject of the education of the poor, which is destined henceforth to be one of the most anxious cares of our public men of all parties, and which it is next to impossible to make really efficient except by means and on principles repeatedly pointed out by you.
These are claims which, as it seems to me, are well entitled to recognition from a scientific body like the University. They correspond more exactly with the exigencies of this particular juncture, than the merits, great as they are, of several of the other candidates; who, moreover, are almost sure to obtain access to the House of Commons through the ordinary channels. The time requires men who are not merely willing to adopt, but able to originate and prepare, important improvements; and when a man of this stamp offers his services, the consideration of whether he is or is not a graduate of the University sinks into insignificance.
I am Dear Chadwick
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Edwin Chadwick Esq., C.B.
1143.
TO WILLIAM JAMES LINTON1
Aug. 21, 1867
Dear Sir
The object of the periodical2 mentioned in your note is one in which I fully sympathize, and I should have much pleasure in aiding a work in which Mr Mazzini takes interest; but unhappily I have no leisure for writing in periodicals at all, and certainly could not safely make any promise to do so. Pray accept this excuse, which is quite sincere, and believe me,
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
W. J. Linton Esq.
1144.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN1
- Baden
Aug. 28. 1867
Dear Sir
I do not see how I can make the proposal to Mr Jacob Bright which you suggest. He probably would not think himself justified in parting with the £130 (unless for your entire liberation) without the express consent of each of the donors; and it is very doubtful if he would like to be asked to ask this of them. But, under the increased hope of ultimate extrication for you and the Review,2 given by the surplus of your receipts over your expenses in the last three months, I can lend you £100 on your personal security, for which I inclose a cheque.
Since I saw you I had some conversation with Mr Grote on your affairs, and shewed him the statements which you sent to me. He shewed, I thought, a willingness to join with others in helping, and I think you would be justified in sending him the latest statement of your affairs.
Letters sent to Blackheath as usual, will be forwarded to me.
I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
P.S. You will understand that I do not wish to be repaid the £100 at any given time, or until you can do it without inconvenience: but in case of unforeseen loss, I should wish only to bear my share of loss with the others who have pecuniary claims on you.
J.S.M.
1145.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Freudenstadt (Würtemberg)
Sept. 1. 1867
Dear Mr Cairnes
I have delayed a long time fulfilling my promise to write to you on the prospects of the Irish Education question, and you will see by the date of this at what time and place I have first found leisure to do so. Your long letter from Barèges was quite convincing to me, and therefore confirmed me in all my bad auguries. The evident intention of the Tory Government is to charter, if not to endow, a Catholic University. The very best thing which the Liberal leaders have to oppose to this will be Monsel’s plan,2 and the choice will lie between these two. The worst is that I do not see what there is for a true Liberal to do but to lament; for the only principle of opposition which could be taken up is the one so clearly laid down in your letter, viz. that no educational institution should be supported or aided by the State, but those which are perfectly impartial, as the Queen’s Colleges are, in respect to religion. But to stand upon this principle is to bind oneself to vote against all the grants of money by the Privy Council to denominational schools; and neither I, nor, as far as I know, any other Liberal, would think it right to do this. The misery is that ninety nine hundredths of England wish for only denominational places of education, and will not support any others; & it is not practicable permanently to have only a denominational system in England and only a mixed one in Ireland. The denominational principle is not giving way at all in England. The Manchester party,3 whose plan was originally one of purely secular education supported by a school rate, have been obliged this year to provide in their bill that the denominational schools might be recognized and paid, provided there was a conscience clause. Even this, though brought in by Bruce,4 was resisted and thrown out. The Scotch School Commission, in which Tory, Whig and Liberal leaders all joined in recommending that schools which all could attend should be maintained by a school rate, did not go beyond stipulating for a conscience clause. The denominational feeling is perhaps not quite so strong about Universities as about schools, and there is the precedent of the London University. But this precedent only avails for keeping up the Queen’s University, and not against creating denominational ones. The appeal of the Irish Catholics is irresistible by the English, as soon as the No Popery feeling no longer overrides their principles: “you insist on denominational education for yourselves; why then deny it to us?” If I made any prediction, it would be that the present Government would give a charter to the Catholic University, but that the great strength of Voluntaryism, backed by the No Popery feeling, would oblige them to give up the endowment. Perhaps, for the reasons you give, this result would be less noxious than Monsel’s plan; though it would have the effect which Monsel, to me, predicted from it, viz. that the priests and prelates who manage the Catholic University, and who care little about secular instruction, would compete for students by making the standard for their degrees so contemptibly low as to degrade education in Ireland.
The (falsely called) cumulative vote in a few constituencies is of doubtful value in itself; but as a breaking in upon the old humdrum notions, and as necessitating the reopening of the larger question, it is of great importance; and the discussions have given a general idea of Hare’s system to numbers who knew nothing about it before, and have made many converts to it. The subject is also making great way in America: there is a Society at New York for “Personal Representation”5 of which Dudley Field6 is one of the leaders, and I am told that Greeley and Wendell Phillips are both favourable to the principle. That question, as well as women’s suffrage, is now fairly launched in both countries. The Committee of which you and Mrs Cairnes kindly consented to be members, now considerably exceeds 100 in number, including two peers (Lords Romilly and Houghton), thirty members of the House of Commons (among whom, besides the best of the Radicals, I may mention Baines7 and Coleridge8 and many other known names, but by no means exclusively such. Your friend Mr Webb9 joins the Society, but modestly declines being on the Committee. I hope, however, to overcome his objection, as such men as he is are very much wanted on the Committee, and will be most useful as centres of local information and exertion. Mr Webb is not sanguine about gaining much support in Ireland at present, but it will come in time. A good many Irish liberal members of Parliament both Catholic and Protestant have already joined the Committee.
There is much to be said on the question of the Declaration of Paris10 which must wait till another time. I only just opened the subject in the House of Commons at the very end of the session, but it must come up for discussion again and again. Almost every one (except Sir Roundell Palmer)11 seems to agree with me thus far, that if we do not go back, we must go farther, and exempt private property from seizure even in the vessels of the belligerent countries. This last course is advocated by many. Lord Hobart12 (who by the way has joined the Committee of the Women’s Suffrage Society), goes farther still, and would abolish commercial blockades. The consequence of all this, it seems to me, would be that the naval powers would be unable to defend themselves against the military; and the independence of our own country could perhaps only be preserved by our joining the American Confederation as three States, England, Scotland and Ireland. This would at least have the advantage of settling the Irish difficulty.
Please write to Blackheath as usual until I write to you from Avignon, which will not be for some weeks. I hope your health is more benefitted by Aix than it was by Barèges. I am
Dear Mr Cairnes
Ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1146.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1
Before September 3, 1867
I have long been convinced that complete justice to Ireland was scarcely to be hoped for unless by a reform in Parliament sufficiently thorough to take away the present preponderance of the landed interest, and transfer a large share of political power to classes who are not under the influence of landed or Church prejudices. There is considerable reason to hope that the Parliamentary reform which we have now obtained may accomplish this. Whatever power has been gained by the working classes or by the advanced Liberals will, I am convinced, be used for the complete redress of the grievances of Ireland on the two most fundamental points—the Church and the land. An era of hope therefore is opening for Ireland, which, if improved by wise and harmonious action on the part of your representatives and ours, may make the connection between the two countries an unalloyed benefit to both.
1147.
TO WILLIAM BROUGHAM1
- Avignon
Oct. 9. 1867
Dear Sir
I have directed my servant to forward the Lucretius to 21 Berkeley Square, and I must again apologize for having retained it such an undue length of time.2
I regret that the proposal for the admission of women of independent position to the suffrage, cannot have the benefit of Lord Brougham’s great name and support. I saw with great pleasure the statements of his improved state of health, which I hope will long continue. With thanks to Lord Brougham and yourself for your letter I am Dear Sir
yours very faithfully
J. S. Mill
William Brougham, Esq.
1148.
TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL1
- Avignon
le 9 octobre 1867
Mon cher d’Eichthal
Je vous dois depuis longtemps une réponse à deux bonnes et intéressantes lettres, et je dois aussi ma souscription de 10 francs à la Société des Etudes Grecques.2 Je la comprends aujourd’hui dans un même mandat de poste avec les cinq francs de la Ligue Internationale de la Paix3 (celle de M. Frédéric Passy),4 vous priant de vouloir bien remettre les deux sommes à destination. Le succès de la Société des Etudes Grecques me fait un bien grand plaisir. Nulle part une pareille société ne saurait être plus utile qu’en France, sans compter qu’elle réunit déjà les hommes éclairés de la Grèce actuelle avec ceux qui apprécient le mieux ce que la Grèce ancienne a fait et ce que les études grecques peuvent encore faire pour le progrès de l’humanité. Je vous félicite de l’initiative que vous avez prise dans ces deux mouvements, celui des Etudes Grecques et celui de la paix. J’espère beaucoup plus de la Société Passy que de celle qui s’est tant remuée à Genève. Quand on se réunit pour prêcher la paix, il faudrait savoir se taire pour le moment sur la diversité de ses opinions politiques.
