1867
1018.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN
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. 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, 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, 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 CHAPMAN
Jan. 8. 1867.
Dear Sir
I have received your second letter, 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 TULLOCH
Jan. 9. 1867
Dear Sir
I duly received your kind note, as well as the Essays, 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; 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 CHAPMAN
Jan. 13. 1867
Dear Sir
As you kindly leave the question of consulting with Mr Spencer to my judgment, I will do so or not as it may seem to me, from future circumstances, advisable. Mr Octavius Smith 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. 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”?
1022.
TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL
le 17 janvier 1867
Mon cher d’Eichthal
Je vous remercie bien de l’envoi du journal contenant la prédication du P. Hyacinthe. 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?)
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, 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 CHAPMAN
Jan. 29. 1867
Dear Sir
I inclose a Draft of a mortgage deed, prepared by my Solicitor. 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, 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. WALPOLE
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. 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, 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. 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 CHAPMAN
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. 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 article 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 RUGE
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. More will probably be printed hereafter in a small octavo volume. I need hardly say that my daughter would most gladly do what she could to promote any wishes of yours with regard to them. And if you have Mrs. Allat’s 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. BRANDRETH
B[lackheath] P[ark]. Feb. 9. 1867.
Dear Sir,
Your question respecting the obligation of veracity on the utilitarian view of ethics 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 CAIRNES
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, in an admirable article for which the cause is evidently indebted directly to Mr Hill, and indirectly to you.
I need not say how glad I am that you like my Address. 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. FOWLE
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; & 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 PLUMMER
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 Man 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. 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 SPENCER
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; 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. 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 STORY
Feb. 9. 1867
Dear Sir
Allow me to thank you for the book 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 WARD
Feb 9 1867
Dr Sir
The Dublin Review reached me duly & I thought I had acknowledged it. The article on Jamaica 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 Will while I was revising my book 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 CHAPMAN
Feb. 10. 1867
Dear Sir
I have communicated to my solicitor your remarks and wishes on the subject of the registration of the mortgage. 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 WARD
Feb. 11, 1867
Dear Sir—
I shall be very glad to see the proof of your article & 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.
1037.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES
Feb. 13. 1867
Dear Mr Cairnes
I shall be happy to support your friend Mr Courtney if I am able to attend the Club. There is at present a vacancy by the death of Mr Cowell.
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 WALFORD
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 Watkins 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. I am
Dear Sir
yours faithfully
J. S. Mill
Edward Walford Esq.
1039.
TO WILLIAM GEORGE WARD
Feb. 14, 1867
Dear Sir—
I have read your article 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. 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. 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. 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 CHAPMAN
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 HOLYOAKE
Feb. 16. 1867
Dear Sir
I accompanied the deputation which waited on Mr Walpole yesterday, 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’s 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 CORRESPONDENT
Feb. 18, 1867
Dear Sir
Many thanks for the cards for your Lecture 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 HARE
[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. 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. Ware 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 HARE
Feb. 19. 1867
Dear Mr. Hare
I am most happy that you approve so completely of my intended Resolution. As I understood from Mr. Gladstone’s speech yesterday evening that the Government will be allowed to proceed with their Resolutions, I shall give notice of mine tonight.
We look forward with pleasure to seeing you on Sunday. I am Dear Mr. Hare
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1045.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN
Feb. 20, 1867
Dear Sir
My friend Mr Kyllmann of Manchester writes to me that having been spoken to by Mr Jacob Bright, 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, 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 CHRISTIE
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. 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. I am
Dear Mr Christie
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1047.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT
Feby 27th 1867
Sir
I have not leisure to go at length into the subject of your letter, but I spoke of Dr Arnold 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. ROWNTREE
[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 CREMER
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 Star of Feb. 28, a meeting promoted by the Reform League & 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 MARSHALL
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, 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 PLUMMER
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, 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 CHADWICK
March 5. 1867
Dear Chadwick
I supposed you knew the time fixed for the Committee on Mr Hardy’s bill. 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, as far as he goes, seems to agree very much with you, while Beal 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 LONGMAN
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.
Please send a copy of the People’s Ed. of “Pol. Economy” to Mr W. Dixon, care of Mr Radford, 7 Red Lion Street Clerkenwell E. C. charging me as usual with all expenses.
