1870
1509.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES
Jan. 11. 1870
Dear Mr Cairnes
The Pall Mall Gazette containing Mr Maine’s criticism of your article reached me duly. Though some of Mr Maine’s strong points come out in it, on the whole it is hardly worthy of him. I need scarcely tell you that what he principally objects to in your article constitutes in my eyes its greatest value. I have never seen the ethical distinction between property in land and in moveables so thoroughly and clearly worked out, and the philosophical limits both of the property doctrine and of the counter-doctrine so well stated. And though Maine goes along with the practical conclusion, I am disappointed that he does not see the value of this exposition, or that the conservative instinct is so strong in him as to make him jealous of bringing the foundations of property under discussion. Surely nothing can be more strange than one of his arguments for abstaining from stirring up the subject, viz. that the present ideas of property are wrong not in one direction only but in both, as witness the disrespect for patent rights, and for copyright! Surely that is only the more reason why the real foundations of the question should, instead of should not, be insisted on.
It is a real and great pleasure to read such writing as yours. Very few writers have a skill comparable to yours in making the exposition of principles at once clear, persuasive, and attractive. With regard to the practical conclusions of the article, Mr Campbell’s suggestions, with your additions and modifications, are without doubt the utmost of what there is any chance of obtaining at present from Parliament. The danger is, as you observe, that we shall be put off with something far short of this. If the plan is adopted, and gets into operation, no one will be better pleased than I shall be. But I retain all my doubts whether, at the point which Irish demands and expectations have now reached, any measure which makes the amount of rent and the grounds of eviction in each individual case depend on the decision of a public authority, can settle the question, or can possibly be final. Every possible suspicion will be thrown on the intentions of the Commission, and every possible hostile criticism will be made on its decisions; and all whom it suffers to be evicted, or whom it requires to pay an increase of rent, will think that they ought to have had fixity of tenure at a valuation made once for all. But it is of no use grumbling at the inevitable. Fixity of tenure cannot be carried at a high step; and it is important that the intermediate measure should be the best possible, as I think yours is.
I hope Courcelle Seneuil and Cherbuliez, which I had been too long in sending, have long since reached you. I hope still more that your health improves. It is already a great thing that so much of your working power is restored. One can hardly exaggerate the value of minds which keep up their thinking as time and events advance, instead of doing it all in the first few years after entering into active life. There are too few of them.
With our kind regards to Mrs Cairnes
I am Dear Mr Cairnes
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1510.
TO SIR ROBERT COLLIER
Jan. 11. 1870
My dear Sir,
I take the liberty of inclosing to you the newspaper report of a matter in which I feel a painful interest & in which I am anxious to obtain the aid of your influence towards mitigating the hardship of what seems to me an extremely hard case. On the 24th of Decr a policeman named Wm Smith was charged before Mr Benson the magistrate with an assault upon a labouring man. The evidence proved that the policeman saw the man knock down a woman (his wife as it turned out) in the street at one o’clock in the morning & interfered for her protection, & in doing so, struck the man with his staff—which assault on the man, Mr Benson said was “unprovoked, brutal & unjustifiable” & sentenced the policeman to a month’s imprisonment & hard labour. I learn from enquiries which I have since caused to be made, that the man, though of unblemished character & 3½ years service has been dismissed from the force & deprived of his livelihood.
Now the only thing in which this poor man had exceeded his duty—the only point in which his conduct was not meritorious—was the blow with his truncheon & in that he did what any man, not a police officer, might justly have been proud of doing but which a policeman shd not have done if he was able to take the man into custody by a less employment of force; which however is uncertain, as the man was evidently in an excited & violent state.
I am not a partisan of the police, on the contrary I greatly distrust them & think that magistrates rely too much on their evidence & often treat instances of bribery, perjury & other highly criminal conduct on their part with most undue lenity. But on this very account, can there be a worse lesson to the police or to the public, than that when so many are retained in the force after flagrant misconduct one poor man against whom there is no other charge is dismissed for a little excess of zeal in protecting a woman against gross ill treatment? Policemen will think twice before they will interfere again to protect men’s wives, or any other women against brutality when they find that any hurt they inflict on a brute of this description is declared from the seat of justice to be not only “brutal & unjustifiable” but “unprovoked,” knocking down a woman in the street being no provocation to a bystander, even to an appointed & paid preserver of the peace—that in short a woman is a creature whom it is safe to knock down but most dangerous to defend from being knocked down by another man.
The policeman’s sentence will shortly expire & he will be released from prison. Would it be impossible to prevail upon the Home Office to restore him to the force? He has surely been punished enough for the worst that he can be charged with—overzeal in the performance of an important duty. I think it would be possible to get a well signed Memorial presented to the Home Office, praying for his reinstatement; but it would be better that it shd be done by the spontaneous act of the Home Secretary, as it might perhaps be, if you would interest yourself in the matter. I write by this post to Sir John Coleridge & Mr Russell Gurney & would write to Mr Bruce if my acquaintance with him was sufficient to warrant it.
1511.
TO FRANK HARRISON HILL
Jan. 11. 1870
Dear Mr Hill
There is a subject in which I very much wish to interest you. It is a police case, reported under the head of “Thames” in the Daily News of Dec. 25. The policeman William Smith, who was sentenced by Mr Benson to a month’s imprisonment with hard labour for, at the worst, using an unnecessary degree of violence against a man whom he saw knock down a woman in the street at one o’clock in the morning, has, as I have learnt by private inquiry, been dismissed from the force and deprived of his livelihood. The contrast between the manner in which perjury and other gross criminality on the part of policemen are continually passed over by magistrates, and this extreme severity for an act which would be honourable to anybody but a policeman, and in him was nothing worse than a slight excess of laudable zeal in the performance of a duty in which the police are much oftener culpably remiss than overzealous, must make a very great impression on the minds of policemen, who will learn from it to be still more careful for the future how they interfere to protect a woman from ill usage by a man. The magistrate had not a word of blame for the brutal husband, but declared the blow struck by the constable to be “unprovoked, brutal, and unjustifiable.” Be it observed that at the time the policeman struck the blow, he probably did not even so much as know that the woman was the wife of the man who was assaulting her but simply interfered against a man who was in the act of knocking down a woman in the public streets. As the poor man’s punishment is now drawing to a close, if the Daily News would say something in favour of restoring him to the force, it might greatly aid the attempt I am making to bring influence to bear upon the Home Secretary for that purpose.
With our kind remembrances to Mrs Hill, I am
Dear Mr Hill
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1512.
TO J. O’CONNELL
Jan. 11. 1870
Dear Sir—
I think you have done wisely in writing to Washington & in accepting the correspondence of the New York Tribune. Will you pardon me for saying that I think you are likely to be much sooner recognized as a man of ability through what you may do in this last capacity, (if it suits you to make yourself known as the writer) than by the profoundest philosophical treatise that it is possible to write? because there are so many more people competent to judge of the activity shewn. In some respects even your larger works would have more chance of giving you a reputation than the one you are now thinking of, since jurisprudence being a special subject, a systematic work on any branch of it has to some extent the advantage of being judged by experts, while Logic & Method are at once everybody’s business & nobody’s.
I have no fault to find with the title of your proposed book. I think it quite allowable either to treat Logic as coextensive with Method, or Method as a whole of which Logic is a part: the latter is more conformable to my own use of the words. But I am not nearly so confident as you seem to be that I shall like your book. Ability it will not want, nor system & concatenation: but I suspect that your “method” & mine are radically different, & I gather from what you say that in order to agree with your views, I shall have to abandon the greater part of my own. It may be that you have made discoveries which supersede all previous writers on logic from Aristotle downwards & change the whole face of the subject: if so, you will probably be appreciated fifty years after your death. You may have done all this, & I may not be able to see it: if I do, I think I can depend upon myself for being ready to confess & proclaim it; but even that would be but a very little way towards success. Byron might rise one morning & find himself famous, but Byron was a lord, & besides, what he wrote were trivialities which anybody could understand: and when a lord or a rich man gets praised for his writings it is not because of the means which his title or his wealth gives him of making their merits known; the homage is to the title or riches themselves, & he is praised as a writer because that is the form of praise he is supposed to like. Publishers look only to the saleable: there is little or no public for philosophical treatises (unless indeed they can get into the Universities) & books of any profundity are now generally written by men who have other occupations & means of subsistence & who, contented to get their books into print, can wait any length of time for recognition. As regards myself, unless I am completely converted to your views & become a disciple, there is little that I can do to help you. Old & intimate friends of my own whom both on personal & on public grounds I am most desirous to assist, are unable to get their writings published. No opinion from me will make a publisher think that a book on a dry subject is saleable: but if you can make yourself, by other means, independent & known, or even only independent, you may be able to risk it yourself & try the chance.
I expect to be in England about the first week in March.
1513.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT
Avignon, January 11 1870
The subject of your letter of the 3rd is one which I have much considered, and in which I feel great interest, and the result of the consideration is that I greatly deprecate any extension of the Contagious Diseases Act, and should highly approve of its repeal. I do not think the abuses of power by the police mere accidents which could be prevented. I think them the necessary consequences of any attempt to carry out such a plan thoroughly. If once examination is made other than voluntary the police must try to prevent evasion of it, and this at once opens the door to innocent mistakes on the part of the police, and makes it necessary to entrust them with power over women which no men are fit to have. I am opposed to the principle of the Act. I believe the medical efficacy of it to be doubtful, and I believe it to be impossible to carry it out without a degree of oppression which would more than overbalance any advantages that could be gained. Of course, in saying this, I look to the female population as well as the male, and strike the balance of advantages to the whole. I may as well say that I think this oppression does exist in France, and is responsible for a state of things among all classes far worse than exists in England. Nor do I think the indirect evils of this kind of registration to be despised. The interpretation certain to be put upon regulations of this description, even if entirely false, is so mischievous that a very great balance of well-ascertained practical good effects would not, perhaps, be sufficient to compensate for it. To fancy that calling this objection a sentimental one at all invalidates it is merely childish, for, assuredly, men’s sentiments have a great deal to do in regulating their conduct; and no law can be a good one which gives a bad direction to men’s sentiments.
1514.