Vous avez bien jugé le résultat de la campagne réformiste de cette année en Angleterre. Nous avons fait un grand pas en avant, quand personne ne s’attendait à un aussi grand. Mais lorsque la tendance générale des choses est dans un certain sens, les intérêts même égoïstes trouvent quelquefois leur compte à hâter le mouvement. Vous dites très bien que “quand les gens ont l’égalité et la responsabilité, ils deviennent tout autres”: c’est ce qui me fait hâter de mes voeux le suffrage universel, et lutter pour y faire comprendre les femmes qui en ont certes le plus grand besoin.
J’espère que le séjour de Trouville aura parfaitement rétabli la santé de Madame d’Eichthal. Je vous prie de me rappeler à ses souvenirs et à ceux de votre fils ainé, ainsi que de mon ancien ami votre frère. Je serai ici jusqu’à la prochaine réunion du parlement, et je serai charmé d’avoir de vos nouvelles.
Votre affectionné
J. S. Mill
1149.
TO GEORGE HOWELL1
- Avignon
Oct. 14, 1867
Dear Sir
The Lecture project is very good, but it is not in my power to be one of the corps of lecturers; not only because it would be very inconvenient to me to return to England on purpose, but because I am obliged to decline all proposals for delivering Lectures, being unable to spare the time necessary for preparing them.
I am
Dear Sir
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Mr George Howell
1150.
TO WILLIAM THOMAS THORNTON1
Avignon Oct. 19.1867
Dear Thornton—
I have just finished reading your Chapter in the Fortnightly2 & I put down my observations while my mind is full of its contents. In execution I think it excellent, & of good augury for the success of the book;3 for, beginning with so luminous a statement of principles & going on as it probably will do afterwards to important practical recommendations, it bids fair both to make a more than ordinary impression on those who read it at first, & to be permanently distinguished from other writings on the subject as a systematic treatise. I expect that the subsequent chapters will be equally well executed & that I shall agree with all or most of your practical conclusions. But in its principles the chapter does not carry me with it. I find in it what I always find where a standard is assumed of so called justice distinct from general utility & supposed to be paramount whenever the two conflict, viz. that some other standard might just as well have been assumed. Not only do I not admit any standard of right which does not derive its sole authority from utility, but I remark that in such cases an adversary could always find some other maxim of justice equal in authority but leading to opposite conclusions. A great many rules of morality of every day application are habitually classed as principles of justice. You have selected one of these; Louis Blanc4 against whom you are arguing would select others. You say, the rich are not bound to give employment & subsistence to the poor because they had nothing to do with bringing the poor into the world. Louis Blanc would or might say that the riches and often the very subsistence of the rich would not exist for them if the poor had not been brought into the world, & that to return good for good & the product to the producer is a duty of justice. Again, when he says that the raw material of the earth was not given to a few or to one generation but to the human race, you answer, admitting this, the vast majority of the poor could never have been born if the earth had not been appropriated & compensation is only due to them for their share of what the earth could have produced if it had remained unappropriated. To this L.B. might answer, Compensation is due to them not for that only but for not allowing them to appropriate their rateable share of the soil and to obtain what they by their labour can make that share produce. Again you argue throughout that no question of justice can arise as to the amount for which A hires the labour of B, because A is not bound to hire B at all. Is not this assuming that what the jurists call a duty of imperfect obligation, i.e., not owed to an assignable individual, is no duty? A may not be bound to hire B, but if he is bound to hire or to benefit some person or persons at his choice, the amount of the benefit may be an essential condition to his fulfilment of the duty. You carry your adherence to one particular view of moral obligation so far as to pronounce a person blameless in point of duty (however odious otherwise) who refuses to save the life of another without an exorbitant payment; I conceive on the contrary that it is a serious question whether a person who can save another’s life & does not do it even without any hope of reward, ought not to be amenable to the criminal law. For these reasons I think that the chapter, though as I said impressive, & though likely to be provocative of thought, will probably not convince a single person. All who did not already agree with you will find maxims of justice equally plausible, & in my estimation quite equally strong in support of contrary conclusions.
What you may perhaps effect is to make some of the poor, or of their friends, think they ought not to be severe on the rich as men for using the advantages which their position gives them. But the more they are persuaded of that the more determined will they be to upset the social system which gives a few persons these advantages. They may say, it is not A’s fault that he is rich, but they will be not the less likely to say, let us oblige him to divide his riches equally among all & start afresh; & they will never be persuaded by the principles of justice which you have laid down to think this unjust. They would say, it may have been right to allow appropriation as long as unappropriated land was to be had by all, but when all is appropriated, & some are left without, there ought to be a redivision, the γη̑ς ἀναδασμός5 of the Greeks. Nor can they be met as far as I see by any arguments but those of expediency—which, once let in, would open the whole question of the rights of the poor & obligations of the rich, & would I think, lead to consequences very different from those which you draw from your theory of justice though probably not very different from what you would practically recommend.
I have stated strongly the fault I find with your Chapter. It would take me a considerable space to set out all the good I find in it. To mention only one thing, the book will be very serviceable in carrying on what may be called the emancipation of pol. economy—its liberation from the kind of doctrines of the old school (now taken up by well to do people) which treat what they call economical laws, demand & supply for instance, as if they were laws of inanimate matter, not amenable to the will of the human beings from whose feelings, interests, & principles of action they proceed. This is one of the queer mental confusions which will be wondered at by & by & you are helping very much in the good work of clearing it up.
We arrived here a few days ago & I am settling down to the winter’s work which will not be political or economical but psychological. I am going to prepare in concert with Bain a new edition of my father’s Analysis of the Mind with notes and supplementary matter.6 This will be not only very useful but a very great relief by its extreme unlikeness to parliamentary work & to parliamentary semi-work or idleness. I hope your health has greatly benefitted by your holiday & goes on improving.
1151.
TO OSCAR BROWNING1
- Avignon
October 26. 1867.
Dear Sir—
I was glad to receive your letter because it is important to know what an Eton master (especially one who admits defects in the institution) says in vindication of Eton. Your defence however is mainly directed to other points than those which I have attacked. I have never I believe expressed any opinion as to the merits or defects of Eton in comparison with our other public schools. As the one of highest pretensions I took it as the representative of them all. Nor in what I said of moral results had I particularly in view the grosser & more disreputable vices. I look upon the general moral state of the educated classes of Great Britain, taken in the mass, as essentially low & mean: a mean standard, & a contemptible falling short even of their own standard. You will not expect that I shd, in such a letter as the present, enter into a discussion as to the truth of this opinion, or shew how it is verified in our whole social state & in the manifestations which proceed from those classes on all public occasions on which the moral aspect of the facts is the predominant one. But if this opinion or anything approaching to it is justified by the fact, I cannot be wrong, as you seem to think, in visiting the shortcomings or vices of a class upon the school (or schools) which chiefly educates that class, not as the authors or primary causes of the evil, but as having at least been signally unsuccessful in counteracting it. The teachers, I apprehend, are only entitled to wash their hands of the “shortcomings or vices” of their pupils when they acknowledge & deplore them & shew that their utmost efforts are steadily exerted in the contrary direction.
When you say that so many of your best boys go into the Guards you say what amounts to an acknowledgment of utter failure in educating them morally either for the special responsibilities of a governing class or for the universal duties of a man.
I am not called on to deny that Eton as well as other schools, is far more successful in individual specimens than it is in the mass: & the peculiarities which you mention in its system, the less rigid confinement to a single curriculum & the more intimate association of every boy with his tutor afford facilities for this which, I have no doubt, are often taken good advantage of. But the use made of these facilities depends on what the tutors are & that their general quality shd [be] high is hardly consistent with what you say in your letter of the nepotism, favoritism, & general unfitness of the body who possess “the patronage of the chief school appointments.” From this evil you call on Parlt2 to relieve you & on me to do what I can to help, & you may rely on my doing so: The Public Schools Bill has been passed over by the H of C in the last two sessions not from neglect but from the incessant occupation of the H with the Reform Bill, & I look forward to its occupying much of the attention of the House in the session next to come.3
I am &c
1152.
TO JAMES GARTH MARSHALL1
- Avignon
Oct. 26. 1867
Dear Sir
I thank you for sending me your valuable Address,2 and Mr Buckalew’s speech.3 The latter I had seen, and it is one of many signs that the principle of the representation of minorities, and (as far as the case admits) of all sections and opinions in proportion to their numbers, is making rapid way in the United States. The footing, small as it is, which the principle has obtained in our own legislation by the new Reform Act, ensures its being discussed and rediscussed with a practical aim, and, if so, it is sure to be, ere long, understood and appreciated.
