The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Abbreviations and Short Titles
• The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill 1869-1873
• 1869
• 1870
• 1871
• 1872
• 1873

1869

1370.

TO PARKE GODWIN1

• A[vignon]

Jan. 1. 1869

Dear Mr Godwin—

It gave me great pleasure to hear from you & especially to receive a letter shewing so fundamental an agreement in our mode of thinking on the great questions of the future. The emancipation of women, & cooperative production, are, I fully believe, the two great changes that will regenerate society. But though the latter of these may grow up without much help from the action of Parliaments & Congresses, the former cannot. I have always thought with you that the abstinence of many of the best minds in America from political life was to a great degree accounted for by the fact that America, as a rule, needs very little governing. But the present is surely a time in which, even in America, the action of legislation & administration is of transcendant importance; & in the old & complicated societies of Europe the need of political action is always, more or less, what exceptional circumstances make it in America at present. Moreover, a place in Parliament is, in England, a vantage ground from which opinions can be promulgated to a larger audience & with a far greater probability of being listened to, than from any other position except perhaps that of the editor of a widely circulated daily paper. It was with this hope principally that I accepted a seat in Parliament, & on the one subject at least, the political enfranchisement of women, the results have far exceeded my expectation. It is doubtful whether there remains anything of the first importance which I could more effectually help forward by being in Parl^t. Personal representation, the greatest political improvement after women’s suffrage which remains to be made, I can help, perhaps as effectively, by my writings. I am therefore quite content on public grounds to be no longer a member of the House, while on private my release justifies and more than justifies, your congratulations.

If you are in England in March or April I shall hope to see you & to compare notes with you on many subjects both American & general.

1371.

TO HENRY MAINE1

• A[vignon]

Jan. 1. 1869

My dear Sir—

The painfully interesting papers2 which you kindly forwarded to me have impressed me with a very strong sense of the degree in which official opinion has retrograded in India since I ceased to be a regular reader of Indian official correspondence.3 When I left the India House the feeling that the actual cultivators had claims upon us which we could not ignore was leading to plans for revising in their favour, so far as was still possible even the system established by Lord Cornwallis in Bengal proper;4 Act 10 of 1859,5 with the provisions of which I am very imperfectly acquainted, was, I believe the fruit of this movement. Now, however, there seems to be a reaction towards landlordism of the present English type, at the very time when in England opinion is, though slowly, beginning to turn the contrary way. And, what is most of all deplorable, this reaction seems to be chiefly among the younger men. I do not maintain that the evil is to be ascribed to the constitutional change made in 1858,6 for it is very probable that the mutiny & its consequences would have wrought the same change for the worse if the old organ of government had continued. The greater fear of the natives, & desire of conciliating the natives, which have existed since the mutiny (“the natives” being as usual a mere synonym for the powerful classes, the great landholders) have discredited the ideas of protection to the interests of the great mass of the population which in a more or less enlightened shape had been the animating principle of Indian government for a whole generation. The Talockdars of Oude, the very men whose atrocities were the defence pleaded for the annexation of the country,7 have been made by us greater men than they ever were; & now everybody, even though a peasant, on whom it is possible to fasten the name of a proprietor is in the opinion of an apparently powerful party, to be treated as if the land & its inhabitants only existed for his benefit. These notions, which I am afraid are ruling the local administration of the Central Provinces as well as the Punjab, naturally find warm support from the ignorant, arriéré, prejudiced & bigotted Toryism of Sir W. Mansfield.8 Until now the strong contrary convictions of Sir John Lawrence9 have moderated the mischief, but India has now got an Irish landlord to rule over her:10 & it is quite uncertain whether his official superior the Duke of Argyll will be any check upon his landlordism.11 There has been no more determined defender than the Duke, of the evictions, in utter defiance of customary & traditional ideas of rights, which have depopulated the North of Scotland.

To look at the matter on another side: is it not monstrous that young settlement officers12 should have had it in their power, without express authorisation or instructions from the Government to reduce to the condition of mere tenants at will in a single district 46000 out of 60000 cultivators who had been declared at the former settlement to have rights of occupancy?13 & that too when they had been so declared on the ground, equitable enough under the circumstances, of continuous occupation for a minimum period of 12 years, which 10 or 15 years additional occupancy under our rule had increased to a quarter of a century. All this disturbance of recognised rights and authorised expectations, so great an evil anywhere & one of the greatest in India, is incurred for the sake of a retrograde step in economics & social organisation! I hope I am not wrong in collecting from the discussion in Council that these divisions of the Settlement officers will not be upheld unless when they would have been valid divisions under the Act just passed.14 A great part of these however would have been valid under the Act, especially in the case of tenants who have at any time made an admission of their having no rights of occupancy, which I perceive they did in 19000 out of the 46000 cases, & I agree with you in profoundly distrusting these admissions; not only for the very sufficient reasons stated by you in Council, nor only from the great probability that the admissions were often obtained by unfair means, but also from the little value which the natives of India habitually attach to admissions against their own interest, because they have not been accustomed to expect that they will be held bound by them.

Except the exclusion of so large a number of cases from its benefits, I do not see much to complain of in the terms of the compromise established by the new Act. The distinction between Khoodkaust ryots & Pyekaust ryots15 is familiar to all administrators of Northern India, the former being understood to have an inherited right of occupancy of ancient date, while the latter belong to families who have arrived at a comparatively late period & remained on tolerance; though I am not sure that the Pyekaust ryots are always strictly tenants at will. Supposing then that all are allowed rights of occupancy who have a just claim to them, then, when there is no evidence of a right to hold at a fixed rent, it seems as much as they could expect that their rent should be fixed by law at 15 per cent less (your letter by a lapsus calami16 says 15 per cent more) than the rent paid by tenants who have no right of occupancy. It is however a defect that while there is a power given to the proprietor to buy out, on certain terms of compensation the rights of the tenant, the Act gives no power to the tenant to buy out the rights of the landlord. As was well said in the discussion, this is as if the English Copyhold Commission,17 instead of enabling the copyholder to redeem the legal claim of the lord of the manor, had empowered the lord to turn out the copyholder for a compensation. This omission in the Act admits of being corrected by subsequent legislation. But unless it is done this year you will not be there to do it, & who can tell how your place may be filled?

It has given me great pleasure that your health does not seem to have suffered from your residence in India. You will find abundant work for one like you in England, much of it such as few have anything like your qualifications for performing. I hope that such personal acquaintance with you as I have ever had the good fortune of enjoying18 will be not only renewed but greatly improved after your return to Europe.

1372.

TO DUNCAN McLAREN1

• A[vignon]

Jan. 3. 1869

Dear Mr M^cLaren—

I need hardly say that I am very much gratified by your kind letter. I know that you & Mrs M^cLaren acted for the best & I agree with you that the publication of my letter to her may do some good.2 As a rule however I prefer that my letters should not be made public unless they were written with a view to the contingency of their being so, & I have seen with regret several recent instances in which publicity has been given to them without my consent:3 not that I shrink from exposure to criticism, which any public man, even any writer, ought to welcome, from however hostile a quarter; but because, when writing confidentially to friends who feel as one does oneself, one takes many things for granted which would require explanation to general readers, & one does not guard one’s expressions as prudence & courtesy would require one to do in addressing oneself to those who differ from one. All the letters of mine which have lately been published have been treated by the newspapers exactly as if they had been written for the public & sent to the editors by myself.

It is, as a general rule, best, I think, to ask the writer’s consent before publishing a letter. This is so flattering a thing to do that there can never be any difficulty in doing it.

I am particularly pleased at your approbation of the last sentence of my letter4 because I can share in it myself, for it was dictated to me as I wrote it word for word by my dear daughter. We always agree in sentiments but she sometimes can find better words to put them in than I can myself.

1373.

TO MANTON MARBLE1

• Avignon

Jan 5, 1869

Dear Sir

I beg to acknowledge your letter of Nov. 7. I did not before know to whom I was indebted for the copies of the World. I could perceive that they were sent on account of the reports of the proceedings of the Labour Congress,2 and I availed myself of them to look through those reports, which are doubly interesting to me, by the indications they afford of what is going on in the minds of Americans and in those of the working men. In regard to the other matters touched on in your letter, I am very glad to have your assurance that the payment of the debt in greenbacks is not supported by the Democratic party.3 It is satisfactory at all events, to know that so influential a democratic journal as the World is opposed to it. On the subject of free trade, I have always counted on finding the Democratic party the sounder of the two: and when the question of reconstruction is settled (which, to my thinking, it can never be on the principles of the Democratic party) I look forward to a rearrangement of parties, in which free trade will come into the first rank, and in which representation of minorities may also become prominent: and I may then perhaps be more in sympathy with the Democratic party, and less with those who oppose it, than I now am. Even now I have friends and correspondents among the Democratic party, and I am as desirous to do full justice to that party as I am to all parties in my own country. Neither do I see that any injustice was done them in my published letter.4 If they allow their elected Convention to profess, for electioneering purposes, doctrines which are not theirs, a stranger is not in fault if, until those doctrines are disavowed, he concludes them to be the doctrines of the party: but I did not do so; I merely expressed my alarm at their being in the programme.

I am Dear Sir
Yours very faithfully

J. S. Mill

Manton Marble Esq

1374.

TO GEORGE W. SMALLEY1

• A[vignon]

Jan. 6. 1869

Dear Sir

I am much obliged to you for sending me the Tribunes.2 I need hardly say that your letters are most gratifying to myself personally, & that I have read with great interest the picture of the elections as they presented themselves to your mind. In regard to the West^r election I think your first impression of the cause of my defeat was more correct than your subsequent one.3 I may have lost a good many votes by the Bradlaugh business, but not so many as to account for the great difference between Smith’s number at the poll & mine.

On one point I ought to correct your impression. You say it is reported that I spent a great deal of money, some £1100, on my first election & was expected to spend as much more on the second. I was not aware that such things had been said or thought by any one. It is a literal fact that neither of my contests has cost me one penny directly or indirectly. You are right in thinking that I both could and would have paid the expenses had I thought it desirable on public grounds to do so; but having said that I would not I thought it right to adhere to my word, for nothing does more mischief than high-flown professions which are only intended to be taken cum grano salis by the initiated.

Republican opinions certainly seem to have a much greater number of partisans in Spain than was supposed,4 & the number is likely to increase as the prospect becomes more familiar to people’s minds in the absence of any generally acceptable candidate for the throne.5 But it strikes me that it would be a great mistake on the part of the Republicans to include a President in their programme. They should have a mere Prime Minister, removable by the Cortes. Even in America the inconvenience is very great of having a President & a Congress who if hostile to one another, cannot either of them get rid of the other for what may be several years: & in any Continental European country the almost certain consequence of discord between the two authorities would be a coup d’état by the one which has troops under its command. There is nothing in Prim’s6 career which gives me the smallest confidence in his being, that rarity among Spanish politicians, a man of principle; & if he becomes President of a Spanish Republic it will be very likely with the full intention to take the first opportunity of playing the game of Napoleon the Third,7 after which Spain will be a Republic after the fashion of those of Spanish America,—a perpetual succession of military dictators each supplanting his predecessor by a pronunciamento or a civil war. That at least is my impression, grounded no doubt on very imperfect knowledge.

1374A.

TO EDWARD LYULPH STANLEY1

Private.

• Avignon

Jan. 7. 1869

Dear Mr Lyulph Stanley

When, during your assiduous attendance at the election proceedings in Westminster, you spoke to me on the subject of an Association to claim for the working class electors the right to an equal voice in the selection of Liberal candidates,2 I asked for time for consideration before I could give a positive opinion as to the present expediency of such an Association. The result of such consideration is, that I think the time is come for such a movement. The defeat of the working classes in the elections, and the subordinate position which has consequently been assigned to the men of advanced opinions in the formation of the government,3 have been so much noticed and commented on by friends and enemies, that neither the working classes themselves, nor their political allies, would be open to any fair accusation of causing dissension by acting upon a fact so universally recognised; but would rather be in danger of being supposed to acquiesce in it as right and necessary, if they did not make some demonstration against it. When I happen to be in correspondence with any organs of the working classes on political matters, I now make a point of inculcating on them the justice and expediency of standing out for the choice of one of the Liberal candidates when there are two seats, and for their claim to be consulted when there is only one.4 And I should be happy at once to join the Association proposed by you and your friends, whenever you are disposed to go on with the project. Only I should not like to be (as you proposed) President of the Society, in as much as, many of my personal friends being likely to be among its most active members, it would be supposed that it [had] been set going by me in order that by its means I might be reelected to Parliament; which would not be a desirable impression to give, either for the Society or for myself. I am

Dear Mr Lyulph Stanley
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1375.

TO ROBERT NICHOLSON1

Jan. 8. 1869

Sir

It would give me great pleasure if I were able to comply with the flattering request of the President of the Philomathic Society2 that I sh^d be present at the annual dinner of the Society & it is from no indifference to the kind feelings of the members towards me, expressed in your letter, that I beg to be excused from accepting that honour. It is because I do not see my way to making a suitable return for it by delivering such an address on any subject of general interest as the Society is accustomed to hear from its invited guests on the occasion of its annual festivals without the employment of an amount of time & labour which I can ill spare from occupations on which I am now & shall be for some time engaged.

1376.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN1

• Avignon

Jan. 9. 1869

Dear Sir

I have heard from Mrs Max Kyllmann in answer to the letter I wrote to her asking for a list of the names of those who subscribed the £120 to the Review at Mr Kyllmann’s request.2 She says that she should be very glad to send their names if she “thought it could be of any use to D^r Chapman to open communication with them; but, far from being friends of the Review, they none of them take interest in it, and they merely subscribed to oblige Mr Kyllmann, who had failed to obtain help in other quarters. Did I not know the difficulty my husband had at the time, I would gladly volunteer to raise subscriptions. I need not say that I shall seize every opportunity that may offer itself, and if a subscription of £5 can be of any good, I shall be very glad to hand it to D^r Chapman.”

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

D^r Chapman

1377.

TO PHILIP HENRY RATHBONE1

• A[vignon]

Jan. 9. 1869

Dear Sir

I must beg you to excuse my delay in answering your letter, which has arisen from my great reluctance to answer in the negative2 and my desire before doing so to consider well all the topics which it would be possible for me to take up, and the points of view from which they could be treated.3 I quite feel the force of your remark that to put forth opinions which at first startle people often stimulates & prepares their minds better than anything else that can be done. This is the principle I myself act upon, and [several illegible words] I think with some success last year in my proposals on the land question in Ireland,4 which while they were almost universally decried as violent & extreme have had the effect of making other proposals, up to that time considered extreme, be considered comparatively moderate & practicable.

Still it so happens that at the present juncture I can see no topic on which the public mind is sufficiently prepared to welcome anything I might have to say on which it is not already so far convinced that what I could say would be of little practical use; and it is not on such an occasion as this that one would like to put oneself in a position of antagonism to one’s listeners, and insist on enforcing what one cannot but feel to be unwelcome even if one is convinced that they are salutary truths.

Your great kindness, and that of the other gentlemen who have the management of the P.S. in being willing to put off if necessary their annual festivals till a later date than usual to suit my convenience makes me doubly reluctant to decline your kind invitation, and I hope that you and they will not ascribe it to a want of appreciation of so flattering a compliment but I feel myself compelled respectfully to decline their application.

1378.

TO STANDISH O’GRADY1

• A[vignon]

Jan. 16. 1869

Private

Dear Sir—

The reason why I think that a miracle could not prove supernatural power to any one who did not already believe in the existence of some such power,2 is this, that we never can know that any seeming miracle implies supernatural power. The achievement of apparently impossible results by strictly natural means is a fact not only within experience but within common experience. It is not even necessary to suppose the employment of a law of nature not previously discovered. It is sufficient to bear in mind the innumerable & truly wonderful exploits of jugglers, and, supernatural power not being proved by the miracle, a fortiori it would not be proof of a God.

If, however, any man possessed the apparent power of controlling not some particular laws of nature but all laws of nature—if he actually stopped the course of the sun, arrested the tides, changed the water of the sea instantaneously from salt to fresh, & so on without limit; then indeed he would prove by the direct testimony of sense that there existed a supernatural power & that he was possessed of it. The fact is that this would be an experience as complete as, & the exact counterpart of, that which we should have of creation if we had ocular demonstration of worlds similar to our own called into existence by a Will.

But if the apparently supernatural power only manifests itself in the seeming supersession of a limited number of natural laws, the hypothesis of its being done by means of other natural laws would be, as it seems to me, intrinsically so much more probable, that nothing but the proved impossibility of this could warrant the conclusion that the power was supernatural. And this proof of impossibility it is evident could never be obtained, in the existing or very probable future state of human knowledge.

1379.

TO JOHN PLUMMER1

• Avignon

Jan. 16, 1869

Dear Mr Plummer

A lady2 who has been exerting herself very much, and done a great deal, in the cause both of the education of women and of the agitation for the suffrage for women in Ireland, has lately published a novel, and has written to my daughter to ask her to use any influence she can to make it known. Knowing how kindly you are disposed to exert yourself in favour of new writers, it occurs to us that if you think the work good, you would very likely be both able and willing to review it favourably in the Daily News or elsewhere, and so help to give it circulation.3 (Miss Robertson says that she scarcely knows any one connected with the press, but has always hitherto let her books take their own chance, yet has not fared very badly, her last novel, “The Story of Nelly Dillon” having got a long favourable review in the Athenaeum.)4

We have not yet read the work ourselves, but from what we know of Miss Robertson’s writings we should suppose it to be good, and it is certain that she is an industrious and public spirited writer. I have directed a copy of the novel in question (“Society in a Garrison Town”) to be sent to you. I am

Dear Mr Plummer
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1380.

TO WILLIAM THOMAS THORNTON1

• A[vignon]

Jan. 16. 1869

Dear Thornton—

I have to thank you again for one of your pleasant letters. I congratulate you on having brought your book2 to a happy termination & most heartily wish it the success with the public which I am sure it deserves. Your description of your feeling of recovered liberty after the completion of your book would seem to describe my feeling at having recovered the free disposal of my time. I also like you have a great arrear of miscellaneous reading to bring up, & this is not yet getting itself done very quickly in consequence of other arrears. The printer is making good progress with the Analysis3 & I hope to succeed in the attempt to get it published by or soon after the 1^st of March. From what you say I hope to have read your book before that time. I have a good deal to read and study before I next revise my Pol Economy for another edition.4

What you say of Sir S. Northcote’s weakness of character, giving up good reasons of his own to bad ones of other people, explains to me much of his political life: how the more vigorous will of Sir C. Trevelyan kept him true to his convictions as to competitive examinations5 & how his honesty of purpose did not hinder him from going all lengths with Disraeli though Disraeli did not convince his reason. I do not know what sort of a Minister the D. of Argyll will turn out6 but I am glad you have not got Bright7 who would have had much to unlearn, & very little disposition to unlearn it. The two members of Council8 you mention are not good average specimens, having been selected by the old body out of their own number in consequence chiefly of their personal popularity, which was in itself not undeserved.

We are glad you share in our estimate of our terrace,9 which so far from being suppressed, has been nearly doubled in size, we having increased the part of the house of which it is the roof, & added a bath room thereto. Moreover Helen has carried out her long cherished scheme (about which she tells me she consulted you) of a “vibratory”10 for me, & has made a pleasant covered walk some 30 feet long where I can vibrate in cold or rainy weather. The terrace, you must know, as it goes round two sides of the house, has got itself dubbed the “semi-circumgyratory.”11 In addition to this, Helen has built me a herbarium—a little room fitted up with closets for my plants, shelves for my botanical books, & a great table whereon to manipulate them all. Thus you see with my herbarium, my vibratory, & my semi-circumgyratory I am in clover & you may imagine with what scorn I think of the H. of C., which, comfortable club as it is said to be, could offer me none of these comforts, or more properly speaking these necessaries of life. Helen says your room is not finished yet, because as she is an architect & master mason all in one, she is carrying on the improvements very slowly, not letting the attention to them interfere too much with her other work. But you may be sure we have not altered the outward aspect of our dear little cottage, which looks as small as ever, & you may be equally sure that I am lost in wonder & admiration of the ingenuity with which Helen has contrived to manage it all. You will not be surprised to learn that among the other additions there is a Puss-House. Altogether we are very comfortable, & only wish everybody could be as comfortable as we are. The weather this year, though cloudy & wet, is still so delightfully mild that we can still spend hours upon the terrace.

1381.

TO EDWARD JONES1

• A[vignon]

Jan. 19. 1869

Dear Sir—

I thank you for your pamphlet.2 It is truly a frightful consideration that the annual number of pupils who pass the highest grade in the schools aided by Gov^t, i.e. who leave the schools able to read a newspaper with understanding, is less than the number of teachers (including pupil teachers) employed in the schools. To remedy such a state of things as this requires a most earnest devotion of the administration & probably of the legislative mind to the purpose. There is no doubt that, as you say, a simplification of English orthography would facilitate considerably the task of learning to read. A language which like the Spanish of the present time has reduced its spelling to a perfectly uniform system has a great advantage over others. But it would take a much longer time to effect a change in orthography than would be required to teach every child in the United Kingdom to read with facility. There certainly is no necessity that it should take “seven years of the best learning period of a child’s life” to teach him to read. So great a waste of time only proves the wretchedness of the teaching. I myself cannot remember any time when I could not read with facility & pleasure; & I have known other children with whom this was the case. Such essays as yours, however, do good, both by causing discussion, & by promoting useful though gradual change. The Commission you propose would be useful in a similar manner but the Gov^t may perhaps not think that a subject which does not come within the province of direct legislation is a suitable subject for a Government inquiry.3

1382.

TO HENRY VILLARD1

• A[vignon]

Jan. 19, 1869

Dear Sir—

I have had the pleasure of receiving your letter of the 21^st ul^to, proposing on the part of the American Social Science Association2 that I sh^d visit the United States as their guest, & make a lecturing tour through the Northern States under their auspices.

Few things could be more flattering to me than the high honour of such an invitation from such a body; & your letter also contains proposals of a pecuniary nature on such a scale of liberality as to convert a visit to the U.S. from an expensive pleasure into a source of great personal profit.3

The shortness, however, of life & the numerous unexecuted literary projects which the public duties on which the greater part of my life has been occupied have left on my hands, & which require all the leisure of my remaining years for their fulfilment admonish me of the necessity of dividing such time as I am able to dispose of between those undertakings & a rest more complete than would be afforded by a journey such as that to which I am so flatteringly invited.

These are the considerations which compel me to decline an invitation so honourable, & which if I had more leisure & a greater number of years of life in prospect, would have been so welcome to me.

Allow me in conclusion to express to yourself personally my sincere acknowledgments of the friendly & courteous terms in which you have communicated to me the proposal of the Association.

1383.

TO MRS. PHILIPPINE KYLLMANN1

[After Jan. 22, 1869]

My dear Mrs Kyllmann—

I sh^d have answered your letter much earlier than this, but that ever since I received it I have been so indisposed with a bad cold & headache as to have been quite unable to write.

Like you we regret that your efforts to improve the Manchester Com^ee were not more successful, but what you have done may perhaps prove of use in the future.

Mr Mill & I are members of the London Com^ee & like the manner in which it is carried on, & have much confidence in Mrs Taylor.2 We are sorry that you see anything to object to in the form of petition used by the London Com^ee, because it was drawn up by myself & approved by Mr Mill before it was adopted. I do not think that if you examine it closely it will be found in any degree to prejudge the question of the admission of married women to the franchise. Mr Mill & I considered the wording of it carefully, & it was written with the intention of leaving that question open so that it could be signed both by those who do & by those who do not approve of the admission of married women. It was certainly not the intention of the London Com^ee to express any opinion on the point, or to petition for the unmarried only. If there is any defect in the wording, it is my fault, & Mr Mill’s (for we considered the wording of this paragraph together) but I do not think that if the words are well weighed with a precise attention to their meaning they will be found open to this objection. At all events we used what power we have over the English language to leave the question quite unsettled; & it was on the assumption that we had been successful in doing so, that the London Com^ee adopted the form. We have found that some persons have refused to sign the petition on the contrary ground to yours, because they disapprove of the admission of married women.

The West. Review has been since its first establishment the organ of the most advanced radical party in England both as regards politics & religious speculation; & it was for a very long time the only organ in which anything of a very decidedly liberal character could appear in print, & is still the only one in which articles of its length can appear. It has been consistently of such (what are commonly called “extreme”) opinions that it has been impossible to obtain a sufficiently large circulation to make it profitable. It has often been carried on at a pecuniary loss, & it is still not without great difficulty that the editor is able to manage it. This of course it is not thought good for its interests to make publicly known, but it has been necessary on several occasions to have recourse to the friends (& unfortunately they are but few in England) of free speculation in politics & religion to tide over difficulties.3

We are very sorry to hear that your health is not good; we hope that your visit to Germany may prove beneficial. We expect to be in England by the middle of March, & sh^d be happy to see you at Blackheath if you do not start before then and if you sh^d pass through London on your way.

1384.

TO JOHN TULLOCH1

• Avignon

Jan. 30. 1869.

Dear D^r. Tulloch

The three Essays which have been written this year for the Rectorial Prize are of a high average of merit, though no one of them shows powers of original thought quite equal to either of those to which the prize was awarded in the two previous years. The one which stands highest in this respect is that which bears the motto Quære verum and as its other merits are at least equal to those of either of the others, I think it the most worthy of the Prize.2 But the inferiority of the other two Essays is not very great; and I should like to know the names of all the writers, as it would be a pleasure to me to communicate with them and to send them some of my Books. There is no part of my connexion with the University to which I look back with more satisfaction than the response which has been made to my attempt to co-operate with the University Authorities in encouraging a serious study of the Philosophy of Mind. I hope that they are as well satisfied as I am myself with the results which have been elicited.

1385.

TO HEWETT C. WATSON1

• Avignon

Jan. 30. 1869

Dear Mr Watson

I am much obliged to you for your kind present. You are right in thinking that my absence from Parliament will give me more time for botany. I am now looking through my herbarium for the first time since the winter of 1864/5. But the scientific interest of your book2 gives it a value to me beyond the purely botanical.

In regard to the Darwinian hypothesis,3 I occupy nearly the same position as you do. Darwin has found (to speak Newtonially) a vera causa, and has shewn that it is capable of accounting for vastly more than had been supposed: beyond that, it is but the indication of what may have been, though it is not proved to be, the origin of the organic world we now see. I do not think it an objection that it does not, even hypothetically, resolve the question of the first origin of life: any more than it is an objection to chemistry that it cannot analyze beyond a certain number of simple or elementary substances.

Your remark that the development theory naturally leads to convergences as well as divergences4 is just, striking & as far as I know, has not been made before. But does not this very fact resolve one of your difficulties, viz. that species are not by divergence, multiplied to infinity? since the variety is kept down by frequent blending. The difficulty is also met by the fact that the law of natural selection must cause all forms to perish except those which are superior to others in power of keeping themselves alive in some circumstances actually realized on the earth. I am

Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

H. C. Watson Esq

1386.

TO EDWARD LOGAN1

• A[vignon].

Feb. 3. 1869

Dear Sir.

I do not believe nor I fancy does any one in the present day except Mahometans & some other Orientals believe, that there is such a thing as destiny in the sense in which you understand it. The only necessity in events is, that causes produce effects, & means accomplish ends. Effects never come but through their causes. By avoiding, to the utmost of one’s power, all the causes of an effect, one greatly increases one’s chance of avoiding the effect. And if one desires an end, one greatly increases one’s chance of obtaining it by adopting some known means. It is true, what we desire sometimes comes to pass without any effort of ours, & what we dislike sometimes happens in spite of all we can do to avert it: but our conduct has on the average many times more effect on the fate of such of us as are not under the control of other people, than all other circumstances put together. There is no doubt that if you adopt a sailor’s life you have a greater chance of being drowned than in most other occupations, because the causes which operate in that direction occur oftener & are less (though still very much) under human control. It is not therefore by any argument founded on destiny that you can hope to overcome the scruples of your parents but rather by urging that all occupations are exposed to some evil chances, that one may be too much afraid of death, & that if persons of good health & strength were to avoid a really useful employment like that of a sailor because of its dangers the world’s affairs could not be carried on.

1387.

TO HERBERT SPENCER1

• Avignon

Feb. 3 1869.

Dear Mr. Spencer

I am much obliged to you for the opportunity of reading your reply to the criticisms of the writer in the North American Review.2 It supplies some very useful elucidations of your general doctrine, while it greatly increases my desire to know that as yet unpublished part of your speculations which in the scientific order would have come between “First Principles” and “Biology.” I have no doubt, however, that you judged wisely in giving precedence to Biology and Psychology.

I extremely regret that your health should again have failed, but I earnestly hope you will not allow any impatience at the interruption of your work to prevent you from giving your brain as complete rest as is necessary to restore its tone. I am dear Mr. Spencer

Very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Herbert Spencer Esq.

1388.

TO JAMES BEAL1

• A[vignon].

Feb. 8. 1869

Dear Sir—

I certainly do think your original plan of municipal government for London,2 preferable to that of a single municipal government for the whole metropolis. When I first heard of your plan it at once struck me as that which best met the real difficulties of the case while it had also the advantage of being less open to unreasonable as well as reasonable objections: this opinion has been confirmed by the additional consideration which since the receipt of your letter I have given to it. I will endeavour to put down what occurs to me, for any use you like to make of it except sending it to the press. I rather regretted that you published the letter I sent you about police,3 not that there was anything in its substance that I could wish to withhold from publicity, but because in a mere memorandum for a friend, with whom one agrees generally in opinion, intended to be used by him for what it may be worth as materials for forming his own judgment, the same things are said in a different manner from that in which one would address the public. Accordingly, though you used the precaution of stating that the letter was to a private friend, the newspapers took no notice of that, but judged the letter exactly as if it had been written for the public, & charged it with dogmatism, arrogance, & what not. These accusations are not a very great evil, but there are so many purposes for which one is bound to risk them that it is better not to court such occasions unnecessarily and in the case of the letter I am now writing there are special reasons against communicating it to those who are not to be taken into practical council, which will appear in the very first things I have to say.

It is to my mind certain that Parliament will not tolerate the existence in its immediate vicinity of another assembly resting on a broad basis of popular election, wielding the power & disposing of the great amount of revenue which would belong to a single body carrying on every branch of local administration for the whole of London. The idea excited would be that of the “Commune de Paris” during the Revolution. If therefore the plan adopted is that of a single assembly, one of two things will happen. Either, first, the power of the body will be extremely curtailed. This may be done in one or both of two ways: by leaving much of the administration in the hands of the parochial bodies, the vestries & local boards, whom it is a great object to extirpate, root & branch; or by withholding many of the most important parts of the local administration from the Council, & either leaving those parts in their present state of general neglect varied by fitful parliamentary activity, or turning them over to a department of the central government. These are modes in which the powers of the municipal body may be brought within what Parliament would tolerate. The other course which may be adopted is that of spoiling its constitution: either by adopting a high electoral qualification, or by joining to the elected members a certain number of members nominated by the government, or by making the assent of a Minister necessary to their more important acts. All these systems would be more intolerable to you & me & to most of those who think with us on general politics than even the present irregularity & want of system, & would be far more likely to last. These prudential reasons should, I think, prevent our friends from encouraging, or consenting to support, any plan for a single municipality.

But even in itself, a single municipality in so enormous a city seems to me unlikely to work well. There is far too much work to be done; the mass of details affecting only particular neighbourhoods, would leave too little time or energy to the council for maturing & carrying out general plans of improvement, and would, moreover, require it to be more numerous than is quite consistent with that purpose. Those who hold up as an example the local administration of Paris do not know what that administration is. Letting alone the fact that every single person connected with it is a Government nominee, it is not the fact that all Paris is under a single municipal administration; there is indeed but one Council, but there are 20 mayors, each of whom administers one of the 20 arrondissements. It is as much a double administration as that which would be given by our two bills, except that England being a free country, our mayors must have councils, and popularly elected ones, to assist & control them. I confess also I sh^d not like to restrict to a single popular body all that exercise of the business faculties on public concerns which does take place under the present local institutions with all their imperfections & which in England, & still more in America trains many men of no great ability or reach of thought to be quite capable of discharging important public functions & of watching & controlling their discharge by others. This is one of the great differences between free & unfree countries—practical intelligence in public affairs not confined to the government & its functionaries but diffused among private citizens. Our Vestries are bad schools, but yet those who organize public movements & bring the people of the locality to act together for one object, have mostly gained their first experience in the capacity of vestrymen & it might easily happen that the too great concentration of municipal action might leave London without a sufficient number of such persons.

1389.

TO T. E. CLIFFE LESLIE1

• A[vignon]

Feb. 8. 1869

Dear Mr. Leslie—

I have read your first letter in the Economist2 with great pleasure & your paper on La Creuse3 with much interest & instruction. It is very important to put such points as it contains before the conceited Englishmen who fancy they understand all that relates to the land & politics of France when they do not know the first rudiments of it, much less the many important matters you discuss. I look forward with great expectation to the other papers which you announce as in prospect,4 & shall not fail to weigh well what they say on political economy.

Many thanks for the trouble you have taken for M. Chauffard’s Mittermaier.5 I agree with you in going the complete length with Bentham as to the admissibility of evidence.6 There are I believe frequent cases like that you mention, of practical mischief both to the accused & to others from his not being examined as a witness. The one point on which alone B seems to me to be wrong is in allowing the judge to interrogate. But I have recently seen it stated that the prodigious abuse of this power which takes place in France, is in part owing to the fact that men are almost always made judges from having been public prosecutors, i.e. persons the whole business of whom it has been to find evidence of guilt: & not as with us from among barristers who have equally often had the duty of finding evidence of innocence. The reason is that the salaries of judges are not worth the acceptance of an advocate in good practice, & the salaries are small because in France there are everywhere courts of five judges or more where a much smaller number & in general one judge would suffice: thus does a single error in a system engender a series of others.

The physical illustrations in my Logic7 were all reviewed & many of them suggested by Bain, who has a very extensive & accurate knowledge of physical science. He has promised me to revise them thoroughly for the next edition,8 & to put them sufficiently in harmony with the progress of science, which I am quite aware that they have fallen behind.

1390.

TO JOSIAH SHERMAN1

• A[vignon]

Feb. 8, 1869

Dear Sir—

Your letter & the proposed address enclosed in it, reached me several days after the meeting to which you invited me.2

I do not think I could go to the full length of what is claimed in the address. I am very doubtful if the Gov^t ought to release all who may lie in prison for being connected for instance with the Clerkenwell outrage,3 or for having joined in the Fenian invasion of Canada.4 To those political prisoners who have shed no blood, or have shed it in the way of what may be called fair or legitimate insurrection on Irish soil I would, simultaneously with a fresh act of justice to Ireland, grant a full pardon with a public declaration that it is done from the hope that the willingness practically shewn to redress Irish injuries by legislation would induce the Irish in future to seek for redress only in that way & would thus render legal punishment unnecessary: But in rebellion as in war it seems to me that a distinction sh^d be made between fair weapons or modes of warfare & foul ones. And a good deal of thought would be required to decide exactly where the line should be drawn.

1391.

TO CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE1

• Avignon

Feb. 9, 1869

My dear Sir—

Ever since reading your book,2 which a variety of occupations prevented me from doing until very lately, I have felt desirous of expressing to you the very high sense I entertain of its merits, and the great pleasure which, as one who has turned much of his attention to the same subjects, I have felt at seeing such a number of sound judgments and such a sustained tone of right and worthy feeling, sent forth to the world in a style so likely to command attention, and by one who has now the additional vantage-ground of a seat in Parliament. It is long since any book, connected with practical politics, has been published, on which I build such high hopes of the future usefulness and distinction of the writer; showing as it does that he not only possesses a most unusual amount of real knowledge on many of the principal questions of the future, but a mind strongly predisposed to what are (at least in my opinion) the most advanced and enlightened views of them.

There are so few opinions expressed in any part of your book with which I do not, as far as my knowledge extends, fully and heartily coincide, that I feel impelled to take the liberty of noting the small number of points, of any consequence, on which I differ from you. These relate chiefly to India; though, on that subject also, I agree with you to a much greater extent than I differ. Not only do I most cordially sympathize with all you say about the insolence of the English, even in India, to the native population, which has now become, not only a disgrace, but, as you have so usefully shown, a danger to our dominion there; but I have been much struck by the sagacity which, in so short a stay as yours must have been, has enabled you to detect facts which are as yet obvious to very few: as, for instance, the immense increase of all the evils and dangers you have pointed out, by the substitution of the Queen’s army for a local force of which both men and officers had at least a comparatively permanent tie in the country; and again, that the superior authority in England, having the records of all the Presidencies before it, and corresponding regularly with them all, is the only authority which really knows India; the local governments and officers only knowing, at most, their own part of it, and having generally strong prejudices in favour of the peculiarities of the system of government there adopted and against those of the other parts. I observe that your preferences seem to be, as mine are, for the systems which give permanent rights of property to the actual cultivator, which is best done in the modern Bombay ryot-war system. I am sorry to say that there is at present a strong reaction in favour of setting up landlords everywhere,3 and what is worst, I am told, that this prevails most among the younger men (the hide-bound Toryism of Sir William Mansfield assisting); and there is great mischief of this kind in progress both in the Punjab and in the Central Provinces, notwithstanding the contrary predilections of Sir John Lawrence. What will happen under the Irish landlord who is now Viceroy,4 I dread to think.