TO ROBERT DALGLISH
Jan. 12. 1870
My dear Sir
Allow me to introduce to you Monsieur Georges d’Eichthal. His father, Monsieur Gustave d’Eichthal, of Paris, is well known as a thinker and writer on many important questions of politics and social science, and is one of the men for whose purposes as well as for his abilities and knowledge I have the greatest respect. He and his brother M. Adolphe d’Eichthal, who is the head of one of the principal banking houses of Paris, are the oldest friends I have in France. M. Georges d’Eichthal, who has passed some time in learning business at Manchester, is now going to enter into the employment of Messrs Elder and Co. of Glasgow. Any kindness you could shew him would be a great advantage to him and obligation to me, and from what I know of him I feel sure that he would do credit to your good offices. I am my dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
R. Dalgleish Esq. M.P.
1515.
TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL
12 janvier
1870
Mon cher d’Eichthal
Les seules personnes que je connaîs à Glasgow sont les deux députés libéraux, MM. Dalgleish et Graham, et un jeune professeur à l’Université, M. Nichol, homme d’un esprit cultivé et très libéral. Je vous envoie des lettres pour eux. MM. Jacob Bright et Steinthal m’ont tous deux écrit des éloges de M. votre fils, et m’ont remercié de le leur avoir recommandé. Je ne doute pas qu’il fasse à Glasgow une impression également favorable.
La situation politique de la France en ce moment est vraiment merveilleuse, et donne lieu aux plus grandes espérances. La France est habituée à étonner le monde par une renaissance subite à la lumière au moment où les ténèbres semblaient le plus épaisses. Je crois avec vous que pendant les années de son silence politique elle a appris des choses très importantes, et que l’avortement de sa dernière révolution lui a donné des pensées qui étaient nouvelles pour elle, et qui la rendront, j’espère, plus heureuse cette fois.
Votre très affectionné,
J. S. Mill
1516.
TO PASQUALE VILLARI
A[vignon] Jan. 12. 1870
Mon cher M. Villari—
J’ai bien tardé à vous remercier de votre bonne lettre et des envois si intéressants qui l’ont accompagnée. C’est que j’attendais pour avoir le loisir de lire l’ouvrage de M. Gabelli, qui méritait évidemment une lecture très sérieuse. J’ai fait enfin cette lecture et j’en suis bien récompensé. Ce traité a tout le mérite qu’on devait attendre de la haute opinion que vous avez de son auteur. Je suis charmé de voir arborer en Italie le drapeau de la phychologie inductive et de la morale utilitaire, dans un livre si fortement pensé et qui prête si peu à la critique.
C’est en même temps un indice et une cause de progrès intellectuel, en donnant aux principes du droit et de la morale une définition claire et une base démontrable et en épargnant la déplorable déperdition de force intellectuelle qui a lieu aujourd’hui pour une métaphysique nuageuse qui ne mène à rien, parcequ’elle suppose toujours ce qui est en question, en faisant du sentiment subjectif de l’homme sa propre justification. Votre ami me paraît de force à lutter très vigoureusement contre cette métaphysique et cela de la meilleure façon, en le remplissant par quelque chose mieux. J’ajouterai qu’il raisonne et discute très bien: les mots ont toujours pour lui un sens notamment déterminé et il sait toujours ce qu’il veut dire.
Je suis très content de vos circulaires sur l’instruction des femmes. Ces circulaires sont très propres à stimuler le zèle des autorités locales en leur faisant sentir l’importance que met le gouvernement à l’instruction réelle et sérieuse des femmes. Ce que vous me dites par leur retentissement et par l’effet que déjà elles produisent est très encouragement. J’espère que le changement du ministère n’a rien changé dans les dispositions du gouvernement à cet égard et n’a pas ébranlé votre position officielle si précieuse au bien public.
Vous me demandez mes idées sur l’instruction des femmes, mais puisque vous approuvez mon livre je crois que vous les connaissez déjà et que ce sont les vôtres. Vous savez que je ne voudrais nulle distinction dans l’instruction donnée aux deux sexes. Dans mon opinion l’instruction générale doit être la même: quant à la professionnelle, elle dépendra de la destination sociale de chaque élève, mais celle-là aussi doit être ouverte aux jeunes filles comme aux jeunes gens. Je crois que l’on finira par n’avoir que des écoles communes aux deux sexes. Après cela il va sans dire que la connaissance du milieu social de l’Italie doit décider de l’approche qu’il est aujourd’hui possible de faire à cet idéal. Le plus grand danger à craindre c’est que tout en faisant faire les mêmes études, on ne s’efforce pas à les faire faire aussi solides par les jeunes filles; et qu’on se contente de quelque chose de plus superficiel, ne visant guère qu’à l’amusement ou à l’agrément. Ce danger cessera du moment où il sera compris que l’instruction des femmes est tout aussi importante aux intérêts sociaux que celle des hommes. Dès que cette idée-là se sera emparé des esprits, la cause sera gagnée. Et le gouvernement fera déjà beaucoup de bien en faisant voir que c’est là son intime conviction.
Vous me connaissez assez pour juger que je ne suis pas ému par ce qu’il y a de peu satisfaisant dans la vie politique du moment en Italie. Ces luttes d’ambition et d’amour propre sont réellement des phénomènes très superficiels: et tout indique que les mouvements intellectuels et économiques se poursuivent très heureusement sous cette surface. C’est sur ces deux mouvements que tout renseignement venant de vous me serait précieux. A propos, les documents sur Rome que vous avez eu la complaisance d’envoyer n’étaient pas ce dont j’avais besoin: Je croyais que comme en France un exposé général de l’état, surtout économique du pays, se publiait tous les ans, et je voulais y chercher principalement des renseignements sur l’émigration. Au reste le besoin momentané que j’avais de ces renseignements est passé.
1517.
TO HENRY SAMUEL CHAPMAN
Jan. 14. 1870
Dear Chapman
I am much obliged to you for your interesting letter on the Colonial question, and all the more, as your early departure will prevent me from having any opportunity of talking over with you the new aspects of the subject.
The causes you mention are, no doubt, those which have chiefly contributed to the indifference of official people in England about retaining the colonies. I suspect that separation would still be a great shock to the general English public, though they justly dislike being taxed for the maintenance of the connexion. For my own part, I think a severance of it would be no advantage, but the contrary, to the world in general, and to England in particular; and though I would have the colonies understand that England would not oppose a deliberate wish on their part to separate, I would do nothing to encourage that wish, except telling them that they must be at the charge of any wars of their own provoking, and that though we should defend them against all enemies brought on them by us, in any other case we should only protect them in a case of extremity such as is not at all likely to arise. I have always thought, however, that we ought to have softened the transition in the case of New Zealand by guaranteeing a loan to enable the colony to maintain for a few years a sufficient force of its own raising, without taking away the industrious population from the labours on which the very existence of the colony depends.
I do not see my way to any practicable mode of federal government for communities so widely scattered over the world. And I have attended sufficiently to colonial affairs to be aware that the colonies will not allow us to cast out our paupers into them. But emigration of able bodied agricultural labourers who are not paupers, I suppose they would welcome, and this would be very useful to us. Our having given up the unoccupied lands to the colonial government creates many difficulties. I thought, at the time, that it was an error; that the lands ought to have been regarded as the common inheritance of the whole people, the United Kingdom and the colonies taken together; the first comers having no just claim to the exclusive disposal of more than they could themselves occupy. But in this matter, jacta est alea, and we have only to make the best arrangement we can with the colonists for the reception of such emigrants as they are willing to take.
I had the pleasure of being introduced to Sir George Grey a short time ago, at a meeting on the subject of Landed Tenure, and I shall always be glad to know his opinions on a subject of which he has such extensive knowledge as Colonial Government and to compare notes with him on anything that occurs to myself.
The Canadian land transaction mentioned in your letter received today, is entirely a case of coproprietorship similar to tenant right.
With every good wish for the prosperity and happiness of yourself and your family, I am
Dear Chapman
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1518.
TO MRS. CHARLOTTE SPEIR MANNING
Jan. 14. 1870
Dear Madam—
I have delayed very long to thank you for kindly sending me your book the reason being that I have only just now found time to read it. Nothing can be more laudable than your purpose in writing the book—that of inspiring greater respect for the people of India in the minds of those who are appointed to govern them. That respect for the most part exists in the experienced men who know the natives from a long course of service in India; but nothing can be more disgusting than the feelings & demeanour towards them of numbers of the raw young Englishmen who go out & I am afraid this is an increasing evil since the substitution of the Queen’s army who detest the country and only remain a few years in it, for a force of which the officers passed their whole career in India, & since the great increase of private adventurers, who are not even under that imperfect control from superiors to which the military, & the civil officers of government are subject.
I think you have done good service by putting within reach of the English public, in the compass of a single work, so much knowledge, both in the shape of information & of specimens, of the thoughts & intellectual productions of the Hindoos. Opinions will differ as to the merits of these productions, & of the state of civilization which they indicate; but they are an authentic & interesting product of the human mind; they deserve to be known, & any one may now know where to find such a selection from them as is sufficient to give a correct general notion of their kind & quality. This could not, as far as I know, have been obtained before, without at least dipping into many books.
You ask me for information respecting the administrative capacity shown by so many ladies of ruling families in India & especially whether these ladies are Hindoos or Mahomedans. They are almost all Hindoos. The case can seldom arise in a Mussulman principality, as by Mahomedan law the mother is not regent for her minor son, whereas among Hindoos the mother by birth or adoption is regent of right. One of the most remarkable however of these ladies, the late Sekunder Begum of Bhopal, was a Mahomedan. She was the only child of the ruler of the country, & at his death, according to the custom of the people she could transmit the chiefship to her husband but could not exercise it herself: she was however so much the stronger mind & the most popular too that the people obeyed her in preference to her husband & after his death which was an early one she was allowed to govern the country at first nominally for her daughter, but latterly in her own right. She was a most energetic, prudent, & just ruler, & her daughter who has now succeeded her, & who has been carefully trained by her to public business, is expected to tread in her footsteps. Her own mother too was a remarkable woman. As the Native States were in my department at the India House I had opportunities of knowing all that was known about the manner in which they were governed & during many years by far the greater number of instances of vigorous frugal & skilful administration which came to my knowledge were by Ranees and Raees as regents for minor chiefs.
My daughter has not yet had time to read your book, but she looks forward to doing so with pleasure & begs to be kindly remembered to you.
1519.
TO WILLIAM T. MALLESON
Jan. 18. 1870
Dear Sir—
I do not feel entitled to proffer my opinion unasked to Mr Odger on a point on which you say he has not made up his mind, & I do not like to urge upon him any particular course of action during his canvass, supposing that I knew he agreed with me in opinion. No one has taken a warmer interest than I have in the candidatures of working men in general & Mr Odger in particular, & I believe Mr O. is well aware of this.