I feel, with you, the immense importance of effecting at once all that can be effected for the restraining of bribery; and the time is favourable as some of the leading Tories are very much afraid of the money power, and would now help the Liberals in the attempt to keep it within bounds. It is true that they do this mainly in the interest of the local influences; but no matter. The local influences are doomed: the emancipation of the farmers has commenced; while even the agricultural labourers are beginning to revolt against their employers. Within a few years their children will have been put to school, and after that, they will obtain votes. The real permanent danger now is, lest when the labouring class become the disposers of their own votes, they should sell them.
It is very important to get together for the next session all the best suggestions for the suppression of corrupt practices at elections, with a view to their being embodied in a bill which the advanced liberals could in a body support. They might not carry it, but they would probably be able to force a large part of its provisions upon the Government. Some of your suggestions should certainly be included; particularly that of making it the duty of a public officer to prosecute. I hope you will continue thinking on the subject, and will put on paper all available thoughts that occur to you with a view to bringing them into a common stock at the beginning of the session. I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
James Garth Marshall Esq.
1153.
TO ALEXANDER BAIN1
- S[aint] V[éran]
Nov. 4. 1867
Dear Bain—
I thank you very much for your letter, & for the promise of matter so soon for the edition of the Analysis.2 I myself have not begun writing yet, but see my way more & more clearly to the work; I have been reading through Laromiguière,3 & Maudslay.4 The first I read chiefly to know what he makes of the active department of human nature (that being his strong point) from the psychological side without the physiological. On that & on other subjects he is meritorious as far as he goes, but too easily satisfied. In the higher departments he leaves everything unexplained, or smuggles the explicandum into its own explanation. His acute remarks sometimes however anticipate the thoughts which others have worked out. I was surprised to find in him a complete anticipation of my father’s important remark on the ambiguity of the copula.5 He also anticipated Hamilton’s view of abstraction as distinct from generalization,6 & his notion of the substantial identity of Nominalism & Conceptualism.7 From Maudslay I have learnt more; but (as with most of the physiologists) his theories seem to me to go far beyond the evidence. I observe, by the way, that he takes Carpenter’s view,8 that ideation is the special function of the cerebral hemispheres, sensation (or rather something ill-defined which he calls a residuum) being packed up there by nerve force to be manufactured into idea. If I am not mistaken, you consider this to be obsolete and false theory. Is it not so? A propos—why does Maudslay charge me with disparaging physiology, either in itself or in its application to Mind?9 It is like Matthew Arnold enumerating me among the enemies of culture.10
Besides these I have been toiling through Stirling’s Secret of Hegel.11 It is right to learn what Hegel is & one learns it only too well from Stirling’s book. I say too well because I found by actual experience of Hegel that conversancy with him tends to deprave one’s intellect. The attempt to unwind an apparently infinite series of self contradictions not disguised but openly faced & coined into [illegible word] science by being stamped with a set of big abstract terms, really if persisted in impairs the acquired delicacy of perception of false reasoning & false thinking which has been gained by years of careful mental discipline with terms of real meaning. For some time after I had finished the book all such words as reflexion, development, evolution, &c., gave me a sort of sickening feeling which I have not yet entirely got rid of.
Mansel’s article12 is very poor. It is a satisfaction to know that he could find nothing better to say. It will cost me only a few sentences in another edition. It is tolerably good tempered however much more so than his last.
I am obliged to you for discouraging the idea of my lecturing for Univ. College.13 I have so little time now that I must keep it for the few things which it is my special duty to do before the night cometh when no man can work. I wonder how you find time to do all you do. I look forward to your new book14 with much pleasure.
I am glad that Mr Hunter15 has done so well with the article for Chambers.16 That question is making way in a wonderful manner. In the U. States the so called radical party seems to be taking up in a body the equality of women as it has that of negroes. At least all the leaders seem to be doing so, Chief Justice Chase among the rest. The Governor of Kansas17 is said to be actually canvassing the State for the sanction by popular suffrage of the constitutional amendment which has passed both Houses admitting women to the franchise.
We are very well & hope to return three months hence in good condition.
1154.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Avignon
Nov. 4. 1867
Dear Chadwick
Thanks for sending me a bulletin of your progress. What you say about the effect of your address2 is encouraging; but it is disheartening to see that in the constituencies generally, the only power which seems capable of making head against money is local influence. The great question of next session will be the promised bill against electoral corruption. The advanced Liberals must have their rival bill, and I am anxious that all who have thought on the subject, and particularly that you, should put down, as heads of a bill, all that has occurred to them as desirable on this subject. When all suggestions have been got together, the most feasible may be selected, and the best radicals in and out of the House may be urged to combine in forcing them on the government.
Whenever you think the time has come to form a Committee and raise a subscription for your return to Parliament, I beg you to put me down as I said before, for £50, and I am ready to serve on any London or General Committee. I suppose that, for the University, the Committee must consist of members of the constituency, which I am not; but if any others are eligible, I should be glad to be one.
I have read and been duly edified by the paper you mention in the Journal of the Society of Arts.3 I think there is a chance that Ireland may be tried as a corpus vile for experimentation on government management of railways and telegraphs, as well as of other things. Certainly there is little to spoil there: the worst that could happen would but be one more failure, and there is no necessity to fail.
Your first paper read to the Academy, I have lately received, and will read, as well as the one which is yet to come.4 There is no difficulty of principle in legislating for trades’ unions, but a great deal in detail. For example on that question of picketting. The principle is that they may persuade, but must not intimidate. But who is there to be persuaded, in case of a strike, but those who have accepted work? and how are they to be got at, except by watching to see who they are? and if persuasion is permitted, can the persuader be withheld from expressing disapprobation, and strongly too? while, as we all know, this expression of disapprobation easily degenerates into illegitimate intimidation. But how or where is the line to be drawn? Can more be done than to prohibit threats? and not even that, if the mischief threatened is not physical, but mere ill will, with its natural expression? Hardly any one who has written on the practical question seems to me to have faced this difficulty.
Ever, dear Chadwick,
yours truly
J. S. Mill
1155.
TO RALPH WALDO EMERSON1
- Avignon
6th November 1867.
Dear Sir,—
A few months ago I took the liberty of introducing Lord Amberley to you. I now venture to give an introduction to another friend of mine, of great capacity and promise, Mr John Morley,2 one of our best and most rising periodical writers on serious subjects—moral, social, and philosophical, still more than political—and at present editor of the Fortnightly Review. I should not thus presume did I not feel confident that you would find Mr Morley worthy of your attention and interest, both as man and as a thinker.—I am, dear Sir, very truly yours,
J. S. Mill
1156.
TO E. W. YOUNG1
- Avignon
Nov. 10. 1867
Dear Sir—
I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 23rd ulto.
I do not claim any greater latitude of making exceptions to general rules of morality on the utilitarian theory than is accorded by moralists on all theories. Every ethical system admits the possibility & even frequency, of a conflict of duties. In most cases the conflict occasions no great difficulty, because one of the duties is in general obviously paramount to the other. The difficulty arises when the choice is between a very great violation of a duty usually subordinate & a very small infringement of one ordinarily of more peremptory obligation. In such a case the former, I cannot but think, may be the greater moral offence. When I mentioned, as a case of this kind, the case of stealing or taking by force the food or medicine necessary for saving a life,2 I was thinking rather of saving another person’s life than one’s own. A much stricter rule is required in the latter case than in the former, for the obvious reason, that there is more probability of self deception or of dishonesty. But I am far from saying that the rule shd never be relaxed even when the case is one’s own. A runaway slave by the laws of slave countries commits a theft: he steals his own person from his lawful owner. If you say, this is not morally theft, because property in a human being ought not to exist, take the case of a child or an apprentice who runs away on account of intolerable ill usage. There is in the doctrine I maintain nothing inconsistent with the loftiest estimation of the heroism of martyrs. There are times when the grandest results for the human race depend on the public assertion of one’s convictions at the risk of death by torture. When this is the case martyrdom may be a duty; & in cases when it does not become the duty of all it may be an admirable act of virtue in whoever does it, & a duty in those who as leaders or teachers are bound to set an example of virtue to others, & to do more for the common faith or cause than a simple believer. I do not know whether what I have written will do anything towards removing your difficulty, but I have not leisure to enter further into the subject.
1157.