1054.
TO RICHARD RUSSELL
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’EICHTHAL
le 8 mars 1867
Mon cher d’Eichthal
Je viens de donner une lettre de recommandation auprès de vous à M. John Plummer, 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. Je me rappelle le grand intérêt que vous avez pris, il y a bien longtemps, à Rowland Detrosier. 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, 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 HARE
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. 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 PLUMMER
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, 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 CHADWICK
March 9. 1867
Dear Chadwick
You will have seen that you were mistaken about what Mr Hardy did on Thursday, and that the [substantive?] discussion in Committee commenced last night. 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 report is the best) and I shall bring out others of them on Monday 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 paper 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 CORRESPONDENT
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 Quincey 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 CHADWICK
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. 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, though briefly.
The Bill is now through Committee, and one of Mr Hardy’s own amendments 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 HARE
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. 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. As I gave my notice in general terms last night, 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 WOOD
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 RUSSELL
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 FROUDE
March 21, 1867
Dear Sir
I hope it is not in consequence of indisposition that you are going abroad. 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 Buckle 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 papers 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 HOLYOAKE
March 21, 1867
Dear Sir
I have heard nothing of your petition 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 HOLYOAKE
Friday [March 22, 1867]
Dear Sir,
I have just presented your petition, 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 GROTE
- [Embossed] House of Commons Library
Wedy [? 26 March 1867]
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 HARE
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, 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. 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. I am Dear Mr Hare
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1069.
TO HERBERT SPENCER
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’EICHTHAL
March 28, 1867
My dear d’Eichthal
This line will introduce to you Mr Theobald, at present of Balliol College, Oxford, the son of a very old friend of mine 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 RUSSELL
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 CHADWICK
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 Fraser 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, which please return
In haste
ever yrs
J. S. Mill
1073.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT
Blackheath Park, April 5, 1867
Dear Sir,
It is impossible for me to find time for attending the meeting on Saturday, but I heartily agree in the demand for an efficient lodger franchise 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 TRUELOVE
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. FURNIVALL
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, 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. FURNIVALL
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. 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, is among them, your publications, and the trust confided in you by the Philological Society, 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 HUGHES
April 21. 1867
Dear Mr Hughes
I am very glad to hear of the merit and success of the Frame Makers’ and Gilders’ Association, 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 CHAPÉ
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 FAWCETT
May 1. 1867
Dear Mr Fawcett
Allow me to express my sincere congratulations on the fortunate event 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. I am
Dear Mr Fawcett
yours ever truly
J. S. Mill
1078.
TO WILLIAM WOOD
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 book and my own volume on Representation.
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 HARE
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 Bill 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 KYLLMANN
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 CORRESPONDENT
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, 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.
I am Sir
Yours faithfully
J. S. Mill
1082.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN
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, 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 CHADWICK
May 19. 1867
Dear Chadwick
From the turn which events are taking, there is now, I think, no prospect whatever of an early dissolution.
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. 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 Doulton 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, 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 SPENCER
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 women
- 2. Mr Spencer’s chapter on the rights of women from “Social Statics”
- 3. Passages on the same subject from Mr Bailey’s “Rationale of Repr” with Mr Mill’s speech in the H. of C. & passages from “Repr. Govt”.
- 4. Miss Becker’s article on Female Suffrage from Contemp Rev.
- 5. Mrs Bodichon’s papers read at the Soc. Science Assn.
- 6. Miss Taylor’s article on the Claim of Englishwomen to the franchise.
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.
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 CAIRNES
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. 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 Dissertations has not been forwarded, and as you have not read the paper on Plato, 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 Hamilton should be sent immediately on publication to the care of Major Cairnes at Pau.
You will have seen the debate on the representation of women. 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. About 50 M.P.’s, of which I was one, went as soon as possible to intercede with Lord Derby, 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, 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.
1086.
TO THOMAS HARE
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 Thursday and that your name is on the Speaker’s list.
ever yours truly,
J. S. Mill
1087.
TO JOHN NICHOL
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 ALLEN
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, 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 TAYLOR
May 27, 1867
Dear—
All is as it should be. Disraeli, in answer to the O’Donoghue, has announced the Queen’s consent to the remission of the capital sentence: & if he had not, the O’Donoghue, Sir John Gray 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 GREENING
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 paper and Mr Pitman’s, 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. SHARP
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. 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 TODD
London, Blackheath Park, June 1, 1867.