But have you not, on the questions which concern the English planters, leant too much to their side? You have yourself stigmatized their treatment of the natives; and what better can be expected in a country where a station master kicks and cuffs the passengers and a captain of a steamer kicks the pilot round the deck whenever the vessel runs aground?5 If it could be right to make the breach of a contract to labour for the planters, under habitual treatment of this sort from them and their low nigger-drivers, a penal offence, the evil could not be so flagrant as your book shews it to be, and as it undoubtedly is: Another thing to be considered is that either a most unjust advantage would be given to European over native landholders and employers of labour, or the same legal remedy must be granted to both; and I suppose, even those who think that an English indigo planter and his underlings would not suborn witnesses to depose falsely in a criminal court, will admit that a native landowner would.

In your plan for the improvement of the organ of Indian government in England, you shew a just and enlightened appreciation of the necessity of making the organ a permanent one, in the sense of not going out with the Ministry. But this will not, and cannot be, if the organ is a Secretary of State, or any member of the Cabinet. No one who does not go out when the majority in Parliament changes, will, or ought to have a voice in the Cabinet which decides the general policy of the country. Neither is it likely to be thought right, nor indeed would it be right, that the Government of the empire should have no voice, not even a negative one, in the administration of its greatest dependency. If, then, the head administrator of India were not to be in the Cabinet, we should find that a Cabinet minister would be set over him to control him, as one was set to control the Court of Directors: and the nominal administrator, being only one person, and that one of inferior official rank, would have no power of resistance and would sink into a mere deputy. Would this be any improvement? I have always myself thought that a Board or Council for India, with a Cabinet minister to control them but not to sit among them, was the really best system for India: and I have given my reasons for this in the concluding chapter of my book on Representative Government.6 It is, however, impracticable to go back to this: and under the present system I think your own opinions will lead you to the conclusion that the Secretary of State must necessarily change with the Government and that the real knowledge of India which you hope to obtain in him by making him permanent, can only be found in a Council of advisers with at least as great powers as the present Council. It is quite another question whether the Council ought not to be more rapidly renewed. I am much disposed to think with you that its members should only be appointed (and should, exceptis excipiendis, only hold their seats) for five years: but, I think, they ought to be fully as numerous as at present, that all the different systems of administration in India may have somebody there who knows them well enough and has sufficient sympathy with them to correct any misunderstanding to their advantage.

You suggest that we should issue a proclamation declaring that for the future we will “invariably recognize the practice of adoption of children by the native rulers, as we have done in the case of the Mysore succession.”7 But this is what was actually done by Lord Canning’s famous Proclamation:8 and the hesitation about Mysore only arose from a doubt whether the great peculiarities of that case did not afford to those who disliked the Proclamation, some ground for contending that to that particular ruler (or nominal ruler) our faith was not pledged: It is a significant fact that not a single native ruler, with the doubtful exception of Dharwar, and the certain one of a few Delhi Jagendars to whom had been granted some amount of independent jurisdiction, went against us in the mutiny.9 The Hyderabad State did us real service by standing by us. The native princes are much more influenced by fear of anarchy, and of possible Sivajees10 and Hyder Ali’s,11 than by dislike of us.

I have noticed a few minor inaccuracies of fact on Indian matters; surprisingly few, considering all the circumstances. You say that the Persians and Afghans are Sheeahs, while our own Mussulmans are orthodox.12 The Afghans, unless my memory totally deceives me, are firm Soonees, the only Sheeahs in Afghanistan being the Kuzzilbashes, i.e. the Persian traders and settlers. Again, there are a good many Sheeahs in India, and I even think that the royal family of Oude were so.

It is rather harsh to call the Bengalees (p. 366) mere savages. As you doubtless know that some of them are the most cultivated of all the Hindoos, I conjecture that the Bengalees you mean are the Southals, or the wilder Garrows, Kookees, &c. and “the tribes of Central India” in the same passage are the Goands, Coles and other Aborigines. “Central India” includes the large province of Nagpore, or Berar, and the Sanger and Nerbuddo districts formerly attached to it; territories as popular, peaceable, and highly cultivated as most parts of India.

The working of the system of native assessors in courts of justice I only know practically in the case of the criminal international tribunals we have established in many districts—and in which the assessors are persons of some consequence: and there, having reviewed hundreds of the trials, I can testify that their opinion is often given against that of the presiding British officer, and that he shews considerable practical deference to it, especially as to the amount of punishment, for the sake of reconciling the native chiefs to these tribunals.

I was puzzled when I came, at p. 382, to the assertion, that “Switzerland is the home of the worst of bigotry and intolerance.” This is quite contrary to my impression of the religious condition of Switzerland.

You see that in order to find fault with anything, I have very soon got down to extremely small points, or to such as have very little to do with the general scope of the work. If there is any criticism of a somewhat broader character that I could make, I think it would be this—that (in speaking of the physical and moral characteristics of the populations descended from the English) you sometimes express yourself almost as if there were no sources of national character but race and climate—as if whatever does not come from race must come from climate, and whatever does not come from climate must come from race. But as you shew, in many parts of your book, a strong sense of the good and bad influences of education, legislation, and social circumstances, the only inference I draw is that you do not, perhaps, go so far as I do myself in believing these last causes to be of prodigiously greater efficacy than either race or climate or the two combined.

Thanking you most sincerely for the great pleasure and the very valuable information I have received from your book, I am

my dear Sir,
very sincerely yours

J. S. Mill

C. W. Dilke Esq. M.P.

1392.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN1

• Avignon

Feb. 16, 1869

Dear Sir

When your letter reached me, I happened to be particularly busy, and some days elapsed before I had time to read the article of which you forwarded to me a proof. My opinion of the article is such as it would be very painful to me to express to a writer your account of whom excites so much personal sympathy, and whose errors, if they be so, are on the side of Liberty; but I differ so completely from the practical conclusions of the article, not only on the points you mention but on almost every other, and a great proportion of its arguments both when I do not, and in the few cases in which I do agree with it, seem to me so weak and shallow, that I should regret to see the Westminster Review identifying itself with the writer’s opinions. A review in which the writers assumed the sole responsibility of their articles by affixing their signatures, would be in a rather different position. The Westminster used to have a department for articles which it thought worthy of publication without wishing to commit the Review to any greater degree of approval. Would it not be possible to put the article into that department?2

Respecting the French system of relief of the poor,3 what inaccuracy there is in the statements of the article is in saying that the French government “leaves the relief of the poor to private benevolence.” The poor have in France no legal right to relief, nor is relief granted (any more than in England) directly by the State; but very large sums, raised by taxation, are annually granted by the municipal councils, which are not, as in England, confined to a few towns, but cover the whole country; and these bodies also undertake the expenditure of sums contributed for the purpose by individuals. That the French poor are ‘quite as well if not better off than in England’ is difficult either to prove or disprove: the question has too many meanings, and requires consideration of so many circumstances. But if they are better off, it certainly is not for the reason alleged, for the public and private charity of France has precisely the same demoralizing effects as an ill administered poor law.

Your idea respecting Mr Peabody4 is good. I think the best mode of carrying it out would be to endeavour to interest him in the position of the Review without making a direct application for money, as he must be so overwhelmed with the number of such applications that his spontaneous impulse must always be to reject them. I am not acquainted with Mr Peabody, and cannot give an introduction to him; but one of my friends and correspondents at New York. Mr Brace5 (whom perhaps you know) seems to me a likely person to be able to judge in what manner it may be best to approach him; and, if you approve, I will advise with Mr Brace on the subject.

With regard to the new edition of my father’s Analysis,6 there is, forunately for the book, but unfortunately for the Review, a serious obstacle to Mr Grote’s writing a review of it, namely that he is himself the author of some of the notes. I should have no difficulty in getting the sheets beforehand, and the book itself will, I hope, be published very early in March.7

I am
Dear Sir
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Dr Chapman

1393.

TO CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE1

• Avignon

Feb. 19. 1869

Dear Sir—

If my letter gave you pleasure, yours has repaid it, not merely by the good part in which you have taken my criticisms, but because it contains things which confirm the best points of the conception I had formed of you from your book. What you call a “traveller’s trick” of gathering information from prejudiced and interested persons on both sides of every question is a trick which I wish many travellers would imitate, for it is simply the only way to form even an approximate judgment of the truth. But this mode of enquiry though the only one which brings out the most precious materials of knowledge, very much disturbs the process of adopting opinions ready made.

My object, however, in writing, is not to say this, but to express the pleasure it will give me to see you when I return to England, which will be in the course of next month, and to answer, as well as I can, your question about Tocqueville’s manuscripts.2 The person who is sure to possess full information about them and who probably has them in his charge is M. Ch. Revel,3 ancien Conseiller d’Etat whose address when I last corresponded with him (which however was several years ago) was 8 Rue du Marché d’Aguesseau, Paris. Or you might apply to the publisher of the collected edition of Tocqueville’s Works,4 Michel Lévy,5 Rue Vivienne.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

C. W. Dilke Esq. M.P.

1394.

TO FRANCES POWER COBBE1

• Avignon

Feb. 23^rd, 1869

Dear Miss Cobbe,

I have lately received communication from the American publisher Putnam,2 requesting me to write for their Magazine, and I understand that they would be very glad if you would write anything for them, more especially on the Women question,3 on which the Magazine (a new one) has shown liberal tendencies from the first. The communications I have received have been through Mrs. Hooker,4 sister of Mrs. Stowe5 and Dr. Ward Beecher,6 and herself the author of two excellent articles in the Magazine on the suffrage question,7 by which we had been much struck before we knew the authorship. I enclose Mrs. Hooker’s last letter to me, and I send by post copies of Mrs. Hooker’s articles and some old numbers of the Magazine, the only ones we have here; and I shall be very happy if I should be the medium of inducing you to write on this question for the American public.

My daughter desires to be kindly remembered, and I am,

Dear Miss Cobbe,
very truly yours,

J. S. Mill

P.S.—May I ask you to be so kind as to forward Mrs. Hooker’s letter to Mrs. P. A. Taylor, as she will see by it that Mrs. Hooker has no objection to put her name to a reprint of her articles.

1395.

TO HEWETT C. WATSON1

• A[vignon]

Feb. 24. 1869

Dear Sir—

The mode in which Convergence2 seems to me to combine itself with divergence in the generation of species, resembles what happens in the growth of a tree. The shoots from one of the larger branches approach & meet those from another, so that a large part of the growth of both is in the direction contrary to divergence, while yet the general circumference constantly enlarges, so that divergence, though limited by the counter-principle is yet in respect of the distance between its extremes, perpetually widening.

I do not understand that when Darwin adopted as his title “The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection” he meant by “origin of species” the cause of there being any species, or any diversity in organic nature. He seems to me to mean what you mean by the Formation of Species,3 viz. the origin of the species which now exist on the earth.

But I have not yet read, though I hope soon to have time to read, his latest & longest work.4

1396.

TO WILLIAM WOOD1

• Avignon

Feb 24, 1869

Dear Sir

Want of time has prevented me from immediately answering or acknowledging your letter of Jan 31; but you must not suppose, when this is the case, that I overlook your letters or that they are not both interesting and useful to me.

I have not forgotten the list of books which you wished for; but hitherto when I have seen one of them in a bookseller’s catalogue and have had time to go for it (not liking to buy a book without seeing it) I have found it gone. I may be more successful now, when my time will not be occupied by Parliament. It is unlucky that all the books you ask for the loan of, are books that I have not got. I wish there were any good history of the period you mention in England. Some portions of that period have been written about, but I do not know what books to recommend.

I am not acquainted with the letter you mention of Mr. Odger;2 but though he may have made an occasional mistake of judgment, I have a very high opinion of him both as to intentions and intelligence. Mr. Hartwell3 was not one of those working men whose candidature I helped though I was asked to do so: but though I myself knew nothing to his disadvantage, I had not evidence in his favour, as I had in the other cases. With regard to yourself, I have now had considerable means of judging of you from your letters, and as far as those means extend I should certainly say that you are one of the working men whom I should be glad to see in Parliament.

I am afraid, however, we should differ about the Factory Laws; though I doubt not that there are points in their working which require to be looked to, and probably defects which you would be able to point out. You seem, however, to object to their principle when you say they imply “either that the English manufacturer is of such a grasping spirit that he must needs be curbed lest he should overwork the juvenile portion of his employes as to deteriorate the population of the country; or, on the other hand, that the English parent is so needy or sordidly ignorant or brutishly cruel that he may not be trusted with the care and welfare of his own children, but that the State must undertake these duties for him.” Of the two things which you thus put alternatively, I believe both to be true: not, of course, true in all cases, or up to any extreme, but true to a sufficient extent and of a sufficient number to make it disastrous to leave the children, without legal protection, to the mere discretion of any kind of parents and any kind of employers of labour.

With regard to Boards of Arbitration, I do not as far as I am able to judge of the subject, think it possible to constitute an authority sufficiently capable, sufficiently trustworthy, or sufficiently likely to be trusted by both sides, to make it at all admissable that their award should be legally obligatory, unless the two parties to the dispute have beforehand voluntarily agreed to be bound by it. In this case they should of course be held to their pledge.

I am, however, so much occupied, that I have not time to write out my ideas on either of these subjects, and am forced to be content with a brief indication of them, which I do not wish published. I am

Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Mr William Wood

1397.

TO JOSEPHINE BUTLER1

[March, 1869]

I am of the opinion that every kind of effort, whether social or political, in favour of women should be encouraged, so long as it is honest and genuine; and I am persuaded that those who are in earnest will inevitably be led by experience to see the absolute necessity of political enfranchisement as both the foundation and the safeguard of human worth and happiness.

1398.

TO EDWARD LIVINGSTONE YOUMANS1

[March? 1869]

Dear Sir—

I have delayed answering your letter until I could tell you that the book on “The Subjection of Women” has gone to press. Mr Longman is apprised that Messrs Appleton accept his terms for this work, & he will make the necessary arrangements with their London agent respecting the plates &c.2 It will rest with Messrs Appleton to authorize the publication of any extracts in anticipation in the Journal.3 To me it cannot be otherwise than agreeable. The book will be published in London some time in May.4

I inclose in the form of a short letter to yourself,5 what you wished me to write on the subject of Mr Herbert Spencer’s works.

1399.

TO EDWARD LIVINGSTONE YOUMANS1

[March? 1869]

Dear Sir—

You ask my opinion concerning Mr Spencer’s “First Principles” & “Principles of Biology” as contributions to the advance of thought.2 I answer that I attach to them, in that respect, the very highest value. I am the more completely disinterested in this high estimation of them, as their line of investigation is extremely different & remote from my own, & I am far from being prepared (I do not know if Mr Spencer himself is prepared) to consider the long series of his conclusions as definitively proved. Still, it is not solely as a wonderful exhibition of connected & systematic thought, that these works appear to me worthy of admiration. They seem to me to hold a most important place in the scientific thought of the age. Within the present generation several large & comprehensive generalizations have made their way into Science—the Unity & Conservation of Force, the Darwinian theory of organic development, & (though this is rather a branch of the last) the hereditary transmission of acquired faculties. All these theories rest, in part, on well ascertained facts, while all of them, even the first, & much more the two others still remain hypothetical as to a great part of the extent & the application claimed for them. At this critical period in what will probably turn out to be one of the great transformations in Science, nothing could be more fortunate than that some person, with faculties so peculiarly adapted to the purpose as Mr Spencer’s sh^d have taken up the explanation of Nature on the new principles synthetically, setting out from them as true, & working out in detail what sort of an explanation they are capable of affording of the complicated world in which we live. Until this attempt was made, the theories in question, considered as universal laws of nature, could be neither verified nor disproved. And arduous as the attempt is, no one who studies these works of Mr Spencer is likely to deny that it has been made by a mind equal to it, & that it will mark a step in the progress of thought even if posterity should pronounce it (which I certainly do not expect) to be a splendid failure. Of Mr Spencer’s other writings it is unnecessary at present to say more than that I consider the contributions made to the analytic study of the human mind by the “Principles of Psychology” alone an ample foundation for a distinguished philosophical reputation.

1400.

TO GEORGE LAIDLAW1

• Black Heath Park
• Kent

March 7, 1869

Dear Sir:

I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 8th ultimo, with its inclosures respecting a plan for systematic emigration to Canada. The time is very favourable for the reception of such a plan in this country, as attention has of late been called in an unusual degree to the miserable state of the English agricultural laborers, and to the possibility of making emigration available for their relief; and Mr. Goschen,2 the new President of the Poor Law Board, has declared in Parliament that the subject is under his consideration, with a view, however, to the United States rather than to Canada.3

It would be highly desirable that the promoters of your plan should enter into direct communication with Mr. Goschen, and that he should be enabled as soon as possible to judge what amount of assistance the Canadian Government may be willing to offer toward the cost of the emigration.

I am, dear Sir, yours very faithfully,

J. S. Mill

G. Laidlaw, Esq.

1401.

TO THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

March 9, 1869

My dear Mr Huxley

It gives me great pleasure to cooperate with you in so useful a project.2 My daughter Miss Helen Taylor, and I, request that we may be put down as members, and I inclose our subscriptions for the first year and a donation of £5.

If you are disengaged on Sunday next, will you give us the pleasure of taking an early dinner with us at five? There is a North Kent train from Charing Cross at 4.5, and my house is about ten minutes walk from the Blackheath station at the extreme further end (the last house but one) in Blackheath Park. I am

my dear Mr Huxley
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Professor Huxley

1402.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1

• Blackheath Park, Kent

March 11, 1869

Dear Sir—

Immediately on receiving your letter of January 19, I wrote to Sir Charles Trevelyan, who is the principal author of Competitive Examination as applied to the Civil Service in England and India.2 He at once undertook to write to you, and to furnish you with all the information in his power, and I presume he has done so before this time. The question seems to me, if possible, even more important in the United States than in this country. I have long thought that the appointments to office, without regard to qualifications, are the worst side of American institutions: the main cause of what is justly complained of in their practical operation, and the principal hindrance to the correction of what is amiss; as well as a cause of ill-repute to democratic institutions all over the world. If appointments were given, not by political influence, but by open competition, the practice of turning out the holders of office, at every change in politics, in order to reward partisans, would necessarily cease, and with it nearly all the corruption and the larger half of the virulence of mere party conflict. I have been delighted to see that Mr. Jenckes’ measure3 meets with increasing support from disinterested opinion, though it will have to encounter the utmost hostility from the professional politicians who are the great perverters of free government. . . .

J. S. Mill

1403.

TO WILLIAM LONGMAN1

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

March 12. 1869

Dear Sir—

D^r Youmans probably thought (as I did myself) that time did not allow of making any arrangement for the Analysis. But he hopes to do so for any of my future writings & he has no objection to your conditions.2

You are a much better judge than I can be of what publication it is advisable to send copies to. Only I should recommend adding the Revue des Deux Mondes, and I wish two copies each instead of one to be sent to Mr Bain, Mr Findlater & Mr Grote; at my expense if necessary. I inclose an additional list of persons & public bodies to whom I wish presentation copies to be sent on my account.

I was not aware that you were waiting for instructions as to the payment of the balance into Prescott’s3 but I will attend to the matter in future.

1404.

TO JOHN TULLOCH1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

March 12.1869

My dear Sir

I send today by book post to your address, the three Essays which competed for this year’s prize.2 Would you kindly inform me whether books addressed simply at the University of St Andrews, would reach the writers?

I have directed Mess^rs Longman to send you a copy of the new edition of my father’s “Analysis” of which I beg your acceptance, and also a copy to the University. I wish to send copies to the gentlemen who gained the previous year’s prizes, but I have unluckily mislaid the address of Mr. Stewart. I should be much obliged to you if you would kindly send it to me. I am

My dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

The Very Reverend

Principal Tulloch, D.D.

1404A.

TO JOHN VENN1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

March 15. 1869

Dear Sir

Your letter reached Avignon after I had left for England, but has followed me here. In reply I beg to say that you are free to make unrestricted use of my former letter,2 and it would give me much pleasure to hear of your success.

I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

J. Venn

1405.

TO HENRY REEVE1

Blackheath Park, March 16th
[1869]

Dear Sir,

Would it suit the “Edinburgh Review” to take an article from me on Mr. Thornton’s book on Labour?2 The book is of great ability; and, though there is much of it with which I do not agree, I think it a really important contribution to political economy, as well as to the particular subject of which it treats. My object would be to recommend the book to the consideration of thinkers, pointing out at the same time how far, and in what, I think it erroneous; which is chiefly in some of its premises, for I agree generally in its conclusions, respecting trades-unions, co-operation, and the ultimate future of labour.

I am, Dear Sir, yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1406.

TO WILLIAM WOOD1

• Blackheath Park Kent

March 17. 1869

Dear Sir

The National Society for Women’s Suffrage has decided to try to get up a petition to Parliament this year from every borough in England in favour of Women’s Suffrage,2 to be sent up to one of the members for each borough. The Society has found friends and correspondents in all but about ninety boroughs, and a list of these ninety has been sent to my daughter that she may endeavour to find friends in some of them who will interest themselves in getting signatures to a petition. Among these boroughs which the Society has as yet no correspondents is Stoke upon Trent, and remembering the interest you expressed in the subject last year, my daughter has asked me to ask you if you will take up the matter. What is wanted is simply to give away copies of the pamphlets circulated by the Society, to such people as you think will be influenced by them or who will give them away in turn among their friends, and to solicit signatures to the petition as widely as possible, giving a copy of the petition to be filled in with signatures to everybody who you think will be willing to interest him or herself in getting it filled. There is no need that the petition should be sent up for two or three months, so that there is time to get in plenty of signatures, and the London Society will be happy to send down any number of pamphlets, circulars, and printed copies of the petition for signature. We forward by this post some copies of all of these, and if your Mother and yourself will in this manner procure a petition, even if it be not numerously signed it will be rendering a useful service to this great cause. I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Mr William Wood

1407.

TO HENRY REEVE1

March 18th [1869]

Dear Sir—

I shall have much pleasure in writing a notice of Mr. Thornton’s book for the “Edinburgh Review,”2 and shall, of course, put what I have to say in a form somewhat different from that in which I should write for another publication. My own point of view does not exactly coincide either with that of Mr. Thornton or with that of the “Edinburgh” Reviewer to whom he refers;3 and, of course, I must be free to express my own view, and that only. Mr. Thornton is certainly a defender of trades-unions, to the extent of thinking that their existence is an important defence and protection to the operatives, and that they often cause a rise of wages when, though right and desirable, it would not otherwise have taken place. On these points, I think, Mr. Thornton has fully made out his case. On the other hand, he condemns some of the aims and rules of trades-unions; and is quite alive to their liability to carry their legitimate aims (rise of wages and diminished hours of work) to a length which may injure both themselves and their employers by driving the trade elsewhere. For the correction of this evil he looks to the lessons of experience and increased intelligence, and to amiable discussion between the parties. In these various opinions I entirely agree, and I should feel bound to express them in anything I write on the subject. It is for you to decide whether they would be unsuitable for publication in the “E. Review.”

With regard to your suggestion for reviewing the Report of the Commission,4 do you purpose that this should be done in the same or in a separate article? Since, in that case, it would be necessary to express an opinion on the question of prohibiting by law those employments of trades-union funds which may be decided to be illegitimate; and, moreover, of giving efficacy to the legal prohibition by the appointment of a public prosecutor expressly for its enforcement. These are very grave questions, and I am not yet prepared to give a final opinion on every part of them, though I am clearly against adopting some of the recommendations of the majority of the Commission, as reported in to-day’s papers.5 I think that the systematic enforcement of legal penalties against strikes, even for undesirable objects, would be the commencement of a feud between employers and workmen, and between workmen and the Government, more internecine than we have ever yet seen.

I am, dear Sir, yours ever truly

J. S. Mill

1408.

TO CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

March 19 [1869]

Dear Sir

If you are in town at Easter, I should be very glad to see you, if you would like to come down and dine with me on Easter Sunday. I dine at five, and there is a train by the North Kent railway from Charing Cross at 4.5. My house (the last but one at the further end of Blackheath Park) is about ten minutes walk from the Blackheath station.

Or I shall be here either of the two following Sundays April 4 and 11, and should be happy to see you on either day, either in the morning or to a five o’clock dinner; but after that, I am returning to Avignon for a month or two.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

C. W. Dilke Esq., M.P.

1409.

TO PASQUALE VILLARI1

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

March 19. 1869

J’avais remarqué, mon cher M. Villari, que depuis longtemps je n’avais pas de vos nouvelles; cette intermission n’est que trop expliquée par la lettre que je viens de recevoir. La sympathie la plus vive et la plus sincère ne peut presque rien pour consoler dans un si grand malheur.2 Dans l’affreuse souffrance des premiers temps c’est presqu’une moquerie que d’en offrir. Maintenant le temps est venu pour vous de ce profond abattement, cette perte de tout intérêt dans la vie, que je comprends si bien, et qui serait presqu’aussi dur à supporter, s’il n’y avait un moyen un seul, de soulagement, pour celui qui est capable de trouver un attrait dans le travail désintéressé pour le bien des autres. Ceux qu’une grande douleur privée a dégoûtés de tous les intérêts personnels, ont souvent fini par trouver une véritable consolation et un renouvellement d’energie dans la concentration de leur sensibilité et de leur intelligence sur des travaux ayant pour but l’amélioration morale, intellectuelle ou physique de leur semblables. C’est là ce que j’espère pour vous. Vous êtes un homme très précieux pour votre pays, très supérieur par la pensée et par les talents au niveau commun des hommes dans quelque pays que ce soit. Nul pays plus que le vôtre n’a besoin de ces qualités dans ses citoyens et aucun n’offre un champ plus vaste et plus propice pour les exercer. Vous avez un amour de votre pays qui je suis sûr, n’a pas sombré dans le naufrage de votre bonheur personnel. Tout ce qu’il y a de soulagement possible dans un malheur comme le vôtre, vous l’éprouverez quand vous vous sentirez capable de vous remettre à quelque travail important pour le bien général, et de nature à exiger toutes vos forces intellectuelles.

Vous trouverez peutêtre que je parle bien à mon aise de travail à un homme accablé de douleur, étant moi même dans un état de contentement personnel que je n’avais éprouvé de longtemps. En effet, je suis comme un soldat licencié qui retourne à ses foyers pour y jouir du plus grand privilège qu’une vie de travail puisse offrir, le libre choix de ses occupations. Pendant que j’étais député je ne jouissais cette liberté que pendant trois ou quatre mois de l’année. Pendant ce temps je vaquais à mes études philosophiques, et j’avais préparé une nouvelle édition du grand traité de psychologie de mon père,3 avec des notes par moi même et par d’autres de ses successeurs dans la même école philosophique. Cette nouvelle édition vient d’être livrée au public, et l’exemplaire que je vous avais envoyé avant de recevoir votre lettre, vous parviendra, j’espère, en peu de jours. Maintenant je vais publier un travail où la question des femmes4 est traitée avec plus d’étendue que dans tout ce qui a paru jusqu’ici en faveur de leur affranchissement. Cette cause fait ici un progrès très rapide, et un si grand nombre de femmes, et des plus distinguées, ont répondu à l’appel qui leur a été fait, que le succès, bien qu’encore éloigné, ne me le paraît plus autant qu’il y a trois ans. Ce petit traité vous parviendra, j’espère, peu de temps après l’autre.

Je tiens plus que jamais à avoir de vos nouvelles, et je vous prie de m’en donner fréquemment. De mon côté j’espère avoir à l’avenir plus de loisir pour vous écrire.

1410.

TO HENRY FAWCETT1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

March 22. 1869

Dear Mr Fawcett

I have considerable difficulty in judging from outside of any question of political tactics, during the present transitional state of politics. And the questions you put to me are essentially questions of tactics;2 for, on the substantial issues, there can hardly be any difference of opinion. The landlords undoubtedly get what they have no right to; for though they are charged a fair price for the tithe, the State, in one sense of the word, pays that price for them, by lending them money at a much lower rate than they themselves can borrow at; just as it lends them its money or credit for the improvement of their land. Thus it undoubtedly makes a present to them; but as that present costs itself nothing, consisting only in giving them the benefit of its better credit, the Government may be right, as a matter of tactics, in granting them this advantage, which costs nothing to anybody. Again, to employ the resumed national property, or a part of it, in education, would be a far better application of it than the one proposed; but the measure would then no longer tend to a reconcilement of religious differences. The application of any of the money to the Queen’s Colleges or to undenominational schools, would be vehemently opposed by the whole Catholic party. The battle of unsectarian education will have to be fought, but we may hope to fight it with better support if this measure has first passed, retaining completely the character of a healing measure. It seems to me too that Ireland has a just claim on the general taxation of the empire for all that it requires in the way of education: and inasmuch as unsectarian education is contrary to the wish of the great majority of the Irish people, that at least can with much greater propriety be charged upon general taxation, than upon a fund belonging to Ireland, as the Church property does. What can be said on the other side of both these points will occur to yourself; and I am by no means against criticising these provisions of the Bill in a speech. With regard to any directly hostile movement against them (which would certainly be unsuccessful) I doubt if any advantage would arise from it equivalent to the bad effect of an apparent want of unanimity in the Liberal party in carrying through this measure. I do not feel able to give a more positive opinion on the subject.

My daughter desires to be kindly remembered to Mrs Fawcett and yourself, and I am

Dear Mr Fawcett
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Henry Fawcett Esq. M.P.

1411.

TO ALFRED HYMAN LOUIS1

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

March 22, 1869

Dear Sir—

The idea of an Academy of Moral & Political Science has often presented itself to my mind; as it could hardly fail to present itself to any one who has been all his life speculating & thinking on social questions & who has studied the institutions and ideas of foreign countries. But the result of the thought I have given to the subject, has always been unfavourable.

The Society, or Academy, would either be a public body, or a mere private association. If a public body, the original members would be named by the Government; subsequent vacancies might be filled up, as in France, by the votes of the body itself. If the Gov^t acted honestly in the matter, which we will suppose it to do, it would appoint the persons of highest reputation as writers or thinkers on moral, social, & political subjects without (it is to be hoped) any regard to their opinions; for to pay any regard to these would simply mean to exclude all whose opinions were in advance of the age. This then being supposed, what sort of a body would be the result? An assemblage of persons of utterly irreconcilable opinions, who would hardly ever be sufficiently unanimous on any question to exercise, as a body, any moral or intellectual influence over it; while amidst this medley of opinions there would be an assured majority in favour of what is conservative & commonplace, because such is invariably the tendency of the majority of those whose reputation is already made. In consequence, the subsequent elections by the members, to fill vacancies, would be decidedly worse than we are supposing the original choice to be; for men of the highest eminence would often not be elected if any of their opinions were obnoxious to the arriéré majority. Guizot,2 Thiers,3 & Cousin4 while he lived, ruled the French Academy of Moral & Political Sciences & very few who were not of their opinions were, or now are, admitted into it.5 The Académie Française rejected Littré,6 the man who by his single efforts was doing admirably the whole work which the Academy was specially appointed to do. Even Academies of physical science in which there is less difference of opinions, always consist, in majority, of trained mediocrities, while the men whose footsteps mark the great advances in science often do not succeed during their whole lives in obtaining admission. Originality, scientific genius, is in general looked shyly upon by the majority of scientific men; & it is of the majority that Academies, however honestly constituted, will be the representatives.

If, on the other hand, the Society was not a public organised body, but was composed of volunteers rallying round some common standard, it would not materially differ from any voluntary association of persons agreeing in some of their opinions & would carry no more weight than any other set of men who unite to assist and back one another in the propagation of their particular doctrines.

It does not seem to me possible by any combination, to make the collective force of scientific thought available as a power in social affairs. The French Academies never have been such a power: the Academy of Moral & Political Sciences is neither consulted, nor, as a body, puts forth any opinions, or exercises any moral or political action, except by offering prizes for Essays. Its Transactions, consisting of the papers read before it, are published, but one seldom sees them quoted or referred to. Its individual members have such influence as their talents or character may give them, but collective influence it has none.

Having given you the reasons which make me fear that the results you anticipate from the formation of an Academy of M. & P.S. would not be realised, allow me now to express the great pleasure which our short conversation gave me & the satisfaction I should have in cooperating with you on the subject of the Alabama claims7 & I doubt not, on many other important matters. There is such a lack of energy & earnestness in all classes above manual labourers, & those who have any wish or capacity for improved ideas are so shrinkingly afraid of what will be said of them & so daunted by the smallest obstacle that it is a dies albo notandus8 on which one meets with any man of intelligence who feels and thinks as you did both in the Commons Soc^y,9 in our conversation afterwards & now in your letter.

1412.

TO HENRY REEVE1

March 22nd [1869]

I was much surprised at what seemed like a proposal on your part to write reviews both of the Trades-Union Commission Report and also of Mr. Thornton’s book;2 and I am not at all surprised to find that your meaning was to include a review of both in one article. This, however, will not suit me, nor, indeed, could I undertake a review of the Trades Commission Report,3 even separately, for a considerable time to come; and I do not intend to defer writing on Mr. Thornton’s book until I write on the Trades Commission Report. For this and various other reasons, with many apologies for the trouble I have given you, I decide to withdraw my proposal altogether. I am much obliged to you for your willingness to insert an article by me on a subject in which there are considerable differences of opinion between us, and remain, dear Sir, yours very truly,

J. S. Mill

1413.

TO THEODOR GOMPERZ1

• Blackheath Park

March 23, 1869

I am not sure whether, when I last wrote to you, I mentioned the work in which I was engaged, of preparing a new edition of my father’s “Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind” with Notes, bringing up the subject to the latest improvements in psychology. This is now complete, and the notes, to which Mr Grote has contributed, and in which Mr Bain has given, in a condensed form, the most important thoughts of his systematic treatises, form I think a very valuable addition to the original work. I hope you have received the copy I directed the publisher to send. . . . How is the edition (of the translation)2 proceeding? . . .

1414.

TO WILLIAM GEORGE WARD1

29th March, 1869.

The purpose of those who have projected the Society2 mentioned in your letter is a laudable one, but it is very doubtful whether it will be realised in practice. Oral discussion on matters dependent on reasoning may be much more thorough than when carried on by written discourse, but only I think if undertaken in the manner of the Socratic dialogue, between one and one. None of the same advantages are obtained when the discussion is shared by a mixed assemblage. Even, however, as a kind of debating society on these great questions the Society may be useful, especially to its younger members. But my time is all pre-engaged to other occupations, and I do not expect any such benefit, either to others or to myself, from my taking part in the proceedings of the Society, as would justify me in putting aside other duties in order to join it.

It is very natural that those who are strongly convinced of the truth of their opinions should think that those who differ from them do not duly weigh their arguments.3 I can only say that I sincerely endeavour to do the amplest justice to any argument which is urged, and to all I can think of even when not urged, in defence of any opinions which I controvert.

1415.

TO EDWARD WILLIAM FITHIAN1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

April 6. 1869

Dear Sir

Under the explanation given in your note, and in the understanding that the local Committee are to act in concert with, and under the general guidance of, the Committee of the Commons Preservation Society, I am willing to be a member of the Blackheath Committee, though unable to attend its meetings. I am Dear Sir

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

E. W. Fithian Esq.

1416.

TO WILLIAM WOOD1

• Blackheath Park Kent

April 6. 1869

Dear Sir

It is not desired that the petitions should be presented simultaneously.2 They are presented as they come in; and there is seldom a sitting of the House at which one or more are not presented. But as they will not be too late any period of the session, it is worth while to keep them back as long as there seems a prospect of obtaining more signatures to them.

The rules of the House require that petitions should be in manuscript not print. The printed copies are circulated for signature, and the signatures afterwards cut off, and pasted or gummed on to the manuscript; not forgetting, however, that there must be at least one signature on the very sheet on which the petition is written.

When I leave unnoticed any point in your letter, you may safely ascribe it to want of leisure. Your views on the registration of voters being very much in accordance both with my own, and with those which seem to me to be generally entertained by the Liberal party, I had no particular reason for dwelling on the subject.

I am glad we do not differ fundamentally on the subject of the Factory Acts. I am quite prepared to find that the provision for education in those Acts, though effectual in some cases, is almost inoperative in others, and that even as regards hours of labour the machinery of the Acts is often not efficacious.

I return Mr Melly’s3 letter, and am

Dear Sir yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Mr William Wood

1417.