TO JOHN HENRY BRIDGES1
- Avignon
Nov. 16, 1867
Dear Sir—
The question which you put to me is one which, I think, every sincere reformer of advance opinions, must have put to himself since the outbreak of Fenianism. The answer which I have given to it for my own guidance is this: To declare openly on all suitable occasions that England is bound either to govern Ireland so that Ireland shall be satisfied with her government, or to set Ireland free to govern herself. This doctrine I have already publicly professed. At one of the Reform Union meetings at St James’s Hall last summer I put the question to a multitudinous assemblage composed in great part of working men, “Do you think England has a right to retain Ireland in subjection unless she can make her government satisfactory to the Irish?”2 & the enthusiastic shout of “NO” from apparently the whole body of the meeting, might have been heard, I think, outside the building. The time, therefore, is fully come for holding this language. But having said thus much, I must now add that I think it would be extremely wrong to say or do anything that would give fresh encouragement to the Irish to seek separation from England. I think so, because, for many reasons which to you need not be stated, G. Britain & Ireland are capable of making jointly a much better government for Ireland than Ireland alone is likely to make: but still more because I believe that in the present state of English opinion an attempt at separation even if supported by the mass of the Irish people would be put down by the strong hand, would cause immense misery in Ireland & greatly embitter the feelings between Irish & English & between the two parties in Ireland. And the Irish of the class which furnishes separatists are so excitable & so devoid of common sense that a very little encouragement from any reputable quarter in G. Britain might have a stimulating effect on them such as we cannot limit or calculate. The responsibility therefore of giving even a single word of encouragement is such as I shd be very sorry that any English liberal shd assume.
The parallel of Hungary3 seems to me to fail in the most essential particulars. The Hungarian people have shewn throughout a most remarkable amount of the esprit de conduite—a good sense, a calm & judicious appreciation of means & ends, which prove them to be highly qualified both for acquiring & for preserving national independence & free institutions. In this respect they are a complete contrast to the Irish. Moreover, the Hungarians are a full match in military qualities or resources, for the whole remainder of the Austrian empire & therefore any terms of accommodation deliberately agreed upon between them & the other half has a considerable chance of being kept and after all the success of the experiment of two independent legislatures & governments under the same crown royal is as yet very doubtful, & it is far too soon to predict its results. Still less likely is it that this Dualism shd succeed in Ireland. The question there is not Repeal but Separation. There is not a Fenian who would be content with a separate legislature. They all seem to want total separation, & a republic, and total separation is what I think we must make up our minds to if after having done full justice to the Irish in church & land matters & done all we can do for their educational & economical interests we find that their aversion to union with us remains unabated. But for their friends in England to begin already pointing to separation even in the distance, would be the very way to make the Irish separately resolve that nothing else shd succeed.
At present the Irish members of the H. of C. of the extreme party instead of “regarding the efforts of English radicals with antipathy,” are on such terms of cordial alliance & cooperation with them as I do not believe ever was the case before: they are, apparently for the first time, convinced that the popular party in England really feels to them as fellow countrymen, & really wishes to do them complete justice, & are fixing their hopes more & more on helping that party to acquire the power of doing so. They seem to dread Fenianism extremely, & some of them have said to me that if the two countries were separated, there would be a civil war in Ireland. The only important point on which most of the advanced liberals differ from the representatives of the Irish party is the question of denominational education: If we escape quarreling on that point there is every prospect of a closer & closer alliance between us. I look therefore with more hope on the cultivation of that alliance than on any proceeding by English liberals which would give gain de cause to the Separatist party in Ireland.
This is the way in which the subject presents itself to my mind. If it adds anything to your materials of thought on the question I shall be very glad that you have done me the honour of writing to me about it.
1158.
TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE1
- Avignon
Nov. 19. 1867
My dear Sir
As I am at present fully engaged upon work in which I think it desirable to employ all the time of the Parliamentary recess, it is not my intention to be in England for the short autumn session2 unless it should be absolutely necessary. My apology for troubling you with this letter is, that I should consider myself bound by your judgment as to what constitutes necessity; that is to say, the importance of any particular point at issue, and the probable closeness of the division upon it. More especially if the Government should propose to provide for the expenses of the Abyssinian expedition3 by an ordinary loan, or by bonds of long date, and you should think it advisable to take the sense of the House on a counter proposition to raise the whole of the supplies within the year, or partly by bonds to be paid off in a year or two years; which would probably be in accordance with your opinions, and would be entirely so with mine; and if the House were almost equally divided so that every vote was of importance; I should feel it an absolute duty to be present. My object, therefore, in taking the liberty of troubling you with this letter, is to say that if I could receive a telegram from Mr Glyn4 any day before twelve o’clock (which I believe I could do if it were sent off from London early in the morning) I could be in London by eight or nine o’clock of the night of the following day. I am
My dear Sir
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
The Right Honourable
W. E. Gladstone M.P. &c &c
1159.
TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE1
- Avignon
Nov. 20. 1867
Dear Mr Christie
Electoral corruption will, as you say, be the most important subject of the next session,2 and we should endeavour to induce those who have thought on it with a view to practical legislation, to bring their suggestions into a common stock, that they may be sifted, and a selection made of all which are likely to be efficacious, to be made the basis of a Bill, such as the advanced Liberals might in a body support. Few have taken so much pains with the subject as you have, and I hope you will draw up the heads of such a measure as you would yourself propose if you were a minister. Those, whether in or out of Parliament, who have contributed to this stock of suggestions might meet together as soon as Parliament reassembles in February and produce an outline of a Bill which might be circulated among the Liberal party. It might be possible to prevail on Mr Gladstone to introduce it: but whoever may do so, the Bill will only be a rallying point: the fight will not be on that, but on the attempt to engraft its provisions on the bill of the Tory Government. I have already spoken or written to several of those who have most considered the subject, and I hope we shall succeed in getting together really good materials for a Bill.
I quite agree with you on the importance, on all accounts, of including municipal elections in the measure.
I am
Dear Mr Christie
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
W. D. Christie Esq.
1160.
TO WALTER LOVELL1
- Avignon
Nov. 25. 1867
Dear Sir
I moved an amendment on the Reform Bill, for the admission of women to the suffrage, on the 20th of May last, and my speech was fully reported in the papers of the next day, and in Hansard.2 It has been published separately by Trübner, 60 Paternoster Row. I have not written any book expressly on the subject, but it is one of the points which I have discussed in a volume entitled “Considerations on Representative Government” of which there are both a Library and a People’s Edition.
I am
yours very faithfully
J. S. Mill
Walter Lovell Esq.
1161.
TO ALEXANDER BAIN1
- Avignon
Dec. 6. 1867
Dear Bain—
I have received your letter & the packet of MS. The death of Clark2 is a painful surprise to me. I had heard from him several times since I left England & his last letter dated as late as the 15th of November was more than usually lively & varied, discussing Berkeleianism, the psychology of the senses, &c. It was very unlike a person so near his end. Of what illness did he die?
I shall be happy to nominate Mr Findlater as my Assessor for the remainder of the term,3 if you will be kind enough to ascertain for me whether he will accept the office & to give me his complete name & the designation by which I shd describe him to the St Andrews people when they write to me on the subject. Any probability of a vacancy in the Moral Philosophy chair during the period makes it extremely important to have in the University Court a man whose views on that subject are likely to agree with ours. No doubt you will be on the look out for a fit person to fill that professorship if the vacancy occurs. I shall probably have to depend chiefly upon your knowledge of available Scotchmen for the purpose.
I am very thankful to you for having found, & indeed made, time to do so much for the Analysis.4 I like all your notes very much & they all supply valuable matter most of which I could not have made out by myself. The only case in which we have gone over the same ground is the case of Association by Resemblance, on which I have also written, to the same general effect as you; & I propose to retain both, as they do not repeat, but enlarge & strengthen one another. Yours is, I think, one of the very best of the present batch. I also have been working pretty vigorously, & have exactly got through the first volume. I have written (as far as regards the rough draft) a great number of minor notes & several long ones, the two longest being on the subjects that you particularly recommended to me, Belief & Nominalism. I have no doubt that I shall get through the second volume in the same manner by the meeting of Parlt. What will remain for the next recess will be the rewriting, which will probably involve much enlargement as well as improvement. But I shall not commence this until your part of the work is finished & before me. I shall be particularly glad of any notes on the chapter on Memory as that phenomenon is still to me the great unresolvable fact of Psychology. It seems to me that it & the problem of Belief are in fact the same, viz. that which I have stated in the chapter on the Ego in my book on Hamilton5 —the distinction between recognising something as a mere thought & as an actual fact.