Not only do I object altogether to the extension of the C[ontagious] D[iseases] Acts, but I have seen the passing of them as they at present exist with great regret & shd be extremely rejoiced if they could be repealed: since not only do I object to them altogether on principle but I think that in the long run those measures are likely rather to increase than diminish the evil they are intended to attack. Moreover I fully agree with you in thinking that opposition to those Acts is more particularly incumbent on the defenders of the interests of working men, because working women are likely to be the greatest sufferers by this system of legislation & if it is to be carried out with anything like efficiency it could only be by an enormous expenditure which of course would fall in the long run upon the great mass of the taxpayers. Of course one need scarcely say that to any man who looks upon political institutions & legislation from the point of view of principle the idea of keeping a large army in idleness & vice & then keeping a large army of prostitutes to pander to their vices is too monstrous to admit of a moment’s consideration, while the safety of the country could be provided for by the military education of all classes, or until after every possible experiment with married soldiers had been tried & failed. I therefore do not think that this system of legislation which I think utterly depraving to the mass of the population (not to speak of its gross inequality between men & women) is in any way specially necessary for the army & navy. It is a monstrous artificial cure for a monstrous artificial evil which had far better be swept away at its root in accordance with democratic principles of government.
I do not wish to write anything at length or to print anything on the subject, as I have great hopes that any further extension of these Acts will be checked by the public spirited action of the Ladies Committees, & I believe that full discussion of the subject will lead to bringing public opinion to our side in regard even to the repeal of the Acts. But if you would like to shew this letter to Mr Odger, or to any friend, I shd have no objection at all to your doing so.
1520.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT
Avignon, Thursday, Jan. 20, 1870.
Dear Sir:
I beg to acknowledge your letter of Nov. 21.
I think you must have been misinformed as to the purport of the letter which I addressed, on the 23d of October, to a California citizen who had asked my opinion on the subject of the Chinese immigration. I certainly said that the settlement, in large numbers, of a population in a lower state of civilization, and willing to work for a lower rate of remuneration, would have a tendency to deteriorate the condition of the native laborer for wages, and would, so far, on general principles, justify restraints on immigration; but I urged, as a greatly preferable course, to endeavor, by education, to raise the Chinese population to the level of the American; and it is with great pleasure I learn from your letter that this is already being attempted with some success. The only measure of distinction which I did advocate was the enforcement of stringent laws against introducing Chinese under contract to work for particular persons; which is a form of compulsory labor—that is, of slavery. I should greatly deprecate the institution of a Chinese for an American population in all the departments of manual labour, the Chinese remaining what they are; but I distinctly stated in my letter that so long, at least, as the bulk of the immigrants return eventually to their own country, the opportunity given to numerous Chinese of becoming familiar with better and more civilized 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 faithfully,
J. S. Mill
1521.
TO WILLIAM T. MALLESON
Jan. 24. 1870
Dear Sir—
I would rather that no part of my letter were sent to the press. My former letter was published without my permission & though I do not greatly regret that it has been done I shd much dislike anything further of the same sort. It is neither good for the public nor for myself that mere obiter dicta, things written with no view to publication & written to persons who already agree with me, shd be sent forth through the newspapers as if they were the best I could do, & as if that were my chosen way of communicating with the public. I owe to the cause my name & the declaration of my opinion; but any slight & cursory attempt to argue it before the public would be a great mistake. So would it be on my part to join the Executive of your Association, which will be managed by men much fitter for such business than I am. But I feel it my duty to join the Association & shall be obliged by your putting down my name.
1522.
TO JAMES M. BARNARD
January 26, 1870
The American Social Science Association will do immense service if it makes itself an organ for stimulating the desire and obtaining the means of the highest possible education. Stimulating the desire is all that is needed for obtaining the means, for there are never wanting, in your country, generous men who give large sums to enrich their country with permanent institutions which they think useful to it. When opinion shall have been duly prepared, persons will probably be found who will be disposed to endow Professorships of Jurisprudence and Roman Law at Harvard College and the other Universities.
What you say about the new start which the mind of America has been led to make by her long and arduous struggle, is exactly what I foresaw from almost the very beginning. I wrote in January, 1862, and often said in the years following, that, if the war lasted long enough, it would very likely regenerate the American people, and I have been seeing more and more clearly since it closed, that to a considerable extent it has really done so, and in particular, that reason and right feeling on any public subject has a better chance of being favorably listened to, and of finding the national mind open to comprehend it, than at any previous time in American history. This great benefit will probably last out the generation which fought in the war; and all depends on making the utmost use of it, for good purposes, before the national mind has time to get crusted over with any fresh set of prejudices as nations so quickly do.
1523.
TO SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE
Jan. 28. 1870
Dear Sir
It is wholly untrue that I have given any approbation whatsoever to the projectors of the meeting mentioned in your letter, or that I agree with them in any respect but in wishing to retain some connexion with the Colonies, and to promote emigration: and even on these points they had no authority from me to state any opinion. On the contrary, having received a copy of an intended Memorial to the Queen, emanating from the same people, with a request that I would sign it, I wrote a reply on the 23rd of this month, decidedly objecting to almost every point in the Memorial, I am very glad that you wrote to me and I beg that you will not give credit to any statement you may see about my supposed opinions unless confirmed by myself. I am
Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Sir C. W. Dilke Bart. M.P.
1524.
TO LORD AMBERLEY
Feb. 2. 1870
Dear Lord Amberley
Mr Lecky’s state of mind on the subject of prostitution is characteristically conservative. He thinks that since it has not been reformed up to this day it never can be. This is the true conservative stand point. Whatever reforms have been already effected are well enough; if they were effected long enough ago, they are even excellent. As to any reforms in the future, though they might be desirable in themselves, they are sure to bring with them greater evils than they can remove; and then come those jeremiads more or less eloquent and touching, which we are so accustomed to in politics and morals, about the fearful consequences to society of attempting to do anything that has not been done already. It would be hardly possible to support any opinion by flimsier reasons than these particular ones of Mr Lecky. Are we to consider what the Church accomplished in the middle ages as the extreme limit of the moral improvement possible to mankind? Are the violent appetites and passions of half-tamed, or not even half-tamed, barbarians, a measure of the obstacles to be encountered in educating the young of a cultivated and law-observing community? The Church strove with sincerity and earnestness in the middle ages to suppress private war and the abuses of military violence, with very little success; but what could not be done then, has been found quite practicable since, and has been actually accomplished.
It is of more importance, however, to consider Mr Lecky’s doctrine than his reasons. He considers prostitution as a safety valve to prevent the propensity to which it ministers from producing worse evils. Now, in the first place, I believe that the propensity has hitherto been fostered, instead of being weakened, by the tendencies of civilisation (which has been a civilisation left mainly to the influence of men) and by the teaching of the Catholic Church, which in order to add to the glory of the ‘grace of God,’ always has exaggerated and still does exaggerate the force of the natural passions. I think it most probable that this particular passion will become with men, as it is already with a large number of women, completely under the control of the reason. It has become so with women because its becoming so has been the condition upon which women hoped to obtain the strongest love and admiration of men. The gratification of this passion in its highest form, therefore, has been, with women, conditional upon their restraining it in its lowest. It has not yet been tried what the same conditions will do for men. I believe they will do all that we wish, nor am I alone in thinking that men are by nature capable of as thorough a control over these passions as women are. I have known eminent medical men, and lawyers of logical mind, of the same opinion.
But, in the second place, supposing that Mr Lecky is right in thinking, as he apparently does, that men are not capable of efficient control over this propensity, I should still differ from him when he thinks that prostitution is the best safety valve. I, on the contrary, think that with the exception of sheer brutal violence, there is no greater evil that this propensity can produce than prostitution. Of all modes of sexual indulgence, consistent with the personal freedom and safety of women, I regard prostitution as the very worst; not only on account of the wretched women whose whole existence it sacrifices, but because no other is anything like so corrupting to the men. In no other is there the same total absence of even a temporary gleam of affection and tenderness; in no other is the woman to the man so completely a mere thing used simply as a means, for a purpose which to herself must be disgusting. Moreover so far from thinking with Mr Lecky that prostitution is a safeguard even to the virtuous women, I think it cuts at the core of happiness in marriage, since it gives women a feeling of difference and distance between themselves and their husbands, and prevents married people from having frank confidence in one another. The fact I believe to be, that prostitution seems the only resource to those and to those only, who look upon the problem to be solved to be, how to allow the greatest license to men consistently with retaining a sufficient reserve or nursery of chaste women for wives. Their problem is not, as yours and mine is, how to obtain the greatest amount of chastity and happiness for men, women, and children. Marriage has not had a fair trial. It has yet to be seen what marriage will do, with equality of rights on both sides; with that full freedom of choice which as yet is very incomplete anywhere, and in most countries does not exist at all on the woman’s side; and with a conscientious scruple, enforced by opinion, against giving existence to more children than can be done justice to by the parents. When marriage under these conditions (and with such means of legal relief in extreme cases as may be adopted when men and women have an equal voice) shall have been tried and failed, it will be time to look out for something else: but that this something else, whatever it may be, will be better than prostitution, is my confirmed conviction.
We are sorry that you have had such deplorable weather during your whole stay in Italy. The winter seems to have been a bad one over the whole South. There has been snow all round us; Perpignan, Narbonne, Bezius, have been snowed up. We have had none here; but instead of our glorious winter days (of which, until quite lately, there have been only a few) cold northwest winds, with clouds and haze almost like England. This ungenial weather has disagreed both with my daughter and me: she has been not nearly so well as when you saw her, and I have had a series of small ailments, and have still an obstinate cold.
Shall you be in England in April? The Women’s Suffrage Committee would, I believe, prefer to hold their meeting in April, but if you could not be present then, would postpone it till June. Would you mind writing to ask Mr Winterbotham to speak at the meeting? either in April or in June, according as you are yourself able to be present.
I inclose introductions to M. Jules Simon and M. Louis Blanc: the latter of whom, however, lives in England, and we hope you will meet him at our house. M. About I do not know.
I am
Dear Lord Amberley
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1525.