TO LORD AMBERLEY1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

April 9, 1869

Dear Lord Amberley

It gave me much pleasure to hear from you, and to find my anticipation confirmed, that you would enjoy your liberation from trammels as much as I do myself.2 There certainly is no blessing in human life comparable to liberty; for those at least, who having any good uses to put it to, can indulge themselves in it with a good conscience. I envy you the pleasure of having got to a Latin classic.3 I hope to be able to give myself the same satisfaction by and by. I have not read a Greek or Latin book for at least half a dozen years, with the exception of Plato, whom I read quite through preparatory to reviewing Mr Grote’s account of him.4 Cicero’s philosophical writings are very pleasant reading and of considerable value historically, as our principal authority for much of the speculations of the Greek philosophical sects, and a brilliant specimen of the feelings of the best sort of accomplished and literary Romans towards the close of the Republic: but as philosophy they are not worth much, and I like his Orations and Letters better. It is true I am much interested in everything that relates to that great turning point of history, the going out of what was left of liberty in the ancient world; and that calm after the storm, that tragical pause at the beginning of the down-hill rush, which is called the Augustan age—so solemn in its literary monuments,5 so deformed by the presence of Augustus in it.6 No historian has treated that cunning, base, and cruel adventurer as he deserved, except Arnold in the Enc. Metropolitana,7 and Ampère in “L’Empire Romain à Rome”:8 merely because Virgil and Horace flattered him.

But this kind of reading after all is but recreation, unless one is making a particular study of history in order to write it, or for some philosophical purpose. Psychology, ethics, and politics in the widest sense of the term, are the really important studies now, both for one’s own instruction, and for exercising a useful influence over others.

The Endowed Schools Bill9 will do a great deal of good, if the proper use is made of the powers which it assumes; and Forster’s speech10 shews that he at least intends to do the best. Let us hope that he will have sufficient firmness of his own, and sufficient support from others, not merely to carry the Bill, for that is little, but to work it according to the recommendations of the School Inquiry Commissioners.11 I honour D^r Temple12 and Acland13 for producing so good a report, for I have no doubt it is mainly their doing.

It will be very pleasant to see you and Lady Amberley at Avignon,14 if we do not sooner. With our kind regards to her I am, Dear Lord Amberley

very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1418.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

• Blackheath Park

April 9, 1869

Dear Mr Cairnes

First and foremost let me express the great pleasure it gives me to hear of the progressive improvement in your health. Seeing how well the dry and stimulating climate of Nice seems to have agreed with you, and that it has not disagreed with M^rs Cairnes, I confess to some misgiving as to the prudence of your passing next winter in the damp and depressing climate of this island, which is dampest and cloudiest when it is mildest. But you, and your medical adviser, are better judges than I can be.

With regard to the “Analysis”,2 for which you thank me so warmly, I know no one on whom it is better bestowed, nor any one to whom it was a greater pleasure to offer it. I shall have another book to offer you very soon; a volume of about the size of the “Liberty”, on the “Subjection of Women.” It is not specially on the Suffrage question, but on all the questions relating to women’s domestic subordination and social disabilities, all of which it discusses more fully than has been done hitherto. I think it will be useful, and all the more, as it is sure to be very bitterly attacked.

I am on the point of sending to the Fortnightly the first part of a review of Thornton’s book;3 the purely economical part. I shall be very desirous of knowing whether you agree with my judgment of the book from the purely scientific point of view. I feel pretty sure you will concur in what I have written on the so-called wages fund, a subject on which I expressed myself in my Political Economy as inaccurately as other people, and which I have only within the last two or three years seen in its proper light. On the other subject on which you think Thornton vulnerable, the losing sight of the population principle, it would have been better, perhaps, if he had added a few pages on the relation of that question to his doctrine; but I have no idea that he has changed any of the opinions which are so strongly expressed in his former writings on that subject.4 Most of the notices of his book have been just what you describe: but there have been two lately, which probably you had not yet seen—a most crabbed and cantankerous one in the Spectator,5 and a very friendly and generous one (apparently by Mr Hill) in the Daily News.6 It is very amusing in this and other cases to see how the tyros in Political Economy think themselves bound to give no quarter to heresies, being afraid to make any of the concessions which their masters make.

With regard to Gladstone’s bill, it was at first a disappointment to find that nothing better was to be done with the Church property than what is proposed.7 But I do not know how to complain; for the only better use to which the funds could be put is Education, and it was hardly to be desired that the Government should force on the fierce quarrel about Irish Education with the Church question still unsettled.8 Besides the probability that to do so might have compromised the passing of the measure it would, even when carried, have no longer been of any efficacy in allaying Irish discontent, unless, indeed, a complete surrender had been made of education to the priests. At present, this bill, at least, has been made completely satisfactory to Catholic feeling, and it will be all the more practicable to fight the education question hereafter—when there is some hope that English elementary education may first have been settled, on something like an undenominational basis.

Another reason against throwing any avoidable difficulty in the way of Church disendowment, is that its completion will open the way for the land question. It has been for some time apparent that when the religious supremacy of Protestantism is at an end, the Presbyterians of the North, and even many Orangemen, will join hands with the tenantry of the South on the land question, and the junction is coming to pass, even more quickly than could have been expected. The motion brought forward by Johnstone9 and seconded by the O’Donoghue for the repeal of the Party Processions Act, is a very significant incident.

I agree with you that the tithe rent charge is a very good tax; but it could not have been taken for state purposes, and it would have been a very inconvenient property to be held by Commissioners for the management of Hospitals, &c.

I look forward with great pleasure to seeing you but not at Blackheath in May, for it would be making little use of our recovered liberty not to spend in the South, for the first time since 1865, the beautiful spring months. We leave for Avignon next Tuesday, and expect to be back here early in July.

I am
Dear Mr Cairnes
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

J. E. Cairnes Esq.

1419.

TO WILLIAM FRASER RAE1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

April 9, 1869

Dear Mr Rae

I have not seen Mr M^cLean’s pamphlet,2 nor have I any pamphlets or other works expressing the Protectionist doctrines held in Canada or Australia. I have only seen these doctrines put forth in newspapers which I have not kept. But there is a very good summary in Mr Dilke’s “Greater Britain”3 of the arguments which he himself heard used in the Colonies, particularly in Australia, and which he considers to be those which are mainly influential with the supporters of Protectionism there.

The pseudo-scientific arguments for Protection are given at wearisome length in H. C. Carey’s “Social Science”,4 which, take it for all in all, I consider to be about the worst book on political economy I ever read: an opinion which I was amply prepared to justify immediately after toiling through it. This book gives Protectionism the prestige of scientific authority in the United States, but its elaborate reasonings are not likely to be those which carry conviction to the multitude. I take it that the popular argument is, as stated to me by Mr Wells,5 and in the Essay by D^r Leavitt6 to which the Cobden Club has given its medal—that if American labourers are compelled to compete with the pauper labour of Europe, they also will be reduced to pauperism. The fallacy is plausible, and a good many of the English freetraders would be puzzled to give it a satisfactory answer. If you can make the answer such as the general reader will understand, you will do a very valuable work.

I am Dear Mr Rae
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

W. F. Rae Esq.

1420.

TO THOMAS CARLYLE1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

April 12. 1869

Dear Carlyle

I have just received, through Mrs Grote, the two volumes of Evelyn,2 to gether with your kind note. The former I had entirely forgotten. The latter would have revived, if they had ever been dormant, many old memories and feelings.

Blackheath Park, Kent, is a sufficient address. We are, however, going abroad tomorrow, but mean to return in the summer; and any communication from you—not to mention your bodily presence—would be always most welcome to

yours truly

J. S. Mill

Thomas Carlyle Esq.

1421.

TO JOSHUA GIRLING FITCH1

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

April 12. 1869

Dear Sir

I am very happy to learn from your letter of April 10 that our opinions do not differ so materially as I was afraid they did. May I be permitted to suggest the good which you might do by putting the substance of your letter into a communication to the Editor of the Fortnightly,2 who I have no doubt would be happy by inserting it to correct whatever unintended injustice my article may have done you & at the same time to give the benefit of your high authority to the essential doctrines of the article.

1422.

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL1

• Avignon

le 18 avril 1869

Mon cher d’Eichthal

Je n’étais pas à St. Véran lorsque votre lettre du 30 mars y est parvenue, et je l’ai reçue trop tard pour me servir du bulletin de vote que vous m’avez adressé: Du reste, l’association2 n’avait pas besoin de mon vote. Le choix du personnel doit ordinairement rester à ceux qui prennent une part active aux travaux. Quant à moi, je suis un membre très inutile de l’Association, bien que vivement intéressé à son but.

Si je reste quelquefois longtemps sans donner de mes nouvelles à un ancien ami comme vous, il ne faut l’attribuer qu’au manque de loisir. Je reçois, pour mon malheur, un très grand nombre de lettres, dont beaucoup ont besoin d’une réponse, et même d’une réponse réfléchie et soignée, portant sur des choses publiques ou privées où je suis personellement désintéressé; et lorsque j’ai, à grand peine, distrait de mes occupations le temps nécessaire pour remplir ce devoir, il ne me reste, en général ni le temps ni l’énergie d’écrire à mes propres amis à moins d’une nécessité pressante. J’ai donc à les prier d’user de l’indulgence envers moi, et de ne me conserver pas moins leurs bon sentiments.

Je vous envoie un mandat de poste pour la souscription annuelle. Si je la dois plus d’une année, je vous prie de vouloir bien m’en avertir. J’ai lu tous vos articles dans le Temps,3 et je vous félicite du progrès de l’Association. Je voudrais bien pouvoir féliciter également la Grèce sous le rapport politique; mais l’insurrection Crétoise,4 qui semblait lui promettre des avantages précieux, n’a servi que de leurre, et a seulement laissé les Grecs encore plus dénués qu’auparavant des ressources nécessaires pour le bon gouvernement de leur pays. Je n’ai pas besoin de dire que toutes mes sympathies sont avec eux; mais dans l’état présent de l’Europe, la Grèce n’a pas d’autres chances d’agrandissement qu’en travaillant à la prospérité intérieure. Contrairement à une opinion malheureusement très répandue, je crois les Grecs très dignes et très capables d’un gouvernement libre. Mais ils souffrent du fléau de toutes les nations dont les citoyens n’ont pas l’habitude ou le loisir de s’occuper de la chose publique, sans remission. Ils laissent les affaires nationales à des hommes qui pratiquent la politique comme un métier pour vivre, et qui partout, même aux Etats-Unis, s’ils ne sont pas contenus par une opinion publique forte et prononcée. conduisent les affaires dans le sens de leur propre intérêt pécuniaire. Je ne vois à cela de remède permanent que dans une grande prospérité matérielle, qui permettrait à un nombre considérable d’hommes intelligents de mener une certaine attention aux intérêts publics de front avec leurs propres affaires. Ajoutez à cela les bonnes voies de communications qui permettraient une combinaison plus facile entre des efforts aujourd’hui isolés, et la Grèce ne serait plus exploitée comme elle l’est aujourd’hui par des place-hunters.

Votre toujours affectioné

J. S. Mill

1423.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

• Avignon

April 19. 1869

Dear Mr Cairnes

On the day of our arrival here, I received your kind note. I will have your copy of the book2 sent, as soon as it is published, to the address you mention.

I cannot feel very positive in my opinion as to the questions of policy connected with the proposed disposal of the Church property, especially as you do not agree with me.3 But my impression has been, all along, that it would have been extremely difficult to pass a bill for disendowment through even the House of Commons, without deciding, in the Bill itself, what should be the application of the funds. People are very suspicious in Church matters, and a large proportion of the warmest supporters of disendowment would have suspected the Government of meditating some employment of the money which they did not yet dare disclose; probably, to give it, in some form, to the Catholic clergy.

If, in your journey to Aix, your way lies through Avignon, I hope you will give us an opportunity of snatching a sight of you as you pass. If so, perhaps you will kindly write me a line a few days before the time when we may expect you, so that we may not be absent on an excursion exactly at the time. We do not intend to make any long journey this year; nevertheless we shall not be quite stationary here through the spring, but shall make many excursions of a few days or a fortnight’s length in the neighbourhood, and probably some as far as the Pyrenees. But we shall always be returning here for our letters, &c and resting in the intervals; and as our movements in this respect will be decided chiefly by our inclinations and the exigencies of weather, if we had any reason to expect either you or Mrs Cairnes at any particular time we would arrange to be at home for that time.

My daughter and myself desire our best regards to M^rs Cairnes, and I am

Dear Mr Cairnes
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1424.

TO ELIZABETH CADY STANTON1

Avignon, April 25, 1869

Dear Madam—

You have done me the honor to inform me of the Convention about to be held in New York on the subject of Woman’s Suffrage,2 and you ask me for a letter on the occasion. I would gladly comply with the request, but the cause, in America, has advanced beyond the stage at which it could need a recommendation from me, or from any man. It is not to be believed that the nation which is now engaged in admitting the newly-liberated negro to the plenitude of all political franchises, will much longer retain women in a state of helotage which (as is truly remarked in the letter of invitation issued by your Association) is now more degrading than ever, because, being no longer shared by any of the male sex, it constitutes every woman the inferior of every man. The late glorious struggle has shaken old prejudices, and has brought men to a feeling that the principles of your democratic institutions are not mere phrases, but are meant to be believed and acted upon towards all persons; and I am persuaded that the political equality which is now refused to no one else, will be conceded to women as soon as a sufficiently large number of them unite in demanding it. I therefore heartily wish success to the approaching demonstration.

I am, dear madam, very sincerely yours,

J. S. Mill

1425.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

• Avignon

May 2. 1869

Dear Chadwick

Lord Russell’s bill,2 and its favourable reception by the Lords, are no further of importance than as shewing the need which the Lords feel of strengthening their position. So small a number of life members would do little good even if they were always honestly selected, which they will not be. A few good names may be put in at first, but, as a rule, the life peerage will be a refuge for the mediocrities of past administrations. If now and then a thoughtful and vigorous man gets in, he will, no doubt, have the means of publicly speaking his thoughts, but to an inattentive audience; for the Peers are too stupid and too conservative to be moved, except by a party leader who they think will carry distinctions to the utmost limits of practicability; and the public pay little attention to speeches in the House of Lords. I doubt if a Second Chamber can ever again carry weight in English politics, unless popularly elected. I feel sure, at all events that nothing less than what I proposed in my book on Representative Government,3 will enable it to do so. These are my opinions; but I do not wish to throw cold water on anything which acknowledges an evil, and points in the direction of improvement.

I should not at all wonder if Gladstone in what he said to you, did hint at a life peerage: though perhaps what he meant was, to hold out hopes that you might be supported by the Government in a future candidature for the House of Commons. I should be more glad if it were the last; but I do not mean that I should advise you to refuse the former, for as it would be obviously a tribute to your legislative capacity, it would doubtless increase your weight. Ever yrs truly

J. S. Mill

1426.

TO ARMAND LALANDE1

• A[vignon]

May 2. 1869

Dear Sir—

Your letter has followed me here, & I have read it with great interest. As a piece of English composition it is quite remarkable as the production of a foreigner; & I agree in a great part of its substance. Mr Lowe has certainly much exaggerated the strength of the case against the shilling duty on corn.2 I however differ from you on one of the leading points of your argument, viz. where you aim at proving that the price of corn would not fall by the whole amount of the duty taken off, but by a smaller amount, dependent on the degree in which the importation of corn may be increased by the abolition of the duty. This argument was urged formerly during the discussions which preceded the repeal of our corn laws3 & I had occasion to contest it at that time. It seems to me that your argument errs by stopping short at demand & supply as the final regulators of price, without going on to that which in the last resort, adjusts the demand & supply to one another, viz. Costs of production (including all cost necessary for bringing the article to the place of sale). If from any permanent natural calamity smiting the soil with sterility the cost of production of wheat were increased by a shilling a quarter, I apprehend that the price of wheat would rise by that amount, plus the ordinary profit upon it, even if there were no diminution of supply. Whether the supply would be finally diminished or not would depend on whether the rise of price caused a falling off in the consumption. But the conditions of production having been altered, the average price (that which the producer looks forward to & calculates upon) must accommodate itself to the new conditions. And the same thing happens if instead of a natural calamity, we suppose the artificial burthen of a tax, which though levied only on a part of the corn consumed, enables all the remainder to command on the average the higher price necessary for bringing in that part: Supply & demand determine the perturbations of price; but (when the article admits of unlimited increase) not the permanent, or average, price.

I think, therefore, your argument fails in one important point; & though some of your other arguments remain valid notwithstanding, I do not think them sufficient to outweigh the advantage of getting rid of the last remaining shred of Protectionism.

But I do not therefore dissuade you from publishing your paper.4 It is written in a way to command attention, & so many intelligent persons will think your opinion correct & mine erroneous, that it is right that the opinion sh^d have a fair hearing. The only newspapers however which would be very likely to insert such a paper would be the Conservative journals, Standard, Herald, &c. & with them I have no relations. Probably it would have a better chance either with them or with the Times if sent by yourself.

1427.

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL1

• Avignon

le 8 mai 1869

Mon cher d’Eichthal

Je serai heureux d’être de quelqu’utilité à votre fils.2 Je puis lui donner des recommandations à quelques familles de Manchester, entr’autres à M. Bazley,3 député de Manchester, à M. Potter,4 qui a succédé à Cobden comme député de Rochdale, et une ou deux autres. Les enverrai-je directement à son adresse (chez Bryan Peacock et C^ie?) ou à vous-même à Paris?

En effet, je suis avec le plus grand intérêt le mouvement électoral du moment.5 Ce serait trop de bonheur s’il pouvait aboutir comme celui auquel vous le comparez, à un changement de majorité. Mais on ne peut pas espérer autant. Ce serait déjà beaucoup qu’un notable accroissement dans le nombre de l’Opposition.

Qu’une revolution soit désormais possible ou non, la plupart de la classe aisée paraît encore la craindre beaucoup, et je crois qu’une partie de la classe ouvrière, même dans le midi, l’espère toujours. Des hommes intelligents d’ici pensent que la tendance plus libérale qui se montre parmi la classe moyenne a surtout pour cause la crainte que le systême du gouvernement actuel ne pousse à une catastrophe, et qu’au lendemain d’un triomphe libéral les mêmes hommes redeviendraient conservateurs. On se plaint aussi que les hommes d’opposition qui reparaissent sur la scène politique sont pour la plupart des démocrates autoritaires de l’école de la Convention, et non des hommes de la nouvelle école libérale. J’aimerais beaucoup à connaître votre opinion sur ces choses.

Je lirai avec grand intérêt votre écrit sur la prononciation grecque.6 C’est un sujet qui m’intéresse beaucoup, et le peu que j’en sais s’accorde essentiellement avec ce que je crois être votre opinion.

tout à vous

J. S. Mill

1428.

TO A. M. FRANCIS1

• Avignon

May 8. 1869

Dear Sir—

I have received your letter & I will answer its different points seriatim.

1. My letter to Mr. Holden2 has been much misunderstood if it is supposed to indicate any change in my opinions on the sphere & functions of Government in the economical affairs of societies. The only opinion I intended to withdraw was that which recommended, in certain cases, temporary protective duties in new countries to aid the experimental introduction of new industries. And even on this point I continue to think that my opinion was well grounded but experience has shewn that protectionism, once introduced, is in danger of perpetuating itself through the private interests it enlists in its favour, & I therefore now prefer some other mode of public aid to new industries, though in itself less appropriate.

I quite agree with you that in Australia there are many important requisites of prosperity which the Gov^t ought not to consider it beyond its province to provide. One of these is the one you mention—works of irrigation. I have long looked forward to the time when Australia would feel the need of tanks like those of Southern India,3 to retain through the dry season the surplus rains of the few rainy months. This however is a work on a great scale requiring combined labour & therefore difficult to accomplish with your present population.

I took no part in the discussion about the purchase of the Telegraphs4 because it was a mere experiment of which I do not foresee the result. I sh^d object to the purchase of the railways until the smaller measure shall have approved its policy by its success. And in no case does it seem to me admissible that the Gov^t should work the railways. If it became proprietor of them it ought to lease them to private companies.

2. With regard to lands I am still, like yourself, in favour of the Wakefield system.5 I should however highly approve of selling the lands subject to a land tax, if the Gov^t is in a condition to enforce its payment without a cost exceeding the worth; a difficulty which seemed fatal to this plan at the time when Wakefield wrote.

3. On the importation of Polynesian labourers6 I am afraid we differ more widely. If the South Sea islanders came to Queensland spontaneously, the province would have every reason to welcome their coming. But I have the most deep rooted distrust of plans for sending emissaries to induce them to come, even by no worse means than brilliant representations. And I do not believe that any laws, which it is possible to enforce among an English population, will protect ignorant & uncivilised strangers living with them as servants, against outrageous abuses of power. If the experiment ever answers it is probably with Chinese, who are a more fearless & vigorous race & are able to make themselves very unpleasant to those who ill treat them. But the common English abroad—I do not know if in this they are worse than other people—are intensely contemptuous of what they consider inferior races, & seldom willingly practise any other mode of attaining their ends with them than bullying & blows. I therefore most positively object to putting such victims in their power. If there are no other means of preventing labour from being over scanty, then I am afraid the inconveniences of the climate must be taken with its advantages. But I sh^d think that the agricultural population of England & Ireland would furnish (agreeably to one of Wakefield’s principles) a sufficient number of young married couples to supply in a moderate number of years the labour required.

If in the expression of these opinions I have been rather brief & abrupt, I beg that you will attribute it to my occupations & to the haste with which they oblige me to write.

1429.

TO T. E. CLIFFE LESLIE1

• A[vignon]

May 8, 1869

Dear Mr Leslie—

You should not take the editors & their ways so much au sérieux.2 You must remember that your writings are intended for the public good, & that the editors are not half such good judges of that as you are. Consequently it is for you to make them take your articles just as you would make them take medicine, without any amour propre at having made it up for them yourself, & so put in a little sugar now & then if need be. Now, having made a real success with your amusing as well as useful articles of travels,3 the editors ask you for more of the same, & you should give it them, wrapping up good doctrine in this form. You should be no more on your dignity with them than with children. To a man like yourself most of them are children, as regards their motives & the objects they have in view. Morley indeed is better, but I dare say he is a good deal bothered & he probably thinks that Chauffard’s Mittermaier is a subject that can wait better than most.4 I should be vexed if the paper that you wrote to oblige me should have any unpleasant effect on your relations with him.

I agree with you in exceedingly disliking the insolent & domineering affectations of Fitzjames Stephen. In pol. economy he is exceedingly ignorant, but not the less presumptuous. On other matters, however, he is able to do some useful work, & he is undoubtedly a clever man. My daughter begins to have some doubts whether he is thoroughly an honest man, either in word or deed. It is certain that he says & does oddly inconsistent things. He is always brutal, even at his best; that however is apparently in him a radical defect of temperament, which if he is otherwise an honest worker for good, might have to be overlooked. It is certain that he is very vain, & that may be the cause of many of his defects in which vanity is not apparent, as of the boyish boast that he always goes to sleep at the P.E. Club.5 Has he then so much time to spare; or does he mean that he comes because he cannot get sleep elsewhere? But he is full of this sort of fanfaronnade, which is offensive enough, but which we may excuse if he is in earnest about anything. One cannot help hoping he is because he is clever enough to do a good deal of good or of mischief.

I shall read with great interest your paper on profits.6 If it is not in print before I return to England, perhaps you would not mind letting me see it in MS. I am open to conviction, but at present I cannot see that you are likely to be successful in anything more than in shewing that the doctrine respecting value & cost of production is true within wider limits of error—is true much more roughly & only in the gross, than is often supposed by political economists. This I am quite prepared to admit.

I am very happy on all accounts that you have been appointed to the Examinership7 —& on my own account that you are likely to bring on your question at the Club in July8 for I count upon being present at that meeting. I read & was glad of M. de Laveleye’s letter in the Economist.9 The prospect of an account of Servia & Bosnia from so good an observer & thinker is very agreeable.10

Sumner’s speech11 if serious is almost frantic. Probably however (& that is unpleasant enough) what it means is a wish not to settle the Alabama question at all but to keep the wound unhealed. One does not know what to say or do until it appears whether this is a passing gust or a permanent mood of the American mind. Perhaps it is but a reaction from Reverdy Johnson’s ill-advised & ill-timed soft sawder.12

We saw Cairnes on his way through Avignon to Aix les Bains, & you will be glad to hear how wonderfully he has improved in health. He can now walk for a short time, without even a stick, on level ground, & for the first time speaks as if he had some hopes of being restored to active life.

I do not understand Lord Dufferin.13 Why sh^d he wish to receive from me a production of which he thinks so unfavourably that my sending it to him of my own accord would have been almost a piece of bravado? A compliment of the sort he seems to desire from me is only suitable towards a fellow worker in the same cause, or a private friend, & Lord D. is neither: but as I sh^d be sorry to refuse any request of the sort from you, I will do what you asked if you wish it, on the ground that Lord D. is a friend of yours.

1430.

TO GEORGE JOHN GRAHAM1

• Avignon

May 11, 1869

Dear Graham

I will with great pleasure be your surety for the additional £1000.

It does seem as if this time a Bankruptcy Bill will really pass,2 and those personally interested will be no longer kept in uncertainty concerning their future. I greatly doubt the expediency of the change, as far as relates to the abolition of your office:3 but apparently the mercantile men will have it so. In other respects this bill seems a little better than the very bad ones we have had lately, but still very different from what it ought to be.

If the bill passes, you will have more time for the subjects in which you were so deeply interested in our younger days,4 and in which I have always thought that the engrossing and anxious nature of your daily occupations has cost to the world very valuable contributions. I have myself been greatly indebted to those searching discussions, at Mr Grote’s house in Sun Court,5 of some of which the “Analysis” itself was the text, and to the value of which no one contributed more, if anybody so much, as yourself.

I had long had the project of publishing an annotated edition of the Analysis; and now when Bain’s treatises and the progress of physiology have raised up a certain public, disposed to listen to the Association view of Psychology, the republication will probably place the book in its deserved position as a text book of that view of the science.

ever, dear Graham,
yours truly

J. S. Mill

G. J. Graham Esq.

1431.

TO T. S. CREE1

• Avignon

May 17, 1869

Dear Sir

I thank you for your letter, as I am always glad to have my opinions and arguments subjected to the criticisms of any one who has studied the subject. It appears to me, however, that your remarks do not touch the scientific exactness of the propositions laid down in my article in the Fortnightly Review, but only the practical importance of the cases to which they are applicable. Now, though I am far from agreeing with you as to this, I have not discussed it in the article. My object, on this occasion, was to show that the door is not shut on the subject by the insuperable law of nature.

It is one thing to say that labourers, by combination, cannot raise wages (which is the doctrine of many political economists), and another to say that it is not for their interest to force up wages so high as to reduce profits below what is a sufficient inducement to saving and to the increase of capital.

I have written a second article on the subject, which will be printed in the next number of the Fortnightly, and which, though it will not satisfy you on all points, will, I think, show you that I do not disregard either the moral or the prudential obligations of trades’ unions.

I am, Dear Sir,
Yours very faithfully,

J. S. Mill

R. [sic] S. Cree Esq.

1432.

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL1

• Avignon

le 18 mai 1869

Mon cher d’Eichthal

J’ai lu avec le plus grand intérêt votre article sur la prononciation de la langue grecque.2 Vous m’avez fait comprendre la question mieux que je ne l’avais jamais fait. Il faudra bien qu’on finisse par adopter la prononciation de la Grèce moderne, sauf à provoquer quelques modifications dans cette prononciation même, ce qui n’est pas tout-à-fait chimérique après ce que les Grecs d’aujourd’hui ont déjà fait pour la langue écrite. J’étais sûr que l’iotacisme exagéré de la prononciation actuelle devait être une corruption, ancienne peutêtre, mais non antique. C’est un défaut réel, et non sans importance.

Vous pouvez bien juger avec quel vif intérêt j’ai lu vos observations sur l’état des esprits, et sur les probabilités des élections.3 Vous êtes certainement mieux placé que moi pour en juger, surtout en ce qui regarde Paris, et le nord de la France. Moi-Même je vois bien, jusqu’à un certain degré, les tendances que vous signalez, et je ne demande pas mieux que de partager toutes vos espérances. Si vraiment la question de l’affranchissement des femmes va monter au premier rang, ce sera un signe de progrès dépassant tout ce que nous avons vu jusqu’ici.

Je vous envoie des lettres de recommandation aux deux députés libéraux de Manchester, au député de Rochdale, et à M. Steinthal, ministre unitairien intelligent et éclairé, qui comme la plupart des unitairiens en Angleterre et aux États-Unis, est au premier rang du libéralisme en religion et en politique.

Votre affectionné,

J. S. Mill

Dans la liste des membres de l’Association on me donne pour recteur de l’Université de St Andrew à Londres, l’Université dont j’étais recteur est celle de St Andrews en Ecosse. Je ne le suis plus aujourd’hui, la nomination n’étant que pour trois ans.

Mon adresse en Angleterre est Blackheath Park, Kent.4

Lettres pour

1433.

TO PETER ALFRED TAYLOR1

• A[vignon]

May 21. 1869

Dear Mr Taylor

Of the three modes of presenting the £200 to Mr Chesson,2 I agree with you in preferring the third; & as you wish it, I send a draft of a letter to be signed by us, if approved by you. If you will kindly return it with any improvements which occur to you I will copy it & send it to you with my signature.

I am glad that the Phillips case is to be carried to at least the first stage of appeal.3

O’Sullivan’s resignation has saved the country from a most mischievous infringement of the commonest principles of good government—an act of Parl^t against an individual.4 Arbitrary power is arbitrary power whether exercised in legislative forms by a Parl^t or in administrative forms by a king & it is precisely in the case of persons with whom hardly any body sympathises (or dares to admit that he sympathises) that fatal precedents creep in. It is a permanent blot on the conduct of the present Government that it brought in such a bill & the mischief is not altogether cancelled by its not being proceeded with.

1434.

TO CHARLES BRADLAUGH1

• Avignon

May 24, 1869

Dear Sir

You have gained a very honourable success in obtaining a repeal of the mischievous Act by your persevering resistance.2 There would be a certain satisfaction in getting the subject of your costs brought before Parliament by any one who would take the occasion of speaking disagreeable truths on the conduct of the Government in going on so long with the prosecution. But no practical result would follow, for there would be the ready answer that after all you were violating the law (though this you deny) and that it would be a mischievous precedent to indemnify any one for the expense of defending what was technically illegal. As, therefore, there would be no probability of getting any of your expenses refunded to you, I think that I would rest satisfied with the really important victory you have already obtained.

Many thanks for what you are doing about the petitions.3 Now that you are in communication with Miss Taylor,4 I have no doubt that together you will judge rightly of what can be advantageously done.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1435.

TO ARMAND LALANDE1

• A[vignon]

May 24. 1869

Dear Sir—

I have read your letter of the 18^th with attention & interest & I am much inclined to think with you that the effect of so small a duty as one shilling a quarter on wheat is not sufficient to make it certain that any perceptible relief will be obtained by taking it off. Still, we must reason about small effects on the same principle as one does on large ones. The duty gives a premium of a shilling in cost of production to home grown corn over imported. This must naturally cause a certain quantity more to be grown at home & a certain quantity less to be imported & every additional quantity grown at home in a given state of agriculture is grown at a proportionally greater cost. The average price therefore must rise sufficiently to remunerate this greater cost; but it will not rise by the full amount of the duty; otherwise it would not have the effect of reducing the quantity imported. Thus the average price of corn will, I conceive, be raised by an uncertain amount short of one shilling a quarter. But this increased price the consumer has to pay on all corn, home grown as well as imported, and from this he will be relieved by taking off the duty.

1436.

TO FREDERICK W. CHESSON1

[Before May 28, 1869]

Dear Mr Chesson

The executive body of the Jamaica Committee are anxious, in closing for the present all active operations, to give a marked expression of their sense of the important part which you have taken in their proceedings from the commencement, and of the great value of your laborious, unremitting and disinterested services to the cause.

In all the anxieties and responsibilities of the Executive Committee you have fully participated; none of its members have contributed more usefully to its deliberations; while the onerous labours of detail have fallen mainly upon yourself.

The sacrifice even of mere time, by one who is otherwise so fully occupied as you are, entitles you at the hands of the Committee to more than a simple expression of their cordial thanks; and the funds in their possession fortunately enable them to fulfil the duty of making some compensation to you for labours so valuable, and the burthen of which ought not to fall solely on yourself. The Committee have therefore requested us to present to you, in grateful recognition of your exertions, the sum of £200, and to beg you to accept it along with their thanks for your public spirited services.

We are
Dear Mr Chesson
Very sincerely yours

J. S. Mill, Chairman

P. A. Taylor, Treasurer

1437.

TO PETER ALFRED TAYLOR1

• A[vignon]

May 28. 1869

Dear Mr Taylor—

I have reconsidered the letter to Chesson2 with reference to your remarks on it; but I do not see any ready means of freeing it from the character you point out without making it less expressive of the sentiments which the Committee wish to put on record. On the whole I think it is hardly if at all a defect that the official letter should be written as if the recipient had no previous knowledge of what is intended. Anything which is taken for granted is of course not expressed; & its expression is so much abated from the complimentary matter which the recipient would naturally like to retain in a permanent form.

As, therefore, you did not suggest any particular alteration, I have made none but merely return the letter, copied fair with my signature; but if you would like any alteration it is not too late to make it.

I cannot but think that the dropping of the bill against O’Sullivan3 has saved the British democracy from a most perilous snare. It seems to me that the distinction between a government by general laws & one of arbitrary edicts is the broadest in all politics, & absolutely essential to good government under any constitution: for the reason long assigned by Aristotle,4 that government by law is guided by general considerations of permanent policy while government by special decree is guided by the passion of the moment. And it is most especially necessary that this distinction should not be tampered with in a popular government, for most other governments are under some check from fear of the majority; but when the majority is itself the government, the check is only in its own breast, & depends on a strong conviction in the popular mind of its necessity which conviction is enfeebled by every instance of violation. I think it would be a fatal notion to get abroad among the people of a democratic country that laws or constitutions may be stepped over instead of being altered; in other words that an object immediately desirable may be grasped directly in a particular case without the salutary previous process of considering whether the principle acted on is one which the nation would bear to adopt as a rule for general guidance. I have always admired Lincoln, among other reasons, because even for so great an end as the abolition of slavery he did not set aside the Constitution5 but waited till he could bring what he wanted to do (by a little straining perhaps) within the license allowed by the Constitution for military necessities.

1438.

TO LOUIS BLANC1

• Avignon

le 30 mai 1869

Mon cher Monsieur Louis Blanc

Il y a bien longtemps que nous ne nous sommes vus. Je n’ai pourtant pas demeuré sans communication, au moins intellectuelle, avec vous, car je ne manque jamais une de vos lettres dans le Temps.2 Je les regarde comme un grand service que vous rendez à nos deux pays, et il est très rare que je ne partage pas les opinions qui y sont exprimées. Surtout dans ces derniers temps j’éprouve continuellement le désir de vous en féliciter.

Je me réjouis comme vous et avec vous de la renaissance si remarquable de l’esprit public en France. La nouvelle génération qui n’a pas subi les effrois d’il y a vingt ans, nous promet un meilleur avenir. Je voudrais pourtant plus de concorde dans l’opposition démocratique et libérale, et que les électeurs ne préferassent pas un Rochefort3 à un Jules Favre.

Nous retournerons à Blackheath au commencement de Juillet. Vous seraitil possible de venir diner avec nous le premier dimanche suivant (4 juillet)?4

votre tout dévoué

J. S. Mill

1439.

TO DR. EMILE HONORÉ CAZELLES1

• A[vignon].

May 30, 1869

Cher Monsieur—

Je crois en effet que quelques pages préliminaires à la traduction de l’Assujettissement des Femmes2 seraient très utiles et je trouve les vôtres excellentes. Je vous soumettrai cependant deux ou trois observations.

1. D’abord il me semble que vous ne rendez pas pleine justice aux St Simoniens et aux Fourieristes, que vous désignez clairement sans les nommer. Je condamne comme vous beaucoup de leurs doctrines et surtout le gouvernementalisme à outrance des St Simoniens. Cependant je trouve que les uns et les autres ont rendu de grands services: et notamment sur la question des femmes, le St Simonisme surtout ayant jeté dans les hautes régions de la vie intellectuelle et pratique, un grand nombre d’esprits supérieurs, désabusés aujourd’hui de ce qu’il y avait de faux ou d’exagéré dans leurs systèmes mais conservant ce qu’ils avaient de bon y compris l’égalité des femmes. Les St Simoniens d’ailleurs avaient le bon esprit de déclarer toujours qu’on ne peut prononcer sur la fonction des femmes sans elles et que la loi qui les doit régir ne peut être donnée que par des femmes ou par une femme. Ils n’ont donné leurs propres idées sur ce sujet que comme des hypothèses. Il est vrai que, comme il arrive le plus souvent, on leur a tenu très peu compte de cette réserve.