There are two subjects which my knowledge is unequal to, & on which I hope you will give me further assistance. One of them is the direct relation between Ideas & states of the nerves. You must have observed that the source of some of the chief imperfections of the Analysis is the author’s steady refusal to admit any production of ideas by physical causes except through the medium of sensations raising up ideas already associated with them. He carries this so far, as to explain the fact that chronic indigestion excites feelings of anxiety by the circumstance that anxiety disorders the digestion. You have just touched this topic in one of your notes, but in a very summary manner. The other point is one which I could, if necessary, get up from your Grammar without troubling you: it is the distinctive characters of the Subordinate Parts of Speech. Your view of the Adjective I believe coincides with my father’s, that it serves for making cross divisions. You could however help me very much if you had time to annotate those sections. There is one point which I am quite unequal to. The philology of the Analysis on the subject of prepositions, conjunctions, &c. though right in principle is now obsolete in detail & I do not know who is the best person to ask to amend it. Can you suggest the right person?6
I have not found any help in Bailey7 for dealing with Nominalism though he objects to the same points in my father’s exposition which I object to. I have however derived some benefit from reading again Bailey’s four volumes; but how very, very shallow he is! He not only cannot seize any of the less obvious applications of the principle of association, but he is unfeignedly unable to make out what the writers who speak of such things can possibly mean. Yet at the same time, how plausible! He has scarcely his equal in skimming over the hollow places in philosophy, & putting a smooth face on unsolved difficulties. If he had been in the Forum at the time of Curtius he would not have leaped into the gulf,8 but would have thrown a platform over it, by which people might walk across without noticing it. When he attempts to confute those who are trying to resolve difficulties which he does not see, he usually does it by formally stating & developing at great length some elementary truth which he fancies to be all there is in the matter. As elementary truths are very often lost sight of, these elaborate enforcements of them are, in many cases, useful, but are seldom at all germane to the particular controversy. The best thing about him (except his chapters on the moral sentiments) is that he is a decided supporter of the “experience hypothesis”: but he is so in a way, & in a sense, peculiarly his own: What used to be called the mundus intelligibilis, consisting of all the obscurer notions which have wearied & divided metaphysicians, he disposes of by maintaining that the Intelligible world is all perceived through the senses. Why puzzle ourselves about the necessity of any of our beliefs? Necessity is a quality of outward facts, & can be seen. We see that the theorems of geometry are necessary. How absurd to seek for an explanation or a definition of Cause! We see one thing cause another.
How different Herbert Spencer whose Psychology9 I have been reading for the third time! The second of his four parts is admirable as a specimen of analysis. It is a great satisfaction to find how closely his results coincide with ours. I hope he will not make the book worse instead of better in the projected rewriting, as I am afraid he is going to do with his Social Statics.10
The long miscellaneous chapter with which the 2nd volume of the Analysis commences will give us a great deal of occupation—for under the guise of explaining names it contains the author’s solutions of most of the great questions of metaphysics proper. I shall hope by & by for a full note from you on the Will whether I write one myself or no. The original generation of Will which Hartley had the first glimpse of11 but which you have been the first to understand thoroughly, will be much better treated by you than by me. I may perhaps add something of my own on the polemics of the subject.
1162.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Avignon
Dec. 22. 1867
Dear Chadwick
I received your letter and proof2 yesterday afternoon and I read the proof immediately on receiving it. Like most things you write, it is full of instructive and important details, but I differ from you on the point of its being impossible for Trades Unions to raise wages. The only reason I can find assigned in the article for this opinion is that if they do raise wages, they increase the cost of production and price of the product, and thereby lessen the demand and bring wages down again. But increased wages do not necessarily raise the price of the article (nor even make competition with foreigners more difficult) so long as there is any margin of profits to take the increase from. Of course neither Trades Unions, nor anything else can permanently raise wages so high as not to leave a rate of profit sufficient to encourage accumulation. But if they limit their attempt within reasonable bounds, I do not see why they should not in many cases succeed, both in raising wages, and in (what is equivalent) diminishing the hours of labour. The rules laid down by some Unions against piecework, or against machinery, or against the admission of more than a limited number of persons into the trade, and so forth, appear to me as noxious as they do to you, though I do not see how legislation can interfere with people for annexing these conditions to the acceptance of work, provided they do not use force, or threats of force, to prevent other workmen from accepting it. I have marked in pencil, on the margin of the proof, one or two places where something seems omitted which is necessary to the grammar.
I infer from the newspapers that the public are half crazy about Fenianism.3 Gladstone’s Lancashire speeches4 will, however, I hope have some effect in recalling some of them to common calmness and ordinary good feeling.
I am Dear Chadwick
yours ever truly
J. S. Mill
1163.
TO F. KIDELL1
- Avignon
Dec. 22. 1867
Sir
You will find in the Parliamentary reports on Petitions for the session 1867 the statement of the number of signatures to petitions sent up to Parliament, begging for the extension of the suffrage to women. The number, as far as my memory serves me, was about 13000. Of these, many were men; there does not exist, that I am aware of, any statement of what proportion: probably, however, considerably less than half. A petition was also presented the year before, for the same object, signed by 1500 persons, all women.
I am Sir
yours very faithfully
J. S. Mill
F. Kidell Esq.
1164.
TO WILLIAM LONGMAN1
- Avignon
Dec. 22. 1867
Dear Sir—
I shd be glad to know at once what proposal you are prepared to make for a new edition of the Logic2 supposing that no cheap edition is issued; also on what conditions you would propose to issue a cheap edition3 & in case of my acceding to them what difference this would make in your proposals for a new library edition. I shd be obliged if you will be so good as to send me the sheets of the last ed. of the Logic here as soon as possible.
1165.
TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE1
- Avignon
Dec. 28. 1867
Dear Mr Christie
I am glad that your ideas for a Bribery Bill are put on paper, and will soon be published.2 I quite agree with you as to the importance of including Municipal elections. Your other point, that of having an enquiry as a matter of course after all elections, I had not thought of. One can at once see many reasons in its favour, but it will be a difficult thing to get carried, owing to the habitual objection to “fishing” enquiries, and to enquiries when there is no complaint. It is, however, evident that the absence of complaint is, in such a case, no evidence of the absence of mischief.
I forget if you have ever expressed any opinion on requiring a declaration on honour from members of parliament, and if so on the terms in which it should be drawn up. Other points are, What should be the punishment of the convicted briber? Should not all persons proved to have been agents of bribery, be for ever interdicted from acting as election agents? Should not all monies expended for election purposes pass through a public officer, so that the mere fact of incurring expenditure in which he is passed over should be legal proof of an unlawful purpose? If so, what should be the definition of election purposes?
Further, it is quite as necessary to deal with what are at present lawful expenses as with actual corruption. They are as mischievous, and even as demoralizing politically, though not so depraving privately. The Liberals ought to force on both subjects in the approaching session.
As Disraeli means to bring in his Bill on the very day of reassembling,3 I think it will be wiser to try to get a conference after than before that time. If it were tried before, some desirable people would be absent, and others would say “Let us wait till we see the Bill.” But the Bill being almost sure to be grossly inadequate, it will then be easier to get people to join in an effort to extort something better.
I am
Dear Mr Christie
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1166.
TO HORACE WHITE1
Avignon, Dec. 28, 1867
Dear Sir:
I am much obliged by your kind offices to Lord Amberley2 and Mr Morley,3 both of whom will, I am convinced, not only derive great benefit from any knowledge they acquire of America as it really is, but will make excellent use of that knowledge, and will help to spread it more widely when they return home.
I am afraid we differ rather fundamentally in our opinions on the justice and policy of exclusive taxation on what is called realized property. I have gone very fully into the question in the chapter on Taxation in the concluding work of my Principles of Political Economy,4 and it would not be possible in a letter to explain myself so fully or so clearly. But it seems to me contrary both to the rule of equal justice and to economical policy, to tax one person because he has saved, and leave another untaxed, because he has spent all his gains on himself and family, without adding anything to the accumulated means of further production. The contribution you propose to levy for the payment of the national debt would be simply taking away from everybody who had laid by anything for distant purpose, the greater part of the whole of his savings, while the self-indulgent who have spent all in present pleasures would escape altogether, though benefitted as much as any one else by the protection of government. It seems to me a very narrow view of the purposes of government to suppose that it is only of use to the possessors of accumulated capital. It protects, or at least is bound to protect, every body’s life, person and dignity from injury and insult; and even as regards pecuniary matters, those who spend all they get have as much objection to its being taken from them by malefactors as those who save. You say that those who would be left untaxed would, in consequence, have more means of saving; but being already persons who are less frugal in their disposition than others of the same means, they are still less likely to save when a large part of their savings would not be at their own disposal, but would be taken by the State.
On the mere economic question, “is there any way in which an annual tax may be collected from capital without leaving to the latter an opportunity to collect it back from labor?” I should answer that capital will not have this opportunity. I do not believe that the burthens laid on the capitalist ever fall on labor, except in one way, viz: if the burthens are so heavy as to check the accumulation of capital, and prevent it from keeping up with the increase of population; in which case, without doubt, wages would fall, unless the increased numbers migrated to a less crowded field for the employment of labor, such as your Western Territories.