TO LORD AMBERLEY
Feb. 12. 1870
Dear Lord Amberley
I should have plenty to say both on Mr Lecky’s further remarks and on your difficulties; but having just found your letter on returning from a five days excursion I write hastily for the chance of finding you still at Florence. I will therefore merely throw out a few hints. I see no proof of the difference of physical constitution you suppose to exist between men and women as to the point in question. From all I have read or heard I believe that there are no signs of it among savages: and the Hindoo books talk perpetually of the unrestrainable voluptuousness of women. I rather think the difference is merely that the masters, being more accustomed to indulge all their propensities than the subjected, find them more imperative and uncontrollable. So much for Mr Lecky’s “heroic standard of virtue.” With Mr Lecky I am entirely at issue as to prostitution being the least bad form of illicit sexuality. I think it by far the most degrading and the most mischievous. On the whole I would rather you did not shew my letter to Mr Lecky.
We are very sorry to hear that you are going to lose a place which you like, and to have the great trouble of looking out for another. We will inform the Women’s Suffrage Committee of the limits within which your ability to attend the meeting will be confined. Many thanks for writing to Mr Winterbotham. I do not know how he reconciles his not having yet made up his mind to the suffrage, with “hearty adhesion to the principles” of the book on the Subjection of Women. “The question of careers and of political rights” will settle that of education much sooner than the latter the former; and this he will probably find out. Meanwhile, and independently of losing him as a speaker at the meeting it is a disappointment to find him less advanced than we hoped. I am
Dear Lord Amberley
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
P.S. It will give me much pleasure if you should like to accept the offer Helen makes in her letter to Lady Amberley.
1526.
TO HORACE WHITE
Feb. 13. 1870
Dear Sir—
I presume I am indebted to you for sending me the number of the Chicago Tribune which commented on my supposed opinions respecting Chinese immigration. Nothing could be clearer or fairer than the editorial statement of the reasons which in my opinion might justify the exclusion of immigrant labourers of a lower grade of civilisation than the existing inhabitants. But I never said that in America & in the present circumstances of the case it ought to be done. My letter on the subject to a Californian citizen who had asked my opinion, has been so much misunderstood that I cannot but think the copy of my letter which I understand appeared in the newspaper must have been a mutilated one. I distinctly declared that in my opinion the right course to be adopted is to endeavour by education to bring the rising generation of Chinese up to the level of Americans. If there is little or no rising generation (the Chinese not being permanent settlers) I said that in that case their coming could be no such evil to the labouring classes as to justify its prohibition, while the opportunity it gives of carrying the ideas of a more civilised country into the heart of China, is an advantage to the people of China of which (I said) I do not think it would be right to deprive them. The only mode of immigration which I said that I thought shd be prohibited is the bringing over Chinese as Coolies under engagements to work for particular persons; which is a form of compulsory labour, or in other words of slavery.
Many thanks for the trouble you have taken to give information to Mr Watson. I have since heard that the American Soc Sc. Assn has taken up the subject, so that I hope a considerable amount of valuable information is likely to result from Mr Watson’s inquiries.
1527.
TO FRANK LYNN
Feb. 15. 1870
Dear Sir
I beg to acknowledge your letter of Feb. 7 requesting me to give my name as Patron and Treasurer to the Working Men’s National Emigration Association.
I wish success to any plan by which the working people may be enabled to effect the purpose which the Association has in view; but as it is impossible for me to give any portion of my time and attention to the Society, I do not think myself justified in becoming responsible for its proceedings by connecting my name with it. I am
Dear Sir
yours very sincerely
J. S. Mill
Mr Frank Lynn Esq.
1528.
TO GEORGE ODGER
Avignon, February 19, 1870
Dear Mr Odger
Although you have not been successful, I congratulate you on the result of the polling in Southwark, as it proves that you have the majority of the Liberal party with you, and that you have called out an increased amount of political feeling in the borough. It is plain that the Whigs intend to monopolise political power as long as they can without coalescing in any degree with the Radicals. The working men are quite right in allowing Tories to get into the House to defeat this exclusive feeling of the Whigs, and may do it without sacrificing any principle. The working men’s policy is to insist upon their own representation, and in default of success to permit Tories to be sent into the House until the Whig majority is seriously threatened, when, of course, the Whigs will be happy to compromise, and allow a few working men representatives in the House.
John Stuart Mill.
1529.
TO MRS. PETER ALFRED TAYLOR
Feb. 21, 1870
Dear Mrs Taylor—
I cannot help thinking St. James’s Hall too large for the meeting, unless you mean the smaller room there. I look with great misgiving upon a meeting at all this year, as the promises are as yet so few. You have not told us whom you think of asking to speak. I think the second meeting in some respects more critical than the first, because many who have heard of the success of the first will come, & it will be mischievous if they go away disappointed. I cannot pledge myself to speak & I do not see a prospect of a successful meeting, whether I speak or not, unless Mr Maurice & Mr Cairnes consent. I do not see, without them, enough speakers of the first class. Will you kindly let us know for what day the 2d reading of the bill is fixed; & Helen asks me to say that she cannot write to Miss Hare until you answer her question whether you would like Miss Hare to read the report of the year’s proceedings in the place of Miss Biggs, as you suggested that some one shd do when we last saw you. You do not tell us what lady speakers you think of asking. Helen says that if there were no other lady speakers than yourself & Mrs Fawcett, she would do her utmost to try to speak herself, & thinks that probably her doing so might help to induce Miss Hare: but unfortunately she cannot promise, as she cannot depend with certainty on her health. Still we think that few lady speakers are better than having any who are not all that could be desired. I must reiterate my objection to St. James’s Hall because I think that even if it could be filled (which is doubtful) it would have too much the appearance of a public meeting. I shd have thought Willis’ Room quite large enough.
We have not yet fixed when we shall leave here, but will be in England for the meeting whenever it may be. In a letter received yesterday from Lady Amberley dated Feb. 17th she tells Helen that between March 20th & 25th would suit Lord A. best.
1530.
TO SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE
Feb. 23. 1870
My dear Sir
My daughter desires me to express her thanks to the Club for the honour which it has done her.
The earliest day on which the Club meets and on which I think I can be sure of being in England, is the 27th of March, and on that day we shall be most happy to attend. Will you kindly send the circular to Blackheath.
I hope that if there is a meeting of the Women’s Suffrage Society you will do it the great service of speaking.
The Education Bill of the Government seems to me the nearest approach now possible to a surrender of English education into the hands of Denominationalism. I do not wonder that the Tories speak so well of it. If it passes unaltered, the effect will be doubly mischievous in Ireland. I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Sir C. W. Dilke
Bart. M.P.
1531.
TO GEORG BRANDES
le 24 février 1870
Monsieur
C’est avec grand plaisir que j’ai appris par votre lettre que mon livre sur l’Assujétissement des Femmes a été traduit en Danois. Vous ne vous trompez pas en pensant que je ne connais pas cette langue, bien que je connaisse par des traductions quelques-uns des auteurs qui l’ont illustrée par leurs écrits. Je suis heureux de voir que la question des femmes, la plus importante à mes yeux de toutes les questions politiques du temps présent, excite dans le monde civilisé un intérêt si général, qu’on a fait à mon livre l’honneur de le traduire dans la plupart des langues, y comprises celles de plusieurs pays bien moins éclairés et avancés que le Danemarck.
Vous me demandez, Monsieur, quels sont les ouvrages de la littérature anglaise, française, ou allemande les plus considérables qui ont pour objet la situation sociale des femmes. Jusqu’ici ceux qui ont quelque valeur sont loin d’être nombreux. La question ne fait que commencer d’être sérieusement étudiée. Je puis vous signaler, en langue française, les livres suivants:
“La Femme Pauvre au 19me Siècle”, par Mlle Daubié: éditeur, Ernest Thorin, Rue de Médicis, 7, à Paris. [1866]
“Le Droit des Femmes”, par Alfred Assollant: éditeur, Anger, Rue Laffitte, 8, à Paris. [1868]
“L’Ouvrière”, par Jules Simon: éditeur, Hachette, Boulevard St. Germain, 77, à Paris [1861]
“La Femme Affranchie”, par Madame Jenny d’Héricourt: éditeur, Lacroix, Rue de la Putterie, 33, à Bruxelles: à Paris chez tous les libraires. [2 vols., 1860]
En Anglais:
“Social and Political Dependence of Women” by Captain [Charles] Anthony: éditeurs, Longman et Cie à Londres. [1867]
Un volume d’Essais par plusieurs auteurs sous le titre de “Women’s Work and Women’s Culture”: éditeur, Macmillan, à Londres.
Je ne sais pas ce qui a pu être publié en Allemagne, sauf l’ouvrage de Mme Lewald-Stahr que vous connaissez.
Il y a au moins trois journaux, l’un à Paris (“Le Droit des Femmes”), les deux autres aux Etats-Unis (“The Revolution” et “The Woman’s Journal”) qui sont consacrés à cette cause. Les bureaux sont:
Le Droit des Femmes: Rue du Paradis Poissonnière 1 bis, à Paris.
The Revolution: 49 East Twenty-third Street, New York.
The Woman’s Journal: 3 Tremont Place, Boston, et 82 Washington Street, Chicago.
Il y a une Association Anglaise pour le suffrage des femmes, dont le siège principal est à Londres: Sécrétaire, Madame P. A. Taylor, Aubrey House, Notting Hill, London.
Je me suis donné le plaisir de vous envoyer par la poste un exemplaire du seul pamphlet ou article que j’ai ici, sur la question des femmes, c. à. d. le compte rendu du premier meeting tenu à Londres par la Société pour le suffrage des femmes. A mon retour en Angleterre je vous enverrai les autres articles et pamphlets qui ont été mis en circulation par la Société.
Il existe aussi des Sociétés pour obtenir le suffrage pour les femmes, aux Etats Unis d’Amérique, en France, en Italie, et en Suisse.
Agréez, Monsieur, l’expression de ma considération très distinguée.
J. S. Mill
1532.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES
Feb. 25. 1870
Dear Mr Cairnes
It would be of the utmost value to the meeting of the Women’s Suffrage Society, and a great service to the cause, if you could find it possible to say a few words at the meeting. I know that it is asking very much from you, but in a case like this the second meeting is the most critical of all, especially after the first has been successful. Even if it is as good a meeting as the first, there will seem to be a falling off, because more will be expected: but to have the same speakers over again, with hardly any new ones, or with such only as add little to our strength, would be more than a falling off—it would be a failure. And so many of our best supporters came to the front last year, that there is considerable danger of failure from this cause. You, however, are part of our reserved strength: your name, and even a very brief expression of your sentiments, would add weight to the meeting. It is this extreme need which makes me hope that if it be possible, you will consent to speak a few sentences. However few they are, they will be of the greatest service, and I do not venture to ask for more.