2. D’un autre côté tout en traitant Proudhon avec une juste sévérité vous me semblez lui avoir fait la part trop belle en disant qu’il a rendu de grands services à la course du progrès. Je puis me tromper, mais il m’a toujours semblé que Proudhon a été très nuisible à la cause du progrès. D’abord personne n’a tant fait pour provoquer la réaction de la peur, qui a eu et qui a encore des effets si funestes. Ensuite je ne vois dans ses écrits rien de foncièrement juste et progressif. Ce qu’il y a chez lui de plus puissant c’est sa dialectique subversive, mais c’est une dialectique d’un mauvais aller; une vraie sophistique, car elle s’attaque au bien comme au mal, et au lieu de se contenter de dire ce qui peut se dire avec vérité contre la meilleure cause, elle entasse contre chaque côté de la question pêle-mêle avec les bonnes raisons, tous les sophismes et même les calomnies qu’on a jamais débités de part et d’autre. Cela brouille les esprits et fausse les idées, tandis que la bonne dialectique les éclairait.

3. Tout ce que vous avez écrit à l’endroit de Lanfrey3 est parfaitement bien pensé et dit. Seulement il me paraît douteux si nous faisons prudemment de rompre en visière avec lui. C’est un homme qu’on peut toujours espérer de ramener aux idées vraies, et si on s’attaque aux gens on risque d’intéresser leur amour-propre à persister dans la voie qu’ils ont une fois prise.

4. Je voudrais qu’il fût vrai qu’en Angleterre les esprits eussent été déjà préparés en 1851 à la discussion de l’émancipation des femmes, et que le temps où l’on pouvait s’en tirer par le ridicule était déjà passé. Cela est vrai aujourd’hui, mais ne l’était pas alors. La discussion n’a été réellement entamée en A[ngleterre] que dans cette année-là, par l’article de ma femme que vous avez lu dans le 2^me vol des Dissertations.4

Il y a à la page 6 une expression qu’il serait peut-être bien de modifier: c’est là où vous dites “Il ne s’agit plus de changer les relations sociales des sexes.” Je sais bien ce que vous avez voulu dire, mais ce qui est proposé dans mon petit livre serait certainement regardé comme un grand changement dans les relations sociales des sexes.

1440.

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL1

• Avignon

le 30 mai 1869

Mon cher d’Eichthal

Je ne connais “The Jesus of History”2 que par l’annonce. Depuis quelque temps on s’occupe beaucoup en Angleterre comme ailleurs de la critique historique de la Bible, et les idées rationnelles sur ce sujet y sont en grand progrès. Il est très heureux que votre livre des Evangiles3 y soit connu de ceux qui s’occupent de ces questions, sur lesquelles il a tant répandu de lumière.

Le livre assez mal nommé “Eléments de Science Sociale” est, je crois, d’un certain Docteur Drysdale. Il y a deux Docteurs en Médicine de ce nom, frères (je crois) et partageant les mêmes opinions. Celui-ci, à ce que je pense, doit être le Dr. Charles Drysdale.4 Sans avoir lu tout le livre, j’en pris un peu connaissance à l’époque de sa première publication. J’y trouvai d’excellentes choses, avec quelques autres qui ne me plaisaient pas. Je crois l’auteur, au reste, un homme éclairé, et très zélé pour la plupart des bonnes causes.

Les élections ont bien répondu à vos prédictions.5 C’est l’indice d’un immense progrès; mais il eût été à désirer que le parti démocratique par excellence se fût mieux entendu avec ceux qui mènent la liberté de front avec la démocratie. Il est fâcheux que Jules Favre risque de n’être élu nulle part, et qu’un homme comme Carnot6 soit rejeté.

M. Lavasseur me fit l’honneur de m’envoyer son livre.7 Ce que j’en ai eu le temps de lire indique que c’est un très bon ouvrage d’enseignement populaire.

Je sais que ni vous ni votre frère ne prenez le titre de baron, mais je crois que lui au moins, et probablement vous, y avez droit. C’est la première fois que j’en affaibli l’un ou l’autre,8 mais vous savez qu’il y a de nos gros industriels anglais qui ont une admiration sincère pour un titre, et que pour ceux-là un homme estimable est rehaussé par la possession d’un titre, comme aux yeux de presque tous les Français une femme d’esprit l’est par la beauté.

Il se pourrait bien que je tombe chez vous en traversant Paris, si vous y êtes encore du temps de mon passage.

Votre affectionné,

J. S. Mill

1441.

TO FREDERIC HARRISON1

June, 1869

[I have many letters from him between 1865 and 1873 on public questions, on the Jamaica trials in the case of Governor Eyre, on the Trades-Union Bill of 1869, on the Paris Commune, on the Women’s Suffrage question—whereon he wrote June 1869—]

There are few persons whom we all should be more glad to see even partially with us on this subject than yourself.

1442.

TO DR. EMILE HONORÉ CAZELLES1

• A[vignon]

June 4, 1869

Cher monsieur—

Après quelque considération ma première impression en faveur d’une préface à mettre en tête du nouveau livre ne se conserve pas, et toute reflection faite, j’aimerais mieux que le livre se présente tout seul au lecteur tel qu’il est, sans introduction ni observations préliminaires.2 J’espère que vous me pardonnerez ce changement d’avis, qui ne vient pas d’une manque d’appréciation de ce que vous avez écrit. Au contraire je l’estime hautement, et certainement la partie que j’ai critiquée sous le support de l’intérêt de notre cause, c. à. d. celle qui est dirigée contre M. Lanfrey.

Je vous ai envoyé hier par la poste quelques feuilles de la traduction que j’ai reçues de l’éditeur. J’ai fait quelques corrections en crayon que généralement ne regardaient que l’imprimeur. Je n’ai proposé, si je m’en saurais bien, de changement dans la traduction que celui d’un seul mot.

1443.

TO ALEXANDER BAIN1

• A[vignon]

June 7, 1869

Dear Bain—

Mr Veitch sent me a copy of the Life of Hamilton.2 His replies to my strictures are so very weak (Mansel & water, with an infusion of vinegar) that I shall hardly [feel] any need of giving them the distinction of a special notice; except that I am bound to admit that the passage of Aristotle which H. seemed to have misunderstood,3 was not indicated by any reference of his own, but of the editors. That is quite sufficient for my purpose; since Mansel at least has learning, & that passage of Aristotle was I suppose, the nearest he could find to bearing out what Hamilton said. But after all H. must have known what A. meant by ἐνεργεια.4 I agree with you as to the general impression which the book gives of Hamilton.5 Only as it shews advantageously a side of his character which I had no knowledge of, that of his private affections, the general result rather raised him in my eyes.

I [am] glad to be confirmed by you in my impression that nothing in my notes to the Analysis, on the question of Belief,6 is incompatible with your theory of it. I shall be very glad to see your last views of the subject more fully developed. Cairnes, who had not previously studied psychology very seriously but who has now been reading both the Analysis & our notes with full appreciation & great edification, seems to feel a need of some further explanations on the doctrine of Belief as connected with the Will,7 & what a man of his practised intelligence wants is likely to be wanted by most others. As far as we two are concerned, it is very unlikely that any difference of opinion sh^d develop itself when your doctrine is explicitly worked out.

I hope the new book8 reached you early. Longman is wanting to print a second edition.

The Lords have done all the mischief they could to the Scotch Education Bill.9 One would have thought the unanimous recommendations of a Commission, partly Tory & fairly representative of all sections in Scotland, might have passed their ordeal. But they will no doubt as you say, revenge themselves for having to eat their leek (if they do eat it) in the Church question10 by spoiling other Bills. They are becoming a very irritating kind of minor nuisance.

1444.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN1

• Avignon

June 12, 1869

Dear Sir

I have gone over the paper which you have sent,2 and have condensed it a little, with some alteration in the arrangement. If you approve of it as it now stands, I should be happy to sign it along with the others. The signatures should, I think, be in alphabetical order. I see no objection to its being printed, with the words “private & confidential” as you propose.

I beg you to put me down as a subscriber of £100, not on the score of interest foregone, but in virtue of the £100 I lent to you,3 which will now be not a loan but a subscription. I am

Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Dr Chapman

1445.

TO HERBERT SPENCER1

• Avignon

June 14. 1869

Dear Mr Spencer

I fully agree with you that in a great many cases women tyrannize over men, and you will find that I have not omitted to notice this in the little book I sent you,2 nor to notice the fact that it is generally the best men who get the worst tyrannized over. But in this case as in a great many others, two negatives do not make an affirmative, or at all events two affirmatives do not make a negative and two contradictory tyrannies do not make liberty. In the first place the illegitimate power of women is greater than it would be if they had legitimate freedom. The consciousness of their weakness makes the most generous men shrink from exacting justice from them: while the fact that women have to submit to injustice through the whole of their lives, dulls in them the sense of justice when circumstances put it in their power to be the arbiters of justice towards others. Moreover, the more decidedly we think that women are already a great power in society—and no one is more strongly of that opinion than I am—the more important it becomes that they should be fit to exercise it properly. All the mischievous sources of women’s power are exaggerated by our morbid habit of dwelling upon sex as deciding their whole destiny in life: and this same system makes both the motives and the methods of women’s influence morbid and demoralizing in their turn. I shall hope to have some opportunities of talking over this and other matters with you, if you are in town in the summer, and can spare us an afternoon now and then. Are any of your Sundays in July or the first half of August disengaged? and if you could come down and dine with us on any of them, will you let me know which? I am

Dear Mr Spencer
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1446.

TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE1

• Avignon

June 15. 1869

My dear Mr Gladstone

It was kind of you to spare time from your anxious labours to acknowledge receipt of the little book.2

I thank you for your kind invitations. As you are aware, I hardly ever go out in the evening; but I am not disposed to let drop the privilege of breakfasting with you, and I shall be glad to avail myself of it after I return to England, which will be early next month. I am

my dear Mr Gladstone
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1447.

TO THEODOR GOMPERZ1

Avignon June 15, 1869

I hope you have duly received from the publisher a copy of the little book I have just published “The subjection of women”. I have received several applications to translate it into German, and as it is very desirable that this should be done immediately, I have accepted the offer of Dr. Heinemann,2 Professor at the Civil Service College; reserving your right to include in the collected edition either his translation by agreement with him or a different translation. I expect that Dr. Heinemann will write to you on the subject. I should very much like to hear from you sometimes, respecting your own and your sister’s health, the progress of the edition,3 and your own pursuits, projects, and opinions.

1448.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

• Avignon

June 23. 1869

Dear Mr Cairnes

I have had so much to do, and so many other letters to write, that I have delayed till now thanking you for your most acceptable letter of May 23, and especially for the sifting which you have given to my review of Thornton.2 You may imagine how gratifying it is to me that you give so complete an adhesion to the view I take of the wages fund. In regard to the general subject of demand and supply, I think there is not, at bottom, any considerable difference between us. My object in the Fortnightly was to shew that the cases supposed by Thornton do not contradict and invalidate, as he thinks they do, the equation of supply and demand. In this you agree with me, and you do not think the doctrine incorrect. The amount of its value, either scientific or practical, is a different question. But, while I admit almost all that you say, I think that the proposition as laid down is something more than an identical proposition. It does not define, nor did it, as I stated it, affect to define the causes of variations in value. But it declares the condition of all such variations, and the necessary modus operandi of their causes, viz. that they operate by moving the supply to equality with the demand, or the demand to equality with the supply. The numerous considerations which you notice as influencing the minds of sellers, are, all of them, considerations of probable future demand and supply, modifying the effect which would take place if nothing but present facts were considered. Now it appears to me important to point out that these prospective considerations operate by inducing the sellers either to convert a possible present supply into an actual one, or to withdraw an actual present supply into the region of merely possible ones; and that in either case the relation of the price to the actual supply and demand is constant, i.e. the price is that which will make them equal. If this statement does no more than give a distinct scientific expression to what is already implied in the terms used, still it is not unimportant to evolve and make explicit what the facts of purchase and sale and a market price really involve.

I am delighted that you have derived so much pleasure and advantage from the Analysis. That alone is enough to satisfy me of the great good likely to be done by its republication. With regard to the difficulties you have found in some of Bain’s notes,3 he is aware that his doctrines respecting Belief and Volition require further explanations and developments. I am myself not always sure that I am able to follow him in every detail, though I do not think that any of my views clash with his. I am, however, inclined to agree in what I think is his opinion, that volition is not a name for a peculiar state of feeling or phenomenon of mind, but only a name for the immediate and irresistible sequence between the specific action of the efferent nerve fibres and the internal cause which produces it, and which is either an idea, a desire, or (as explained for the first time by Bain) the spontaneous activity of the nervous system under the stimulus of nutriment.

Pray thank Mrs Cairnes very warmly for her kind letter. I hope to be able to talk over with her and you any remaining difficulties she may feel.4 I wish the opportunity were nearer than it is likely to be, for Penzance and Blackheath are very far apart.5 But if Penzance aids your restoration to health, I shall be very grateful to it. We were happy to hear good accounts of you from those who saw you in your passage through London.

Helen desires her kind regards to you and Mrs Cairnes, and I am

Dear Mr. Cairnes
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1449.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN1

• Avignon

June 23. 1869

Dear Sir

I return the printed circular with my signature.2 I think the signatures as well as the list of subscribers should be in alphabetical order, as otherwise it is apt to be thought that the person who signs first is the originator, and that the others only give their adhesion. I am Dear Sir

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Dr Chapman

1450.

TO CHARLES ELIOT NORTON1

Avignon, June 23, 1869

Dear Mr Norton

Few things could be more pleasant or more encouraging to me than such a letter as yours. It is a great satisfaction that you not only agree so completely with the little book,2 but think so highly as you do of its probable influence. It is quite true that it was written principally with a view to the state of society and opinion in England; and even with respect to that, it bears traces of having been written, as it was, several years ago. I am aware that the circumstances of the United States are, for the reasons you give, decidedly more favourable than those of the old country. Accordingly, the movement commenced in America, and is much more advanced there than in England though it is advancing very rapidly in England too. It will probably be some time before a Committee of the House of Commons will recommend the admission of women to the parliamentary suffrage; but the repeal of the legal provision which excluded women from the municipal franchise, has just passed the House of Commons unopposed.3 The present session will also see (unless the Lords stop it) the right of married women to their own property and earnings acknowledged,4 and placed on the same footing in England as in most of the States of the Union. We live in times when broad principles of justice, perseveringly proclaimed, end by carrying the world with them. Your great anti-slavery contest has done that much for mankind. How little did the cotemporaries of the voyage of the Mayflower suspect what was to come of it!

America will probably also be the first to resolve the complicated question of marriage and divorce. It cannot be resolved until women have an equal voice in deciding it.

If we were going to stay here, we should not envy you even your magnificent view of the Lake and the Dent du Midi;5 but we are going back to England, though only for a few weeks. With our kind regards to Mrs Norton, I am

Dear Mr Norton
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

C. Eliot Norton Esq.

1451.

TO MRS. HENRY HUTH1

• [Avignon]

[after June 23, 1869]

Dear Mrs Huth—

I can only say in return for your & Mr Huth’s generous wish to defray the whole of the expenses of the publication of the C[ommon] P[lace] books2 that I am sure your wish to publish them is wise, both with a view to Mr B[uckle’s] reputation & with a view to their real literary value. In fact, no memoir however good could give so good an idea of the workings of his mind. The copying is proceeding steadily & I hope there will be no further difficulties in the publication. We expect to be in England next month & to see Mrs Allatt who is now there as well as Miss Shireff, & will do all we can to help Miss Shireff to obtain materials, of which however I imagine there exist but few. If you sh^d be writing please direct to me B[lackheath] P[ark] Kent.

1452.

TO HERBERT SPENCER1

• Paris

July 2. 1869

Dear Mr. Spencer

I have been stopped here on my way to England by a sudden attack of what the doctor calls cholerine. The attack is over, but I am obliged to return by short stages, and we are not sure when we shall be at Blackheath. I am therefore obliged, much to my regret, to postpone the pleasure of seeing you. If you are still in town on the Sunday after next (July 11) we hope you will come down to us on that afternoon instead.

I am
Dear Mr Spencer
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1453.

TO HARRIET ISABELLA MILL1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 6, 1869

Dear Harriet

I suppose there can be no doubt of your having before this time returned to England, so I inclose a crossed cheque for your share of the payment for the copyrights &c.2 I hope that your winter in the South has benefitted your health, and that the improvement will be permanent.

J.S.M.

1454.

TO HERBERT SPENCER1

• Blackheath Park, Kent

July 6. 1869

Dear Mr. Spencer

My murderous propensities are confined to the vegetable world. I take as great a delight in the pursuit of plants as you do in that of salmon, and find it an excellent incentive to exercise. Indeed I attribute the good health I am fortunate enough to have, very much to my great love for exercise, and for what I think the most healthy form of it, walking.

My late attack at Paris was choleraic,2 dangerous for a few hours, and leaving me a little weak, but I am now quite recovered, thanks partly to having wandered about the Dunes at Calais and the Downs at Dover in pursuit of specimens for my herbarium.

We are very sorry to lose the opportunity of seeing you this year, and if you are not otherwise occupied and are inclined to take the trouble of coming down and dining with us at our five o’clock dinner on Thursday we shall be delighted to see you. But we shall be quite alone. If any of your excursions should lead you to the South, we shall always be glad to see you at Avignon, where we shall be for the autumn and winter.

I am
Dear Mr. Spencer
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1455.

TO MRS. FRANK HARRISON HILL1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 7. 1869

Dear Madam

I have to thank you for the very gratifying letter you sent me some time ago. Will you and Mr Hill do us the pleasure of coming down and dining with us on Saturday, the 17^th July? We dine at six o’clock. I am

Dear Madam
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1456.

TO LOUIS BLANC1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

le 9 Juillet 1869

Mon cher Monsieur Louis Blanc

Nous sommes ici depuis Lundi, et comme nous n’avons pas de réponse à la lettre que ma fille vous a écrite de Paris,2 nous comptons sur le plaisir de vous voir dimanche prochain. Il y a un train de Charing Cross à 4.5. Ai-je besoin de vous dire que si Madame Louis Blanc voudrait bien vous accompagner nous serons enchantés de la voir.

votre tout dévoué

J. S. Mill

1457.

TO MR. KING1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 9. [1869?]

Mr J.S. Mill requests Mr King to send a complete copy of the Reports and Evidence of the Trades Union Commission2 to Mr Trübner 60 Paternoster Row, in Mr Mill’s name, and to send the account to Mr Mill.

1458.

TO MARY SOMERVILLE1

• Blackheath Park

July 12. 1869

Dear Madam

Such a letter as yours is a sufficient reward for the trouble of writing the little book.2 I could have desired no better proof that it was adapted to its purpose, than such an encouraging opinion from you. I thank you heartily, for taking the trouble to express in such kind terms, your approbation of the book; the approbation of one who has rendered such inestimable service to the cause of women by affording in her own person so high an example of their intellectual capabilities, and finally, by giving to the protest in the great petition of last year, the weight and importance derived from the signature which headed it.3 I am

Dear Madam
most sincerely and respectfully yours

J. S. Mill

1459.

TO ALEXANDER BAIN1

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

July 14. 1869

Dear Bain—

I am very glad that you are so well pleased with the new book.2 With regard to the single point on which you are doubtful,3 my defence is this. The policy of not laying down wider premises than are required to support the practical conclusion immediately aimed at, was a wise policy ten years ago. It was the right policy until the women’s suffrage question had acquired such a footing in practical politics as to leave little danger of its being thrown back. But the question has now entered into a new & more advanced stage. The objection with which we are now principally met is that women are not fit for, or not capable of, this, that or the other mental achievement. And though it is a perfectly good answer to say that if this be a fact, things will adjust themselves to it under free competition, & also that without free competition we cannot know whether it is a fact or not, many will ask, & many more will feel, “Why make a great change & disturb people’s minds only to give women leave to do what there is no probability that they either can or will do? Why make a revolution on the plea that it will do no harm, when you cannot shew that it will do any good?” Even if on no other account than this, it is thoroughly time to bring the question of women’s capacities into the front rank of the discussion.

But there is a still stronger reason. The most important thing we now have to do, is to stir up the zeal of women themselves. We have to stimulate their aspirations—to bid them not despair of anything nor think anything beyond their reach but try their faculties against all difficulties. In no other way can the verdict of experience be fairly collected, & in no other way can we excite the enthusiasm in women which is necessary to break down the old barriers. This is more important now than to conciliate opponents. But I do not believe that opponents will be at all exasperated by taking this line. On the contrary I believe the point has now been reached at which, the higher we pitch our claims, the more disposition there will be to concede part of them. All I have yet heard of the reception of the new book confirms this idea. People tell me that it is lowering the tone of our opponents as well as raising that of our supporters. Everything I hear strengthens me in the belief, which I at first entertained with a slight mixture of misgiving that the book has come out at the right time & that no part of it is premature.

One effect which the suffrage agitation is producing is to make all sorts of people declare in favour of improving the education of women. That point is conceded by almost everybody & we shall find the education movement for women favoured & promoted by many who have no wish at all that things sh^d go any further. The cause of political & civil enfranchisement is also prospering almost beyond hope. You have probably observed that the admission of women to the municipal franchise has passed the Commons & is passing the Lords without opposition.4 The bill for giving married women the control of their own property has passed through the Commons, all but the third reading & is thought to have a good chance of becoming law this session.5

1460.

TO WILLIAM FRASER RAE1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 19. 1869

Dear Mr Rae

I shall be very glad to give you letters to any of my friends in America.2 If there are any people in particular to whom you wish for introductions from me, and will let me know their names, I will write to them, if I am acquainted with them. We shall hope to see you some day before you leave.

The meeting3 was a far greater success than the newspapers would lead you to imagine. The uniform level of the speaking was quite unprecedentedly good, and I believe it has struck a really important blow.

Your article on the Patent Laws4 was much needed, and exceedingly good. It will be extremely useful. I am

Dear Mr Rae
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1461.

TO HENRY FAWCETT1

• Blackheath Park, Kent

July 24 [1869]

Dear Mr Fawcett

Can you and Mrs. Fawcett dine with us on Sunday 8^th August, at our usual time, five o’clock? I should like to know what you think of the compromise.2

I am
Dear Mr Fawcett
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1462.

TO SIR ALEXANDER DUFF-GORDON1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 26, 1869

Dear Sir

I saw with much regret the news of Lady Duff Gordon’s decease.2

I am glad to hear that my notes of Mr Austin’s Lectures have been useful, and shall be obliged if you will kindly address them here as well as the copy of the new edition which I have been favoured with,3 by the Parcels Delivery Company. I am Dear Sir

very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Sir Alexander Duff Gordon Bart.

1463.

TO HENRY VILLARD1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 26. 1869

Dear Sir

I have had the pleasure of receiving your letter of July 3.

I am happy to hear that you anticipate a successful session of the Social Science Association in October.2 I am much honoured by your wish that I should read [sic] a paper to be read on the occasion. I have hitherto, though often solicited, always abstained from taking part by written papers or otherwise, in the proceedings of any of the various associations for the discussion of social questions; because I think my vocation is chiefly to lay the foundations of future improvement by the discussion of general principles, while the business of associations like yours is the consideration of immediate practical applications, dependent on a knowledge of details which I seldom possess nor have time to acquire. For example on the subject which you suggest to me for a paper—the Act of Congress on the limitation of labour to eight hours:3 the only part of the question which I feel qualified to treat, is, whether legislative limitations of the hours of labour can ever be desirable, or are properly within the competence of governments; to which my answer would be in the affirmative. But whether, in the particular circumstances of the working classes of the United States, such a measure is required, or does more good than harm, I am not in a condition to discuss. If I feel called upon to study and think out any practical question with sufficient thoroughness to be qualified to write upon it, the probable result would be that I should publish a pamphlet or a book respecting it. On the whole, therefore, you must not count upon me for a contribution, though it is just possible that, in the interval before your meeting, some subject may present itself to me on which I may think that I could usefully address a few pages to your Association.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Henry Villard Esq

1464.

TO PASQUALE VILLARI1

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

July 30. 1869

Mon cher Monsieur Villari

Je sais qu’il se publie en Italie tous les ans un volume pareil au “Livre Jaune”2 Français formant un compte rendu général du mouvement des intérêts publics pendant l’année précédente: J’ai un besoin particulier de consulter le dernier numéro de cette publication et je ne sais comment le procurer ici. Vous savez ce que sont les délais des libraires en fesant venir des livres dans l’étranger.

Je vous serais donc très obligé si vous vouliez bien procurer pour moi un exemplaire de ce livre et me l’envoyer par la poste à l’adresse de Blackheath Park, Kent. J’en enverrai le prix de la manière que vous aurez la complaisance de m’indiquer.

Nous venons d’avoir un meeting très important de la Société pour le suffrage des femmes.3 Cette réunion a été admirablement présidée par une dame4 et il y [a] eu d’excellents discours. Cette question est en grand progrès ici, et les nombreuses lettres que je reçois témoignent qu’elle l’est également dans la plupart des autres pays civilisés.

1465.

TO EMILE DE LAVELEYE1

Blackheath Park, Kent, le 3 août 1869

Mon cher Monsieur,

J’ai bien regretté les circonstances qui vous ont empêché de revenir cet été en Angleterre. J’espère que lorsque vous reprendrez ce projet, j’aurai l’avantage, dont j’ai été privé cette fois, de faire votre connaissance personnelle.

J’ai à vous remercier des trois importants volumes2 que vous avez bien voulu m’adresser. J’en ai déjà lu une assez grande partie avec très grand intérêt. Il y a peu d’écrivains dont les études sur un pays quelconque valent les vôtres par la précision et l’importance des renseignements et par la justesse des appréciations. J’espère que votre voyage en Espagne procurera à vos lecteurs de nouvelles satisfactions.

C’est une chose remarquable quand on pense au nombre de pays où l’état de la propriété territoriale et les réformes nécessaires pour le rendre supportable, occupent maintenant l’esprit des penseurs et même des hommes d’état. Sans parler de l’Espagne, il y a l’Angleterre, l’Irlande, les Indes anglaises, la Russie. Il n’y a d’exception que pour les pays où la révolution a passé, et dans ces pays même, ces questions sont loin d’avoir reçu leur solution définitive.

A défaut de discussion orale, je serais charmé que nous nous entretenions ensemble par correspondance sur les questions économiques auxquelles vous faites allusion. L’une d’elles, à ce que m’a dit M. Leslie, serait la question de l’utilité des colonies pour un pays comme la Belgique. Là-dessus je partage l’opinion générale des économistes sur l’inutilité des colonies, seuf peut-être quelques circonstances spéciales qui n’existent pas, à ma connaissance, pour la Belgique. Si on prétend qu’il en existe, j’aurais bien envie de les connaître.

Agréez, Monsieur, l’expression de ma considération la plus distinguée.

J. S. Mill

1466.

TO THOMAS HARE1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

Aug. 4. 1869

Dear Mr. Hare

We had a long discussion at the meeting yesterday on the resolution drawn up by the Sub Committee.2 In addition to some of those who were at the past meeting, Jacob Bright and Maclaren were present. The minds of most of them proved to be extremely unprepared on the points which have not yet been fully discussed in the newspapers. Even Morrison3 could not be made to see the advantage of keeping land unappropriated for the purpose of experiments. It conflicted with their notion of “free trade in land.” At last Beales proposed a new wording of the sixth point making it much more general, and after some parley this was agreed to. It now stands:—

“As one means of the object last proposed; to endeavour to procure4 such an administration of landed property owned by public bodies, or held for any public or charitable purposes, as shall best carry out such object.”

The whole is subject to the confirmation of another meeting, to be held next Saturday at two, at which I hope you may be able to attend. The desire to hear your opinion of the new form given to No 6 was one of the motives for appointing the further meeting.

The new wording will enable us hereafter to bring forward your ideas, and we may hope to get them adopted by the Association when it has heard them sufficiently discussed.5 But the approximation made to them in the present wording is as much as, I think, any of the members of parliament present except Fawcett would pledge himself to, by joining the Association. And it is desirable to carry them with us, if only in hopes of their future conversion, which I do not by any means despair of. I am Dear Mr Hare

very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1467.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

Aug. 8. 1869

Dear Chadwick

I did read, with much approbation, your remarks on Hobhouse.2 I have been very much pleased also with those on financial reform3 (which I return) and interested by the particulars about your model cottage.4

There is, as you say, plenty to be done, and I find it so as well as you. I am almost as much overdone as when I was in the House. But I look forward to some relief when we return to Avignon.

I am Dear Chadwick
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1468.

TO GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE1

• Blackheath Park, Kent

Aug. 8. 1869

Dear Sir,

It is a great triumph of freedom of opinion that the Evidence Bill should have passed both houses without being seriously impaired.2 You may justly take to yourself a good share of the credit of having brought things up to that point.

With regard to taking an oath,3 I conceive that when a bad law has made that a condition to the performance of a public duty, it may be taken without dishonesty by a person who acknowledges no binding force in the religious part of the formality; unless (as was your own case) he has made it the special and peculiar work of his life to testify against such formalities, and against the beliefs with which they are connected.4 I am

Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

G. J. Holyoake Esq.

1469.

TO JOHN PLUMMER1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

Aug. 8. 1869

Dear Mr Plummer

We were very glad to hear from you again, and to be told in what direction you are working. Would you like to receive the Edinburgh and Westminster Reviews? I will send them to you, if they would be of any use. I am acquainted with Mr John Morley. My daughter desires to be kindly remembered to Mrs Plummer, and I am

Dear Mr Plummer
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1470.

TO HENRY FAWCETT1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

Aug. 9. 1869

Dear Mr Fawcett

My daughter mentioned to Mrs Fawcett that she thought perhaps Mrs Isabella Hooker might be willing and able to give the account of the progress of the movement for the emancipation of women in America which was wanted by the French lady who wrote to Mrs Fawcett. Mrs Hooker’s address is Mrs Isabella Beecher Hooker

• Hartford
• Connecticut

I am Dear Mr Fawcett
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1471.

TO JOHN PLUMMER1

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

Aug. 10. 1869

Dear Mr Plummer

I have been so much occupied of late, in spite of my absence from Parliament, that I have had no time for any letters that could possibly be spared. I am very glad to hear that the Reviews will be of use. You are very welcome to mention my name to Mr Morley, and if I have an opportunity I will mention you to him. With our regards to Mrs Plummer I am

Dear Mr Plummer
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1472.

TO JOHN NICHOL1

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

Aug. 18. 1869

Dear Sir—

I have been long without acknowledging your letter of July 20 because there were several points in it on which I wished to make some remarks & I have not had time to do this sooner. Even now I am unable to do it at any length. You have, I doubt not, understood what I have endeavoured to impress upon the readers of my book,2 that the opinions expressed in it respecting the natural capacities of women are to be regarded as provisional; perfect freedom of development being indispensable to afford the decisive evidence of experiment on the subject: & if as you truly say, conventionalities have smothered nature still more in women than in men, the greater is the necessity for getting rid of the conventionalities before the nature can be manifested. I have however thought it indispensable to weigh such evidence as we have & examine what conclusions it points to, & I certainly think that in all matters in which women do not entirely lean upon men, they have shown a very great amount of practical talent. I do not read the new evidence respecting Queen Elizabeth as you seem to do.3 She was already known to have had weaknesses of vanity & temper, but with the means of realising her position now afforded to us by the mass of contemporary documents transcribed by Froude,4 I confess she seems to me to have taken on the whole more just views of general policy than her critics. For example: with the very small pecuniary resources she had (a thing generally forgotten) the economy absolutely indispensable could only be enforced by making those whom she employed (every one of whom was always in great need of money for the purposes of his department) feel constantly extreme difficulty in getting it & the strongest motive to do without it if he could. Again, with half or more than half her subjects Catholics, herself under the ban of the Pope5 & with a Catholic competitor for the throne,6 was it not wise in her to take advantage as long as she could of the real indisposition of the powerful Philip7 (an indisposition never fully known till now) to drive her to extremities? We are bound to remember that after all that is said of the danger to which she exposed England & Protestantism by her parsimony & over-caution, the event has justified her; England & Protestantism survived the risk & came out with greatly increased power & éclat.

If you have read Mr Motley’s last two volumes,8 you will have observed a great change in his tone respecting Elizabeth. There are no more of the disparaging comments of his earlier volumes but on the contrary her abilities are always spoken of with great respect.

As you truly say, queens, & kings, too, are now superfluous; but the experience which women have given of themselves as queens is not obsolete. They are not now wanted as queens, but the qualities which made them successful as queens are still the conditions of success in all the practical affairs of mankind.

I thought it best not to discuss the questions about marriage & divorce along with that of the equality of women; not only from the obvious inexpediency of establishing a connexion in people’s minds between the equality, & any particular opinions on the divorce question, but also because I do not think that the conditions of the dissolubility of marriage can be properly determined until women have an equal voice in determining them, nor until there has been experience of the marriage relation as it would exist between equals. Until then I should not like to commit myself to more than the general principle of relief from the contract in extreme cases.

1473.

TO GEORGE CROOM ROBERTSON1

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

Aug. 18. 1869

Dear Mr Robertson—

Want of time has prevented me from sooner thanking you for the very interesting letter you wrote to me on the subject of my little book.2 On the few points which you criticise you shew so clear a discernment of both sides of the question that there is little need or scope for answering you. Only on the smallest of them the good government of Indian princesses,3 do your remarks present anything to be corrected. In an Asiatic principality good government (even comparative) is never obtainable by letting alone. It is obtained by an ever watchful eye & a strong hand, depending as it does upon a rigid & vigorous control of the subordinate agents of government, whose power of plunder & tyranny if left to themselves is irresistible. The rulers who do let things alone, are those whose affairs fall into disorder & their countries into anarchy through their supineness & self indulgence; & these are generally male rulers. The measure of good government in the East is the closeness of the ruler’s application to business; & it is really remarkable that the instances of this should be so preponderant in the temporary rule of women as regents.

The comparison of women to slaves4 was of course not intended to run on all fours. I thought the differences too obvious to need stating, & that the fundamental resemblances were what required to be insisted on. But a different judgment coming from you cannot but be valuable to me.

The most important of your points is the suggestion of a possible turning of what is said about the usefulness of the present feminine type as a corrective to the present masculine, into an argument for maintaining the two types distinct by difference of training.5 You have yourself gone into considerations of great importance in answer to this argument, all of which I fully accept. I sh^d add some others to them, as, first, it is not certain that the differences spoken of are not partly at least natural ones, which would subsist in spite of identity of training; secondly the correction which the one type supplies to the excesses of the other is very imperfectly obtained now owing to the very circumstance that women’s sphere & men’s are kept so much apart. At present, saving fortunate exceptions, women have rather shown the good influence of this sort which they might exercise over men, than actually exercised it.

We have much regretted that your absence prevented us from seeing anything of you during our summer stay here; but what is a loss to us is a gain to you. We shall hope to be indemnified when we are next in England. We leave for Avignon in two or three days.

1474.

TO WILLIAM WOOD1

• Avignon

Aug. 30. 1869

Dear Sir

Your letter is extremely gratifying, and shows how much may be done by real earnestness and public spirit. You have done very wisely to write to the Post Master General about the Petition2 because I have seen some causes to suspect that members of Parliament are not altogether to be trusted in this matter. Certain it is, that during the time I was in Parliament, no petitions sent to me by post—and I believe I had more than the average number—ever failed to be delivered by the post; also that among all the petitions got up by or for the London Women’s Suffrage Society, I have never heard of one directed to the Society that failed to come to hand. It is exceedingly desirable that the petitions should whenever possible be forwarded by the constituents direct to their own member, but it is singular that failures on the part of the Post Office generally take place in these cases. Possibly there is some failure in the delivery at the House of Commons: nevertheless I myself had always every cause to think highly of the attention and exactitude of the officers of the House, and it never happened to me to lose anything from their neglect, any more than through the neglect of the Post Office.

I send you some reports of the meeting of the London Women’s Suffrage Society,3 and you can have any number that you would like to distribute among your friends. To be a member of the Society it is only necessary to subscribe one shilling per annum and to give the name and address. You can either send in your own name and address and that of any friends who wish to be members, along with the necessary postage stamps, to Mrs. P. A. Taylor, Aubrey House, Notting Hill, London, W. (Honorary Secretary of the Society) or to me. The former would be the simpler and quicker, and you will receive receipts from Mrs. Taylor in due time and also in future as many copies as you would like to have of all the publications of the Society. I will ask Mrs. Fawcett, wife of Professor Fawcett M.P., whether it would be possible for her to go and speak at Stoke. Either she or Mrs Taylor would speak well, if it were possible for either of them to make arrangements to do so. It is just possible that my friend Professor Fawcett might be able himself to go to Stoke, and the cause of Women’s Suffrage has no more active, judicious and useful friends than Mr and Mrs Fawcett.