The objections to special taxes on capital accumulated by personal frugality, do not in the same degree apply to inherited property; and I am quite in favor of some special taxation of all inheritances above a small amount—and graduated taxation too; a percentage rising with the amount of the inheritance.
I would also have no direct tax on such incomes as are only sufficient to give mere necessaries of life and health to an average family; nor would I have any indirect taxes on the necessaries of life and health; though I would on the luxuries, even of the poor; especially luxuries which are apt to be noxious, such as intoxicating drinks. Your cotton tax comes within the class of taxes on necessaries, and is therefore, I think, a bad tax; but not knowing in which manner it is levied, I do not feel certain as to its exact incidence. I should suspect that it is partly a tax on the laborer; not however by depressing money wages, but by making them not go so far as they otherwise would, in the purchase of clothing.
I am
Dear Sir
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Horace White Esq.
1167.
TO MARY CARPENTER1
- Avignon
Dec. 29, 1867
Dear Madam
I have to thank you for your letter of Aug. 112 which a journey of some length on the Continent and much occupation ever since have prevented me from answering before now.
If you think that to give your name in aid of the movement for political enfranchisement of women might be in any degree injurious to the work you have chosen, I cordially agree that those who are working in another department than your own for the public good have no claim upon you. Whether giving your name to our Society would have any such mischievous effect you are far better qualified to judge than I am, and I will not therefore venture an opinion. I will content myself with thanking you for the pleasure with which I learn from your letter that you are with us in principle, and with expressing the hope that the time may not be very far distant when the progress of events and of public opinion may remove the obstacles which prevent you from joining us.
There are however one or two points in your letter in which I cannot agree with you. To take the most important first, most important because it is a point of moral obligation. You say you do not desire a vote for yourself. I have too great a respect for you not to venture to say that in my opinion this is a dereliction of the duty you owe to your fellow creatures. If your vote could affect only yourself, that is to say if you only could be the sufferer, materially speaking, from allowing yourself to be governed by others, it would still be a question whether unless those others govern you with perfect justice, you are morally entitled to forego the right and power which a vote would give you to force them to do justice, and thereby become themselves better moral creatures. But it is not the fact that the possession of a vote would enable you only to protect yourself. Every citizen possessed of a vote is possessed of a means of protecting those who cannot vote, such as infants, the sick, idiots &c. as well as of a means of helping others who can vote to do good in every conceivable way in which just and provident legislation can affect human happiness. I am deeply persuaded that nothing but a most regrettable absence of thought on this subject can account for or even partially excuse, for wholly excuse it cannot, the very common neglect of the power of voting which prevails among gentlemen and educated persons. I am certain that a time will come when it will be felt that a man, and I need not add a woman too, because any rational creature, is committing a most gross dereliction of duty when he habitually neglects to make use of this power conscientiously and at any cost of labour to himself. He owes it as a return to the civilisation to which he owes not only all the security and peace, all the highest enjoyments of his life, but also the possibility of attaining refinement and moral elevation. He owes it therefore by the deepest debt that man can owe to his fellow creatures. Nor is it less imperative that he should pay it because if the duty of voting is not fulfilled from virtuous and public motives the power of voting will be left to people who are induced to exercise it by the spur of selfish interest or ambition. Thus I can conceive no duty not even the most primary duties of private and personal morality, that it is more absolutely essential to the happiness of mankind that every virtuous and rational citizen should fulfill steadily and carefully. The right of voting is in my opinion not only a power to be coveted (although it is a legitimate power which may be honestly coveted by an honourable ambition) but it is still more essentially an obligation to be dutifully fulfilled.
You will see from this that I cannot agree in the wish you express that the right should rather be “given to woman by those who deprived her of it than from her own demand.” Because even if any sentiment of generosity should make one feel that it is a more beautiful thing to receive a legitimate power unasked than asked, there can be no generosity and nothing noble or beautiful in waiting to have a duty thrust upon one instead of asking to be allowed to take it upon oneself for the good of every one concerned.
In regard to the third point on which you express yourself uncertain—whether the time has yet come for agitation—there are several reasons which concur to make me think it has. In the first place to agitate for the change in the law is not to obtain it; and therefore even if any of us think that women are not yet prepared to exercise the suffrage, that will still not be a reason against agitating for it, because much smaller changes than this can never be obtained until after the agitation for them has lasted some time, and the agitation itself will be the most effectual means of preparing people for the change whenever it comes.
The great change now taking place in the right of voting among men3 is however the main reason for bringing forward this question at this particular time. The subject of the right of voting is under discussion, and people’s minds are comparatively open to receiving new ideas on the subject. If it is true that women ought to vote, it is wrong to lose the present opportunity of spreading this truth as far and wide as possible. By doing so we are only sowing seed to bear fruit in due time if it is good seed suited to the soil and the climate. We do not dream of reaping the harvest directly.
I have troubled you, dear Madam, with a very long letter, but I agree too much with you not to wish to agree still further.
I am, &c.
J. S. Mill
1168.
TO THOMAS HARE1
- Saint Véran
Dec. 30. 1867
Dear Mr Hare
It gave me great pleasure to hear from you. The news you give of the acceptance by the Reform League of the proposed conference2 may turn out very important. There are a number of the most intelligent leaders of the working men in the League, and even in the Council; men who have not the silly aversion of most of the well-to-do people to anything new in politics, and who are capable of understanding, and accustomed to requiring, general principles of some sort as a basis of their convictions. If you could make an impression on two or three of these—if you could make a convert of even one such man as Odger,3 or Cremer,4 or Howell5 —the gain would be immense.
I am glad you have seen Dudley Field,6 and I hope your communications with him will continue. I was asked some time ago to meet him at Paris, but as I did not go to Paris during his stay, nothing came of it.
Mr Rathbone’s Lecture7 was calculated to be very useful to the people it was addressed to. Though the philosophy of it is not profound, its tendency and spirit, and many of its practical recommendations, are very valuable. It indicates a good kind and type of person: in addition to which he seems either to hold, or to be much inclined to, many right opinions, among others the enfranchisement of women, and Personal Representation. There are a great number of signs, of which this lecture is one, that the general moral and social condition of the country and of the world are inspiring many people with serious reflections of a very novel kind, and especially with an anxious interest about the future; as a consequence of which we may hope to see a great increase of efforts to deal with the primordial sources of national evils, and at all events a far greater willingness to listen to suggestions of improvement the grounds of which do not lie on the surface.
I was glad to hear about the Philomathic society,8 but I am obliged to decline all invitations like the one in question.
I should say something about the proposal to change the petition for women’s suffrage into one for a Declaratory Act, if Helen had not gone so fully into that question in her letter to Miss Hare. Her reasons seem to me conclusive, and I quite share her fear lest talking extrajudicially about a right which Parliament does not wish women to possess, should lead to removing all doubts by a declaratory Act the wrong way. I am
Dear Mr Hare
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1169.
TO FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE1
- Avignon
Dec. 31. 1867
Dear Madam
You will readily believe that only the pressure of constant occupation has prevented me from replying earlier to the interesting letter I received from you in August. If you prefer to do your work rather by moving the hidden springs than by allowing yourself to be known to the world as doing what you really do, it is not for me to make any observations on this preference (inasmuch as I am bound to presume that you have good reasons for it) other than to say that I much regret that this preference is so very general among women. Myself—but then I am a man—I cannot help thinking that the world would be better if every man, woman, and child in it could appear to others in an exactly true light; known as the doer of the work that he does, and striving neither to be under nor overvalued. I am not so “Utopian” as to suppose that bad people will very readily lend themselves to this programme; but I confess to considerable regret that good women should so often be almost as fond of false appearances as bad men and women can be; seeking as much to hide their good deeds as the others do to hide their bad ones; forgetting probably the while that they are putting somebody—more or less willing—in the position of a false pretender to merits not his own, but belonging legitimately to the lady who delights to keep in the background.
I know that it often appears, in practical matters, that one can get a great deal of work done swiftly and apparently effectually, by working through others; securing perhaps in this way their zealous cooperation instead of their jealous (or perhaps only stupid) obstruction. In the long run, however, I doubt whether any work is ever so well done as when it is done ostensibly and publicly under the direction or at the instigation of the original mind that has seen the necessity of doing it. Whether this is the fact or not, I am quite certain that were the world in general to know how much of all its important work is and always has been done by women, the knowledge would have a very useful effect upon it, and I am not certain that any woman who possesses any talent whatever could make a better use of it in the present stage of the world than by simply letting things take their natural course, and allowing it to be known just as if she were a man. I know that this is not pleasant to the sensitive character fostered by the present influences among the best women; but it is to me a question whether the noble, and as I think, heroic enthusiasm of truth and public good ought not in this age to nerve women to as courageous a sacrifice of their most justly cherished delicacy, as that of which the early Christian women left an example for the reverent love and admiration of all future time. I have no doubt that the Roman ladies thought them very indelicate.