My daughter says she shall be more an enemy of hunting than ever now that she knows your loss of health is partly due to it. She is very much gratified at your good opinion of her article, as there is no one whose favourable judgment she would regard more highly. She is very anxious to see your additions to your Logic of Political Economy, as she had felt tempted to controvert part of it in something she was writing, but which she has laid aside until she knows your present views on the subject.
With our best regards to Mrs Cairnes, I am
Dear Mr Cairnes
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1533.
TO ALEX D. CAMPBELL
Avignon, 28th February 1870
I agree with you that the land ought to belong to the nation at large, but I think it will be a generation or two before the progress of public intelligence and morality will permit so great a concern to be entrusted to public authorities without greater abuses than necessarily attach to private property in land. Meanwhile we should try to go on limiting the power of individuals over land by imposing more and more conditions on behalf of the people at large.
1534.
TO SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE
Feb. 28. 1870
Dear Sir,—
I most heartily agree with the Resolution of the London Branch, which I had already seen in the newspapers, and I am delighted that the Education League is preparing for a struggle. For myself I would rather, and I should think that the intelligent part of the working class would rather have no National Education Act for the next five years, than one which should empower the State to establish schools on the denominational principle. All other objections, strong as some of them are, might be waived in order to get a beginning made of a national system; but that all schools founded by the Government, either general or local, should be purely secular is a point on which if I were in Parliament I would make no compromise, but if it was not conceded, would do what I could to defeat the Bill. Ever since I saw that the League was going to make a stand on this point I have been desirous of helping it by some expression of opinion, but I have not yet made up my mind how I can best do so. I rather dislike writing private letters to be published in the newspapers, of which there has been a great deal in my case already without my consent.
With regard to an International Free Trade Congress, I do not clearly understand whom in particular it is hoped to influence by it—the English working people, or foreign countries. If the latter, it would probably do good, provided it proceeded mainly from the foreign free traders. I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Sir C. W. Dilke
Bart. M.P.
1535.
TO FANNY LEWALD-STAHR
March 1. 1870
Dear Madam—
I beg to return you my sincere thanks for your kindly sending me your excellent series of letters on the Women question. It is a real honour to have my name inscribed at the beginning of such a volume. Your book is both convincing & persuasive & is singularly free from the two contrary defects one or other of which writings for the cause of woman so often exhibit, of indiscreet violence & timid concession.
So competent a testimony as yours is well fitted to make me think that I have been at least apparently unjust to German women in the remark I made in my little book on the insufficiency of their education. When I referred to this as being inferior to what it is in France I did not so much refer to the ordinary character of the schools for young women which I believe is much worse in France than in Germany, but to the much smaller number of women who, like yourself & a few others, have qualified themselves by their studies & acquirements for distinction & usefulness as writers. The average education of German ladies may be much superior (at least as to languages) to that of French ladies but there appears to be as yet a much smaller number who stand out from the general level & take a more or less high rank either in the literature or in the serious discussions of their country.
1536.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES
March 2. 1870
Dear Mr Cairnes
I hardly know how to express to you how much I feel the kindness of your consenting to speak in compliance with my wishes, though so much in opposition to your own. Had your unwillingness been grounded solely on your health, I would on no account have urged you against your own preference: but since it has its source in that too modest estimate of yourself, of which your friends have ample experience, I think they may fairly do what I should not advise them to do on most subjects—set their judgment above your own. I have not the slightest misgiving about your speaking, if but you do speak. It is only your health I am anxious about, and on that point your letter is encouraging. I beg that you will say only as much as can be said without overtasking your physical powers. However short your speech may be, I will answer for its being both a help and a credit to the meeting.
My daughter found, as I did myself, much to admire, as well as to learn from, in your Logic of Political Economy. As for your last article in the Fortnightly, she is even more enthusiastic in her admiration of it than I am, and thinks it one of the finest bits of writing in the English language; an absolute model of philosophical exposition in the balance and proportion of the parts.
I am happy that the favourable impression I retained of Courcelle Seneuil’s and Cherbuliez’s books is shewn by your agreement with it to be well grounded.
We expect to be at Blackheath in about a fortnight.
With our kind regards to Mrs Cairnes, I am
Dear Mr Cairnes
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1537.
TO SIR ROBERT COLLIER
March 3. 1870
My dear Sir Robert Collier—
Allow me to thank you for your kind attention to my letter, & for the interest you have taken in the case of the dismissed policeman.
I shd think more of the reason assigned by Mr Bruce for not reinstating the man if it were one that is consistently acted on by the police authorities. But there have been not a few cases in which magistrates have shown by their decision that they entirely disbelieved the testimony of policemen, either given to screen themselves or one another or in wrongful accusation of other people; yet so far as the public are aware, dismissal has not followed. I inclose a case which I have read this very day in the Daily News, where an inspector who had been dismissed for a grossly insulting abuse of authority towards two respectable women got himself restored by making statements privately against their character which statements having inadvertently become public he has been obliged publicly to retract. This is surely a much worse case of disregard of truth than that which Wm Smith is charged with. If this inspector remains in the force, it will be thought, & said that falsehood may be overlooked in a policeman who insults women but is unpardonable in one who defends them.
Undoubtedly if the man has really been guilty of falsehood he ought not to be reinstated: but that he persists in his story is all he can do if he is innocent. Of course in a case like this in which the magistrate has shewn such gross incapacity there ought to be some independent examination of the worth of the evidence of the witness whose story was at variance with that of the man Smith. I shd have supposed that it would have been within the province of the head of the police to have made such an examination: for however much respect is due to a magistrate’s decision magistrates are after all fallible (unhappily in the case of Mr Benson apparently very fallible) & then it seems to lie with the Home Secy & the immediate superiors of any one who has been aggrieved to redress the injury as well as they can in the absence of any Court of Appeal.
I hope you have by this time quite recovered from your unfortunate & troublesome accident which I much regretted to hear of.
1538.
TO JOHN CHAPMAN
March 6. 1870
Dear Sir
I have just received your letter, and I hasten to say that I am glad you agree with me in preferring joint action, and I highly approve of the formation of such an Association as you propose, consisting of the Ladies’ Committee with a reinforcement of men. I should be happy to be a member of an Association so constituted but should not be willing to be its President, as, being unable to give my time and labour to the business of the Committee, I do not think it would be right for me to hold myself out to the public as the head of the organisation, and the apparent guide and director of its proceedings.
I am Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
Dr Chapman
1539.
TO T. E. CLIFFE LESLIE
March 8, 1870
Dear Mr Leslie—
I am truly sorry to hear that your indisposition has been so painful & so serious. It is well that the worst is past, and that you are rapidly recovering.
I am much obliged to you for writing out so clearly & well the best things which can be said against the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts. Much of what you say is in itself just: but considered as an argument in support of the Acts, I think I could answer every part of it; & some time or other I hope to do so.
The Ladies’ Manifesto supports its case in a manner which though well calculated for effect on a great number of minds, does not bear being brought to a strict logical test. Nevertheless it appears to me that the fault is not so much in the arguments as in the mode of putting them & that they might be so stated as not to be open to the criticisms which they have, naturally enough, suggested to you.
What will probably go farther in influencing the public mind than any argument is that the facts relied on by the supporters of the Acts are breaking down under them in all directions, & that their claim to have nearly all medical opinion on their side is showing itself to be utterly futile.
I have just seen the advertisement of your book in Longmans’ list. It is not worth while sending any proofs here as we leave for England at the beginning of next week.
1540.
TO JOHN SHORTT
March 8, 1870.
Dear Sir
I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 2nd instant and to express my regret that the preparation of a Lecture for delivery as part of the Society’s series, still continues to be incompatible with my occupations and engagements.
I am
Dear Sir
Yours very faithfully
J. S. Mill
John Shortt Esq.
1541.
TO WILLIAM FRASER RAE
March 21. 1870
Dear Mr Rae
Many thanks for your offer of help at the meeting of the 26th. The list of speakers is arranged by the Ladies’ Committee, of which Mrs P.A. Taylor, Aubrey House, Notting Hill is Secretary. The list is full for the present occasion; but it is just possible that Mr Odger, who is one of the speakers, may be detained at Bristol, and in that case perhaps the Committee may apply for your help at a short notice. In any case I will make your kind offer known to them, and, if not for this year, it may very likely be acceptable for next.
I was much interested by your letters, and am glad to hear that they are so much sought after. You are quite right, in these circumstances, to republish them, and I inclose an introduction to Mr W. Longman. I am
Dear Mr Rae
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
W. F. Rae Esq
1542.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES
March 28. 1870
Dear Mr Cairnes
I regret that my name is promised to Chadwick for the meeting on Friday.
It would be very desirable to give to the question the wider and more practical character you propose; and I think you may fairly try the experiment in the manner which your letter suggests. Any one who is interested in the narrower question is likely to be interested in the wider and to be even better prepared for it, since it is à l’ordre du jour. It is very likely therefore that nobody will be otherwise than pleased at coming in for a more interesting discussion than he expected.
You were quite right, I think, as to the expediency of not mixing Longfield’s plan and the question of valuation in the same amendments.
I hope your cold is better. I am
Dear Mr Cairnes
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1543.
TO ARTHUR HELPS
March 28. 1870
Dear Mr Helps—
Your letter was forwarded to me at Avignon but I delayed acknowledging it until I shd have an opportunity of reading your book which was waiting for me here.
If, as you intimate, my review of your first publication had any share in procuring for the world the series of works which I & so many others have since read with so much pleasure & instruction; far from regarding this exploit of mine as a sin to be repented of, I should look upon it as a fair set off against a good many sins. This most recent of your works is as full of valuable & happily expressed thoughts as any of its predecessors, while as a story it is more successful than Realmah though perhaps not more interesting to a psychologist. With regard to its practical object, emigration, I shd like very much to see the experiment tried in the manner you propose, of founding beyond the seas a new community complete in all its parts. But the conditions of a new country produce of necessity a state of society so much more democratic than our own, that it is only very exceptional persons in our higher and middle classes that could either reconcile themselves to it or have the foresight & mental adaptability required for guiding & organising the formation of such a community. And considering the great addition made annually to the poorer part of our population, the scheme would have to be executed on a vast scale indeed if it is to clear out the bad quarters of our towns & leave them a tabula rasa for reconstruction on better principles; not to say that the inhabitants of those quarters are far from being, in general, good material to colonise with.