The Land Tenure Reform Association is only in process of formation. As soon as the terms of membership are settled, I will let you know.

If you could make use of more copies of my little book on the Subject. of Women and would let me know how many you would like I will direct my publisher to send them to you.

1475.

TO EMILE DE LAVELEYE1

• A[vignon]

Sept. 9. 1869

Mon cher Monsieur—

Les raisons indiquées dans votre lettre, comme celles que mettent en avant les partisans de la fondation de colonies belges, me paraissaient, comme à vous, extrêmement faibles. Il me semble d’ailleurs que cette fondation, regardée comme moyen d’assurer un marché aux produits de l’industrie belge, suppose le maintien de privilèges exclusifs en faveur de la mère patrie: ce qui est tout à fait repoussé par les lumières du siècle, et ne serait certainement pas supporté par les colonies, lorsqu’elles se seraient assez développées pour offrir un débouché de quelque valeur.

Une meilleure raison serait que la création d’une nouvelle province, unie avec la mère patrie par un même sentiment de patriotisme, pourrait être un surcroît de force en cas de danger de la part de l’étranger. Mais à cela, on peut répondre que si l’indépendance de la Belgique est exposée à quelque danger d’envahissement, ce serait plutôt dans un temps très prochain. On doit espérer qu’en moins de temps qu’il n’en faudrait pour qu’une colonie devint assez importante pour avoir quelque poids dans la balance des événements, il n’y aura plus de grandes monarchies militaires, prêtes à fondre sur les petits pays, au premier prétexte qui se présente.

Quant à la “Subjection of Women”, j’ai à vous remercier de vos renseignements sur l’éducation des demoiselles en Allemagne. Il se peut que je n’aie pas rendu pleine justice à l’instruction qu’elles reçoivent. Cependent, on m’assure que, si elles apprennent plusieurs langues modernes, elles ne s’en servent guère pour la lecture, et que même dans leur propre langue, elles ne lisent, en générale, que la littérature la plus légère. Il est vrai aussi que l’éducation des jeunes Françaises est ordinairement très défectueuse; cependant, il y a un assez grand nombre de Françaises qui prouvent par leurs écrits qu’elles sont douées d’une instruction assez solide, tandis qu’en Allemagne, les femmes quelque peu lettrées, comme Bettina,2 comme Rahel3 ou même comme la comtesse Hahn-Hahn,4 semblent être en très petit nombre. Après cela, qu’il y ait en Allemagne beaucoup de femmes d’un talent pratique distingué, je le crois sans difficulté; mais je pense qu’il y en a partout.

Je pense que la vie de famille n’a rien à craindre de la parfaite égalite politique et civile des deux sexes. Cette vie est tellement essentielle à l’humanité, qu’elle ne risque pas de s’ébranler et ne peut, ce me semble, que gagner, comme toutes les autres relations sociales, en étant régie par l’accord des volontés, au lieu du pouvoir arbitraire d’un des conjoints. Quant au vote politique des femmes, s’il pouvait s’établir dès aujourdhui, il y aurait sans doute un danger temporaire du côté de “l’influence cléricale”, mais il s’en faut de beaucoup que nous en soyens là. Et n’est-ce pas surtout parce que les femmes n’ont pas de voix dans la politique ni dans la conduite des affaires, que les hommes les abandonnent à l’influence des prêtres, dans l’idée, au moins dans les pays catholiques, que cela ouvre une voie à leur sensibilité naturelle, sans que cela puisse tirer à conséquence, et même en assurant davantage leur fidélité conjugale? C’est un calcul très peu pré voyant et qui ne pourrait pas durer, si les femmes avaient des droits dont l’exercice peu éclairé pourrait compromettre ce qu’on regarde comme de très graves intérêts, même matériels.

Agréez, mon cher Monsieur, l’expression de ma considération la plus distinguée.

J. S. Mill

1476.

TO DAVID McBURNIE WATSON1

• A[vignon]

Sept. 9, 1869

Dear Sir—

My letters are forwarded to me from England once a week & I received your letter of the 1st too late for you to receive my reply on Monday. Any one who would draw out a careful statement of exactly the points indicated in your letter would be doing a very great service to the public, but it would be difficult to get correct information on all these points. The ballot in the U. S. of America is I believe universal, but also, I believe, quite inoperative as to secrecy. The same thing is true of France, & true to a considerable extent of the Australian colonies. It is said, that in some of the Australian colonies & in Greece, the secret is well kept. I believe that it would be next to impossible to get authentic information on all these points except on the spot or by a long & varied acquaintance with natives of each country, as most people make very loose & careless statements even on the most literal matters of fact, & it is necessary to collate the statements of a great many, to get at the facts even in one individual case. To draw out a really trustworthy comparative table of the mere bare facts concerning the ballot would be a matter of time & labour requiring a good deal of cooperation. It would probably well repay the labour, but there exists no association that I know of for the purpose of combating the Ballot in any way. I do not think that the almost certainty of the Ballot being tried in England before long sh^d be any discouragement, but the contrary, to our efforts to get at the truth about it, & should you & your friends be disposed to undertake any labours of the kind I shall be happy to furnish you with introductions to any of my foreign friends & correspondents. Mr Arthur Arnold2 has written an account of the method practised in Greece to secure secrecy & I believe has mentioned in that some of the other systems which are inoperative in this respect, & I believe this is the best & almost the only attempt to give statements of mere facts on the subject in English.

In America it would appear that nobody desires to keep his vote secret & that the ballot is preferred only as a convenient & quiet mode of collecting the votes. I observe also that the eulogiums one often hears from Australia on the working of the Ballot in Victoria turn almost entirely on the tranquillity & good order in which the elections are there conducted through abolition of the open poll. Now it is evident that these benefits do not at all depend on the secrecy of the votes, but on their being given in the silent mode of putting tickets into a box; & would be equally attained if the voter were required to sign his name to his voting ticket.

1477.

TO ISABELLA BEECHER HOOKER1

• A[vignon]

Sept. 13, 1869

Dear Madam—

I beg to acknowledge, with many thanks, your letter of Aug. 10.

You have perceived, what I should wish every one who reads my little book to know that whatever there is in it which shews any unusual insight into nature or life was learnt from women—from my wife, and subsequently also from her daughter.

What you so justly say respecting the infinitely closer relationship of a child to its mother than to its father, I have learnt from the same source to regard as full of important consequences with respect to the future legal position of parents & children. This, however, is a portion of the truth for which the human mind will not, for some time, be sufficiently prepared to make its discussion useful.

But I do not perceive that this closer relationship gives any ground for attributing a natural superiority in capacity of moral excellence to women over men. I believe moral excellence to be always the fruit of education & cultivation, & I see no reason to doubt that both sexes are equally capable of that description of cultivation. But the position of irresponsible power in which men have hitherto lived is, I need hardly say, most unfavourable to almost every kind of moral excellence. So far as women have been in possession of irresponsible power they too have by no means escaped its baneful consequences.

With hearty congratulations on the progress of the cause of women in both our countries & in most other parts of the civilized world, I am &c

1478.

TO COL. JOHN WYCLIFFE THOMPSON1

• Avignon

Sept. 13. 1869

Dear Sir

I thank you sincerely for your letter. I had but a slight personal acquaintance, of rather old date, with General Thompson, but I have always regarded him with very high respect, and rejoiced that he was preserved to see so many of the things he had so nobly struggled for brought into successful operation. He was one of the worthiest, as he was one of the latest, survivors of the generation to which he belonged, and which he had served. I am Dear Sir

yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

Colonel J. W. Thompson

1479.

TO GEORGE MAKEPEACE TOWLE1

• Avignon

Sept. 13. 1869

Dear Sir

Your letter dated the 7^th inst. has been forwarded to me here.

My life contains no incidents which in any way concern the public; and with the exception of my writings, which are open to every one, there are no materials for such a biographical sketch as you contemplate. The only matter which I can furnish is a few dates. Born in London, May 20, 1806. Educated wholly by my father, James Mill, author of History of British India, Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind, and other works. In 1823 received an appointment in the East India House, and rose progressively to be the head of the principal office of correspondence between the home authorities and the local government of India, a post which had been held by my father. Quitted the service in 1858, when the functions of the East India Company were transferred to the Crown. Married in 1851 to Harriet, daughter of Thomas Hardy Esq. of Birksgate, near Huddersfield and widow of John Taylor Esq merchant of London; who died in 1858. Elected to Parliament for Westminster in 1865; was an unsuccessful candidate for that city in 1868.

I am Dear Sir
yours ever faithfully

J. S. Mill

G. M. Towle Esq.

1480.

TO T. E. CLIFFE LESLIE1

• A[vignon]

Oct. 5. 1869

Dear Mr Leslie

I am your debtor for two interesting letters, one from Peyrusse, the other from London, the last of which owing to an excursion we were making from home I did not receive until a week after it was written. You seem to have had a long & varied tour & I look forward with much pleasure to reading your observations on the districts you visited, more especially as I have but little personal acquaintance with most of them. In regard to Britany in most parts of which I have travelled formerly2 I thought its backwardness even then much exaggerated, but Rennes & its neighbourhood are a favourable specimen. What the French call “La Bretagne Bretonnante” is, or was fifteen years ago much wilder, though really very like the wilder parts of England. I should like to know your opinion of M. Victor Bonnet.3 Judging from his article on the Gold question in the Revue des 2 Mondes of 15^th August last4 he seems but a poor political economist. Though acquainted with your speculations on the subject he seems quite at sea as to the application of them.

It seems to me that whatever can be justly said against women’s fitness for politics either on the score of narrowness or violence of partisanship arises chiefly if not wholly, from their exclusion from politics. Their social position allows them no scope for any feelings beyond the family except personal likings & dislikes, & it is assumed that they would be governed entirely by these in their judgment & feeling in political matters. But it is precisely by creating in their minds a concern for the interests which are common to all, those of their country & of human improvement, that the tendency to look upon all questions as personal questions would most effectually be corrected.

My daughter thinks the opinions expressed by the ladies you mention5 very natural for French men & women & those whose ideas have been most formed by French literature & for two reasons:—

1. The peculiar bringing up of women has on the whole from a multiplicity of causes having to do with the history of the nation & also with race peculiarities tended in England to make women both weaker & gentler than men; in France, to make them more energetic and passionate. This passion & energy is chiefly used up in rivalry with other women, & a habit of fierce, passionate contest between women as individuals is acquired. What helps to this is that energetic Frenchwomen are apt to be less domestic than energetic Englishwomen partly on account of the smaller families, partly of the custom of sending the children out to nurse and to pension. Their energies are thus devoted in greater proportion than in England to rivalry with other women in dress, in love affairs, & in social success; so that being at once more energetic & more given to using their energies in specific contests for superiority with other women, they are more disposed to personal enmities.

2. It is probably true that women on the average are more what the French mean by jealous than men; it is certainly true that the less civilised people are more jealous in this sense than the more civilised; probably on this account it is that women are more jealous than men as certainly the French are more jealous than the English. There seems however good reason to think that one of the specific benefits of political freedom is that it diminishes this moral vice of jalousie to which the French are more subject than any other people I know, in private affairs, although not more so than the Spaniards & Greeks in politics. You have evidently seen the true answer when you say that the habit of combination for common objects which is always induced by political freedom is the cure for the passionate & self willed disposition of which the French accuse women & other nations accuse the French.

I inclose three French postage stamps of 20 centimes being the equivalent of those inclosed in your letter.

1481.

TO ANDREW REID1

October 5. 1869

Dear Sir—

Your letter of Sept 29 has just reached me. I am very glad to hear of so many & such good adhesions. It is a proof that many have arrived at the conviction that the time has come for making some improvement in the land laws. But the subject has been so little discussed that there is sure to be great difference of opinion as to what that improvement sh^d be. I myself agree in principle with M^r Odger & his friends;2 but if the Assⁿ were to adopt as its purpose the resumption of all the land from its proprietors it could not hope for any support except from a portion of the working classes. The proposal is entirely new & startling to all other classes & a great deal of preparation will be required to induce them even to listen to it patiently. An Association to agitate on a question is seldom timely or useful until the public have first been to a certain degree familiarized with the subject so that hopes may be entertained of making at once a considerable show of strength. We are certainly very far from this point in regard to the question of taking possession of all the land & managing it by the State; I say nothing at present of the reasonable doubt which may be entertained whether we have yet reached such a degree of improvement as would enable so vast a concern to be managed on account of the public without a perfectly intolerable amount of jobbing. I merely say that the general mind of the country is as yet totally unprepared to entertain the question. It is possible that the active spirits in the working classes may think nothing worth trying for short of this, & may consequently withhold their support from the Assⁿ. I think this would be a great mistake; but we must be prepared for the possibility of it.

I agree with Mr Taylor in thinking that the alteration which was proposed in Art 5,3 which seems to let in claims to an interest in the land on the part of the working classes generally as distinguished from those who are actually at work on the land is more than verbal & exceeds the reasonable powers of a Sub Committee.

With regard to my attendance at the first meeting of the Assⁿ I shall be able to speak more precisely when I know at what time it is proposed to hold the meeting, & what is to be done there. I am anxious that you sh^d understand clearly that the only relation which I can hold towards the Assⁿ is that of a member, & occasional speaker. You talk of “leadership” but that is entirely out of the question.4 It would be impossible for me to undertake a prominent position in the Assⁿ without giving to it an amount of time and labour which I do not feel called upon to give; withdrawing me as it would do from literary occupations to which, both on public and private [grounds] I prefer to devote my energies.

I have much pleasure in inclosing a note I have received from Mr W. Rossiter, the manager of the South London Working Men’s College.5 He will be a most desirable & valuable member of the Assⁿ. I have referred him to you for all points of information.

1482.

TO FRÉDERI MISTRAL1

• A[vignon]

Oct. 6. 1869

Cher Monsieur—

Parmi toutes les adhésions qui ont été données à la thèse de mon petit livre2 je ne sais s’il y en a aucune qui m’ait fait plus de plaisir que la vôtre; et cela non seulement à cause de l’influence que donne à vos opinions votre position si importante dans le monde des lettres3 mais encore plus par la confirmation de ma conviction que les âmes poétiques, lorsqu’elles sont jointes à une intelligence éclairée ne verront rien qui leur répugne dans la modification que la justice exige dans les relations sociales entre les deux sexes. En effet dans toute société qui n’est pas profondément démoralisée il n’y a pas à craindre que l’homme ne cherche pas à idéaliser la femme. La nature l’y portera toujours: mais ici comme dans tout le reste, il s’agit pour l’idéal de ne pas trop s’écarter des conditions de la réalité. Autrement on aurait d’une part un idéal incompatible avec les conditions de la vie, et d’autre part une vie réelle toute prosaïque dans laquelle on retomberait toujours. Il en est ainsi de l’idéal que beaucoup de poètes ont voulu établir pour les femmes. Ils se sont figuré un être tout de fantaisie, qui aurait besoin pour exister d’un monde aussi imaginaire que lui; ils ont proposé aux femmes cet être-là pour modèle, et quand elles tâchent de s’y conformer en toute sincérité ou en apparence, elles se heurtent contre les dures exigences de la vie réelle qui s’opposent invinciblement à la réalisation. Qu’on s’efforce tant qu’on veut à écarter de la vie des femmes ces exigences, on n’en vient jamais à bout: d’abord, pour la très grande majorité du sexe féminin c’est matiérellement impossible; et chez le petit nombre des privilégiées il en reste toujours assez pour les rendre dures, égoistes et cruelles, à moins d’en être préservées par une culture morale qui serait tout aussi efficace dans un état de choses plus naturel. Il me semble que l’idéal propre à l’existence humaine serait tout autre que cet idéal de fantaisie, sans être pour cela moins poétique: ce serait l’idée d’une personne complète dans toutes ses facultés, propre à toutes les tâches et à toutes les épreuves de la vie, mais qui les remplirait avec une grandeur d’âme, une force de raison et une tendresse de coeur très au-dessus de ce qui a lieu maintenant, sauf peut-être chez les plus admirables caractères dans leurs moments de plus grande exaltation. Si cet idéal a jamais été offert au genre humain c’est dans le Christ, et je ne sais pas ce qu’on pourrait demander de mieux soit à un homme soit à une femme sous le rapport de perfectionnement moral, que de lui ressembler. Or ce caractère-là est aussi profondément réel que poétiquement élevé et émouvant.

1483.

TO WILLIAM WOOD1

• Avignon

Oct. 6. 1869

Dear Sir

I return your paper of questions, with answers annexed as you request. The most common of the informalities which prevent a petition from being received, is a breach of the rule that at least one of the signatures should be written on the sheet of paper on which the petition itself is written. A single signature on the same sheet authenticates it as at least the petition of somebody: but if all the signatures are on sheets pasted on, there is no positive assurance that any of them were really intended for the petition to which they are in that manner annexed.

Your petition,2 however, seems never to have reached the stage at which it could be rejected for informality; since this takes place after, not before, the petition has been presented to the House and referred to the Committee of Petitions. If your petition never reached the member to whom it was addressed (which from your former letter I understood to be affirmed by him) the miscarriage (if you are sure that it was posted) must either be imputable to the Post Office or to the officers of the House of Commons.

I will write to ascertain whether it will be possible for Mr and Mrs Fawcett, or any other of the ladies of the Committee, to attend and speak at a meeting in your borough.3 I will also direct the publishers to send you a number of copies of the little book. There seems a great probability that the question will be brought forward in the House next session; but people should be willing to petition whether this is the case or not. A great question is seldom carried without long perseverance in working for it.

I shall always be happy to hear your opinions on any subject on which you like to write to me.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Mr William Wood

1484.

TO HENRY FAWCETT1

• Avignon

Oct. 7. 1869

Dear Mr Fawcett

Mr William Wood, a working man in the Potteries, who has long been a correspondent of mine, and is one of the most thoughtful and sensible working men with whom I have ever been in communication, is of opinion that a public meeting on Women’s Suffrage might usefully be held, or at the least a lecture delivered, in the borough of Stoke on Trent, and offers to take upon himself the work of making the necessary arrangements, provided that one of the leaders of the movement is able to be present, and especially if, as he says, “one at least of the ladies who are the glory and no small part of the strength of the movement be present to speak to us in its advocacy.” This last he considers of primary importance. He will write further on the details of arrangements if I can tell him that you and Mrs Fawcett would be able and willing to take part. Mr Wood was the first to broach the subject in the local press, and has ascertained by a successful personal canvass for signatures to a petition that “there is really a large body of people in the Borough who are favourable to the movement, and who with a little organisation, would be willing to give an active support to it.” He adds “I have assurance of assistance in any future action in the matter from many of the most active and intelligent politicians amongst my own class, and also from some of the few with whom I came in contact of the wealthier classes in the borough.” A meeting, therefore, under your and Mrs Fawcett’s auspices would not be likely to be a failure, and might tend to promote the movement among the working classes in general; and Mr Wood thinks that the presence of a lady among its advocates might encourage ladies in the locality to join. It seems a pity that such favourable promise should not be taken advantage of. Next to a meeting, a lecture by Mrs Fawcett would be most useful, and the same lecture might afterwards be delivered in other places. If you and Mrs Fawcett look favourably on the proposal, I think you will find Mr Wood capable of fulfilling all he promises. His address is 6 Hawkesmere Street, Hanley, Stoke on Trent.

The cause seems to be prospering everywhere. There are responses to my little book in almost all parts of Europe. It is being translated into Polish; I have had three proposals for translating it into Russian and a greater number than I can remember into German.2 The reviews of it, whether favourable or hostile, are in general very encouraging.

The Land Association also has got together a great number of very good adhesions. I only hope it will be possible to keep adherents together who differ so much in the length they intend to go. This can only be done by leaving many important points as open questions for discussion within the Association itself.

My daughter sends her kindest regards to Mrs Fawcett, and I am

Dear Mr Fawcett
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

Professor Fawcett M.P.

1485.

TO MRS. PETER ALFRED TAYLOR1

7th October 1869

Dear Mrs. Taylor,—

One of my working-men correspondents, and the most thoughtful and intelligent of them, Mr. William Wood, of Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent, who has lately enrolled himself as a member of the London Woman Suffrage Society, is very desirous of having a public meeting, or, if that should be impossible, a lecture in his borough, and offers to take upon himself the work of making the arrangements; but he considers it a sine qua non that “one at least of the ladies who are the glory and no small part of the strength of the movement, be present to speak to us in its advocacy.” . . .

I have written to propose to Mrs. Fawcett to take up the project;2 if she does not, would it be impossible for you to do so? It would be unfair to ask you, who have so much on your hands in the central direction of the movement, to work at the outposts when the work can be done by anyone else, but we rely so much on your public spirit that we cannot help looking to you as a reserve when others fail. The cause has now reached a point at which it has become extremely desirable that the ladies who lead the movement should make themselves visible to the public, their very appearance being a refutation of the vulgar nonsense talked about “women’s rights women,” and their manner of looking, moving, and speaking being sure to make a favourable impression from the purely feminine as well as from the human point of view.

1486.

TO WILLIAM HENRY DUIGNAN1

• Avignon

Oct. 20. 1869

Dear Sir

I feel highly honoured by having been thought of as a candidate for the anticipated vacancy in the representation of Dudley, notwithstanding my refusal on principle to incur any expense. But I have for the present determined not to reenter Parliament, being of opinion that I can promote my opinions more effectively at this time in the capacity of a writer, than in that of a member of the House of Commons. Again thanking you for the high compliment of your proposal, I am

Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1487.

TO ANDREW REID1

• A[vignon]

Oct. 22. 1869

Dear Sir

In deference to your wishes I have taken some days to reconsider the subject of your letter but the result is that I adhere to my resolution of not accepting the Presidentship of the Association.2

When I was asked to take the Chair at the first meeting of the Committee, & when Mr Beales & yourself shewed a desire to put my name forward to the public, I distinctly said that it would not suit me to be President, or to take the leading part in the conduct of the Association, and it was on that understanding only that I consented to be Chairman of the Provisional Committee. It is repugnant to me to be ostensibly at the head of any undertaking unless I am prepared to devote my utmost efforts to make it succeed; & the land question notwithstanding its importance is only one of a number of subjects which have a claim on my time & exertions. I therefore do not think it required by or consistent with my duty to devote myself to this one movement even if it were clear, which it is not to me, that I am the fittest person to take the lead in it.

With regard to attending the first public meeting, it would not be impossible for me to do so, at any time not earlier than the latter end of November. But it seems to me quite premature to appoint a public meeting as long as there is the present uncertainty about our pecuniary means. You say that the Education League3 is up & doing & that therefore the Land Association should be up & doing too. But if the newspapers speak truth, the Education League has already raised many thousands of pounds. I think it imprudent to give publicity to our proceedings in any way until we are privately assured of an amount of support which will prevent the possibility of a total break down in the attempt to form a Society. Our first duty is if possible to guard against this. We cannot hold meetings & carry on agitation like the Education League unless we have as much money. We shall need ample donations from our richer members & an annual subscription from all, and until assured of these I think it better not to come before the public.

With regard to the Programme, the reason which led me to suggest a modification of it, has been taken away by the formation of a separate organisation by some of the leaders of the working classes for their own programme.4 If they think the time has come to agitate for their more extreme objects, they will give but a cold support if any support at all, to ours, & it is useless going out of our way to attract them. I myself should differ from them even as to the waste lands. I should be sorry to see the whole of these farmed out & given up to cultivation. I wish a great part of them to remain in their native wildness & natural beauty. There is little enough beauty in our common life, & we cannot afford to sacrifice what we have. It is in the lands owned by public bodies & charitable institutions that I would try the experiment of state or municipal management.

I wish it clearly understood that if I am present at all at any public meeting it must not be as presiding but merely as one of the speakers.

1488.

TO JAMES M. BARNARD1

• Avignon

Oct. 23. 1869

Dear Sir

You are aware of the favour with which the majority of the popular party in Great Britain regard the vote by ballot at parliamentary elections, as a means of restraining bribery and intimidation, and the increased interest which this question has assumed through the recent extension of the suffrage. The writer of the inclosed letter,2 and some of his friends, are anxious to obtain information that can be depended on, respecting the practical working of vote by ballot in the countries in which it exists by law. Their own opinion, like mine, is unfavourable to it; but their desire is to find the truth, whatever it may be; and the vague impressions current in Europe give no real knowledge of the ballot in America even as it exists by law, much less of the mode in which it is actually conducted, and the advantages and disadvantages which are found in practice to attend it. You would oblige me very much, and would do some public service, if you could kindly supply my correspondent with any of the information which he desires, or refer him to any sources from which he could procure it.

I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

J. M. Barnard Esq.

1489.

TO DR. EMILE HONORÉ CAZELLES1

• A[vignon]

Oct. 23. 1869

Cher Monsieur—

Je vous remercie de m’avoir envoyé le Journal des Débats.2 La notice par M. Taine dépasse beaucoup en louanges, et ce qui vaut mieux, en adhésion, tout ce qu’on pouvait espérer. J’ai lu dans la Revue l’article de M. Janet.3 J’ai lieu de lui savoir gré encore plus que vous, des égards qu’il nous montre. Quant à la substance de l’article, mon appréciation diffère peu de la vôtre. La tentative qu’il fait de prouver l’existence objective des corps par un argument semblable à celui dont je me sers pour établir la réalité d’autres êtres sentants et pensants, est ingénieuse mais sans valeur aucune. Son exemple des deux lutteurs ne prouve que ce qu’on ne songe pas à nier, savoir que les possibilités permanentes de sensation qui sont de la catégorie de ce que nous nommons résistance, se trouvent quelquefois liées à une conviction rationelle d’une autre sensation de résistance hors de nous, à quoi l’on peut ajouter que leur réalisation dépend quelquefois d’une volonté hors de nous. Tout cela n’a aucune difficulté dès qu’on admet la réalité de sensations et de volitions autres que les siennes propres.

Quant au problème général. M. Janet le déplace complètement. On lui dit que la force n’est qu’un phénomène, et il vous répond en prouvant la force, comme si vous aviez dit qu’elle n’existe pas.

Je viens aussi de lire l’opuscule de M. Renouvier.4 Sauf la question du libre arbitre, que du reste il a pu poser plus nettement et d’une manière plus rationelle qu’on ne la pose ordinairement, parcequ’il a renoncé à sauver la prescience divine: sauf cette question, dis-je, il ne me semble pas qu’il y ait beaucoup de différence entre ses opinions et les miennes, sur les grandes questions de la métaphysique. Il nie la substance, il réduit les corps à des groupes de phénomènes. Il croit à la vérité me dépasser lorsqu’il nie l’infini, et il pense qu’en soutenant l’intelligibilité non de l’infini abstrait mais de l’infini quoad hoc j’ai voulu laisser une ouverture pour des spéculations transcendantes. Il n’en est rien: mon but était pratique, et surtout moral; j’ai voulu montrer que s’il existe un être possédant un attribut quelconque porté a l’infini, cet attribut doit être qualitativement identique au même attribut s’arrêtant au fini; que, par exemple un Dieu infiniment bon ne peut être bon que de la bonté humaine. Ma controverse avec Mansel aurait dû prouver à M. Renouvier la grande importance morale, dans un milieu croyant, de cette thèse.

La réponse de M. Huxley à M. Congreve a déjà paru, dans le même recueil périodique que la conférence.5 Par un heureux accident j’ai conservé cette réponse et je vous l’envoie par la poste. C’est une critique amère de Comte, parfois juste, plus souvent injuste ou exagérée, et qui me paraît dans son ensemble extrêmement faible. Pour rendre justice à Huxley il faut se rappeler que le volume le plus imparfait et surtout le plus arriéré de la Philosophie Positive est celui qui traite de la chimie et de la biologie,6 et que ces deux sciences sont justement celles que Huxley connaît le mieux. Je ne lui crois pas de grandes connaissances dans les sciences qui dépendent de la mathématique: lorsqu’il se hasarde à contester les généralisations de Comte sur la philosophie générale des sciences, tout ce qu’il dit est tellement superficiel que le moindre disciple de Comte n’aurait pas de peine à le réfuter.

1490.

TO HENRY GEORGE1

• Avignon

Oct. 23, 1869

Dear Sir

The subject on which you have asked my opinion, involves two of the most difficult and embarrassing questions of political morality; the extent and limits of the right of those who have first taken possession of an unoccupied portion of the earth’s surface, to exclude the remainder of mankind from inhabiting it; and the means which can be legitimately used by the more improved branches of the human species to protect themselves from being hurtfully encroached upon by those of a lower grade in civilisation. The Chinese immigration into America raises both these questions. To furnish a general answer to either of them would be a most arduous undertaking.

Concerning the purely economical view of the subject I entirely agree with you; and it could hardly be better stated and argued than it is in your able article in the New York Tribune.2 That the Chinese immigration, if it attains great dimensions, must be economically injurious to the mass of the present population; that it must diminish their wages, and reduce them to a lower stage of physical comfort and well-being, I have no manner of doubt. Nothing can be more fallacious than the attempts to make out that thus to lower wages is the way to raise them; or that there is any compensation in an economical point of view to those whose labour is displaced, or who are obliged to work for a greatly reduced remuneration. On general principles, this state of things, were it sure to continue, would justify the exclusion of the immigrants, on the ground that with their habits in respect to population, only a temporary good is done to the Chinese people by admitting part of their surplus numbers, while a permanent harm is done to a more civilised and improved portion of mankind.

But there is much also to be said on the other side. Is it justifiable to assume that the character and habits of the Chinese are unsusceptible of improvement? The institutions of the United States are the most potent means that have yet existed of spreading the most important elements of civilisation down to the poorest and most ignorant of the labouring masses. If every Chinese child were compulsorily brought under your school system, or under a still more effective one if possible, and kept under it for a sufficient number of years, would not the Chinese population be in time raised to the level of the American? I believe indeed that hitherto the numbers of Chinese born in America has not been very great: but so long as this is the case—so long (that is) as the Chinese do not come in families & settle, but those who come are mostly men and return to their native country, the evil can hardly reach so great a magnitude as to require that it should be put a stop to by force.

One kind of restrictive measure seems to me not only desirable, but absolutely called for; the most stringent laws against introducing Chinese immigrants as Coolies, i.e. under contracts binding them to the service of particular persons. All such obligations are a form of compulsory labour, that is, of slavery: and though I know that the legal invalidity of such contracts does not prevent them from being made, I cannot but think that if pains were taken to make it known to the immigrants that such engagements are not legally binding, and especially if it were made a penal offence to enter into them, that mode at least of immigration would receive a considerable check. And it does not seem probable that any other mode, among so poor a population as the Chinese, can attain such dimensions as to compete very injuriously with American labour. Short of that point, the opportunity given to numerous Chinese of becoming familiar with better and more civilised habits of life, is one of the best chances that can be opened up for the improvement of the Chinese in their own country, and one which it does not seem to me that it would be right to withhold from them.

I am Dear Sir
yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

1491.

TO THEODOR GOMPERZ1

• A[vignon]

Oct. 23, 1869

Dear Mr. Gomperz—

It gave us great pleasure to receive, a short time before we left England for Avignon, the notification of your marriage.2 Pray accept our warm congratulations on that auspicious event, & every possible wish for the happiness present & future of yourself & of the lady who has joined her destiny to yours.

It is long since I have heard from you: I hope that the favour which I am going to ask will procure me that pleasure. A correspondent of mine in Scotland, Mr. D. Watson (6, Teviot Crescent, Hawick)3 and some friends of his, are desirous to obtain authentic information, which is not generally possessed in England, on the mode of operation of Secret Suffrage in the countries where it exists in the election of members of representative bodies. Their opinion, like mine, is unfavourable to secret voting; but their wish is, not to confirm their existing opinion, but to know the truth; what are the means taken in different countries to secure secrecy; how far those means are effective; and in what respect secrecy, so far as secured, is attended with either good or bad effects. Could you furnish from your own knowledge, or point out the means of obtaining, information on these points in the cases of Austria, Hungary, or any German Government? If you could do so it would be a valuable contribution to a subject of great & increasing importance in English politics, and I should myself be sincerely grateful to you for it.

1492.

TO WILLIAM THOMAS THORNTON1

• A[vignon]

Oct. 23. 1869

Dear Thornton—

We are most happy to hear that you have had such an interesting holiday2 & that both the weather & your health & spirits were so favourable to enjoyment. I am much obliged to you for your observations on the peasant properties. We must try to find out whether the farms which pleased you so much in North Holland are the property of the farmers.3 With regard to the internal discomfort of the houses in other places, it is probably a consequence & sample of the general habits of the country. In most parts of the Continent the taste for what we call comfort is much less developed than in England: & peasant properties by the prudential and calculating habits which they foster, promote frugality as well as industry (the peasants preferring saving to enjoyment) often exhibit a very meagre state of living when the means are, as in the case you mention of the widow near Darmstadt, ample.4 Helen says too that to understand this subject one must distinguish between comfort & neatness, although neatness is no doubt an essential to comfort in our eyes. There would almost seem something of race in the care for neatness, which Helen says does not follow at all, as one might suppose, the variations of climate. Some Oriental peoples are very neat, as are the Spaniards (in the parts of Spain we have visited) & the Greeks. In Greek & Spanish rooms where the furniture is poor, & there is substantial dirtiness if vermin may so be called the neatness is often charming, & most refreshing to the eye & spirits, while in French rooms of the same class the building will be more solid, the bedding comfortable & irreproachably clean, & yet the dust and untidiness will be repugnant & wretched to an English eye. Some of the same curious differences may be noticed in different parts of Germany, & Helen says that for many years she has tried to find any general rule which will explain these variations. She is inclined to think that it may perhaps prove that this pleasant tidiness of the home to the eye depends upon whether the women work out of the house or not, & may have nothing to do with race, climate, civilisation or wealth. This however is still a mere hypothesis in her mind.

We too have made an excursion, of about ten days, in the Alps. We established ourselves at the inn on the top of the pass of Mont Cenis, 6000 feet above the sea, & greatly enjoyed walks among the neighbouring heights. We had at first splendid weather but as it seemed to be changing we went off to some little travelled parts of the lower Alps, south of Grenoble where we had again beautiful weather & much enjoyment. We have since had a still pleasanter though shorter excursion in the mountains of the eastern part of our department, in which last excursion we walked upwards of fifty miles in three days. The improvements in our own little place are now nearly completed, but until they are quite finished they continue to give Helen a great deal of troublesome occupation. I have no report to make as yet of work done, except what can hardly be called by that name—bringing up arrears of general reading—but I hope to have better account to give in a little while. About Carlyle I agree both with you & with Hill.5 It is only at a particular stage in one’s mental development that one benefits much by him (to me he was of great use at that stage)6 but one continues to read his best things with little if any diminution of pleasure after one has ceased to learn anything from him.

1493.

TO HENRY FAWCETT1

• Avignon

Oct. 24. 1869

Dear Mr Fawcett

I had already seen a very brief account in a newspaper,2 of your and Mrs Fawcett’s proceedings at Warwick, and was extremely pleased with both. We are specially delighted that Mrs Fawcett took the opportunity of speaking for women’s suffrage, and that she thinks seriously of preparing a lecture. What she has already written is a guarantee for its being excellent both in matter and stile, and her person and manner will dispel prejudice and attract adherents wherever she delivers it. I hope that there will be nothing to prevent your going to Stoke in January, which, I imagine, will be as suitable a time for Mr Wood’s purpose as November or December.3 If I may judge from his correspondence, you will find him an interesting and useful person to know: he has thought on a great many important subjects, and very soundly on almost all. What you say about the reception of Mrs Fawcett’s speech at Warwick, and of the book4 at Brighton, is very encouraging. If the working men, in any numbers, take up women’s suffrage, it will get on very fast. We highly approved the course you took and the things you said at Birmingham.5 I, like you, have a rather strong opinion in favour of making parents pay something for their children’s education when they are able, though there are considerable difficulties in authenticating their inability. At all events I would have it left an open question; and because they refused to leave that and other secondary questions open, I did not join the League. But I think you are quite right in overlooking this consideration, and acting with the League, in order to form a strong party in the House for the principle of universal and compulsory unsectarian education.