Dear Sir,—
The superiority of the qualification, by direct taxation, over that by local rating, 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 TRÜBNER
June 1. 1867
Dear Sir
I was not aware that anybody was reprinting the speech.
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 pamphlet 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 Hansard in the Row.
1094.
TO WILLIAM WOOD
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, 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 CORRESPONDENT
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. The Cumulative Vote, however, under the necessary condition of three members to a constituency, is to be proposed by Mr Hughes, 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. WOOD
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, 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 war 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 FAWCETT
June 7. 1867
Dear Mr Fawcett
Much as I sympathize with the object of the Select Committee on the University Bill, 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 TRÜBNER
June 7. 1867
Dear Sir
Will you kindly have a page of the “Claim of Englishwomen to the Suffrage” set up on specimen paper?
The two copies of the Speech 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.
1099.
TO HELEN TAYLOR
Sunday morning
[June 9, 1867]
Dear—
the Spectator you kindly sent came safe. We 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?] (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 TAYLOR
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. 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 bill 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 HARRISON
June 16, 1867
[Mill entirely approved of my Six Letters on Martial Law —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. IRELAND
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. 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 TRÜBNER
June 23. 1867
Dear Sir
Please send, at my expense, twelve copies of the Speech to Mr Fitzgerald, office of the City Item, Philadelphia; and 100 copies to Miss Becker, 10 Grove Street, Ardwick, Manchester.
My daughter approves of the specimen you sent & decides to have 5000 copies of her pamphlet 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 CAIRNES
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. You will also have seen the amendment which Monsell moved; 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, 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, Miss Cobbe, Mrs Stansfeld 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, and heard, especially Bright, and Garrison himself. I wished for you, too, at the splendid Reform meetings at St James’s Hall, if only to see and hear the admirable feelings of the people respecting Ireland. A propos, at the last meeting Mrs Law 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 COLAM
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 GRAHAM
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 Bisset 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 MORGAN
July 3. 1867
Dear Sir
A very remarkable working man, 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. OLLIVIER
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’EICHTHAL
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. Théobald et à M. Plummer 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, 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. 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 PILLSBURY
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. 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 1851 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 WOOD
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, 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 FAWCETT
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.
I am, on the whole, rather against carrying the subject of the Sultan’s ball any farther. 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 BEALES
July 22. 1867
Dear Sir
I have already, by sending a subscription, given in my adhesion to the determination of the Reform League 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 CHADWICK
July 22. 1867
Dear Chadwick
Mr Stansfeld is a graduate, but he has been interesting himself for Mr Bagehot, 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. 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 MORGAN
July 22. 1867
Dear Sir
After receiving your answer to my note, 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 CAIRNES
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. 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 Waley 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. I will write again very shortly and am
Dear Mr Cairnes
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1117.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK
July 25. 1867
Dear Chadwick
I spoke to O’Reilly yesterday, within five minutes after he came into the House. Unfortunately he had already engaged himself to Fortescue 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, but he is on Lowe’s Committee. 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 LONGMAN
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 August & of the third also as soon as published which I understand will probably be in September.
A friend of mine who has been engaged for many years in making a collection of the proverbs of all nations, 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 CAIRNES
July 30. 1867
Dear Mr Cairnes
I am most happy that you have given up your intention of immediately tendering your resignation, 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 CHADWICK
July 31. 1867
Dear Chadwick
It is not the O’Conor Don, but his brother, 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 Duff 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 GRAHAM
July 31 [1867]
Dear Graham
I suppose your packet 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 GROTE
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. 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.
I am my dear Grote
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1123.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES
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, 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 CHADWICK
Friday
[August 2, 1867]
Dear Chadwick
Grant Duff is, most unfortunately, pledged to Bagehot, otherwise I really think he would have supported you. He says that, to give you a chance, your address ought to be out directly. As for the ballotting among the candidates 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.
Ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1125.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK
- [Embossed]
- House of Commons
Friday
[August 2, 1867]
Dear Chadwick
Cheatham is not a graduate of Un. Coll. but his son is, 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 Berkeley 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’s 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 HOUGHTON
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, 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 SPENCER
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 THOMPSON
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 THORNTON
- [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 HOUGHTON
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. 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 Wednesday 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 CARPENTER
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 NIGHTINGALE
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 BROUGHAM
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 Lucretius 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 HAWTREY
Aug. 10. 1867
Dear Sir—
I thank you for your two little books, & 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’s 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 CONWAY
Aug. 11. 1867
Dear Sir
I thank you for the cuttings you kindly sent. Mr Greeley’s notion of two separate legislatures, 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. 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 COX
Aug. 12.1867
Dear Sir
This letter will be presented to you by my political and personal friend Lord Amberley, who is visiting your country 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 speeches 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 EMERSON
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. Few Englishmen, especially few Englishmen in political life, are more worthy of the privilege of knowing you than Lord Amberley 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 PLUMMER
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, which I had not seen. I spoke on the Indian Budget debate, but not on the Orissa debate, 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 NICHOL
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, 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 universities 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 WELLS
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 CHADWICK
Aug. 20. 1867
Dear Chadwick
I have made a great many minor alterations in your address, 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. I hope the reply to it, which I inclose, 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 CHADWICK
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 LINTON
Aug. 21, 1867
Dear Sir
The object of the periodical 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 CHAPMAN
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, 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 CAIRNES
- 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, 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, 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, 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” of which Dudley Field 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 Baines and Coleridge and many other known names, but by no means exclusively such. Your friend Mr Webb 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 Paris 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) 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 Hobart (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 CORRESPONDENT
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 BROUGHAM
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.
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’EICHTHAL
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. Je la comprends aujourd’hui dans un même mandat de poste avec les cinq francs de la Ligue Internationale de la Paix (celle de M. Frédéric Passy), 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 HOWELL
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 THORNTON
Avignon Oct. 19.1867
Dear Thornton—
I have just finished reading your Chapter in the Fortnightly & 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; 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 Blanc 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 ἀναδασμός 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. 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 BROWNING
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 Parlt 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.
I am &c
1152.
TO JAMES GARTH MARSHALL
Oct. 26. 1867
Dear Sir
I thank you for sending me your valuable Address, and Mr Buckalew’s speech. 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 BAIN
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. I myself have not begun writing yet, but see my way more & more clearly to the work; I have been reading through Laromiguière, & Maudslay. 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. He also anticipated Hamilton’s view of abstraction as distinct from generalization, & his notion of the substantial identity of Nominalism & Conceptualism. 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, 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? It is like Matthew Arnold enumerating me among the enemies of culture.
Besides these I have been toiling through Stirling’s Secret of Hegel. 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 article 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. 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 book with much pleasure.
I am glad that Mr Hunter has done so well with the article for Chambers. 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 Kansas 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 CHADWICK
Nov. 4. 1867
Dear Chadwick
Thanks for sending me a bulletin of your progress. What you say about the effect of your address 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. 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. 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 EMERSON
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, 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. YOUNG
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, 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 BRIDGES
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?” & 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 Hungary 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. GLADSTONE
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 session 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 expedition 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 Glyn 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 CHRISTIE
Nov. 20. 1867
Dear Mr Christie
Electoral corruption will, as you say, be the most important subject of the next session, 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 LOVELL
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. 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 BAIN
Dec. 6. 1867
Dear Bain—
I have received your letter & the packet of MS. The death of Clark 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, 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. 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 Hamilton —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?
I have not found any help in Bailey 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, 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 Psychology 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.
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 of 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 CHADWICK
Dec. 22. 1867
Dear Chadwick
I received your letter and proof 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. Gladstone’s Lancashire speeches 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. KIDELL
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 LONGMAN
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 Logic supposing that no cheap edition is issued; also on what conditions you would propose to issue a cheap edition & 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 CHRISTIE
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. 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, 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 WHITE
Avignon, Dec. 28, 1867
Dear Sir:
I am much obliged by your kind offices to Lord Amberley and Mr Morley, 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, 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 CARPENTER
Dec. 29, 1867
Dear Madam
I have to thank you for your letter of Aug. 11 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 men 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 HARE
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 conference 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, or Cremer, or Howell —the gain would be immense.
I am glad you have seen Dudley Field, 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 Lecture 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, 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 NIGHTINGALE
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
Titles (by Subject) 