I am very happy that you go so far as you do with those who are seeking to remove the civil & political disabilities of women. Since you think women shd have the suffrage, surely you shd join the Suffrage Society which claims nothing whatever but that independent women with a due property qualification shd be allowed to vote.
1544.
TO MRS. WILLIAM E. HICKSON
March 28, 1870
Dear Madam—
Before receiving your sister-in-law’s letter, we had learned of your irreparable loss from one of those who most loved you & Mr Hickson, our friend Miss Lindley. My first thought on hearing the sad news was of you. I know too well that there is no consolation for a calamity like yours. But nothing can deprive you of what comfort there is in a knowledge of the deep respect which was felt for your husband & will continue to be felt by his memory, by those who have known him as long & as well as I have. Mr Hickson was one of the small number of those who, with no personal ambition to gratify have laboured from an early age first to acquire the powers necessary for enabling them to render services to mankind, & then to use those powers to the utmost extent of their opportunities, & he was in no ordinary degree, successful in both objects. I have from an early period been accustomed to look upon him as in many important respects an example of what men should be. The loss of every such man makes the world poorer, & is to be lamented even by those who had not the privilege of his personal friendship—how much more by all who had.
1545.
TO SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE
March 30. 1870
Dear Sir Charles Dilke
Neither my daughter nor myself will be able to attend the Radical Club next Sunday. I shall have much pleasure in accepting your kind invitation to dine with you on Saturday April 9, but my daughter regrets that she has an engagement which will prevent her from accompanying me. I am
Dear Sir Charles Dilke
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1546.
TO HIPPOLYTE TAINE
April 10. 1870
Monsieur—
Je vous remercie très sincèrement d’avoir bien voulu m’envoyer votre livre, que je lirai avec grand intérêt, et j’espère avec profit. Depuis la critique, d’ailleurs si flatteuse, que vous fites il y a longtemps de mon Systeme de Logique, j’ai toujours désiré savoir plus au long votre manière de penser sur les questions philosophiques si semblable et pourtant à certains égards si différente de la mienne. Je me permets maintenant cette satisfaction jointe à beaucoup d’autres, de la lecture de votre livre.
Je vous dois, monsieur, un long arriéré de remercîments des choses aimables que vous avez écrites sur mes livres de philosophie et notamment sur mon examen d’Hamilton. Je n’ai pas besoin de vous dire combien je suis heureux que ce livre vous ait paru mériter un jugement si favorable.
Veuillez me dire si vous avez reçu de ma part la nouvelle édition de l’ouvrage de mon père entitulé “Analysis” &c. J’avais l’intention très arrêtée de vous en offrir un exemplaire et cependant je ne puis pas me rappeler si cette intention a été exécutée ou non. Si par inadvertance j’ai omis de vous envoyer ce livre je tiens à réparer sans retard cette négligence regrettable.
1547.
TO SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE
April 11. 1870
Dear Sir Charles Dilke
I inclose the list of the pairs, which with the two tellers makes up 82 on our side in the division.
I omitted to mention to you yesterday how exceedingly mischievous I think it would be if any deputation of ladies were to attempt to go up to Gladstone. From what I know of him, as well as from many other considerations, I think there are few things that would do more to throw back the movement, renew the old prejudices against women’s franchise and neutralise what has been done to further it. I am
Dear Sir Charles Dilke
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1548.
TO HIPPOLYTE TAINE
April 21, 1870
Monsieur—
Je suis bien aise d’apprendre que je n’avais pas négligé de vous envoyer le livre de mon père. Ce livre parut dans le moment le plus extrême de la réaction soi-disant spiritualiste, et il y a manqué par là un éclatant succès tout en contribuant beaucoup à former un certain nombre de bons esprits. Réimprimé dans un temps plus propice à la philosophie inductive de la nature humaine, il tendra à fortifier cette bonne tendance, sans jeter ses lecteurs dans les défauts que vous reprochez avec quelque raison à l’école matérialiste.
Quant à la question des femmes; vous n’êtes pas le premier qui m’a fait à peu près les mêmes observations sur le caractère des françaises. J’ai été souvent frappé de l’espèce de mépris avec lequel les français parlent souvent des françaises, et (puis-je le dire?) il me semble que les françaises ne manquent pas de rendre ce mépris même avec intérêt. Il est sûr que les hommes et les femmes en France ne s’estiment pas réciproquement; ce qui est, par parenthèse, assez souvent la conséquence de trop de galanterie dans les moeurs. Cependant j’ose dire que comme beaucoup de français et surtout de Parisiens et surtout encore des hommes de la classe aisée, vous ne connaissez pas toutes les belles qualités des françaises. Il n’y a pas au monde de femme qui sache mieux “s’ennuyer, sans s’amortir ou s’éteindre” que la française provinciale rangée et vertueuse de quelque rang que ce soit, et il n’y a pas de meilleure femme d’affaire ni de personne plus réfléchie, plus sobre (d’esprit) que les paysannes françaises, et encore beaucoup de femmes de la classe artisane quand elles ne sont pas trop écrasées par les souffrances dont leur maris les abreuvent. Et même pour les jolies femmes et les Parisiennes, c’est un peu la légèreté des hommes français qui est cause que les femmes françaises ne leur présentent que les côtés fourbes de leur caractère. Quand ces mêmes femmes d’apparence frivole ont à faire avec des femmes anglaises, il arrive quelquefois qu’elles font voir un fonds de sérieux et d’amertume que se trouverait rarement peut-être même parmi ces Anglaises que vous croyez si sérieuses. Ce caractère sympathique qui est si gracieux, si aimable et dans les français et dans les françaises, fait que les femmes se montrent banales et frivoles quand elles croient voir que les hommes attendent d’elles la banalité et la frivolité. C’est à vous hommes intelligents de la France, à montrer que vous croyez les femmes capables des idées sérieuses et des goûts élevés, et je me trompe beaucoup si vous ne verrez pas bientôt se dévoiler une intelligence et une élévation dont vous ne soupçonnez pas encore l’existence.
1549.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES
April 22. 1870
Dear Mr Cairnes
You are most welcome to retain Cherbuliez and Courcelle Seneuil for any length of time, or permanently. As for Carey’s book, which I think is the very worst book on political economy that I ever toiled through, the only thing I wish to do with it is to find somebody who will take the trouble to write a detailed exposure of it, for the American public, on whom I believe it has really some influence. If you know of any person competent and willing to perform this irksome but useful service, it would be a great satisfaction to me to make him a present of my copy.
The Land Tenure Committee, at its meeting on Monday, approved a programme compounded of the old and the new articles, subject to confirmation by a general meeting of all the members of the Association, which is to be held in July. Meanwhile the programme is to be printed and a copy sent to every member. The organization of the Association is adjourned till after that meeting has been held.
We leave tomorrow morning for Avignon. I am
Dear Mr Cairnes
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1550.
TO JULIE VICTOIRE DAUBIÉ
[Spring? 1870]
Mademoiselle:
You have a right to be surprised at the delay in my answer to your letter. But your book is not one of those which one is content to read in haste, and some time passed before the pressure of my occupations permitted me to devote to it the time and attention which it deserved.
You have written a work, Mademoiselle, of great value, and all the more meritorious that it must have been very painful to write it. I have rarely read a more sad book. One has never, I believe, revealed in fuller detail the miseries of life for the great majority of women, and the revolting injustices of masculine society with respect to them. I should like it if this book were to be read from beginning to end by all men and women of the so-called enlightened class. I believe that it would make many of them ashamed of their culpable inaction in face of evils so frightful and injustices so monstrous.
Unfortunately, France is far from having on this question the bad preeminence which you attribute to it. Social reformers are always inclined to believe that other countries are better than their own. Unhappily, the difference is very often more apparent than real. In many passages you give an amount of praise to England on the subject in question which it is far from deserving; and those who in England uphold the cause of women often pretend in their turn that their condition is much better in France. Unhappily, both deceive themselves.
As to the commencement which has been made here in the regulation of prostitution, and which some are endeavoring to extend, your book would suffice to condemn it without appeal. An association of women, some of whom are very distinguished, has been formed to excite opinion against this deplorable system. They are heartily seconded by men, and there is reason to hope not only that the upholders of the system will not venture to go further, but that they will be obliged to undo what they have done.
Accept, Mademoiselle, the expression of my high and respectful consideration.
J. S. Mill
1551.
TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT
Avignon, 1st May 1870
Dear Madam,—
You greatly overrate the qualities required for writing such books as mine, if you deem them to include that of being a competent adviser and director of consciences in the most difficult affairs of private life. And even a person qualified for this office would be incapable of fulfilling it unless he possessed an intimate knowledge of the circumstances of the case, and the character of the persons concerned. It would be a long and a difficult business to define, even in an abstract point of view, the cases which would justify one of two married persons in dissolving the contract without the consent of the other. But as far as I am able to judge from your own statement, yours does not appear to be a strong case, since your husband has still an affection for you, and since you not only do not complain of any ill treatment at his hands, but have so much confidence in his goodness and high feeling, as to feel sure that even in case of your leaving him without his consent, he would not seek to withhold any of your children from you.
If I could venture to give any opinion, it would be that if the only bar between you and such a man is a difference in your “ways of thinking and feeling,” unfortunate as such a difference is in married life, the mutual toleration which we all owe to those who sincerely differ from us forms a basis on which the continuance of your union may be made endurable, and the differences themselves, when nothing is done to exasperate them, may, as is usually the case between persons who live intimately together, tend gradually to an approximation.
1552.
TO SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE
May 10. 1870
Dear Sir Charles Dilke
I suppose Fawcett will attend the General Meeting of the Committee of the Land Reform Association in July, when his difficulties can be considered, and probably met. Nobody who had any hand in the programme had the smallest wish that cooperative cultivation should be under any control of Government, either in the large sense of State, or in the narrower sense. The words last added to the article relating to Cooperation (which I think were inserted after Fawcett had left the meeting) were intended expressly to meet the objection felt by him & others that the Cooperative Associations might not be sufficiently spontaneous. The State was never intended to have any part in the matter except to grant land, on their application, to such spontaneous cooperative associations as could give due guarantee of solidity, the nature of which guarantees should be fixed by law.
There is surely something better for us to do than to drop all that part of the programme which relates to the land & confine ourselves to claiming for the public the accidental increase of rent. It would hardly be worthwhile forming an association for a single point of land reform, or for anything less than a comprehensive scheme. And the point in question is precisely that which would meet with least support from the higher and middle class reformers, while the working classes would not be satisfied with it.