You will believe how delighted we are that Cairnes is so much recovered, and is able to resume his Lectures. The pamphlet he mentioned, by George Campbell,6 was sent to me by the author after it was printed, but before publication, and I did not know that it was yet published. It appeared to me a most valuable contribution to the subject. The Cobden Club have for once done something useful in asking him to write on the Land question.7 The Land Tenure Reform Association has received a considerable number of good adhesions, but it has not yet raised any money; and it is indispensable to know what it is able to do in this way before attempting to come before the public; for a break down would be much more ignominious, and much more injurious to the cause, after, than before, a public demonstration. My name has very unjustifiably been put forward as President, which I from the first refused to be. I have told Reid [page torn] my name must not be used in this way, as I cannot be President,8 although I am willing to do anything I can as a member. I do not know whether to be glad or sorry for the separate organisation which has been started by some leaders of the working classes for a much more radical alteration of the land laws.9 The furious and declamatory violence of their Resolutions and some of their speeches, seems to shew that they would have been a very intractable element in the other Association and that it is well rid of them. One thing I see clearly; that there will be more difficulty than ever in preserving the commons. The working class speakers are filled with exaggerated ideas of the value of the waste lands for cultivation, and apparently do not care at all for the preservation of natural beauty; and if they make any way with their agitation, the landlords will throw over the commons to save their estates. Our best chance of avoiding this will be the progress of education in all classes; and unfortunately it is much easier to improve education in quantity than in quality. It is no new thing that all good depends on work, but in the present state of matters the work of the more advanced minds, over and above its inherent difficulties, has the additional one that it is, in a certain degree, working against time. But there would be little to fear if there were a tolerable number who worked with the energy and spirit that you do. Women’s suffrage will help us in this as in so many other things, for women will be much more unwilling than men to submit to the expulsion of all beauty from common life. I am Dear Mr Fawcett

very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1494.

TO CHARLES W. WILKINSON1

• A[vignon]

Oct. 24. 1869

Dear Sir—

I have received your letter dated the 18^th inst. I need hardly say that I sympathize in your preference of literary to mercantile occupation; but all experience proves that of these two, considered as professions, the latter alone is to be depended on as a means of subsistence & that the former can only be prudently taken up by persons who are already in independent circumstances. It is a rare good fortune if an author can support himself by his pen, unless as an editor or sub editor of a newspaper or other periodical; & I suppose there is not in our day a single instance in which it has been done by poetry of any kind. All my experience of life confirms the wisdom of the advice which Coleridge, in his Biographia Literaria,2 gives to writers even of the greatest genius: to let, if possible, their regular business, on which they rely for support, be something foreign to their favourite pursuits, reserving these as the consolation of their leisure hours. In that case, success, & the favourable estimation of others, are not a matter of necessity to them; if they produce anything worthy of being remembered, they can wait for it to be appreciated, or can be content with the pleasure of the occupation itself. My own conviction is that to be independent of immediate success is almost an absolute condition of being able to do anything that greatly deserves to succeed. Many meritorious literary men would feel themselves saved from lifelong disappointment if they could exchange their position for one of assured though moderate income in the vocation which you are so desirous of quitting for theirs.

With regard to the publication of your work I hardly know what advice to give. It is easy to obtain a publisher if you are able & willing to take on yourself the risk of pecuniary loss. But it is difficult to find a bookseller who is willing to venture anything on the success of a dramatic poem; there are so many writers of dramatic poems, & so few buyers of them; & whatever may be the merit of yours, there is no certainty of its becoming known to the public. Even if an author has friends who are connected as writers or editors with the literary periodicals, which people consult to know what books to order from Mudie’s3 or the circulating libraries, he has but a precarious chance, for people have learnt to distrust the praises of periodicals. Authors often build hopes on recommendations to a publisher from some person who is considered a good judge but these are so often given from mere good nature that they carry little weight; nor do publishers consider the merit of a work as a sufficient guarantee of its pecuniary success. For myself I have no means of aiding you in any of these ways. Even if authority carried greater weight than it does with publishers, I am not an authority on these subjects.

What I say to you I have said to many others who have made applications to me of the same kind, & I sincerely regret that I have nothing more satisfactory to offer.

In short I see but two alternatives for a young author. He can test the probable popularity of his work by offering it to publishers & editors who whether rightly or not are practically the judges of this, & if their decision is unfavourable he must either resign literary work or content himself with working merely for the love of his work accompanied by any such hopes as he may still venture to entertain of better success in the future.

1495.

TO JAMES M. BARNARD1

• A[vignon]

Oct. 28. 1869

Dear Sir—

I thank you & Mrs Barnard heartily for your kindness to Mr Kyllmann.2 I hardly know your equal in eagerness to do kind offices to your friends or to your friends’ friends, while from your manner of conferring a favour any one would suppose that you were receiving one.

I have not written anything on the subject of police. What you have heard of is doubtless a private letter to one of my active supporters in Westminster,3 who asked my opinion on the proposal to place “habitual criminals” under police surveillance, a proposal since embodied in an Act of Parliament4 some of the provisions of which appear to me very objectionable. The letter though signed by me was written by my daughter, who has thought more & to greater purpose on these questions than I have. It was not intended for publication, but was sent without my permission to the newspapers. The date of the letter was December 14. 1868, but I have not a copy of any newspaper containing it & do not remember the date [of] publication.

The multiplication of casts of the finest works of ancient sculpture is very useful as one among many means of educating the public eye.5 Both in art & in nature, a certain degree of familiarity is necessary not merely to the intellectual appreciation but to the enjoyment of the higher kinds of beauty: Every one who takes pleasure in a simple tune has the capacity of fully enjoying Weber & Beethoven, but very often he derives little or no pleasure from a first hearing of them. It is a great mistake to think that children are not benefitted by living & growing up among models of beauty. They are on the contrary more benefitted than any one else, though not, at the time, conscious of the benefit. I can trace a great influence in my own development to the accident of having passed several years of my boyhood in one of the few old abbeys which are still inhabited,6 instead of a mean & graceless modern house, & having at the same time & place been familiar with tapestries from Raphael’s cartoons, which peopled my imagination with graceful & dignified forms of human beings. There is a great want of this training of the perceptions & taste in our modern societies; but it is not by any one help or stimulus that the want can be supplied. The great desideratum in America—& though not quite in an equal degree, I may say in England too—is the improvement of the higher education. America surpasses all countries in the amount of mental cultivation which she has been able to make universal; but a high average level is not everything; there are wanted, I do not say a class, but a great number of persons of the highest degree of cultivation which the accumulated acquisitions of the human race make it possible to give them. From such persons, in a community that knows no distinction of ranks, civilisation would rain down its influences upon the remainder of society, & the higher faculties having been highly cultivated in the most advanced part of the public would give forth products & create an atmosphere that would produce a high average of the same faculties in a people so well prepared in point of general intelligence as the people of the United States.

I have given an introduction to you, and to two or three of my other friends in America, to a correspondent of mine in Scotland, Mr. D. Watson,7 of Hawick, who is anxious to obtain information that can be depended on (but is under the necessity of asking for it by letter) respecting the practical operation of Vote by Ballot in the United States. The example of America is often cited in favour of secret voting & sometimes against it, but there is a great deficiency of real information as to how it operates in America & even as to whether there is real secrecy at all. My correspondent & some of his friends are like myself unfavourable to secret voting but they are anxious to obtain whatever light American experience can throw on the practical question.

1496.

TO CHARLES W. WILKINSON1

• A[vignon]

Nov. 5. 1869

Dear Sir—

I have received your letter of the 28^th which gave me much pleasure & I congratulate you on the wise resolution which you have formed. At your age you have a long time before you & whether or not you are destined to have what is called a “successful life,” the feeling early acquired that you can do without it is one of the greatest blessings which it is possible to carry through life. With your tastes & pursuits you have a source of permanent enjoyment independent of fortune & by the disinterested cultivation of your mental powers you may become capable of rendering services to the world for which it would be imprudent to rely on its making you any adequate pecuniary return.

1497.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

• Avignon

Nov. 16. 1869

Dear Mr Cairnes

It gave us great pleasure to receive a letter from you dated from London, and to know that you are able not only to live in England but to lecture this winter. Even if your health has not sensibly improved since you arrived in England, it is very much that it should have recovered sufficiently before that time to restore you to active life, and that it should maintain the improvement under less favourable circumstances of climate. Your class, I believe, is as large if not larger than has ever been obtained by a Professor of Political Economy in University College. The whole career of that Institution is a melancholy proof of the rarity of any desire in the middle classes of London to give the benefit of a good education to their sons. They evidently set no value on any instruction not strictly professional, and I am afraid the manufacturing districts of England, though in some respects more active-minded are, on this point, not at all superior to London. In Scotland alone a higher instruction is valued, probably because the teaching in the elementary schools has been so managed as to lead up to it; which should be a lesson to those who have to construct a national system of primary schools.

It is very kind of you to feel so much interest about my health. There was no cause of uneasiness from the attack I had at Paris,2 after the first few hours. Being taken in time, it was soon conquered, and when I left Paris for England a few days afterwards I was in my usual health, and have since remained so. My daughter also, though still liable to a return of her headaches, is much stronger and better than when we arrived here.

Your letter made me rather ashamed of myself from the belief it shewed that I must be very busy. Since I have been here this time, I may almost call myself idle, having done little but to bring up old arrears of general reading. And I am seldom for long together too busy to spare time for anything you ask me to do, especially anything so pleasant as to read any of your writings. I beg that you will never allow any scruple to prevent your applying to me when you think I can be in any way useful: and with respect to the very interesting book you think of writing (I well remember how highly I thought of its precursor)3 I should be only too happy to read in the MS. either any part or the whole. Indeed, if I were to see all of it that relates to the French political economists as well as to Comte,4 I should be better able to compare your impression respecting them with my own. I believe we think pretty much alike about them. French philosophic writers seem to me decidedly inferior in closeness and precision of thought to the best English, and more in the habit of paying themselves with phrases and abstractions. The French political economists share largely in this defect. It should be remembered however, that there is a much greater number of them than of English, unless, to make up the equality we descend to English writers so bad as almost to turn the average the other way. There are also more exceptions than you perhaps know to the general vagueness and looseness of thought of French economists. Besides Say,5 and Turgot,6 of which last Courcelle-Seneuil says with some reason that it is harder to say what of the truths of the science he did not anticipate than what he did, there are some now living who have formed themselves very much upon the stricter and more precise English model: Joseph Garnier7 especially, in his treatise on Political Economy. Garnier is an exception to their false conception of the method of the science. Courcelle-Seneuil, whom I just mentioned, and who has written a book of considerable merit (Traité Théorique et Pratique d’Economie Politique)8 is also, to some extent, an exception. A. E. Cherbuliez of Geneva (who lately died) published in 1862 a “Précis de la Science Economique et de ses Principales Applications” which I thought favourably of. The last two of these treatises I have here, and can send to you if you would like to see them. I think both Reybaud9 and Michel Chevalier10 unfavourable specimens of French economists as to close thinking, and the former is besides of a narrow and prejudiced school. Bastiat11 shines as a dialectician, and his reasonings on free trade are as strictly scientific as those of any one; but his posthumous work (Harmonies Economiques)12 is written with a parti pris of explaining away all the evils which are the stronghold of Socialists, against whom the book is directed. The Journal des Economistes13 you will find in the London Library. A course of that gives a more correct idea than anything else, of the general characteristics of French economists: the more, as they occasionally carry on controversies with one another in its pages, which bring out their several types of thought. They are divided by two broad lines: into Malthusians and anti-Malthusians, and into Utilitarians and anti-Utilitarians. This last distinction extends even to political economy, in consequence of the prevailing French habit of appealing to intuitive principles of droit even on economic subjects.

Your news of the Fawcetts is pleasant. I have a high opinion of M^rs Fawcett’s capabilities, and am always glad to hear of any fresh exercise of them.14 Respecting the Irish land question, I hardly think it possible that you and I should not agree entirely, when discussion has thrown sufficient light upon the details of the question. I feel, with you, that the reasons for fixity of tenure apply chiefly to ryots, or labourer-farmers and not to capitalist farmers, for whom leases suffice; and I feel, also, that by making these last actual proprietors, a fresh agrarian question may be raised up on the part of the labourers whom they employ. The chief difficulty I feel is the practical one of having different laws for large and for small tenants; though I myself, in my speech in 1868,15 suggested as a possible expedient, to make a distinction between arable and grazing farms. A propos, there has been a call from Ireland for a reprint of my two speeches on the land question,16 together with the chapters on that subject in my Political Economy;17 and this is now being printed.18 Is it not curious that the plan in my pamphlet19 is almost always spoken of as a simple proposal to buy out the landlords and hold all the land as the property of the State? though it is palpable to every one who looks at the pamphlet that my proposal was simply a permanent tenure at a fixed rent, and that I only offered to any landlord who disliked this, the option of giving up his land to the Government instead. Mr George Campbell sent me his paper20 before it was published, and I quite agree with you as to its great merit. He has since informed me that he has published it in an enlarged form, and has sent me a copy. This is at Blackheath, and will be in the first parcel that comes.

With our kind regards to M^rs Cairnes, whose improved health it gave us great pleasure to hear of, I am

Dear Mr Cairnes
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1498.

TO WILLIAM COX BENNETT1

[December ? 1869]

The education movement is going forward with a rapidity which justifies the most sanguine hopes, and the two great principles of the National Education League, that elementary education should be compulsory, and the State Education should be undenominational, are striking root deeply into the mind of the nation. Having held the first opinion for many years, and the last always, I need not say how heartily I rejoice at the progress they are making towards general recognition.

1499.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

• Avignon

Dec. 4. 1869

Dear Mr Cairnes

I will send the Courcelle Seneuil and Cherbuliez2 almost immediately, to your Hastings address. I by no means answer for their view of the science, or Garnier’s either,3 as unexceptionable at all points; but it is certainly better than that of the French writers of the present day with whom you appear to be best acquainted, and I think it necessary for you to know them in order to form a just judgment of the contemporary French school.

I look forward with great pleasure to reading any portion you like to shew me of your new book, or indeed of any book of yours.

I expect to receive M^r Campbell’s book4 in a few days. In the meantime, there is a letter of his in the Daily News of last Tuesday, Nov. 30,5 containing, as I gather, proposals somewhat more specific than those in his book, and among other things an attempt, though an inadequate one, to lay down principles to guide the public arbitrator in determining what is a fair rent. That difficulty is inherent in all plans, however moderate, which offer any greater security than at present to the tenure of the occupier. But, after all, a question cannot be insoluble which, in point of fact, has to be resolved by every landlord who lets his land on any other principle than the (in Ireland) ruinous one of competition. I should say that the rent which a public arbitrator ought to consider a fair one, is the highest which any respectable tenant, capitalist or peasant, could afford to give, consistently with proper cultivation of the land according to the standard of good farming received in the country, and this, though difficult to define in general terms, could certainly be determined with considerable accuracy in each particular case, by an experienced land agent or manager, such as many in Ireland are. What do you think of Campbell’s line of demarcation between contract and status tenures? In case you have not seen the letter, I transcribe the passage. “All agricultural tenures in which the landlord has erected the necessary buildings and fences and made all the considerable improvements, and in respect of which no practice of selling the claims of the tenant or compensating him for loss of occupancy exists, shall be distinguished as contract tenures, and shall not be subject to the interference of the Commission. All other agricultural holdings shall be designated Status tenures.”

I should very much regret not to be at the Club when your question is discussed.6 I do not expect to be at the February meeting, and am not certain about the March. I may say that the April meeting is the only one this year at which I feel confident of being present.

The “Chapters and Speeches”7 will be out shortly. The reports of the speeches are taken from Hansard. The first of the two, that of 1866, was printed verbatim from my MS. That of 1868, not being a written speech could not be given so exactly, but the newspaper report was carefully corrected for Hansard by myself, and is tolerably adequate.

The Tracy you speak of is the metaphysician Destutt-Tracy,8 and his Political Economy forms one of the four volumes of his Idéologie,9 which by an unlucky and rather strange chance I have never read, though I know it to be worth reading. What are the merits of the political economy portion I do not know. It is probably good for its time, but, I suppose, behind hand now.

I am
Dear Mr Cairnes
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1500.

TO MRS. MILLICENT J. FAWCETT1

[After Dec. 4. 1869]

My dear Mrs Fawcett—

The news contained in your letter is indeed a subject of congratulation.2 What is to be done will certainly prove the first step in the admission of women to the University, & the most certain & speedy step too. We do not see any suggestions to offer you, as the plan seems in all respects all that can be desired. Will you let us know some further particulars about the Scholarships as soon as they are decided, as we sh^d like to contribute a little towards them.

There is no harm, & some good, in any number of persons attending merely for amusement provided that the lectures are not adapted for them but for serious students. This would be very much guaranteed by the lecturers’ holding some amount of examination at every lecture, as is the practice, I believe, of the Scotch professors. This would have a very good effect both on teachers & pupils, keeping before the minds of both that serious work is intended. No one need be examined without her own consent.

1501.

TO FRANCIS ELLINGWOOD ABBOT1

• Avignon

Dec. 11, 1869.

Dear Sir,—

You have rightly judged that I should sympathize with an attempt to raise the standard of free and unfettered discussion on religious as on all other subjects; involving necessarily the same unlimited liberty of disbelief as of belief. Whether that attempt is made by professing Christians, or by persons who do not take that name, it is equally welcome to me; so long as, whichever side they take, they are willing and able to do justice, both logically and historically, to the other side. There is nothing in your letter and Prospectus that tends to give any other than a favorable idea of the spirit in which you have set about your undertaking. But to come before the public as giving what would be sure to be construed, however untruly, and however contrary to your intention, as a kind of voucher or guarantee for the merits of the projected newspaper, would, as it seems to me, be only suitable in those who have much greater means of knowledge than I possess of the manner in which it is likely to be carried on, both in respect of opinion and otherwise. I am, therefore, unable to comply with your wish that I should write you a letter to be inserted in your journal, and must content myself with this private expression of my good wishes.

I am, dear Sir, yours very truly,

J. S. Mill

1502.

TO PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS1

• Avignon, France

Dec. 11, 1869

Dear Madam:

I should have reason to be ashamed of myself if your name were unknown to me. I am not likely to forget one who stood in the front rank of the women’s rights movement in its small beginnings, and helped it forward so vigorously in its early and most difficult stages. You and Mrs Mott2 have well deserved to live to see the cause in its present prosperity, and may now fairly hope to see a commencement of victory in some of the States at least. I have received many kind and cordial invitations to visit the United States, and were I able, the great convention to which you invite me would certainly be a strong inducement to do so. My dislike to a sea voyage would not of itself prevent me, if there were not a greater obstacle—want of time. I have many things to do yet, before I die, and some months (it is not worth while going to America for less) is a great deal to give at my time of life, especially as it would not, like ordinary travelling, be a time of mental rest, but something very different. I regret my inability the less, as the friends of the cause in America are quite able to dispense with direct personal co-operation from England. The really important co-operation is the encouragement we give one another by the success of each in our own country. For Great Britain this success is much greater than appears on the surface, for our people, as you know, shrink much more timidly than Americans from attracting public notice to themselves; and the era of great public meetings on this subject has not arrived in our country, though it may be near at hand. I need hardly say how much I am gratified by the mode in which my name was mentioned in the National Convention at Newport, and still more at the tribute to the memory of my dear wife,3 who from early youth was devoted to this cause, and had done invaluable service to it as the inspirer and instructor of others, even before writing the essay4 so deservedly eulogized in your resolutions. To her I owe the far greater part of whatever I have myself been able to do for the cause, for though from my boyhood I was a convinced adherent of it, on the ground of justice, it was she who taught me to understand the less obvious bearings of the subject, and its close connection with all the great moral and social interests of the cause. I am, dear Madam, very sincerely yours,

J. S. Mill

To Mrs Paulina W. Davis

1503.

TO THE EMPLOYEES OF MESSRS. BREWSTER OF NEW YORK1

• A[vignon]

Dec. 11, 1869

Dear Sirs—

I have had the pleasure of receiving your letter of Nov. 12.

The plan of Industrial Partnerships seems to me highly worthy of encouragement as uniting some of the advantages of cooperation with the principal advantages of capitalist management. We should hope, indeed, ultimately to arrive at a state of industry in which the workpeople as a body will either themselves own the capital, or hire it from its owners. Industrial Partnerships, however, are not only a valuable preparation for that state, & transition to it, but might probably for a long time exist by the side of it with great advantage; if only because their competition would prevent cooperative associations of workmen from degenerating, as I grieve to say they often do, into close joint stock companies in which the workmen who founded them keep all the profits to themselves.

The proposal of Mess^rs Brewster is in some important respects a considerable improvement on the English Industrial Partnerships of which I have any knowledge; because it takes the employés themselves into council to determine the share of profit to which they shall be admitted, instead of fixing its amount by the sole will of the employers, and because it gives to a council elected by the employés, an important share in the government of the workshops, even to the extent of allowing them, by a two-thirds majority, to overrule the wishes of the employers.

I have no such knowledge of the details of the subject as would enable me to make any suggestions that it would be useful to you to receive. But I will shew your letter & the printed plan of Mess^rs Brewster to those of my friends who have more information on the subject & are more capable of making useful suggestions than I am myself, especially Mr Hughes and Mr Ludlow, both of whom have had an intimate connexion with Cooperation in England almost from its infancy. Only one point in Mess^rs Brewster’s plan occurs to me as open to criticism: that which provides that those who leave the employment voluntarily shall forfeit their share of profits for the current year. It seems to me that the Boards to whom so many other powers are entrusted, might be the judges to decide whether in the particular circumstances of each case the share of profit sh^d be forfeited or not.

1504.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN1

• Avignon

Dec. 14, 1869

Dear Sir

One of my correspondents in the United States has sent me a list, which I inclose, of persons in America whom he believes to be sufficiently well disposed to the Westminster Review to make it worth while to send them copies of a paper inviting support. The difficulty, he says, will be that the Review is reissued in America in a cheap form.2 But he says “we all hope” that the Review will not go down.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Dr Chapman

1505.

TO WILLIAM WOOD1

• Avignon

Dec. 14. 1869

Dear Sir

I had not the smallest idea of implying any negligence in you; but in mentioning the possible causes of loss, it was necessary to include that one, as you had not mentioned to me before that you had posted the petition yourself.

I am glad to hear that Mr Melly has declared in favour of Women’s Suffrage. He is a valuable man, and an acquisition to the cause.

Your questions2 did not by any means appear to me as absurd or trivial. On the contrary, they shewed that you practise and require accuracy in a matter of business. That three names of one family should be signed in one handwriting is so common and so trifling a circumstance that nobody is likely to notice it nor to draw any unfavourable inference from it if noticed.

I hope you may be able to arrange with Mrs Fawcett to deliver a lecture in your borough.3 She seems quite willing to do so if she can make it accord with her arrangements.

The two copies of my little book4 would be extremely well bestowed on the Libraries you mention, and I should have relied on your judgment had you bestowed them without consulting me. If you would like any more copies I shall be very happy to send them to you.

I do not know who is the Secretary of the Labour Representation League,5 but a note to Mr George Howell, 9 Buckingham Street, Strand, London W.C. would probably procure for you that and any other information about the League. He is perhaps himself the Secretary, and in any case, is sure to know all about it.

I do not possess a copy of “Essays and Reviews”.6 My copy was lent many years ago, and has not been returned to me. If I can procure it again from the friend to whom I lent it, I will send it to you.

Your appreciation of the importance of the question of the equality of women is most just. I shall be glad to receive your promised letter relating to National Education. I am Dear Sir

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Mr William Wood

1506.

TO JOHN MORLEY1

December 20, 1869

I cannot too much congratulate you on such a paper as that of Mr. Freeman.2 I honour him for having broken ground against field sports, a thing I have been often tempted to do myself, but having so many unpopular causes already on my hands, thought it wiser not to provoke fresh hostility. He seems to have strongly coerced his habitually impetuous feelings and been studiously calm. It is a sign of the powerful effect he produces that the Daily Telegraph at once took up the cause with evident earnestness,3 though with timidity and reserve.

J. S. Mill.

1507.

TO LORD LYTTELTON1

• [Avignon]

Dec. 21. 1869

My dear Lord

I beg that you will express to the Committee of the Birmingham and Midland Counties Institute2 my high sense of the honour they have conferred on me by their invitation to become their President for next year. I have been obliged, however, to decline all proposals of that nature, having really not time to prepare an Inaugural Address. The Rectorship of St Andrews is the only exception I have made. I am

my dear Lord
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

The Lord Lyttelton

1508.

TO THE PRINCESS ROYAL OF PRUSSIA1

• A[vignon]

Dec. 26. 1869

Madam—

I am most highly honoured by the message which I have received this morning from your Royal Highness but I regret to say that being at present under medical treatment I am not in a condition to avail myself of the honour intended me. Indeed I have scarcely the use of either hand & have difficulty in even writing these few words.

I am, Madam, with the greatest respect
Your Royal Highness’s faithful servant

A son Altesse Royale

la Princesse Royale de Prusse

[1. ]MS draft at Yale. Published in Elliot II, 172-73. In reply to Godwin’s from Paris of Dec. 26, 1868, also at Yale.

[1]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Maine’s letter of Nov. 1, 1868, to which this is a reply. Published in Elliot, II, 169-72.

Henry (later Sir Henry) James Summer Maine (1822-1888), comparative historian and jurist; law member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council in India, 1862-69; Professor of Historical and Comparative Jurisprudence at Oxford, 1869-77; Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, 1877-87; Whewell Professor of International Law, Cambridge, 1887-88.

[2. ]Probably papers relating to the Oudh Rent Bill of 1868 and the Punjab Tenancy Act of the same year.

[3. ]Upon his retirement from the East India Co. in 1858.

[4. ]Charles Cornwallis, first Marquis and second Earl Cornwallis (1738-1805), governor-general of India and commander-in-chief in Bengal, 1786-93. By the legislation known as the Permanent Settlement of the Land Revenue, Cornwallis in 1793 gave perpetual land rights, on condition of the payment of a fixed land tax, to the zamindars, tax-collectors who had acquired quasi-proprietorship of estates entrusted to them by the government. The code was criticized as unjust to under-tenants and peasants.

[5. ]The Bengal Rent Act of 1859 defined the rights of under-tenants and farmers, as well as those of the superior landholders. It extended some protection to the peasants.

[6. ]The transferal of the government of India from the East India Co. to the Crown.

[7. ]The spellings vary: Talookdars, Taluqdars, Talukdars; Oude is ordinarily spelled Oudh. They were the somewhat less than three hundred feudal barons who at the time of the annexation of Oudh in Feb., 1856, possessed two-thirds of the province. See Letter 314, n. 7.

[8. ]Sir William Rose Mansfield, later first Baron Sandhurst, general, commander-in-chief in India and military member of the Council, 1865-70.

[9. ]Sir John Laird Mair Lawrence, later 1st Baron Lawrence (1811-1879), viceroy of India, 1863-69.

[10. ]Richard Southwell Bourke Mayo, 6th Earl of Mayo (1822-1872), statesman; chief secretary for Ireland in three administrations, he had just been appointed viceroy of India.

[11. ]The Duke was secretary of state for India in the Gladstone cabinet, 1868-74. Possessed of vast holdings in the north of Scotland, the Duke had been responsible for the eviction of tens of thousands of “crofters,” in order to create immense pasturelands for sheep. Leone Levi (1821-1888), jurist and statistician, in June 1865, read a paper to the Statistical Society of London on “The Economic Condition of the Highlands and the Islands of Scotland” (Journal of the Statistical Society, XXVIII [1865], 372-401), in which he charged the Duke of Argyll and his predecessors with responsibility for the depopulation of Scotland. The Duke refuted the charges in a paper to the Society (ibid., XXIX [Dec., 1866], 504-35), and took issue (p. 529) with JSM’s views of the ownership of land as evidenced in a recent debate on the Irish Tenure of Land Bill.

[12. ]Settlement officers, i.e. assessors of land revenue, in the Punjab in 1865, for example, submitted a report favouring the claims of the landlords.

[13. ]The figure had been calculated for the single district of Amritsar, in the Punjab. The former settlement in 1853, after the conquest of the province, had recorded existing rights in the land. Under the new proposals, former owners would become tenants at will, liable to rent increases and eviction.

[14. ]A bill to amend the land tenancy law in the Punjab was debated at length in the Legislative Council on Oct. 19, 1868. The bill was enthusiastically supported by Maine, and passed. Maine’s speech is published in Sir Henry Maine, A brief Memoir by Sir M. E. Grant Duff. With some of his Indian Speeches and Minutes, ed. Whitley Stokes (New York, 1892), pp. 268-85.

[15. ]Khoodkaust ryots: hereditary, permanent farmers; Pyekaust ryots: temporary or transient farmers. See Sir George Campbell, “The Tenure of Land in India,” in the Cobden Club volume, System of Land Tenure in Various Countries (London, 1870), pp. 145-227.

[16. ]“Slip of the pen.”

[17. ]Established by acts of 1841 and 1852, this Commission worked to change copyhold, an ancient form of land tenure, into freehold. Maine had referred to the Commission in his speech of Oct. 19, 1868 (see Sir Henry Maine in n. 14 above, p. 282).

[18. ]JSM may have made the acquaintance of Maine about 1857 when Maine had published articles opposing the Crown’s taking over the government of India from the East India Co.

[1. ]MS draft at Yale. Published in Elliot, II, 173-74. In reply to McLaren’s of Dec. 29, also at Yale.

Duncan McLaren (1800-1886), Scottish merchant and politician; MP for Edinburgh, 1865-81; with his wife, a strong supporter of women’s suffrage.

[2. ]Letter 1359 had been published in The Times on Dec. 23 and no doubt in other newspapers.

[3. ]Notably Letters 1339 and 1361.

[4. ]Of Letter 1359.

[1. ]MS in the possession of Professor R. H. Coase of the University of Virginia.

Manton Marble (1835-1917), American journalist; proprietor and editor of the New York World, 1862-76.

[2. ]Presumably the annual convention of the National Labor Union, held in New York City, Sept. 21, 1868. An estimated 600,000 organized workmen were represented; for the first time working women’s organizations were included in the representation.

[3. ]See Letter 1292, n. 5. In 1868 the Democratic Party, at the time generally proinflationary or at least anti-deflationary, in its platform adopted in July, 1868, had advocated the payment of bonds in greenbacks, though its unsuccessful candidate for the Presidency, Horatio Seymour, was generally regarded as a “hard-money” man.

[4. ]Letter 1292.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Bears corrections and emendations in Helen Taylor’s hand. Published in Elliot, II, 174-75. In reply to Smalley’s of Dec. 31, 1868, also at Johns Hopkins.

George Washburn Smalley (1833-1916), American journalist; foreign correspondent of the New York Tribune, 1866-95. He had met JSM at Avignon, in the summer of 1866, with an introduction from Thomas Hughes. Smalley’s account of JSM is reprinted in his London Letters (2 vols., New York, 1891), I, 232-40.

[2. ]Smalley had sent two copies of the New York Tribune containing his account of JSM’s defeat for Westminster: “The English Elections,” Dec. 1, 1868, pp. 1-2, and “The Lesson of the English Elections,” Dec. 2, 1868, p. 4.

[3. ]He attributed the defeat as primarily due to Smith’s lavish expenditure and the superior organization of the Tories, but Smalley also conceded that “No doubt . . . Mr. Mill was a hard man to keep in order during the canvass, and offended some thinskinned Liberals by his letters in behalf of Bradlaugh and Odger.”

[4. ]In the provisional government set up after the revolution of 1868, most wanted a monarchy though some favoured a federal republic. In 1869 the Cortes voted for a monarchy with a liberal democratic constitution.

[5. ]A number of candidates, from various royal families, refused the offer. Finally, the Duke of Aosta, son of the King of Italy, accepted; after encountering much opposition, however, he abdicated early in 1873.

[6. ]General Juan Prim, Marquis de los Castillejos, Count de Reus (1814-1870), had organized insurrections in Spain while in exile in 1866; after the revolution he became marshal and president of the Council. He was assassinated in 1870.

[7. ]Napoleon III after gaining the presidency in France in 1848 subsequently made himself emperor.

[1. ]MS in the Osborn Collection, Yale.

Edward Lyulph Stanley, later 4th Baron Stanley of Alderley and 4th Baron Sheffield (1839-1925), at this time a barrister; later a member of the London School Board, 1876-85, 1888-1904.

[2. ]No such association has been identified.

[3. ]For further comments of JSM on Gladstone’s policy in forming his government at this time, see Letter 1380, n. 4.

[4. ]For such advice to George Howell, see Letter 1369.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. In reply to Nicholson’s of Dec. 22, 1868, also at Johns Hopkins, as secretary of the Liverpool Philomathic Society.

Nicholson has not been otherwise identified.

[2. ]See Letter 1366.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[2. ]See Letters 1045 and 1367.

[1. ]MS draft in Helen Taylor’s hand at Johns Hopkins. In reply to Rathbone’s of Dec. 31, 1868, also at Johns Hopkins.

[2. ]See Letter 1366.

[3. ]Rathbone in his letter had said that the managers of the Philomathic Society were unanimous in wishing to hear JSM’s views on “either Trade Societies, the land question, or the employment of charitable endowments. . . . The only thing to avoid was to make the dinner into a strictly party demonstration.”

[4. ]England and Ireland (London, 1868).

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published in Elliot, II, 177-78. In reply to O’Grady’s of Jan. 9, also at Johns Hopkins.

Of the several contemporaries bearing this name, the most likely recipient of this letter was Standish O’Grady (1846-1928), Irish historian, author, and publicist; a native of Cork, son of a protestant rector, and an 1868 graduate of Trinity College, Dublin. Later, owner and editor of the All-Ireland Review.

[2. ]O’Grady in his letter had asked JSM for substantiation of his statement in his Logic (“Of the Grounds of Disbelief,” Book III, chap. xxv, sec. 2): “If we do not already believe in supernatural agencies, no miracle can prove to us their existence.”

[1. ]MS at Melbourne.

[2. ]Ann J. Robertson. She later published Women’s Need of Representation: a lecture upon the necessity of giving women the Parliamentary Franchise (Dublin, 1873). Her recently published novel was Society in a Garrison Town (3 vols., London, 1869), unfavourably reviewed in the Athenaeum, Feb. 20, 1869, p. 273.

[3. ]No such review by Plummer has been located.

[4. ]For Dec. 8, 1866, p. 746.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Thornton’s letter of Jan. 8 to which this is a reply. Published, without the deleted passage, in Elliot, II, 175-77. Labelled by Elliot as “Partly by Helen Taylor.”

[2. ]On Labour (London, 1869). For JSM’s later review, see Letter 1405, n. 2.

[3. ]JSM’s edition of his father’s Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind. See Letters 1150, n. 6 and 1161.

[4. ]The 7th and definitive edition, 1871.

At this point in the draft the following paragraph was deleted by JSM:

The composition of the Ministry is much what we would have expected from the composition of the Parliament. Gladstone has evidently interpreted the elections as indicating that the advanced section of Liberals is not strong in the electoral body & he has therefore given the lion’s share to the backward section, bestowing only minor appointments on the radicals, or reputed radicals, with the exception of Bright, whose opinions do not place him in what is now the advanced party. Gladstone has perhaps something of the deference of a novus homo for the old nobility & he may very reasonably think that the advanced liberals will be content if anything considerable is done for their opinions, while the others must have office to obtain their consent to any measures of a radical complexion. I never felt more uncertainty about the immediate future of politics: but I do not doubt that after a few years, & perhaps even at the next general election, the working classes will feel & use their strength; though probably they will not use it fully until the obstacles have been removed to a junction of the Conservatives of both sides of the House against them. One’s feelings of uncertainty are increased by the element of uncertainty as to what, in any change of political circumstances, Gladstone would do. One feels pretty confident that he would do what his conscience dictated, but it is impossible to foresee what, in new circumstances its dictates would be.

[5. ]See Letters 139, n. 6 and n. 7, and 141.

[6. ]The Duke of Argyll replaced Northcote as secretary of state for India in the new cabinet.

[7. ]John Bright had declined the office of secretary of state for India, but accepted that of president of the Board of Trade.

[8. ]Charles Mills and Elliot Macnaghten, who had been members of the Board of Directors of the East India Co., at the time of its dissolution in 1858 had been appointed to the Council of India.

[9. ]Thornton had recently revisited JSM at Avignon. For Thornton’s account of his 1862 visit there, see his letter to Fawcett, in Elliot, I, 261-62.

[10. ]A word adapted from Bentham, who called his favourite indoor exercise, in a similar covered walk, “vibrating.” See Bain, James Mill, p. 133, and Bowring’s Memoir of Jeremy Bentham, in The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the superintendence of his executor, John Bowring (11 vols., Edinburgh and London, 1838-43), XI, 81.

[11. ]Another Benthamism. Cf. Justice and Codification Petition, in Bentham Works, V, 479.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Jones’s letter of Jan. 6 to which this is a reply. Published in Elliot, II, 178-79.

Edward Jones (1823-1908), headmaster of the Hibernian Schools, Liverpool; hon. secretary and chief promoter of the Liverpool Spelling Reform Association.

[2. ]One of Jones’s pamphlets on spelling reform, but not identified.

[3. ]Apparently not until 1948-49 was a bill brought in to set up a committee to introduce a rational system of spelling with a view to making English a world language and eliminating unnecessary drudgery and waste of time at school.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published in Elliot, II, 179-80. In reply to Villard’s of Dec. 21, 1868, as Recording Secretary of the American Social Science Association, MS also at Johns Hopkins. Part of this letter was published in a memorial article on JSM by James M. Barnard in the Association’s Journal of Social Science, V (1873), 136-39.