In regard to the questions you do me the honour to ask me—first, “Are there not evils which press much more hardly on women than not having a vote?” 2dly “May not this, when obtained, put women in opposition to those who withhold from them these rights, so as to retard still further the legislation necessary to put them in “possession of their rights?” 3dly “Could not the existing disabilities as to property and influence of women be swept away by the legislature as it stands at present?”
To answer these questions fundamentally would require only to state fundamental principles of political liberty, and to reiterate that debate so nobly carried on in our own history whether social happiness or dignity, commercial liberty, religious freedom, or any form of material prosperity, is or is not best founded on political liberty.
It may be granted in the abstract, that a ruling power, whether a monarch, a class, a race, or a sex, could sweep away the disabilities of the ruled. The question is, has it ever seemed to them urgent to sweep away these disabilities, until there was a prospect of the ruled getting political power? More than this, it is probably a question whether it is in human nature that it ever should seem to them urgent.
In the same way it may often be a question whether painful symptoms do not press more hardly upon a patient than the hidden disease which is the cause of them. And undoubtedly, if the symptoms themselves are killing, the physician had better address himself to them at once, and leave the disease alone for a time. But if the oppressions and miseries under which women suffer are killing, women take a great deal of killing to kill them. God knows I do not undervalue these miseries; for I think that man, and woman too, a heartless coward whose blood does not boil at the thought of what women suffer; but I am quite persuaded that if we were to remove them all tomorrow, in ten years new forms of suffering would have arisen; for no earthly power can ever prevent the constant unceasing unsleeping elastic pressure of human egotism from weighing down and thrusting aside those who have not the power to resist it. Where there is life there is egotism, and if men were to abolish every unjust law today, there is nothing to prevent them from making new ones tomorrow; and moreover, what is of still greater importance, new circumstances will constantly be arising, for which fresh legislation will be needed. And how are you to ensure that such legislation will be just, unless you can either make men perfect, or give women an equal voice in their own affairs? I leave you to judge which is the easiest.
What, however, constitutes an even more pressing and practical reason for endeavouring to obtain the political enfranchisement of women, instead of endeavouring to sweep away any or all of their social grievances, is, that I believe it will be positively easier to obtain this reform, than to obtain any single one of all the others, all of which must inevitably follow from it. To prefer to sweep away any of these others first, is as though one were to prefer to cut away branch after branch, giving more labour to each branch than one need do to the trunk of the tree.
The third question, whether there is not danger of political partisanship and bitterness of feeling between men and women, is also a question which I think has been asked and answered in other departments of politics. It has been asked and answered, too, though the answer has been different from that which we most of us approve of in politics, in the case of marriage. To prevent quarrels, it has been thought best to make one party absolute master of both. No doubt, if women can never do anything in politics except for and through men, they cannot be partisans against men. No doubt, where you have death, you have none of the troubles of life. But if women were to prove possessed with ever so great a spirit of partisanship, and were they to call forth thereby ever so intense partisanship on the part of men, and were they, as the weakest, to be driven to any extremities, I don’t see that the result would be very different from what it is at present, inasmuch as I apprehend that the present position of women in every country in the world is exactly measured by the personal and family affections of men, and that every modification for the better in women’s absolute annihilation and servitude is at present owing not to any sense of abstract right or justice on the part of men, but to their sense of what they would like for their own wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters. Political partisanship against the mass of women will not, among civilized men, diminish the sense of what is due to the objects of their private affections. But I believe, on the contrary, that the dignity given to women in general by the very fact of their being able to be political partisans, is likely to be itself a means of raising men’s estimation of what is due to them. So that, if men come to look upon women as a large number of unamiable but powerful opponents and a small number of dearly loved and charming persons, I think men will think more highly of women, and will feel less disposed to use badly any superior power that after all they themselves may still possess, than if they look upon women as I think men generally do at present, as a few dearly loved, preeminently worthy and charming persons, and a great number of helpless fools.
On the whole, then, I think, firstly, that political power is the only security against every form of oppression; secondly, that at the present day in England it would be easier to attain political rights for such women as have the same claims as enfranchised men, than to obtain any other considerable reform in the position of women; thirdly, I see no danger of party spirit running high between men and women and no possibility of its making things worse than they are if it did.
Finally, I feel some hesitation in saying to you what I think of the responsibility that lies upon each one of us to stand steadfastly and with all the boldness and all the humility that a deep sense of duty can inspire, by what the experience of life and an honest use of our own intelligence has taught us to be the truth. I will confess to you that I have often stood amazed at what has seemed to me the presumption with which persons who think themselves humble set bounds to the capacities of improvement of their fellow creatures—think themselves qualified to define how much or how little of the divine light of truth can be borne by the world in general; assume that none but the very élite can see what is perfectly clear to themselves, and think themselves permitted to dole out in infinitesimal doses that daily bread of truth upon which they themselves live, and without which the world must come to an end. When I see this to me inexplicable form of moderation in those who nevertheless believe that the truth of which they have got hold really is the truth, I rejoice that there are so many presumptuous persons who think themselves bound to say what they think true—who think that if they have been fortunate enough to get hold of a truth, they cannot do a better service to their fellow creatures than by saying it openly; who think that the truth that has not been too much for themselves will not be too much for others; who think that what they have been capable of seeing, other people will be capable of seeing too, without a series of delicately managed gradations. I even go so far as to think that we owe it to our fellow creatures and to posterity to struggle for the advancement of every opinion of which we are deeply persuaded. I do not, however, mean to say that there is any judge but our own conscience of how we can best work for the advancement of such truths, nor do I mean to say that it may not be right for any of us, endowed with special faculties, to choose out special work, and to decline to join in work for which we think others better qualified and which we think may impede us for our own peculiar province. Therefore, while I have seen with much regret that you join in so few movements for the public good, I have never presumed to think you wrong, because I have supposed that your abstinence arose from your devotion to one particular branch of public-spirited work.
I am Dear Madam
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1868
1170.
TO THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE HOSPICES D’AVIGNON1
- S[aint] V[éran]
Jan. 8. 1868
Messieurs—
Par une lettre du 27 Novembre 1863 vous avez bien voulu me concéder la ceppe de 50 arbres sur le chemin vicinal No. 1 et voisin de ma propriété moyennant une redevance annuelle de 25 francs, soit 50 centimes pour chaque arbre.2 Depuis quelques jours les employés de votre administration ont coupé et enlevé sept de ces arbres, qu’ils disaient être morts. En conséquence, j’ai à vous proposer soit de diminuer dans la même proportion le paiement annuel soit de m’accorder d’autres arbres pour compléter le nombre primitif. Je préfèrerais que la concession fût modifiée de manière à la borne à 43 arbres ou même à 42 ce qui donnerait la pierre milliaire du premier kilomètre du chemin comme borne très commode de la concession. Mais si des difficultés administratives s’opposent à ce que vous m’accordiez cette modification je vous prierais alors, messieurs, de me concéder sept arbres de plus le long du chemin du côté de l’est, c’est à dire jusqu’au huitième arbre au delà de la pierre milliaire inclusivement.
1171.
TO THE REV. LEOPOLD JOHN BERNAYS1
- Avignon
Jan. 8. 1868
Dear Sir
I thank you for the opportunity of reading the little pamphlet on education.2 All that the author says against centralizing the education of the country in the hands of government is very just, & I entertain the strongest objections to any plan which would give a practical monopoly to schools under government control. But I have never conceived compulsory education in that sense. What I understand by it is that all parents should be required to have their children taught certain things, being left free to select the teachers, but the sufficiency of the teaching being ensured by a government inspection of schools & by a real & searching examination of pupils. The actual provision of schools by a local rate would not necessarily be required if any schools already existed in the locality which were sufficient for the purpose or which could be made so by aid from the local funds & by inspection. Moreover, a mere consolidation of the already existing school endowments, now mostly jobbed or, at best, very inefficiently applied, would probably enable good instruction to be provided in all localities in which it is not already afforded by private exertions. Of course there must be a Government department to control the employment of these funds, but it does not follow that the teachers need be appointed or directly controlled by any public office. The control might rest in a school committee chosen from the locality itself, perhaps by a mixed system of election & nomination & entrusted with considerable latitude as to all details. These are all points for mature consideration; but a thorough system of instruction for the whole country we must have; & I do not see anything short of a legal obligation which will overcome the indifference, the greed, or the really urgent pecuniary interest of parents.
1172.
TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE1
- Avignon
Jan. 8. 1868
Dear Mr Christie
I am very much obliged to you both for your letter and for sending me your pamphlet2 and the Bill. In order not to delay returning you the pamphlet (which goes by this post) I have copied out its list of recommendations. I think almost all of them excellent. Above all, you seem to me to be right in having everywhere one public officer who shall perform all the duties connected with elections, and who shall be specially responsible (as far as it is possible to make him so) for doing everything that can be done to keep them pure. You have also perceived the necessity of having an appeal from his decision; since otherwise he would acquire, in the cases not contested before him by the parties, & would carry into the others a habit of indulgence and laisser-aller which would make him as little to be relied on as the Poor Law Inspectors have come to be. But do you not think that the jurisdiction in appeal should be (as the Select Committee propose that the original jurisdiction should be) with one of the Judges, rather than with five M.P.’s named by the Speaker, and a legal Assessor? These M.P.’s would never be impartial. It could not be hoped that they would be better selected than the present Chairmen of Election Committees, and the evidence which you quote from the Corrupt Practices Report shews how confidently parties rely on the partiality of these.
I am acquainted with the Blue Book of 1860,3 having gone carefully through it some time ago. I am aware of the failure of the Election Auditors; but they were sure to be a failure like Railway Auditors, unless a great deal more was done to ensure their fidelity than was provided for by the Act which created them. I see that we quite agree on the subject, as you give all the powers of the Election Auditor to your Returning Officer, who, if your plan were adopted, would be a very different sort of person from the Election Auditors, and far more in the public eye. I am glad that you require all election expenses to pass through the Returning Officer. I would make him the direct dispenser even of all charities on the part of the member or candidate; otherwise these are sure to be so bestowed as to “keep up the . . . interest.”
The Bill, as altered by the Select Committee, has more good points than I expected. But the £1000 security is a bar to its making much practical improvement. Some such provision is perhaps necessary on Disraeli’s plan,4 to prevent frivolous petitions by men of straw who could not be made to pay costs. But all such necessity would be obviated by your plan of having an enquiry and scrutiny after every election, by a special officer whose business it would be to watch over elections.
The Bill provides a better system of penalties for bribery than I expected. It is perhaps better that the disqualifications (being so comprehensive and severe as they are) should be for seven years, as proposed, rather than for life; since if they were for life there would be much danger that opinion would be indulgent to every excuse for not inflicting them.
I am
Dear Mr Christie
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
W. D. Christie Esq.
1173.
TO HENRY SOLLY1
Avignon, Jan. 8, 1868
. . . I should be very happy to be of use to you in your new undertaking;2 but . . . there is very little that I can say in recommendation of you that is not already known to the public, and especially to the working men, of whose claims and interests you have so long been a consistent and zealous supporter . . . .3 My absence from England would in any case prevent me from being able to attend the meeting on the 15th. . . . Very truly yours,
J. S. Mill
1174.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Avignon
Jan. 9. 1868
Dear Chadwick
I quite agree with you as to the inutility of the Cobden Club2 unless it makes itself an instrument for diffusing good opinions, and several members of the Club have already expressed to me the same feeling. Mr Potter3 who, I believe, is the real founder of the Club, has told me that he very much wishes to make it useful as a political organ. I think it very desirable that your suggestions should be brought before the managing Committee. This I could do, either by writing them a letter enclosing yours, or by attending a meeting of the Committee (for I am a member, though I have never acted as such) as soon as possible after my return to England, and bringing the subject regularly before them. I will do whichever of the two you prefer. Some good will be done if the Club can be prevailed on to take even a small step in the direction of your proposals. The largest measure you suggest, that of pressing for a Congress to reconsider the international law of Europe on the subject of the commencement of hostilities, has not the smallest chance of leading to anything practical, but the value of the demonstration might be considerable.
I think with you that Mr Leslie’s article on Military Systems4 is very important, and ought to be made widely known if possible.
I am Dear Chadwick
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1175.
TO WILLIAM LONGMAN1
- Avignon
Jan. 9. 1868
Dear Sir—
I thank you for your letter. After consideration I have made up my mind not to print a cheap edition of the Logic at present, but to propose to you to publish a new edition in the same form & on the same terms as the last viz. £500 per an edition of 1500.
1176.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1
- Avignon
Jan. 9. 1868
Dear Sir
I am very sorry to say that I have no means of procuring any situation, but I shall most willingly recommend books to you, and after you have read Mr Bain’s treatises I should be glad to hear what sort of impression they make on you, as it would be some help to me in making further recommendations.
I am
yours very sincerely
J. S. Mill
1177.
TO SECRETARY, UNIVERSAL FRANCHISE ASSOCIATION1
- Avignon
January 16, 1868
Dear Madam—
I have watched the progress of opinion in favor of the enfranchisement of women in America with deep interest, believing that your country is destined to lead the way in this great question, as it has already done in so many others. I learn with great pleasure the formation of your association at Washington, and feel much honored that you have included my name in your Consulting Committee. I inclose a credit of £2 on New York, not having been able to obtain one [on] Washington, being one from myself and the same amount from my step-daughter, Miss Helen Taylor, as subscriptions to your association, and should I have any likely opportunity I will not fail to mention your association among our friends in England, but the cause has in this country, as yet, so few supporters that those among us who are able to give pecuniary help find all their available means absorbed by the expenses necessary for diffusing the principles in our own country. You will hear with interest that a society has been formed in England for the same purpose.2
I am, dear Madam, yours, very sincerely,
J. S. Mill
1178.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
- Avignon
Jan. 17. 1868
Dear Chadwick
I have inclosed your two letters to Mr Potter with one from myself, pressing on him the consideration of them.2
I have read the extracts from the Medical Mirror, and I quite feel with you against circulating among the electors, from you or your friends, a mere attack on Lowe.3 If one candidate puts forth a personal attack upon another (a thing it is seldom wise to do) it should be a weightier, and better considered one than this. But if any one in no way connected with your candidature chooses to circulate it, I do not think you need concern yourself about the matter.
I shall always be ready to put in a timely word for competitive examinations; but I do not know that the present is a particularly favourable time for a motion in Parliament to extend them, and it is still more uncertain whether I have not already quite as much on my hands as I can manage.
I am Dear Chadwick
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1179.
TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE1
- Avignon
Jan. 17. 1868
Dear Mr Christie
The same post which brought your letter, brought the proof from the Law Magazine.2 The article will do much good, and I wish it were circulated widely among the liberal members of Parliament. It does not, however, remove the few difficulties which your pamphlet had left in my mind. The Chairmen of Election Committees have been less grossly partial since they were a fixed body selected on the responsibility of the Speaker, but they are still believed and expected to lean to their own party. The corruption which was so flagrant as to cause the disfranchisement of Yarmouth,3 did not make void the seats of the Conservative members, for the Chairman of the Committee was a Conservative. At present what I prefer is the plan you propose, of an investigation after every election, parliamentary or municipal, by a special officer, with the addition of an appeal from that officer to one of the Judges. It is possible indeed, that to make the appeal be to a Committee of the House with legal assessors, might facilitate the passing of the measure. But it is our business to demand what is best, and not to propose a splitting of the difference, though we may accept it if forced.
Unfortunately none of the Members you mention as specially interesting themselves in this subject belong to the advanced Liberal section: unless Pollard Urquhart may be so regarded, and he does not carry weight. They may be made useful, but we shall need others. If you have an opportunity, I think you should try to stir up M’Cullagh Torrens. I mean to do so, but he should be attacked on more sides than one. He is clever, and I have found him dependable upon for things requiring work.
With regard to your personal grievance,4 I sympathize sincerely and heartily in your feelings respecting it, and it is painful to me to say anything which may look like indifference to the subject. But I think you will enter into the reasons which compelled me, on going into Parliament, to lay down a rule not to take up personal cases. My sole purpose in consenting to be elected, was to do what I could for my opinions on questions of a purely public nature and on which there is no one else in Parliament to speak: and for no object but this should I have thought myself justified in giving up time which was already usefully employed. Now it is quite impossible for me to give my time and labour to the many public questions which have a claim on me, unless I abstain from any other parliamentary business. To get up thoroughly a subject like that of your conduct of the Brazil negociations, so as to be invulnerable to criticism, and certain of not being unjust to any one, would be enough to occupy me almost a whole session. It would not, I think, be wise or right that I should postpone my own proper business in Parliament, for the sake of which alone I am there, in order to do what could be done as well by almost any member of parliament who would take the pains, and by many much better than by me. But I shall be truly glad if the subject is taken up in Parliament, and properly discussed and canvassed so as to bring out all the truth.
I am
Dear Mr Christie
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1180.
TO THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE HOSPICES D’AVIGNON1
- S[aint] V[éran]
Jan. 20. 1868
Messieurs—
Permettez-moi de vous exprimer mes sincères remerciments de l’accueil favorable que vous avez bien voulu donner à ma propositio