With regard to Snell’s Committee, you & Fawcett probably know more about him, and what he is likely to do, than I have any means of knowing. But I should have thought that if the leaders of the working classes are willing to join the Committee we might do so. I do not know in what sense you mean that Snell may “deliver us into the hands of Glyn.” If merely that you think he will compound for too few seats, I see no harm. Such members of the Committee as are willing to yield for a little, will have done all the work they are capable of doing in getting that little, & probably never would be able to get it if we who stand out for more did not unite with them. But we should still be free to refuse to compound for so little, & the fact that some of us had been bought off would be an encouragement, not a discouragement to newcomers to join us and fill up our ranks again. Of course what I say will not apply if you think we are likely to be quite outvoted as the Committee in any corporate action; if the leaders of the working men, content with their own Association for the same purpose, have declined to join the Committee.
I am Dear Sir Charles Dilke
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1553.
TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL
le 10 mai 1870
Mon cher d’Eichthal
Je suis ici pour quelques semaines, et je serai charmé d’y recevoir l’annuaire de l’Association. Je vous envoie par mandat de poste ma souscription annuelle.
Vous avez été heureux, c’est à dire clairvoyant, dans vos prévisions politiques au commencement de la crise actuelle, et c’est là une forte raison pour ajouter foi à vos prédictions d’aujourd’hui. Cependant j’ai grande envie de savoir sur quoi repose la supposition que l’issue de la situation actuelle sera la république. Viendra-t-elle par un coup de main de la classe ouvrière de Paris et des grandes villes? Alors tout dépend de la fidélité des soldats, qui sont beaucoup plus nombreux et mieux armés et qui seront probablement mieux commandés que dans les révolutions précédentes. Ou bien croyez-vous que les électeurs apprendront à nommer des députés républicains? Cela me semble fort douteux, en ce qui regarde les campagnes; car quoique les paysans désirent, selon toute apparence, un gouvernement libéral, l’élection des maires, etc., je crois que toutes les fois qu’on leur fera croire qu’ils ont à choisir entre Napoléon et la république socialiste, ils voteront pour Napoléon; et il faut avouer que les républicains socialistes ne font rien pour les rassurer.
Votre tout dévoué
J. S. Mill
1554.
TO ALEXANDER BAIN
Avignon, May 17, 1870.
Dear Bain—
I have now finished a careful reading of your book. When I compare it with my own mode of treating the subject I am much struck with the combination of nearly perfect agreement in the fond of our opinions on every part of it with so much originality in the manner in which you have presented many of them. This, if it stood alone, would make the book very valuable for there is no more important service to any set of thoughts than to vary their expression, & to deduce them from one another in different ways. But in addition to this, by varying the modes of statement you have illuminated points & aspects of our common doctrine which the previous exposition had left more or less in the shade. And you have followed out some of the principles into consequences not previously drawn.
I find little or nothing, relating properly to Logic, from which I dissent; but a good many apparent conflicts between your mode of expressing & presenting technical details, & mine; in most of which cases I still prefer my own. This applies chiefly to the first volume, & even that exclusive of its concluding chapters. When I next revise my Logic I shall carefully collate each chapter with the corresponding chapter of yours: but in general, instead of trying to incorporate your new matter, I think it will be both better in itself, & fairer to you to refer to what you have done, give a brief account of it, & direct the student to your fuller exposition. Of course I cannot dispense with adapting the statement of the theory of Causation to the Correlation of Force: but your book has confirmed me in the opinion I had formed, that but little adaptation is required. In making that little I shall be greatly helped by the clear light in which you have placed the distinction between the two sorts of antecedent conditions, the conditions of Force & those of Collocation.
Respecting the Conservation theory itself, you have given by many degrees the clearest explanation of it that I have ever met with, & I now seem to myself to understand the facts of the case pretty completely. But about the mode of expression of the facts I still boggle, & have a stronger impression after reading your exposition than I had before that the men of science have not yet hit upon the correct generalization though they may be at no great distance from it. I am so anxious to understand this matter thoroughly that I write down my difficulties in hopes that you will help me to resolve them.
In the first place, you exclude from the theory two of the principal forces, Gravitation & Molecular Adhesion, expressly distinguishing these from the “correlated forces.” Of course you do so because there is at present no proof of the convertibility of the other forces into these; & you do not take any notice of the hypothetical explanation of gravitation by molecular motions, given by Tait (I believe) & others, which so strikingly resemble the argument of Descartes to shew that his vortices might generate a tendency to a centre. But though gravity does not take its place in the theorem of conservation, motion generated by gravity does. Suppose, then, a weight suspended by a string over the shaft of a mine—suppose that the string breaks, & the weight falls, with rapidly increasing velocity, to the bottom. Here is a positive addition to the active force at work in the universe, which, when it ceases its mechanical motion, remains in the form of heat or in some other of the correlated forms. Now, at the expense of what pre-existing energy has this force been generated? The conservationists are obliged to say, out of potential energy. A given quantity of potential energy has become actual; & if the weight is hoisted up again the power expended in raising it is so much taken back from the sum of actual energy & restored to the sum of potential.
Now I want to analyse the meaning of this phrase, “potential energy.” It seems to signify some force actually residing in the suspended weight. But it is nothing of the kind. There is a force actually residing in the weight; a force exactly measurable: viz. the downward pressure with which it pulls at the string, & by which it is able to neutralise an equal weight at the other end of a lever. But this force is limited to that with which the body would commence falling if the string broke, & is far short of the vastly accelerated force with which it would reach the bottom of the mine. When we are bid to say that this augmented force existed previously as potential energy in the weight, this potential energy is not to common sense & logic anything which really existed, but is a mere name for our knowledge that a force would be created if the body began to fall.
I am discussing the expressions, not denying any of the facts. I admit that when force is expended in placing a weight in a “more advantageous position,” as you express it (i.e. in a place from which it has further to fall in order to reach its centre of attraction) when it does fall to the depth from which it has been raised it will reproduce the exact amount of force expended in raising it (making allowance for any part which may have been transformed into heat). The expression “potential energy” is no doubt adopted to enable us to say that the total amount of force in all Nature can neither be increased nor diminished, the sum of the actual force plus the sum of the potential being a constant quantity. But this only means that there is a vast reserve of force not existing in any shape now, but which gravity could call into existence, & that this not actual but possible quantity of force has an extreme limit, viz. the whole of the motion that would be generated by the rushing together of all the gravitating bodies in the universe until they could not possibly get any closer together. From time to time a little of this possible force gets itself created & in that case it requires that an equal force shd be expended if the effects produced are to be counterbalanced or undone.
It seems to me a bad & misleading form of expression to ascribe the motion which would be gradually acquired by gravitating bodies if the obstacles which keep them apart were removed, to an energy of equivalent amount residing in the body before it begins to move.
But if this objection could be overruled a greater remains behind. You say (& this is a point quite new to me) that force may be, & is, expended in merely altering the collocation of bodies, without generating even potential energy. This I suppose is the case when force is expended in destroying molecular adhesion. But if this be so, how can the indestructibility of force be maintained? The sum of actual force plus the sum of potential is, in that case diminished.
When you have time, perhaps you will kindly explain to me how the theory of Conservation as at present expressed, can stand with this fact.
There are some questions in physical science which I shd like to ask of you, but this can be done viva voce at some future time. In particular I was not aware that chemical combination always produces heat. I will ask you some time or other to tell me the explanation of the apparent exceptions—freezing mixtures & the like.
Among the differences of mere language between your book & mine there is only one which I much care about; your use of the word “elimination.” In mathematics we eliminate what we want to get rid of: we eliminate y to obtain an equation containing only x. Of late careless writers in newspapers &c. having picked up the term have taken to using it in a sense the reverse of this: they eliminate not what they turn out but what they keep in: they eliminate the truth out of conflicting stories &c. In your book you employ the term in both ways: whenever a separation is effected between essentials & nonessentials, you speak indiscriminately of “eliminating” either the one or the other. Is this mode of using the term adopted from a deliberate choice? & what are the advantages that recommend it to you?
1555.
TO ROWLAND G. HAZARD
May 18. 1870
Dear Sir
You have some reason to be surprised that so long a time has elapsed since I received your Letters on Causation and Freedom in Willing without my having given you any intimation of the impression they have made on my mind. The reason is, that ever since I received them, my thoughts have been so much occupied with subjects not metaphysical, that I really have not, until quite lately, been able to give the proper attention to such a book as yours, or even to make myself acquainted with more of its contents than was apparent on a cursory inspection. I once began reading it through, but was obliged to leave off. At last, however, I have had time to read it with the attention it deserves and am able to tell you the result.
Your present book confirms and increases the impression I already had of your acuteness, argumentative power, and perfect fairness both in considering the subject and in discussing it. I do not think that your side of the question has ever been better represented. The book, like your previous ones, does honour to American thought. It seems to me, however, to mark that the discussion between us has reached the point at which there is no advantage in our carrying it any further; since the region of difference between us, instead of narrowing, as is the case in controversies likely to have a successful issue, is, on the contrary, very much enlarged. The exhaustive manner in which you endeavour to meet everything which is said in opposition to your conclusion, stirs up continual new ground, and raises a great number of fresh differences of opinion. Were I to attempt to answer you, I could hardly do so but by getting an interleaved copy, and writing something on every blank leaf; for there are few pages of your book in which there is not some proposition or argument which I contest. And were you thereupon to follow my example, you would have to write another book as large as this. Both of us would thus spend a great deal of time for no sufficient result, since no important practical consequences depend on our convincing one another. Our opinions agree as to the point of real importance in practice, viz. that the moral government of human beings, either by themselves or by their fellow creatures, must take place by acting either upon their knowledge or their wants; i.e. either upon their expectation of consequences from their acts, or upon their feelings of desire and aversion towards those consequences.
I will merely touch briefly on one or two points on which something seems necessary to be said in order to bring out the question between us with greater definiteness and intelligibility.
1. You argue (with Professor Bowen) that our knowledge that we can produce effects by volition must be antecedent to experience, because, in order to have experience of this fact, we must already have willed. The answer to this you will find in the exposition of the Volitional part of human nature given in Professor Bain’s book “The Emotions and the Will”, and more briefly in his and my own notes to the “Analysis of the Human Mind.” The substance of it (which was anticipated by Hartley) is, that all our voluntary motions were originally automatic; the product of the mere physical activity of the system under the stimulus of food and air, as when an infant free from restraint kicks about in all directions. By these means, without any antecedent volition, experience is acquired and an association formed between particular movements and the wants which these movements are found to satisfy; and the result is that the movements themselves come to be directed and controlled by the ideas associated with them: from which elementary fact all the complications of what we call the Will are gradually built up. I cannot here go any further into the point, but this is the doctrine you have to combat.