Henry Villard (1835-1900), journalist. Born in Germany as F. H. G. Hilgard, he changed his name after emigrating to America in 1853. During the Civil War he had been a war correspondent for the New York Herald and the New York Tribune. In later years he became a successful railway promoter.

[2. ]JSM had been elected a corresponding member of the Association in 1865, and had provided it with a bibliography of the literature of political and social science.

[3. ]The Association had offered to reimburse all his expenses while in America and to pay him $300 for each lecture.

[1. ]MS draft at LSE. In JSM’s hand though evidently dictated by Helen Taylor. In reply to Mrs. Kyllmann’s of Jan. 22, 1869, also at LSE.

Mrs. Kyllmann had resigned from the Manchester branch of the Women’s Suffrage Society because of differences with Jacob Bright and Lydia Becker. See Letter 1347.

[2. ]Mrs. Peter Taylor.

[3. ]See Letters 1367 and 1376.

[1. ]MS not located. Copied into the Minutes of the Senate of St. Andrews University, Feb. 13, 1869. Published by Dr. Anna J. Mill in the Scottish Historical Review, XLIII (Oct., 1964), 144. The copy is introduced in the Minutes thus: “The following Letter was read from the late Rector Mr. Mill in reference to the Essays given in for the Rector’s Prize during the present Session.” The letter is followed by this note: “The Essay bearing the motto quaere verum was found to be the production of Mr. W. Horne Student of Philosophy in the 4th Year.” The subject JSM had set for the competition was “To explain and illustrate the principle of Inseparable Association and its applications to the theory of more complex mental operations.”

[2. ]This was the third prize of £25 that JSM had awarded for essays on subjects assigned by him. The first had been “The Sources of Fallacious Thinking, and of Opinion insufficiently grounded in fact, which lie in the original Constitution of the Human Mind; and on any modes of fortifying the Mind against the tendencies thus arising.” The second topic had been “The Logical and Psychological Questions involved in the Controversy between Nominalism and Realism; and on any Remains of Realism in the Schools of the present day.” See Rectorial Addresses Delivered at the University of St Andrews . . . 1863-1893, ed. W. Knight (London, 1894).

[1. ]MS at UCLA. MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Watson’s letter of Jan. 14 to which this is a reply. Published in Elliot, II, 180-81.

Hewett Cottrell Watson (1804-1881), botanist, author of numerous works in his field.

[2. ]The first part of Watson’s A Compendium of the Cybele Britannica; or British Plants in their geographical relations (London, 1870). The Compendium was printed in three successive parts (1868, 1869, 1870), and distributed free to all those Watson could find who owned his earlier work, Cybele Britannica (4 vols., London, 1847-59). After 1870 the Compendium, which superseded Cybele, was sold in the usual way. Both Watson and JSM were contributors to the botanical journal, The Phytologist.

[3. ]In On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (London, 1859), Darwin, in his first edition, acknowledged his “deep obligation” to Watson, and in later editions devoted space to his criticisms. Watson discusses Darwin’s theory in the Introduction to the Compendium.

[4. ]Introduction to Compendium, p. 56. See also Letter 1395.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published in Elliot, II, 181-82. In reply to Logan’s of Jan. 23, MS also at Johns Hopkins.

Logan, who lived in Liverpool, has not been identified.

[1. ]MS copy at Northwestern.

[2. ]Francis E. Abbot, “Philosophical Biology,” No. Am. Rev., CVII (Oct., 1868), 377-422. Spencer’s reply was not published by the Review. See Duncan, I, 189-91.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, in reply to Beal’s of Feb. 2, MS also at Johns Hopkins. Published in Elliot, II, 182-84.

[2. ]Beal had been largely responsible for the drawing up of a measure introduced by JSM in the House of Commons on May 21, 1867, to establish separate municipal corporations in the several districts of London. From 1870 Beal was hon. secretary of the Metropolitan Municipal Association; he worked unceasingly for years to reorganize the government of London. His efforts finally succeeded in 1888 with the establishment of the London County Council. See J. F. B. Firth, The Reform of London Government (London, 1888). See also Letter 1342, n. 4.

[3. ]Letter 1361.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Leslie’s letter of Jan. 17 to which this is a reply. Published in Elliott, II, 186-87.

[2. ]“Changes in Prices,” Economist, XXVII (Jan. 23, 1869), 90-91, the first of a series of four; the others appeared in the numbers for Feb. 13 (pp. 177-79), March 27 (pp. 355-56), and June 12 (pp. 688-90).

[3. ]“A Visit to La Creuse, 1868,” Fraser’s, LXXIX (Feb., 1869), 245-52. Reprinted in Leslie’s Land Systems and Industrial Economy in Ireland, England, and Continental Countries (London, 1870), pp. 265-82. JSM reviewed Leslie’s volume of essays in FR, n.s. VII (June, 1870), 641-54; reprinted in Dissertations, Brit. ed. IV, 86-110, Am. ed. V, 95-121, and in Collected Works, V, 669-85.

[4. ]Including “Westphalia and the Ruhr Basin,” FR, n.s. V (March, 1869), 253-65, also reprinted in Land Systems, pp. 230-53.

[5. ]Traité de la procédure criminelle en Angleterre, en Écosse et dans l’Amérique du Nord, a translation by A. Chauffard (Paris, 1868) of the first volume of Karl Joseph Anton Mittermaier, Erfahrungen über die Wirksamkeit der Schwurgerichte in Europa . . . (3 vols., Erlangen, 1864, 1865). At JSM’s request Leslie reviewed Chauffard’s translation in FR, n.s. V (June, 1869), 750-52.

[6. ]JSM, it will be remembered, had edited Bentham’s Rationale of Judicial Evidence (5 vols., London, 1827).

[7. ]In Book III, “Of Induction.” Bain had contributed examples to the 1st edition (1843) and to later editions.

[8. ]The 8th and final ed. (1872) in JSM’s lifetime, in the Preface to which JSM says (pp. x and xi), “The additions and corrections in the present edition, which are not very considerable, are chiefly such as have been suggested by Professor Bain’s Logic [London, 1870], a book of great merit and value.” For a list of places where JSM cites Bain’s Logic, see Letter 1554, n. 4.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published in Elliot, II, 185. In reply to letter of Feb. 1, also at Johns Hopkins, from Josiah Sherman, chairman, and J. P. McDowell, secretary, of an Amnesty Committee for Political Prisoners, inviting JSM to a meeting of the Committee and asking his opinion on a proposed address.

[2. ]The meeting had been scheduled for Feb. 4, 1869, at the Essex Hotel, Bouverie St., London.

[3. ]See Letter 1162, n. 3.

[4. ]The Fenians attempted unsuccessfully an invasion of Canada in June, 1866.

[1. ]MS at Brit. Mus. MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published, with omissions, in Elliot, II, 187-90.

Charles, later Sir Charles, Wentworth Dilke, 2nd baronet (1843-1911), liberal politician, son of Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke (1810-1869), and grandson of Charles Wentworth Dilke (1789-1864), proprietor and editor of the Athenaeum. Elected MP for Chelsea in 1868, a seat which he held until 1886, Dilke became one of the acknowledged leaders of the radical wing of the Liberal party. JSM’s correspondence with him, which begins with this letter, led to a close association between the two. For Dilke’s account of the relation, see Dilke, 629-41.

[2. ]Greater Britain: a Record of Travel in English-speaking countries during 1866 and 1867 (2 vols., London, 1868).

[3. ]See Letter 1371.

[4. ]Richard Southwell Bourke Mayo, 6th Earl of Mayo, who succeeded Sir John Laurence.

[5. ]Incidents recorded in Greater Britain, II, pp. 194 and 331.

[6. ]The chapter entitled “Government of Dependencies by a Free State.”

[7. ]Greater Britain, II, p. 320.

[8. ]See Letter 998, n. 6.

[9. ]In 1857.

[10. ]Powerful, aggressive Indian rulers of the seventeenth century, notorious for raids and usurpations.

[11. ]An eighteenth-century invader of Bengal and usurper of Mysore.

[12. ]Greater Britain, II, p. 307.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[2. ]The article was probably the one on “National Duty,” which appeared in a revived “Independent Section” of the next WR, n.s. XXXV (April, 1869), 484-502.

[3. ]The article on “National Duty” contains no mention of the French system of relief of the poor, though it does discuss the general question. Perhaps JSM’s strictures here led to the omission of the discussion of French relief.

[4. ]George Peabody, the American philanthropist.

[5. ]Charles Loring Brace.

[6. ]See Letter 1150, n. 6.

[7. ]JSM’s edition of his father’s Analysis was reviewed in WR, n.s. XXXVI (July, 1869), 148-79.

[1. ]MS at Brit. Mus. MS draft at Johns Hopkins. In reply to Dilke’s letter of Feb. 13 (MS at Johns Hopkins) thanking JSM for his letter of Feb. 9 (Letter 1391).

[2. ]Tocqueville had died in 1859. Dilke had inquired as to “the present custodian of the MS of his ‘Souvenirs’ and of his notes for his English-in-India.”

[3. ]Probably a mistake for Jean Charles Rivet (1800-1872), statesman, and a close friend of Tocqueville.

[4. ]Œuvres complètes de Tocqueville, ed. H. G. de Beaumont (9 vols., Paris, 1860-65).

[5. ]Michel Lévy (1821-1875), founder of the Paris publishing firm Michel Lévy frères.

[1. ]MS not located. Published in Life of Frances Power Cobbe as Told by Herself, Posthumous Edition (London, 1904), p. 457.

[2. ]G. P. Putnam and Son, publisher of Putnam’s Magazine from 1853.

[3. ]Miss Cobbe contributed an article, “The Defects of Women, and How to Remedy Them,” to Putnam’s, n.s. IV (Aug., 1869), 226-33.

[4. ]Isabella Beecher Hooker (1822-1907), American reformer, prominent in the women’s rights movement.

[5. ]Harriet Elizabeth Beecher Stowe (1811-1896), writer and humanitarian, best known as the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

[6. ]Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887), prominent American clergyman.

[7. ]“From a Mother to her Daughter” (on women’s suffrage), Putnam’s, XII (Nov. and Dec., 1868), 603-606 and 701-711.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Watson’s letter of Feb. 6. See Letter 1385.

[2. ]Watson had written: “Advergence would better express my idea than does Convergence; but it is a form not in use, & so avoided. I am strongly imbued with the notion that here is the real counterpoise, at once to limit and to complete the Darwinian theory. It would seem that your own leaning is also that way; which could hardly be unless you had already felt a want of completeness & a want of check or counterbalance in the theory, as it is put forth by Darwin, & is blindly belauded by Converted Zealots of the weathercock type like Dr. Hooker.”

[3. ]Watson: “Fully I concur with you in not thinking it an objection ‘against Darwin’s theory,’ that it does not even hypothetically resolve the question of the first origin of life. My objection against it is just the other way; namely that he has made an origin in one or two types a part of the theory, without a tittle of evidence in support thereof;—& that he has adopted a misleading title, in pretending to account for the origin of species by means of natural selection. Read his title with the change of the one fatal word, as ‘The Formation of Species by means of’ etc. This is the real thing. New species are formed out of older species by the natural agency. But Darwin wanted an ad captandum book-title; & I doubt whether the falseness of the one selected was clearly known by him.”

[4. ]The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication (2 vols., London, 1868).

[1. ]MS in the possession of Mr. George Arthur Wood.

[2. ]Odger’s letter has not been located.

[3. ]Robert Hartwell (d. 1875), a London printer and a former Chartist who was closely associated with the left wing of the labour movement. He edited the Beehive for much of the 1860’s. Secretary of the London Working Men’s Association, he was one of the chief promoters of the movement for working class representation in Parliament. He had had to withdraw his candidacy for Stoke-on-Trent in 1868 for lack of funds.

[1. ]MS not located. Excerpt published in A. S. G. Butler, Portrait of Josephine Butler (London, 1954), p. 62.

Josephine Butler, née Grey (1828-1906), feminist, especially known for her long fight against the Contagious Diseases Acts. For JSM’s views, see Letter 1513.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. The correspondent is not named in the draft.

[2. ]See Letters 1355 and 1356.

[3. ]See Letter 1364.

[4. ]The book was published in the week of May 24, 1869.

[5. ]The following Letter.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Enclosed with the preceding undated letter.

[2. ]See Letter 1364.

[1. ]MS not located. Published in the New York Times, April 10, 1869, from the Toronto Globe, with a letter from Laidlaw dated April 1, 1869. Laidlaw advocated the expansion of Canadian railroads with a view to developing a system of emigration that would bring a larger proportion of British emigrants to Canada.

George Laidlaw (ca. 1828-1889), native of Scotland, promoter and builder of Canadian railroads.

[2. ]George Joachim Goschen, later 1st Viscount Goschen (1831-1907), statesman: MP for City of London (1863-79), for Ripon (1880-84), for East Edinburgh (1885-86); member, Board of Trade, 1865; president of Poor Law Board, 1868-71; First Lord of the Admiralty, 1871.

[3. ]See Hansard, vol. CXCIV, col. 627; see also: Debate in the Lords on Pauperism and Emigration, and the restrictions presently placed on financial assistance by the Poor Law Board, Hansard, vol. CXCV, cols. 943-71.

[1. ]MS at the Imperial College of Science, London. In reply to Huxley’s of March 7, MS at Johns Hopkins.

[2. ]Huxley had requested JSM’s support for a “Sunday Lecture Society,” which Huxley was helping to form. Huxley reported that the next step would be to establish secular Sunday schools.

[1. ]MS not located. Letter “recently received by a gentleman in this City.” Published in the New York Times, April 3, 1869.

[2. ]See Letter 139, n. 6 and n. 7.

[3. ]Thomas Allen Jenckes (1818-1875), American jurist and legislator, in 1865 had introduced a bill in Congress for the selection of government employees by competitive examinations. The bill was framed after a close study of the English system and after an extended correspondence with Sir Charles Trevelyan and Sir Stafford Northcote. When this bill was defeated, Jenckes obtained the appointment of a committee on civil service which he headed; another bill was presented to the House in 1868, but again was defeated.

[1. ]MS draft at LSE.

[2. ]See Letter 1364.

[3. ]Prescott, Grote, Cave, and Cave, bankers.

[1. ]MS at Cornell.

[2. ]See Letter 1384.

[1. ]MS in the Library of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.

[2. ]Probably Letter 1186A rather than Letter 1208A.

[1. ]MS not located. Printed copy at LSE. Reeve’s reply of March 17 is at LSE. In a letter of March 28, 1898, MS at LSE, Professor J. K. Laughton requested permission of Helen Taylor to include three letters of JSM to Henry Reeve in the Life and Correspondence of Henry Reeve (2 vols., London, 1898), and enclosed printed copies of the three: March 16, 18, and 22 [1869]. Helen Taylor in a letter of April 26, 1898, MS draft at LSE, refused to grant permission to publish the letters.

[2. ]William Thomas Thornton, On Labour (London, 1869). JSM eventually rejected stipulations about the proposed review and withdrew his offer (see Letters 1407 and 1412). Instead, his review of Thornton, in which he made his famous reversal on the Wages-Fund Theory, appeared in FR, n.s. V (May and June, 1869), 505-18 and 680-700; reprinted in Dissertations, Brit. ed. IV, 25-85, Am. ed. V, 28-94, and in Collected Works, V, 633-68.

[1. ]MS in the possession of Mr. George Arthur Wood.

[2. ]The plan was to present petitions from time to time, not to present them all on one occasion (see Letter 1416).

[1. ]MS not located. Printed copy at LSE. In reply to Reeve’s of March 17, MS at LSE.

[2. ]See Letter 1405.

[3. ]On p. 258. The reference is to “Trades’ Unions,” ER, CXXVI (Oct., 1867), 415-57, by George K. Rickards (1812-1889), barrister and political economist (identified in the Wellesley Index), counsel to the speaker of the House of Commons, 1851-82. Reeve in his letter of March 17 endorsed the views in Rickards’s article. Later in 1869, after JSM’s decision not to review Thornton in ER (see Letter 1412), Rickards wrote “Thornton on Labour,” ER, CXXX (Oct., 1869), 390-417.

[4. ]Rickards in his review of Thornton included the Eleventh and Final Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Organisation and Rules of Trades’ Unions and other Associations (London, 1869).

[5. ]See the leader in the Daily News, March 18, 1869, p. 4.

[1. ]MS at Brit. Mus.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published in Elliot, II, 190-92. In reply to Villari’s of March 12, MS also at Johns Hopkins.

[2. ]The death of Villari’s mother in Jan., 1868.

[3. ]Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind.

[4. ]The Subjection of Women.

[1. ]MS at LSE. MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Fawcett’s of March 21 to which this is a reply. Published in Elliot, II, 192-93.

[2. ]Fawcett had written: “I am very anxious to know what you think of Mr Gladstone’s scheme for the appropriation of the Revenues of the Irish Church. I have rather a strong opinion that too much is given to the landlords; the tithes are offered to them on most favourable terms, & a great portion of the £200,000 per annum given to the County Cess [rates] must ultimately go into their pockets. Do you think it would be advisable when the Bill is in Committee to make an attempt to get something for Irish education? £60,000 a year, might, with great advantage, be given to the Queen’s Colleges, & a considerable sum might, most beneficially, be devoted to the establishment of secondary schools. . . .”

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published in Elliot, II, 193-95.

Alfred Hyman Louis (1829-1915), barrister and author. Son of a Jewish merchant of Birmingham, he attended Trinity College, Cambridge, but, like the rest of his Jewish contemporaries, could not be graduated. After studies at Lincoln’s Inn, he was called to the Bar in 1855. Author of a work on foreign policy, England and Europe: a discussion of national policy (London, 1861), which aroused Gladstone’s wrath. He later spent a number of years in the United States, at various periods. For a sketch of his life, see W. Denham Sutcliffe, “The Original of [E.A.] Robinson’s ‘Captain Craig,’ ” New England Quarterly, XVI (1943), 407-31.

[2. ]Guizot had been a member of the Academy since 1836.

[3. ]Thiers, like Guizot, was elected to the Academy in 1836.

[4. ]Victor Cousin (1792-1867), philosopher and educational reformer; minister of public instruction, 1840-48; elected to the Academy in 1840.

[5. ]JSM had been elected as a corresponding member in 1860 (see Letter 1243, n. 2).

[6. ]Emile Littré was rejected for membership in 1863, but was elected in 1871. His great work was his Dictionnaire de la langue française (4 vols., Paris, 1863-69).

[7. ]Then still under negotiation, they were finally settled by treaty in May, 1871.

[8. ]“Red Letter Day” (literally: a day to be marked on the white tablet [of the Pontifex]).

[9. ]The Commons Preservation Society. See Letter 909.

[1. ]MS not located. Printed copy at LSE. In reply to Reeve’s of March 19, MS at LSE.

[2. ]See Letter 1407.

[3. ]See Letter 1405, n. 2.

[1. ]MS not located. Copy in typescript of the unpublished second volume of Heinrich Gomperz’s biography of Theodor Gomperz. Vols. II and III, in carbon typescript, are at Harvard.

[2. ]Of JSM’s works.

[1. ]MS not located. Published in Wilfrid Ward, William George Ward and the Catholic Revival, p. 299. In reply to W. G. Ward’s letter of March 24 (published in Ward, pp. 298-99), inviting him to join the projected Metaphysical Society.

[2. ]The plan of the Metaphysical Society was first conceived by James, later Sir James Knowles (1831-1908), Charles Pritchard (1808-1893), and Alfred Tennyson in Nov., 1868; the aim was “to bring together all shades of religious and theological opinion, from the Roman Catholic to the Unitarian, in an effort to counteract scientific materialism and unite warring theological factions as much as possible in a common cause.” Alan Willard Brown, The Metaphysical Society (New York, 1947), p. 21.

[3. ]Ward (William George Ward, p. 298) had written: “Certain Theists, who feel very strongly what they consider the evils more and more impending from such views as you, Mr. Bain, and others so ably advocate, are extremely desirous of promoting direct and personal discussion on the subject. They are of opinion, rightly or wrongly, that those on your side do not duly weigh what is said on ours, and that good of various kinds would ensue from a closer personal rapprochement.”

[1. ]MS at Cornell.

Edward, later Sir Edward Fithian (1845-1936), secretary to the Commons Preservation Society; later a barrister.

[1. ]MS in the possession of Mr. George Arthur Wood.

[2. ]See Letter 1406.

[3. ]George Melly.

[1. ]MS in 1944 in the possession of the Hon. Isaac Foot. MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published in Elliot, II, 195-97. In reply to Amberley’s of March 23, MS also at Johns Hopkins.

[2. ]Amberley had also been defeated for Parliament in 1868.

[3. ]Amberley wrote that he had begun reading Cicero’s De Natura Deorum.

[4. ]See Letter 826.

[5. ]Such as the works of Livy, Horace, Cicero, Lucretius, Catullus, and Ovid.

[6. ]The title given to Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus (63 - 14), first of the Roman emperors.

[7. ]Thomas Arnold, “Caius Octavius Caesar Augustus,” Encyclopaedia Metropolitana, X (London, 1845), 295-336.

[8. ]Jean Jacques Antoine Ampère, L’Empire Romain à Rome (2 vols., Paris, 1867).

[9. ]The bill had its second reading in the Commons on March 15, 1869, and had been referred to a Select Committee. The bill was finally passed in 1870.

[10. ]For William E. Forster’s speech on March 15, see Hansard, CXCIV, cols. 1356-82.

[11. ]This commission had been appointed in Dec., 1864, to inquire into schools not being investigated by the Popular Education Commission or the Public Schools Commission.

[12. ]Frederick Temple (1821-1902), headmaster of Rugby, later Archbishop of Canterbury.

[13. ]Thomas Dyke Acland. See Letter 1341.

[14. ]The Amberleys did visit JSM at Avignon in the fall of 1869 on their way to Italy.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[2. ]JSM’s edition of his father’s book had appeared in March.

[3. ]See Letter 1405, n. 2.

[4. ]Particularly Thornton’s Over Population, and its remedy; or an enquiry into the extent and causes of the distress prevailing among the Labouring Classes . . . (London, 1846).

[5. ]“New Political Economy,” Sp., XLII (March 27, 1869), 393-94.

[6. ]In an unheaded leader, Daily News, April 2, 1869, pp. 4-5, presumably by Frank Harrison Hill, the editor.

[7. ]Gladstone had first proposed his bill for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church on March 1; the bill provided that the property of the Church of Ireland “should be held and applied for the advantage of the Irish people, but not for the maintenance of any Church or clergy . . . nor for the teaching of religion.” Some of the appropriated revenue was to be used to reduce the county “cess” (rates) levied in support of the poor. The bill passed its second reading on March 23 but was not finally adopted until July 22 and then in a very modified form, omitting disendowment.

[8. ]Cf. Letter 1410.

[9. ]Sic. William Johnston (1829-1902), a leader among the Irish Protestant or “Orange” politicians, MP for Belfast; his motion dealt with the “Act to restrain Party Processions in Ireland.”

[1. ]MS in the Osborn Collection, Yale.

[2. ]Presumably, John MacLean, Protection and Free Trade (Montreal, 1867). For a summary of the pamphlet, see Orville J. McDiarmid, Commercial Policy in the Canadian Economy (Cambridge, Mass., 1946), p. 156.

[3. ]Charles Dilke, Greater Britain, II, chap. vi, “Protection,” pp. 59-70.

[4. ]See Letter 728, n. 4. Carey, though basically an advocate of free trade, was convinced that it could be achieved only after a period of protection. For his views see his Principles of Social Science, II, pp. 437-38, and III, pp. 409-44.

[5. ]David Ames Wells, the American economist. See Letter 1140.

[6. ]Joshua Leavitt (1794-1873), American reformer, lawyer, editor of the New York Independent, 1848-73. In 1869 he received the gold medal of the Cobden Club for his An essay on the best way of developing improved political and commercial relations between Great Britain and the United States (London, 1869).

[1. ]MS and MS draft at NLS. In reply to Carlyle’s of March 16, apparently the last he ever wrote to JSM, published in A. Carlyle, pp. 186-87.

[2. ]Memoirs illustrative of the Life and Writings of John Evelyn, comprising his Diary from the year 1641 to 1705-6 . . . ed. W. Bray (2 vols., London, 1818). The two volumes, which Carlyle thought had belonged to James Mill, may have been borrowed during the years Carlyle was working on his book on Cromwell (1845).

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. In reply to Fitch’s letter of April 10, also at Johns Hopkins, commenting on JSM’s article “Endowments,” FR, n.s. V (April, 1869), 377-90, reprinted in Dissertations, Brit. ed. IV, 1-24, Am. ed., V, 1-27, and in Collected Works, V, 615-29.

Joshua, later Sir Joshua Girling Fitch (1824-1903), inspector of schools and educational writer.

[2. ]No such letter appears to have been published.

[1. ]MS at Arsenal. Transcription provided by Professor George Iggers.

[2. ]L’Association pour l’encouragement des études grecques. See Letter 1109.

[3. ]“L’Association pour l’encouragement des études grecques en France, et le peuple Grec,” Le Temps, Jan. 7, 1869, pp. 1-2; and “Voltaire et la question Grecque en 1770,” ibid., March 20, 1869, p. 3. The latter is reprinted in Gustave d’Eichthal, La Langue Grecque. Mémoires et Notices, 1864-1884 . . . (Paris, 1887), pp. 321-31.

[4. ]One of several insurrections staged by nationalist Greek inhabitants of Crete against Turkish rule, this did not receive support from the King of Greece, and it was crushed early in 1869. A conference at Paris in Jan., 1869, of the foreign powers (France, England, and Russia) then running the affairs of Greece, imposed a settlement of the Turkish dispute on Greece but took no steps on behalf of the Cretans.

[1. ]MS at LSE. In reply to Cairnes’s of April 13, MS copy also at LSE.

[2. ]The Subjection of Women.

[3. ]See Letter 1418, n. 7. Cairnes in his letter of April 13 had remarked: “I fully admit the force of what you have urged on the subject of the Irish Church bill; and, if the application of the funds to education would necessitate an immediate dealing with the education question, I acknowledge the consideration would be decisive. But this is what I do not see. As at present enlightened, it appears to me that the settlement of the Church question might have been kept distinct from the disposal of the property, which might have been temporarily invested pending the time when Parliament should have made up its mind on the principle on which Irish educational institutions should be remodeled. . . . During this time the fund might be made useful to facilitate the settlement of the land question by affording advances on easy terms to tenants desirous of purchasing their farms.”

[1. ]MS not located. Published in The Revolution, III and IV (May 13, 1869), 293.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902), American reformer and leader in the women’s rights movement; wife of Henry Brewster Stanton, abolitionist; organizer with Lucretia Mott of a women’s rights convention in Seneca Falls, N.Y., in 1848; from 1851 associated with Susan B. Anthony.

[2. ]An Anniversary of the American Equal Rights Association, held at Steinway Hall, New York, on May 12 and 13, 1869. Mrs. Stanton was first vice-president of the Association. At the close of the Anniversary, the National Woman’s Suffrage Association was founded, and Mrs. Stanton was elected president, an office she held until 1890.

[1. ]MS at UCL.

[2. ]A Life Peerages Bill, presented by Earl Russell on April 4, 1869, proposed “that the number of life Peers should not, at any one time, exceed twenty-eight . . . [and] that not more than four should be created in any one year” (Hansard, CXCV, cols. 452-61). The Bill had its second reading on April 27, 1869, and was committed to a Committee of the Whole House for May 11.

[3. ]Chap. xiii, “Of a Second Chamber.” JSM proposed an adaptation of Hare’s plan, providing for proportional representation of the peers in a second chamber, but in general JSM opposed a second chamber of the traditional sort.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as are also Lalande’s letters of April 15 and 16 to which this is a reply. Published in Elliot, II, 197-98.

François Louis Marie Armand Lalande (1820-1894), politician and business man; later the author of L’Angleterre, l’agriculture anglaise et le libre-échange (Paris, 1885).

[2. ]Robert Lowe, who had been appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer in Gladstone’s cabinet in Dec., 1868, in his first budget message of April 8, 1869, proposed abolishing the remaining corn duty of one shilling the quarter.

[3. ]In 1846. JSM had written against the laws as early as 1825; see “The Corn Laws,” WR, III (April, 1825), 394-420.

[4. ]Whether it was ever published is not known. Three years later Lalande was the co-author (with A. Léon and Marc Maurel) of Lettre en faveur du maintien du traité de commerce avec l’Angleterre (Bordeaux, 1872).

[1. ]MS at Arsenal.

[2. ]Probably Georges rather than Eugène d’Eichthal. See Letter 1055, n. 5.

[3. ]Thomas Bazley.

[4. ]Thomas Bayley Potter.

[5. ]The election of 1869 in France was scheduled for May 23. In the event, the liberal opposition increased its strength: the Government received four and a half million votes, the Opposition three and a half million; the Government retained two hundred seats in the Assembly, but the Opposition, with 92 seats, tripled the number it had won in 1863.

[6. ]De la Prononciation nationale du grec et de son introduction dans l’enseignement classique (Paris, 1869).

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. In reply to letter of Francis from Queensland, dated Feb. 14, 1869, also at Johns Hopkins. Published in Elliot, II, 200-202.

Francis has not been further identified.

[2. ]Letter 1266.

[3. ]The countryside was amply supplied with irrigation reservoirs, called “tanks” though they ranged from village ponds to lakes fifteen miles long. Most were of native construction, improved and enlarged under the British.

[4. ]The Electric Telegraph Bill, introduced in Parliament on April 1, 1868, by Disraeli as Chancellor of the Exchequer, authorized the Postmaster General to acquire, maintain, and operate the telegraph system. The Bill was finally adopted in July, 1868.

[5. ]See Letter 262.

[6. ]The importation and exploitation of Polynesian labourers, extensively carried on in Queensland, eventually had to be controlled by government legislation.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as are also Leslie’s letters of May 2 and 3 to which this is a reply. First paragraph published in Elliot, II, 199-200.

[2. ]Leslie in his letter of May 2 had complained of J. A. Froude’s editorial interference in articles written for Fraser’s.

[3. ]See Letter 1389.

[4. ]John Morley, editor of FR, had postponed to the June number Leslie’s article on Chauffard’s translation of Mittermaier (see Letter 1389).

[5. ]Stephen had been elected to the Political Economy Club in 1862.

[6. ]Not located.

[7. ]In Political Economy to the University of London for a five-year term.

[8. ]On July 2, 1869, Leslie presented to the Political Economy Club the question, “Is the doctrine of the equality of the Rate of Profits well founded?”

[9. ]“The Franco-Belgian Incident,” signed Emile de Laveleye, Economist, XXVII (April 17 and 24, 1869), 442-43, and 471.

[10. ]Leslie had reported that de Laveleye was going to those countries and would no doubt write about them in a review.

[11. ]U.S. Senator Charles Sumner in the Senate debate on April 13, 1869, attacked the proposed treaty to settle the Alabama Claims. The treaty was rejected. Sumner’s speech was reported in The Times, April 29, 1869, and discussed in a leader, May 3, 1869, p. 8.

[12. ]Reverdy Johnson (1796-1876), American constitutional lawyer and diplomat: successor to Charles Francis Adams as Minister to England, 1868-69. Johnson had been accused of resorting to sawder (“flattery”) and of being pro-British.

[13. ]Frederick Temple Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquis Dufferin and Ava (1826-1902), diplomatist; under-secretary for India, 1864-66; under-secretary for war, 1866-68; governor-general of Canada, 1872-78; ambassador to Russia, 1879, and to Turkey, 1881. Between 1868 and 1881 he wrote much on behalf of Irish landlordism, in opposition to JSM’s views.

In his letter of May 3, Leslie wrote that Lord Dufferin had requested him to ask JSM for a presentation copy of England and Ireland, to be inscribed “Lord Dufferin from J.S.Mill.”

[1. ]MS in 1964 in the possession of Professor Iring Fetscher of the University of Frankfurt-am-Main.

[2. ]The Bankruptcy Bill was adopted in Aug., 1869.

[3. ]Graham was an official assignee in bankruptcy court.

[4. ]One of JSM’s closest friends in youth, Graham had once planned with JSM a work on political economy (see Earlier Letters, p. 79).

[5. ]In 1829. Sun Court adjoined the Grote banking house in Threadneedle St.

[1. ]MS not located. Published in Thomas S. Cree, Criticism of the Theory of Trades Unions (2nd ed., Glasgow, 1891), p. 38. Cree’s pamphlet was originally written as a paper read on Nov. 12, 1890, before the Economic Section of the Philosophical Society of Glasgow; in the main it is concerned with refuting JSM’s two articles on Thornton’s On Labour (see Letter 1405).

Thomas Cree was also the author of Evils of Collective Bargaining in Trades’ Unions (Glasgow, 1898) and of Business Men and Modern Economics (Glasgow, 1903).

[1. ]MS at Arsenal. Published, except for postscript, in D’Eichthal Corresp., pp. 215-16.

[2. ]See Letter 1427, n. 6.

[3. ]See ibid., n. 5.

[4. ]The remaining lines after this are not in JSM’s hand.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Taylor’s letter of May 14 to which this is a reply.

[2. ]The Jamaica Committee had voted to award £200 to Frederick W. Chesson in recognition of his services as hon. secretary to the Committee.

[3. ]The case concerned one Alexander Phillips who, it was charged, had been illegally arrested on orders by Governor Eyre in Jamaica in 1865 and flogged without trial. The case had been dismissed by Mr. Justice Blackburn, but now an effort was being made to press it again.

[4. ]Daniel O’Sullivan, mayor of Cork and a Fenian supporter, was the target of a bill introduced on May 5, 1869, by the Attorney General for Ireland. It was proposed to disable O’Sullivan from holding any office in Ireland because of his seditious language and activities. The second reading of the bill was deferred to June 8, and was then withdrawn. See Hansard, CXCVI, cols. 185-244, 575-84. JSM in Letter 1437 reports that the bill has been dropped even earlier.

[1. ]MS in Bodleian. The MS does not bear the recipient’s name. The first sentence of the letter is reproduced in Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner, Charles Bradlaugh: A Record of his Life and Work (2 vols., London, 1894), I, 149.

[2. ]Beginning in the spring of 1868 the Government had been seeking to suppress Bradlaugh’s The National Reformer under the Act of 60 Geo. III, cap. 69 which had been enacted in 1819 to eliminate cheap democratic and freethought publications. Bradlaugh’s resistance to prosecution aroused liberal opinion, and a bill introduced in the Commons on April 22, 1869, by A. S. Ayrton to repeal the Act was adopted on April 26 and in the House of Lords on June 21. For a detailed account of the matter see chap. xiv, “The ‘National Reformer’ and its Government Prosecutions” in Hypatia Bonner, Charles Bradlaugh, I, 137-51. See also Letter 1293.

[3. ]Probably the petitions for women’s suffrage (see Letter 1406).

[4. ]Presumably Helen.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published in Elliot, II, 202-203. See Letter 1426.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. See Letters 1433 and 1437.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Taylor’s letter of May 25 to which this is a reply. Partly published in Elliot, II, 203-204.

[2. ]The preceding Letter.

[3. ]See Letter 1433, n. 4.

[4. ]Cf. The Politics of Aristotle, trans. B. Jowett (2 vols., Oxford, 1885), I, 99-102.

[5. ]Taylor had written: “It seems to me that one of the blessings of a really popular [democratic] Government is that, as in Lincoln’s case, it can afford to step over paper Constitutions when need arises.” As JSM replies, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure necessary to suppress the rebellion.

[1. ]MS at Bibliothèque Nationale.

[2. ]Blanc’s series of “Lettres de Londres.”

[3. ]Victor Henri Rochefort (1830-1913), French writer and politician, was elected député, 1869.

[4. ]This invitation had to be cancelled because of JSM’s illness. See Letter 1456.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published in Elliot, II, 204-205. In reply to Cazelles’s of May 18, MS also at Johns Hopkins.

[2. ]Paris, 1869.

[3. ]Pierre Lanfrey (1828-1877), writer and politician; frequent contributor to the Revue des Deux Mondes; his major work was his Histoire de Napoléon 1er (5 vols., Paris, 1867-75).

[4. ]“The Enfranchisement of Women,” see Letter 28.

[1. ]MS at Arsenal. Published in part in D’Eichthal Corresp., pp. 217-18.

[2. ][Sir Richard Davies Hanson], The Jesus of History (London, Hertford, 1869).

[3. ]Les Evangiles (2 vols., Paris, 1863).

[4. ]JSM was mistaken; the author of The Elements of Social Science, or physical, sexual, and natural religion, first published in London in 1854, was Dr. George R. Drysdale (1825-1904). It was republished in many large editions, always anonymously (until the 35th edition [1905], which the British Museum Catalogue lists under the name of the author). It also sold widely in German and French translations. D’Eichthal probably had referred to the French translation which appeared in 1869, from the seventh edition (London, 1867).

Charles Robert Drysdale (1829-1907), the brother of George Drysdale, was also a physician; he wrote on medical topics, social aspects of prostitution, and the population question, including an essay on The population question according to T. R. Malthus and J. S. Mill (London, 1892).

[5. ]See Letter 1427, n. 5.

[6. ]Lazare Hippolyte Carnot.

[7. ]Pierre Emile Levasseur, Cours d’économie rurale, industrielle et commerciale . . . (Paris, 1868).

[8. ]JSM had perhaps used the title in letters of introduction he had written for d’Eichthal’s son (see Letter 1427).

[1. ]MS not located. Published in Frederic Harrison, Autobiographic Memoirs (2 vols., London, 1911), I, 301-302. The bracketed portion is Harrison’s introduction to the excerpt.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. In reply to Cazelles’s of June 3, MS also at Johns Hopkins.

[2. ]See Letter 1439.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published, with one omission, in Elliot, II, 206-207. In reply to Bain’s of May 28, MS also at Johns Hopkins.

[2. ]John Veitch (1829-1894), man of letters, from 1864 professor of logic and rhetoric at the University of Glasgow. He had just published his Memoir of Sir William Hamilton, Bart. (Edinburgh and London, 1869).

[3. ]See JSM, Hamilton, 4th ed. (London, 1872), xi: “As regards Sir W. Hamilton’s interpretation of Aristotle, Professor Veitch has convicted me of a mistake in treating a citation made by his editors as if it had been made by himself. . . . I have corrected [this error], and it will be found that [it] did not affect anything of importance in the criticism then made upon Sir W. Hamilton.” The correction occurs at 648n-649n. See also Veitch, Hamilton, p. 446.

[4. ]Activity, operation. It is used in Aristotle’s Ethica Nicomachia, 1098b 33 ff.

[5. ]Bain had said: “The general impression of Hamilton, with all the laboured attempt to make him an interesting character, is not favourable.”

[6. ]Chap. xi, “Belief.”

[7. ]Cairnes’s objections in his letter of May 23, 1869 (MS copy at LSE) were directed chiefly against some of Bain’s notes on the subject.

[8. ]The Subjection of Women.

[9. ]An education bill for Scotland did not pass until 1872.

[10. ]The Lords in July finally agreed to a reluctant compromise on the Irish Church Bill.

[1. ]MS at Indiana.

[2. ]Presumably relating to financial support for the WR.

[3. ]See Letter 1144.

[1. ]MS draft and MS copy at Northwestern. In reply to Spencer’s of June 9, MS at Northwestern, partly published in Duncan, I, 183.

[2. ]The Subjection of Women.

[1. ]MS at Brit. Mus.

[2. ]The Subjection of Women.

[1. ]MS not located. From the typescript of Gomperz, II, not published, now at Harvard. See letter 1413, n. 1.

[2. ]Probably the Dr. Richard Nathan Heinemann listed in the Post Office Directory for 1871 as professor of languages, and military and civil service tutor. No such translation seems to have appeared. The first German translation was by Jenny Hirsch, Die Hörigkeit der Frau (Berlin, 1869).

[3. ]The collected edition of JSM’s works.

[1. ]MS at LSE. MS draft at Johns Hopkins. In reply to Cairnes’s of May 23, MS copy also at LSE. Excerpt published in Economica, n.s. X (Nov., 1943), 284-85, and in Elliot, II, 207-208.

[2. ]See Letter 1405, n. 2.

[3. ]See Letter 1443.

[4. ]Possibly on the question of women’s suffrage.

[5. ]In the following year Cairnes moved to Blackheath.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[2. ]See Letter 1444.

[1. ]MS at Harvard. Published in Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, L (1916-17), pp. 23-24.

[2. ]The Subjection of Women.

[3. ]The bill passed in the Commons on June 11, in the Lords on July 22, 1869.

[4. ]The bill passed in the Commons on July 21, but was given only two readings in the Lords before the session ended. It was adopted, however, in the following session.

[5. ]Norton had left England before the end of May, and was established in Lausanne with his family.

[1. ]MS draft at Yale. In reply to Mrs. Huth’s of June 23 [1869] to Helen Taylor, also at Yale. The draft is in JSM’s hand; it may have been dictated by Helen.

[2. ]See Letter 1250.

[1. ]MS copy at Northwestern.

[1. ]MS at King’s.

[2. ]These may have been rights inherited under the will of James Mill, of which JSM was administrator.

[1. ]MS copy at Northwestern. First paragraph published in Spencer’s Autobiography, II, 249.

[2. ]See Letter 1452.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

Presumably Jane Dalzell Finlay Hill (d. 1904), wife of Frank Harrison Hill, editor of the Daily News. Mrs. Hill had recently reviewed JSM’s The Subjection of Women in SR, XXVII (June 19, 1869), 811-13.

[1. ]MS at Bibliothèque Nationale.

[2. ]Helen Taylor’s letter of July 1, 1869, advising Blanc of JSM’s delay in returning to England because of a sudden illness, is also at the Bibliothèque Nationale.

[1. ]MS in the possession of Professor John M. Robson.

[2. ]Eleven Reports of the Royal Commission on the Organization and Rules of Trades Unions and other Associations; Evidence and Appendices. 12 parts (P. S. King & Son, Westminster, 1867-69).

[1. ]MS at Somerville. Published in Martha Somerville, Personal Recollections, from early life to old age, of Mary Somerville. With selections from her correspondence (London, 1873), p. 345.

[2. ]The Subjection of Women.

[3. ]See Letters 1214 and 1231.

[1. ]MS draft at Yale. Published in Elliot, II, 209-10. In reply to Bain’s of July 10, also at Yale.

[2. ]The Subjection of Women.

[3. ]Bain had written that his first impression was “that the premises contended for as to women’s aptitudes are larger than the conclusion required. It is obvious that there are two stages in the adjustment of the problem of women: the first is political and points merely to the removal of restrictions; the second is private, referring to the exercise of individual discretion in embarking upon the wide sea of occupations, wherein men have hitherto had the monopoly.” Bain was especially concerned about the problem of women’s education for the higher professions, particularly medicine.

[4. ]See Letter 1450, n. 3.

[5. ]See ibid., n. 4.

[1. ]MS in the Osborn Collection, Yale.

[2. ]Rae subsequently published a book on his observations in America: Westward by Rail: the new route to the East (London, 1870).

[3. ]The first public meeting in London in support of women’s suffrage was held at the headquarters of the Architectural Society in Conduit Street on July 17, 1869. The speakers included JSM, Thomas Hare, Boyd Kinnear, Charles Kingsley, Henry Fawcett, Lord Houghton, Sir Charles Dilke, John Morley, Peter Taylor, and David Masson.

[4. ]Not located.

[1. ]MS at LSE. The year is marked in a different hand.

[2. ]Presumably the compromise reached on July 22 in the Lords with the Liberals on the Irish Church Bill, which then was passed.

[1. ]MS at King’s.

Sir Alexander Cornwall Duff-Gordon (1811-1872), a commissioner of the inland revenue; assistant gentleman usher of the Privy Chamber to Her Majesty.

[2. ]Lady Lucie Duff-Gordon, daughter of John and Sarah Austin, had died in Cairo on July 14.

[3. ]John Austin, Lectures on Jurisprudence, 3rd ed., revised and ed. by Robert Campbell (2 vols., London, 1869). See Letter 576.

[1. ]MS in 1965 in the possession of Mr. Joseph H. Schaffner of New York.

[2. ]See Letter 1382.

[3. ]In 1869 the U.S. Congress enacted a law which set an eight-hour day for all persons employed by or on behalf of the Federal Government. The law proved to be largely ineffective since it did not prohibit agreements to work overtime.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins.

[2. ]Livre Jaune (Yellowbook), an annual collection of official documents of the Foreign Ministry of France published since 1852. The Italian counterpart JSM had in mind may have been either Camera dei Deputati. Documenti diplomatici presentati al Parlamento . . . (Firenze, Roma [since 1861]), or Ministero dell’Estero—Commissione per la Publicazione dei Documenti Diplomatici: 1 Documenti diplomatici italiani, ser. 1, 1861-70 (Rome).

[3. ]See Letter 1460, n. 3.

[4. ]Mrs. Peter A. Taylor.

[1. ]MS draft at LSE. Published by Laveleye in “Lettres inédites de Stuart Mill,” Revue de Belgique, Jan. 15, 1885, pp. 5-25. In reply to Laveleye’s of July 25, also at LSE.

Emile Louis Victor baron de Laveleye (1822-1892), Belgian political economist and writer.

[2. ]Laveleye’s three volumes published this year were: La Question du grec et la réforme de l’enseignement moyen . . . (Bruxelles, 1869); Etudes d’Economie rurale. La Lombardie et la Suisse (Paris, 1869); Etudes et essais. . . . (Paris, 1869).

[1. ]MS in 1944 in the possession of Mrs. K. E. Roberts.

[2. ]On July 22 JSM, working with a group of radical MP’s, had issued invitations to a private conference to establish the Land Tenure Reform Association. The meeting of Aug. 3 referred to here was evidently the second private meeting of the group. A printed draft copy, marked [Private], of the resolutions adopted at this meeting is in the Howell Collection, Bishopsgate Institute, London. The first public meeting of the Association did not take place until May 15, 1871.

[3. ]Walter Morrison, MP for Plymouth.

[4. ]The printed draft referred to in n. 2 has promote rather than procure.

[5. ]As eventually adopted, The Programme of the Land Tenure Reform Association with an explanatory statement by John Stuart Mill was not published until 1871. It is reprinted in Dissertations, Brit. ed. IV, 239-50, Am. ed. V, 225-37, and in Collected Works, V, 689-95.

[1. ]MS at UCL.

[2. ]Arthur, later Baron Hobhouse (1819-1904), judge; Q.C., 1862; charity commissioner, 1866; one of three commissioners for reorganizing the endowed schools, 1869-72; law member of the council for India, 1872-77.

On July 5, 1869, Hobhouse had read to a joint meeting of the Royal Society of Arts and the NAPSS a paper “On the Limitations which should be placed on Dispositions of Property to Public Uses,” subsequently published in Journal of the Society of Arts, XVII (July 16, 1869), 675-83. Much of the paper was directed against JSM’s views as expressed in his article “Endowments,” FR, n.s. V (April, 1869), 377-90.

In the discussion of Hobhouse’s paper continued on July 9, Chadwick defended JSM’s views (see Journal of the Society of Arts, XVII [July 16, 1869], 686-89.

[3. ]Possibly the MS of an address Chadwick was soon to give on the means of economizing military expenditure, at a special meeting of the International Statistical Congress at The Hague. The address was published in ibid., XVII (Oct. 8, 1869), 855-58.

[4. ]Chadwick on July 17 had given a “garden tea party” to the committee of the Ladies’ Sanitary Association, the Council of the Society of Arts, and others, at his house at East Sheen, to show some new forms of construction as embodied in a new model cottage attached to his house and used as a gardener’s lodge. Chadwick’s address was published in ibid., XVII (July 30, 1869), 720-22.

[1. ]MS in the possession of Co-operative Union Ltd., Holyoake House, Manchester. MS draft at LSE, as is also Holyoake’s letter of Aug. 1 to which this is a reply. Published in Daily News, April 25, 1882. Envelope addressed: G. J. Holyoake Esq. / Waterloo Chambers / 20 Cockspur Street SW. Postmark: LONDON / S.E.2. / AU 9 / 69.

[2. ]The Evidence Bill, one provision of which was to permit the substitution of an affirmation for an oath in the swearing in of witnesses in legal cases, had been passed on Aug. 3.

[3. ]Holyoake had asked on what grounds JSM had been able to take the oath as an MP.

[4. ]The following passage was cancelled in the draft at LSE: “Perhaps however your question refers to the words which I think are in the parliamentary oath ‘on the true faith of a Christian’. On this point my answer would be that I am as much entitled to call my own opinion about Christ the true faith of a Christian, as any other person is entitled to call his so.”

[1. ]MS at Melbourne.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[1. ]MS at Melbourne.

[1. ]MS draft at John Hopkins, as is also Nichol’s letter of July 20 to which this is a reply. Published in Elliot, II, 211-12, and in part in “Unpublished Letters from John Stuart Mill to Professor [John Pringle] Nichol,” ed. William Knight, FR, n.s. LXI (May, 1897), 677-78.

[2. ]The Subjection of Women.

[3. ]Nichol had written: “I must confess that my own limited experience has not found the administrative ability in women that is spoken of & I don’t derive much encouragement from the example of sovereigns. Kings are perhaps superfluous in highly civilized countries but, with very few exceptions, have not Queens been for a longer period either superfluous or worse? It is difficult to read Mr Motley’s volumes or the more reluctant testimony of Mr Froude & preserve much admiration for the character of Elizabeth. . . .”

[4. ]James Anthony Froude, History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Death of Elizabeth (12 vols., London, 1856-70). All but the last two volumes had appeared at the time of this letter.

[5. ]The Pope had excommunicated Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn in 1538.

[6. ]Mary, Queen of Scots.

[7. ]Froude discusses the ambivalence of the position of King Philip II of Spain with reference to England in his History, X, chaps. xix-xxi, and xxiii.

[8. ]John Lothrop Motley, History of the United Netherlands; from the death of William the Silent to the Twelve Years’ Truce-1609 (4 vols., London, 1860-67). Vols. III and IV were published in 1867.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published in Elliot, II, 212-13, except for last paragraph. In reply to Robertson’s of July 2, MS also at Johns Hopkins.

[2. ]The Subjection of Women.

[3. ]In a long footnote to chap. iii JSM points to the outstanding success of Hindu women rulers.

[4. ]In chap. i.

[5. ]Robertson had written (in part): “Upon the argument of Ch. 3, that women as they are best correct what is excessive, & best apply what is good, in the speculation of men, might not an opponent argue, that is would be a pity thus to destroy this balance of the mutual forces? If women fulfil so important a function because, being not trained as men, they are what they are, would they not, if trained as men (which is the object of the argument), fall into the errors of men & all alike, men and women, henceforth be uncontrolled? The argument of this chapter seems to me a very delicate one. . . . In such an argument it is difficult to hold the balance even: to ascribe enough and not to ascribe too much to women as they are; in placing them under men as regards certain kinds of achievement, to show that there is no proof of their inferior faculty for these, without claiming for them what must amount to special superiority of a different kind. I suspect that the only true way out of the difficulty is to declare that if men have needed help from women as women are, it is because they, the men, have not been properly trained; is to attest, that, by throwing down the barriers before women, in all probability the type of mental action to which the one sex would henceforth not be debarred from approaching more than the other, would be a better type than the favoured sex has hitherto sought or been able to attain to. . . .”

[1. ]MS in the possession of Mr. George Arthur Wood. The end of the page has been cut off, and the signature is missing.

[2. ]For women’s suffrage. See Letters 1406, 1416, 1483, and 1484.

[3. ]See Letter 1460.

[1. ]MS draft at LSE. Published in Laveleye, Revue de Belgique, Jan. 15, 1885, pp. 12-13, 17. In reply to Laveleye’s of Aug. 7, also at LSE.

[2. ]Bettina von Arnim (1785-1859), sister of Clemens Brentano; artist, writer, friend of Goethe.

[3. ]Rahel Varnhagen von Ense (1771-1833), one of the most sophisticated women of her time and among the first in Berlin to have a salon where intellectuals met to discuss new works of literature, especially the writings of Goethe.

[4. ]Ida von Hahn-Hahn (1805-1880), writer of novels, travelogues, and, after her conversion to catholicism, religious poetry.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. The draft bears no indication of the intended recipient, but is indexed in the Hopkins collection: To / Horace White (?), (U.S.A.). There is also in the Hopkins collection, however, a letter from D. Watson of Hawick, N.B., of Sept. 1, 1869, asking for the kind of information JSM is here suppling. Furthermore, a memorial article in the Journal of Social Science (of the American Social Science Assoc.), V (1873) notes that in 1869 the Association provided for JSM, “at his special request, for his friend, Mr. David Watson, a very careful report on the practical working of vote by ballot in this country . . .” See also Letters 1488, 1491, and 1495.

David McBurnie Watson (d. Sept. 18, 1902), a native of Hawick, business man, an original member of the Hawick Parliamentary Debating Society, and active in liberal political causes, especially on the land question.

[2. ]Arthur, later Sir Arthur Arnold (1833-1902), radical politician and writer. His discussion of balloting practices in Greece is in his From the Levant, the Black Sea, and the Danube (2 vols., London, 1868), I, 192-98.

[1. ]MS draft at Yale. Published in Elliot, II, 213-14, and in Mrs. Hooker’s Womanhood: Its Sanctities and Fidelities (Boston, 1874), pp. 36-37, along with her letter of Aug. 10, MS also at Yale, to which this is a reply.

[1. ]Photocopy supplied by Mr. L. S. Johnson, of Copman Thorpe, York, of the MS in his possession.

John Wycliffe Thompson, retired (1862) Lieutenant-Colonel, son of General Thomas Perronet Thompson, who died at Blackheath on Sept. 6, 1869.

[1. ]MS in the Boston Public Library.

George Makepeace Towle (1841-1893), American journalist, prolific writer, lecturer; lived in England, 1868-70. Frequent contributor to Charles Dickens’s All the Year Round, and after his return to Boston, correspondent for the Athenaeum.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as are also Leslie’s letters of Aug. 31 and Sept. 20 to which this is a reply. Published in Elliot, II, 215-17, with first and last paragraphs omitted. Envelope filed with the letters bears note: “Chiefly by H. T. . . . Helen’s part of the letter for publication as hers, J. S. Mill.”

[2. ]Especially in 1854. See Letters 166 ff.

[3. ]Jacques Victor Bonnet (1814-1885), political economist and publicist, author of numerous works on credit, money, and banking.

[4. ]“La Variation des Prix dans les choses de la vie,” Revue des Deux Mondes, LXXXII (Aug. 15, 1869), 935-56.

[5. ]Madame de Lavergne, wife of Louis Gabriel Léonce Guilhaud de Lavergne, and Madame de Laveleye, wife of Emile de Laveleye.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Reid’s letter of Sept. 29 to which this is a reply. First paragraph published in Elliot, II, 214-15.

Andrew Reid was one of the founders of the Land Tenure Reform Association and an active political writer in the 80s and 90s.

[2. ]George Odger was shortly to be associated with a new organization, the Land and Labour League, a leftist group which favoured nationalization of the land. For details on the struggle over the next few years between the Land Tenure Reform Association and the League, see “The Republicans: a Study of the Proletarian Left, 1869-73,” in Royden Harrison, Before the Socialists, Studies in Labour and Politics, 1861-1881 (London, 1965), chap. v.

[3. ]As finally worded in the Programme of the Association (July, 1870), article 5 read as follows: “To promote a policy of Encouragement to Co-operative Agriculture, through the purchase by the State, from time to time, of Estates which are in the market, and the Letting of them, under proper regulations, to such Co-operative Associations, as afford sufficient evidence of spontaneity and promise of efficiency.”

[4. ]See Dissertations, Brit. ed. IV, 239-50, Am. ed. V, 225-37, and Collected Works, V, 689-95. See also Letters 1487 and 1493.

[5. ]William Rossiter (d. 1897), originally a portmanteau maker, joined the Working Men’s College in 1854, became head of the Adult School in 1857; after teaching for some time in Cornwall, he returned to London in 1865 as English master at the pioneer middle-class school, Bruce Castle, Tottenham; in 1868 he established the South London Working Men’s College, with Thomas Huxley as Principal and himself as Secretary.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Mistral’s letter of Sept. 12, to which this is a reply. Published with omissions in Elliot, II, 217-18.

Frédéric Joseph Etienne Mistral (1830-1914), Provençal poet, later a winner of the Nobel Prize, Fréderi is the Provençal spelling of his name.

[2. ]E. Cazelle’s translation of The Subjection of Women.

[3. ]Mistral had been awarded a medal by the Académie Française in 1861 for his poem Mirèio (Avignon, 1859), and in 1863 he had received the award of the Légion d’Honneur.

[1. ]MS in the possession of Mr. George Arthur Wood.

[2. ]See Letter 1474.

[3. ]See next two Letters.

[1. ]MS at Women’s Service Library, London.

[2. ]For a listing of various translations of The Subjection of Women see Keitaro Amano, Bibliography of the Classical Economics, Vol. III, Part 4, John Stuart Mill (Tokyo, Japan, 1964), pp. 340-42.

[1. ]MS not located. Published in Elliot, II, 218-19.

[2. ]See the preceding Letter.

[1. ]MS at LSE. Labelled in pencil at end: “To W. H. Duignan / Rushall Hall / Walsall.”

William Henry Duignan (d. 1914), attorney and antiquarian, writer on place names.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Reid’s letter of Oct. 14 to which this is a reply.

[2. ]The Land Tenure Reform Association. See Letters 1466 and 1481.

[3. ]Founded in the month of this Letter, the National Education League evolved from the Birmingham Education Society. The League sought to co-ordinate and strengthen the work of the many local societies with a vew to the establishment of a national system to provide education for every child in England and Wales. The League by the time of its first meeting this month had enlisted as members 2500 persons, including 40 members of Parliament.

[4. ]The Land and Labour League, which included such working class leaders as John Hales, George Eccarius, Thomas Mottershead, George Odger, and W. R. Cremer. Karl Marx hoped that the League might forward some of the purposes of the International. See Letter 1481, and Henry Collins and Chimen Abramsky, Karl Marx and the British Labour Movement (London, 1965).

[1. ]MS in 1968 in the possession of Mr. Richard A. Ehrlich of Braintree, Mass.

[2. ]David M. Watson. See Letters 1476, 1491, and 1495.

[1. ]MS draft at Yale. Published in Elliot, II, 221-22. In reply to Cazelles’s of Oct. 17, also at Yale.

[2. ]The number for Oct. 12, 1869 contained a review by Hippolyte Taine of Cazelles’s La philosophie de Hamilton (Paris, 1869), a translation of JSM’s Hamilton. The review is quoted in part in Victor Giraud, Essai sur Taine (Paris, 1901), p. 248.

[3. ]Paul Alexandre René Janet (1823-1899), philosopher, reviewed the same book: “Mill et Hamilton. Le problème de l’existence des corps,” Revue des Deux Mondes, LXXXIII (Oct., 1869), 944-72.

[4. ]Charles Bernard Joseph Renouvier (1815-1903), philosopher. The work referred to was probably his “Critique Générale: L’Infini, la Substance et la Liberté” in L’Année philosophique, études critiques sur le mouvement des idées générales, II (for 1868, published 1869), 1-180.

[5. ]“The Scientific Aspects of Positivism,” FR, n.s. V (June, 1869), 653-70; reprinted in Huxley’s Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews (London, 1870), pp. 162-91. Huxley here was answering an article by Richard Congreve, leader of the English positivists. “Mr. Huxley on M. Comte,” FR, n.s. V (April, 1869), 407-18, which in turn was an answer to Huxley’s Nov. 1868 lay sermon at Edinburgh, published as “On the Physical Basis of Life,” FR, n.s. V (Feb., 1869), 129-45, later reprinted in Lay Sermons, pp. 132-61, and in Methods and Results (New York, 1897), pp. 130-65. The controversy is discussed in Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley (2 vols., New York, 1900), I, 321-24.

[6. ]Auguste Comte, Philosophie chimique et philosophie biologique, vol. III of the Cours de philosophie positive (6 vols., Paris, 1830-42).

[1. ]MS at NYP, MS draft at LSE as is also George’s letter of Aug. 22 to which this is a reply. Published by George in the Oakland, Cal., Transcript, Nov. 20, 1869, and reprinted in the San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 21, and in Henry George, Jr., The Life of Henry George (New York, 1960), pp. 198-200, and in G. R. Geiger, The Philosophy of Henry George (New York, 1933), pp. 201-203.

Henry George (1839-1897), American economist, reformer, later best known as advocate of the single tax.

[2. ]“The Chinese in California,” New York Tribune, May 1, 1869, pp. 1-2. Excerpts are printed in George, Jr., Life of Henry George, pp. 194-97.

[1. ]MS draft at LSE. Part published in Stamp.

[2. ]Gomperz had married Elise Sichrovsky on Aug 8, 1869.

[3. ]See Letter 1476.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Thornton’s letter of Oct. 10 to which this is a reply. Published in Elliot, II, 219-21.

[2. ]On a holiday spent in Belgium, Holland, and western Germany. Thornton had spent a good deal of time observing peasant properties.

[3. ]Thornton had written: “I wish I could think that the small farmers in North Holland—between the Helder and Alkmaar—are proprietors of their own farms—I do not know whether they are or not—but if they are it would be they that we should cite in confirmation of our theories. They realize my ideal even better I think than the Channel Islanders. . . .”

[4. ]Thornton had commented at some length on the low standard of physical comfort in rural housing. “This miserable mode of living really proves nothing but a very low standard of comfort, for the peasants who are thus lodged have very likely twenty head of cattle & sheep in proportion, and one farmer’s widow who in one case was pointed out as the greatest proprietress, and whose dress & skin were worse than those of the dirtiest of English charwomen, was we were told worth 60000 florins—or between £5 & 6000 in cash. . . .”

[5. ]Thornton: “Almost the only book I had with me was the first vol. of Carlyle’s French Revolution which I had scarcely looked at since I first read it nearly twenty years ago, I suppose. Some time ago I heard [Frank Harrison] Hill of the Daily News say that Carlyle was to be read at one period of every one’s life, but that as one matured, that period passed and did not return. If this be correct I am myself very far from maturity, for I think I enjoy Carlyle—his French Revolution, that is—more if possible than ever. He irritates me every now and then by his perversity . . . but I think him almost without an equal for his specialty of placing in the strongest light the hidden meaning of familiar truths. . . .”

[6. ]See Autobiog., chap. v, and letters to Carlyle in Earlier Letters.

[1. ]MS at LSE. MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published, with omissions, in Elliot, II, 223-24.

[2. ]Not located.

[3. ]See Letter 1484.

[4. ]Probably The Subjection of Women.

[5. ]At the first conference of the National Education League, held in Birmingham, on Oct. 12-13, Fawcett’s motion was adopted that a bill embodying the principles of the League be introduced into Parliament.

[6. ]George, later Sir George Campbell (1824-1892), Indian administrator; MP, 1875-92; author, particularly on subjects relating to India. The pamphlet referred to was probably The Irish Land (London and Dublin, 1869).

[7. ]His essay, “Tenure of Land in India,” appeared in the Cobden Club-sponsored volume, Systems of Land Tenure in Various Countries (London, 1870), pp. 145-227.

[8. ]See Letter 1481.

[9. ]The Land and Labour League. See ibid., n. 2.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Wilkinson’s letter of Oct. 18 to which this is a reply. Published in Elliot, II, 224-25.

Identified only as then resident at 6 Gurney St., Walworth, SE, and employed in business. No published work by Wilkinson has been located.

[2. ]Chap. xi, “An affectionate exhortation to those who in early life feel themselves disposed to become authors.”

[3. ]The most famous of the Victorian circulating libraries, started by Charles Edward Mudie in 1842.

[1. ]MS draft at Yale. Published in Elliot, II, 226-27. In reply to Barnard’s of Oct. 3, also at Yale. A part of the letter was published in the memorial article on JSM in the Journal of Social Science, V (1873), 137-38.

[2. ]Probably Edward Kyllmann, a brother of the late Max Kyllmann, who had emigrated to the United States.

[3. ]Letter 1361.

[4. ]The Habitual Criminals Bill received Royal Assent on Aug. 11, 1869.

[5. ]Barnard had written of a plan to place casts of classical works of sculpture in some of the public schools, in the hope of gradually improving American taste in art.

[6. ]Ford Abbey, in Somersetshire. See Earlier Letters, p. 4.

[7. ]See Letter 1476.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Wilkinson’s letter of Oct. 28 to which this is a reply. See Letter 1494.

[1. ]MS at LSE. MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Part published in Elliot, II, 228-30. In reply to Cairnes’s of Nov. 9, MS at Johns Hopkins.

[2. ]See Letter 1452.

[3. ]Cairnes had announced his intention to publish a new, thoroughly revised edition of his The Character and Logical Method of Political Economy (1857). The new edition was not published until shortly before Cairnes’s death in 1875.

[4. ]Cairnes’s article, “M. Comte and Political Economy,” originally planned as a preliminary chapter to the new edition of the Logical Method, was first published in FR, n.s. VII (May, 1870), 579-602, and was reprinted in his Essays in Political Economy, Theoretical and Applied (London, 1873), pp. 265-311.

[5. ]Jean Baptiste Say (1767-1832), often ranked with Adam Smith and David Ricardo as among the founders of economic science. For JSM’s early connections with the Say family, see Earlier Letters, p. 12.

[6. ]Anne Robert Jacques Turgot, baron de l’Aulne (1727-1781), economist and statesman, comptroller-general (1774-76) under Louis XVI.

[7. ]Joseph Garnier (1813-1881), editor of several economics journals and author of many works in the field, perhaps the most notable of which was his Traité d’économie politique (Paris, 1860, and later editions).

[8. ]2 vols., Paris, 1858, and later editions.

[9. ]Marie Roch Louis Reybaud (1799-1879), economist, journalist, novelist, and politician; author of Economistes Modernes (Paris, 1862), which includes studies of Cobden and JSM.

[10. ]Michel Chevalier (1806-1879), economist and politician. For references to his activities as a Saint Simonian, see Earlier Letters.

[11. ]Fréderic Bastiat (1801-1850), economist, a friend of Cobden. Cairnes in the following year published an essay, “Bastiat,” in FR, n.s. VIII (Oct., 1870), 411-28, reprinted in his Essays in Political Economy, pp. 312-44.

[12. ]An incomplete edition was published in Paris shortly before the author’s death in 1850. JSM refers to the complete edition, published in 1851.

[13. ]Published in Paris from 1842.

[14. ]Cairnes, after a visit to the Fawcetts at Cambridge, had reported that Mrs. Fawcett was at work on a book on political economy (her Political Economy for Beginners [Cambridge, 1870]).

[15. ]In the House of Commons, May 17, 1868. See Hansard, CXC, cols. 1516-32.

[16. ]The other speech was given on May 17, 1866. See Hansard, CLXXXIII, cols. 1087-97.

[17. ]Book II, esp. chaps. vi-x, and xvi.

[18. ]Chapters and Speeches on the Irish Land Question (London, 1870).

[19. ]England and Ireland (London, 1868).

[20. ]See Letter 1493, n. 6 and n. 7.

[1. ]MS not located. Excerpt published in the National Reformer, Jan. 2, 1870, p. 8.

[1. ]MS at LSE.

[2. ]See Letter 1497.

[3. ]Ibid., n. 7.

[4. ]See Letter 1493, n. 6.

[5. ]“The Irish Land Question,” Daily News, Nov. 30, 1869, p. 5.

[6. ]“Assuming that the State undertake to settle by legislation the relation of Landlord and Tenant, can any criterion be suggested for determining Agricultural Rent in conformity with the moral basis of property, and consistently with public policy?” The question was discussed on April 1, 1870.

[7. ]See Letter 1497, n. 18.

[8. ]Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy (1754-1836), philosopher.

[9. ]Eléments d’idéologie (5 parts in 4 vols., Paris, 1801, 1803, 1805, 1815). The section on political economy was republished as Traité d’économie politique (Paris, 1822).

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. In reply to letter of Mrs. Fawcett of Dec. 4, 1869, to Helen Taylor, MS also at Johns Hopkins. This collection contains two other letters of Mrs. Fawcett to Helen Taylor, March 4 and Nov. 8, 1870.

[2. ]Mrs. Fawcett in her letter of Dec. 4 described a plan, originated by Henry Sidgwick, for having members of the faculty give courses of lectures for women at Cambridge.

[1. ]MS not located. Published in the Index, IV (May 24, 1873), 217.

Included in a memorial article on JSM by Abbot, who at the time of the founding of this American, liberal, freethinking weekly had sent JSM a copy of the Prospectus and expressed the hope that he would “assist the enterprise with a letter to be inserted in the first number.”

Francis Ellingwood Abbot (1836-1903), American Unitarian clergyman, philosopher; founder, in 1867, of the Free Religious Association. He believed that “Free Religion must replace ‘God in Christ’ with ‘God in Humanity.’ ” Doubting his ministerial prospects, he sought a chair of philosophy at Cornell, but failed despite strong recommendations. In Sept., 1869, he went to Toledo, Ohio, as minister of the Independent Church: there he founded and edited the Index (1870-86).

[1. ]MS in the Osborn Collection, Yale. Read by Mrs. Davis at the Woman Suffrage Convention which opened in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 19, 1870, and published in Elizabeth Cady Stanton, et al., eds., The History of Woman Suffrage (6 vols., New York, 1881-[1922]), II, 419.

Paulina Kellogg Wright Davis (1813-1876), editor, suffragist. With her first husband, Francis Wright, of Utica, N.Y., she took an active part in the anti-slavery convention held in Utica in 1835. After the early death of Francis Wright, she lectured to women on anatomy and physiology; her efforts helped to open the medical profession to women. When her second husband, Thomas Davis, of Providence, R.I., was elected to Congress in 1853, she accompanied him to Washington. There she established Una (1853-55), the first woman’s rights paper published in the United States. She took charge of the arrangements for the meeting of the National Woman Suffrage Movement held in New York in 1870.

[2. ]Lucretia Coffin Mott (1793-1880), Quaker, reformer, active in woman’s rights and anti-slavery movement. Chief promoter, together with Elizabeth Cady Stanton, of the first woman’s rights convention, held at Seneca Falls, N.Y., in 1848.

[3. ]At the Woman Suffrage Convention at Newport, R.I., on Aug. 25, Mrs. Davis had introduced resolutions thanking JSM for his support of women’s rights and paying tribute to the memory of Mrs. Mill and of Margaret Fuller. JSM’s The Subjection of Women was sold at the Convention.

[4. ]“The Enfranchisement of Women.”

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published in Elliot, II, 230-31.

Brewster and Co., a firm of carriage manufacturers in New York, had originally been established in New Haven, Conn., by James Brewster (1788-1866). His son Henry (1824-1887) established the New York firm in 1856. Following the example set by the founder, the Company maintained a policy of very generous treatment of employees, including, as this letter indicates, some sharing in the profits of the enterprise.

[1. ]MS at Indiana.

[2. ]A pirated edition published in New York.

[1. ]MS in the possession of Mr. George Arthur Wood.

[2. ]About petitions for woman suffrage. See Letter 1483.

[3. ]See Letters 1483 and 1484.

[4. ]The Subjection of Women.

[5. ]Founded in 1869 to organize the working classes as an elective power and to secure the election of working men to Parliament. The secretary was Lloyd Jones, veteran co-operator and one-time Chartist. JSM subscribed to the League. Howell was on its Executive.

[6. ]See Letter 536, n. 14.

[1. ]MS not located. Published in W. R. W. Stephens. The Life and Letters of Edward A. Freeman (2 vols., London, 1895), I, 373-74.

[2. ]Edward Augustus Freeman (1823-1892), historian, had attacked hunting as inflicting unjustifiable suffering on animals in “The Morality of Field Sports,” FR, n.s. VI (Oct., 1869), 353-85.

[3. ]See Daily Telegraph, Nov. 3, 1868, p. 2.

[1. ]MS at NLS.

George William, 4th Baron Lyttelton (1817-1876); a zealous advocate and patron of night schools and working men’s colleges, he became in 1845 principal of Queens College, Birmingham; in 1853 the first president of the Birmingham and Midland Institution; and was one of the founders and for many years the president of Saltley Trinity College. Undersecretary of state for the colonies, 1846; chairman of Canterbury Association, a corporation conceived by Edward Gibbon Wakefield, on the principles of which Canterbury, New Zealand, was founded in 1850. Chief Commissioner of endowed schools, 1869.

[2. ]Founded in 1853 for the education of working men, it established the first Free Library in Birmingham in 1856. Charles Dickens, who had given three readings in Dec., 1853, to help raise money for the Institute, became its president in 1869. For a history of the Institute, see Modern Birmingham and its Institutions from 1841-1871, compiled and ed. by John A. Langford (2 vols., Birmingham, 1873), I, 248-304.

[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published in Elliot, II, 231-32.

Victoria Adelaide Mary Louise (1840-1901), eldest daughter of Queen Victoria; married to Prince Frederick William (the Crown Prince) of Prussia, 1858 (later Emperor Frederick III for four months in 1888). The Prince wrote: “On the 26th [of Dec., 1869] we went, in a three days journey, by Avignon and Dijon to Paris” (Diary of the Emperor Frederick, ed. Margarethe von Poschinger, trans. Frances A. Welby [London, 1902], p. 188).