2. I perceive that you attach great importance to maintaining the simultaneity, in preference to the succession, of the immediate cause of an effect and the effect itself. I confess that this question appears to me equally unimportant and insoluble, inasmuch as the only point at issue is, whether the commencement of the effect dates from the very first instant at which the whole of the necessary previous conditions come together, or from the very next instant after that instant. I do not see how it can ever be ascertained which of these is the fact. And whichever is so, Causation remains the law according to which the facts of the universe succeed one another.
3. But you seem to use this supposed simultaneity as the formation of an argument, when you say that the Past has no power of deciding human voluntary determinations—that these conform solely to present facts, viz: the agent’s expectations of the consequences that will follow his actions and his wants. But no one pretends that they conform to anything else. The mode in which past facts are supposed to determine our actions is by determining these present facts, viz. our expectations (well or ill grounded) of consequences, and our wants i.e. our desires and aversions.
4. You take great pains to shew that the possibility of foreseeing how a person will act, is consistent with his freedom. Many necessitarians, I admit, have maintained the contrary; but I never did. I have never taken any part in that controversy. My use of the possibility of prevision was quite different. I used it to shew, that since we can foresee human actions with as near an approach to correctness as we can foresee any of the phenomena of dead matter which are equally complicated, and the antecedents of which are equally obscure; it thence appears that there is the same uniformity in the course of human actions as there is in the remainder of the course of nature; or at least, that we have as much ground for affirming such uniformity in the one case as in the other; and the distinction contended for between voluntary acts and other phenomena of nature, that the latter are in their own nature certain and the former contingent, does not exist. This argument perhaps does not apply to you, as you, apparently, do not assert that supposed distinction, but consider the phenomena of inanimate nature as also the direct effects of (divine) volition.
To turn to another subject: I am much obliged to you and to your son for the information you kindly sent respecting the operation of the Ballot in the United States. From these and other communications I infer that the popularity of that method of voting in America depends upon its convenience as a mode of collecting large numbers of votes, and not upon its secrecy, which, as a general rule, does not exist in America. It is now, to my great regret, going to be tried in the United Kingdom; for, having been proposed by Mr Gladstone’s Government, it is sure to be carried before long. Voting by putting tickets into a box is a very good method, provided that each voter signs his ticket with his name. But in England the object in view is to conceal the name; and though the voters can scarcely, by any change, be made to feel less moral responsibility for their votes than a great proportion of them do now, I believe that the secrecy of the vote will tend very much to prevent the growth of a feeling of moral responsibility in time to come, while it will shield from all discredit the man who votes contrary to his known or professed opinions. I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Hon. Rowland G. Hazard
1556.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK
May 24. 1870
Dear Chadwick
I do not think there is much that I could do with the leaders of the working classes by means of your Resolutions. The Resolutions go into details on which they might conflict with the line already taken up by the working classes at their public meetings, especially in the limitation applied to the compulsory principle, and possibly in the constitution you propose for the school committees. The point which it is really of importance to impress on the working classes is the necessity of a skilled central initiative instead of leaving the initiation of measures to local boards: and on this I do not think the working classes likely to be unwilling listeners. It does not seem to me that they have anti-centralisation prejudices: it is the lower middle class, who are accustomed to get local management into their hands, that are unwilling to share power with a central authority. I think you should put yourself directly in communication with the leaders of the working men. It is your working so much through others that prevents you from having the personal weight and importance you ought to have. People really do not know how many of the most important practical ideas afloat originated with you. The only leaders of the working classes whom I know personally (except very slightly) are Odger, Cremer, and Howell. The last two I know best, and I think you would find them capable of understanding and appreciating you. If you could make an impression on them, or on Odger or Applegarth, they would be good advisers as to the best mode of bringing your ideas before the working classes of London and the provinces—I am
Dear Chadwick
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1557.
TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL
May 24. 1870
Mon cher d’Eichthal—
Le discours de M. Basiadis est vraiment très remarquable dans le rapport de la langue. C’est l’ancien grec dans la pureté de ses formes grammaticales, et ce qu’on y remarque de modification dans le vocabulaire et dans la tournure d’expression n’est que celle qu’éprouve toute langue vivante dans le cours des siècles. On voit cette modification avec plaisir, car l’affectation d’écrire en tout comme écrivaient les anciens entrainerait à ne se permettre d’autres pensées que les leurs. Pour moi je suis d’avis que le Latin de Bacon et de Descartes est à beaucoup d’égards un grand progrès sur celui de Cicéron. Des penseurs comme eux, s’ils eussent existé du temps des Césars auraient certainement aggrandi et enrichi le Latin classique; et quand il se trouvera en Grèce un homme du génie de Platon ou d’Aristotle il fera faire à la langue Grecque des progrès pareils à ceux que ces philosophes lui feront faire.
Ceci entre parfaitement dans les idées de vos “Observations” où j’ai reconnu une grande justesse de pensée, jointe à des détails historiques très intéressants. Je vous trouve parfaitement dans le vrai quant au genre de réforme à faire dans la langue vulgaire. J’ai remarqué par parenthèse deux errata, à la page 118, ligne 12 l’imprimeur a mis “matérielle” au lieu d’ “intellectuelle,” et à la page 140 ligne 2 on lit “le siècle de Péricles” là où vous avez dû écrire “le siècle de Philippe.”
Je vous remercie bien des explications que vous m’avez données sur votre prédiction politique. Maintenant que je la comprends mieux, j’en reconnais aisément la justesse. J’avais d’abord crû que vous vous attendiez à un dénouement républicain beaucoup plus prompt. Je crois avec vous que le progrès de l’opinion est dans le sens des convictions républicaines, et cela dans une forme plus élevée et plus profonde que tout ce qu’on entendait par ce mot du temps de notre jeunesse. Vous avez assisté au berceau de ces nouveaux éléments par votre participation au mouvement Saint Simonien et ma lettre de 1831 montre que dès lors j’ai pleinement reconnu l’importance européenne de ce mouvement. Mais l’opinion ne peut être assez forte pour prévaloir sur les obstacles que lorsqu’elle sera devenue assez générale pour gagner l’armée. Tant qu’il y aura 7 millions d’ignorants pour voter des plébiscites de confiance et 1 million d’hommes armés prêts à obéir aux ordres de leur chefs, il me semble que nous sommes encore très éloignés du but que sans doute on finira par atteindre.
Je ne connais pas personnellement M. Mundella mais je vous envoie une lettre adressée à M. Hughes, membre de la Chambre des Communes, qui a pris une part très active dans le mouvement coopératif depuis son commencement, ainsi que dans la question des Trade Unions et qui pourra faire connaître à M. votre fils non seulement M. Mundella mais la plupart de ceux qui ont joué un rôle utile dans ces questions, y compris les chefs les plus intelligents des associations ouvrières. M. Hughes a été membre de la Commission nommée pour étudier la question des Trade Unions et il y a voté avec la minorité dont le support à mon avis était le seul bon.
1558.
TO CHARLES LE HARDY DE BEAULIEU
May 24, 1870
Monsieur—
C’est avec un plaisir extrême que j’ai reçu d’un homme de votre mérite, et d’une position si éminente parmi les intelligences les plus éclairées d’un pays qui a mes vives sympathies une adhésion si complète aux doctrines de mon petit livre “L’Assujéttissement des Femmes.” Savoir qu’un esprit comme le votre était gagné d’avance à cette juste cause, est assurément l’un des plus précieux parmi les nombreux encouragements qui me sont venus de la plupart des pays civilisés. Le progrès immense des principes de la véritable justice politique et sociale en assure l’application à la plus importante et la plus intime des relations humaines, à une époque qui, comparée à ce qu’on pouvait espérer il y a seulement dix ans peut passer pour prochaine.
Je suis très sensible, Monsieur, aux expressions sympathiques de votre lettre et à l’offre que vous voulez bien faire de me proposer comme membre correspondant de la Société des Sciences, des arts, et des lettres du Hainaut. J’accepte cette offre avec reconnaissance et je me sentirai très honoré d’entrer dans la Société sous vos auspices comme l’un de ses membres correspondants.
1559.
TO SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE
May 28. 1870
Dear Sir Charles
It seems to me that the position of the Women’s Suffrage question is immensely improved by what has taken place in Parliament. You yourself a few weeks ago could not count as many as 100 members of parliament who were known to be in our favour, & there are now, including pairs and absentees, 184, considerably above a fourth part of the House; of whom 29 voted in the second who had not voted in the first division. The amount even of Tory support was most promising, including some of the most prominent members of the party below Cabinet rank, and among others both the whips. We knew that we had not a majority in the House, and that when the thing looked serious, our enemies were sure to rally and outvote us unless the Government took up the cause, which the time had certainly not come for expecting. The rally is the first proof we have had that the thing is felt to be serious. I am in great spirits about our prospects, and think we are almost within as many years of victory as I formerly thought decades.
But I think it would be a great mistake to merge the women’s question in that of universal suffrage. Women’s suffrage has quite enemies enough, without adding to the number all the enemies of universal suffrage. To combine the two questions would practically suspend the fight for women’s equality, since universal suffrage is sure to be discussed almost solely as a working men’s question: and when at last victory comes, there is sure to be a compromise, by which the working men would be enfranchised without the women, and the contest for women’s rights would have to be begun again from the beginning, with the working men inside the barrier instead of outside, and therefore with their selfish interests against our cause instead of with it. Thus women’s enfranchisement would be thrown back for a whole generation, for universal suffrage is not likely to be obtained in less time than that; and at the end of the generation we should start again in a more disadvantageous position than we are in at present.
Want of time, and other causes, make it impossible for me to undertake the essay requested for the new Cobden Club volume.
I hear from Mr Pratt of Bombay, that you have been looking into his case. I know nothing of it or of him but what I have heard from himself, but there is great appearance of his being an injured man; for, the government having acknowledged him to be substantially in the right, by abolishing the abuse he pointed out, the only ground on which they can have furnished him with any pretence of reason is that there was something in the manner of doing what he did, which was inconsistent with official subordination, and on that, if, as he affirms, the late Governor Sir Bartle Frere thinks him perfectly in the right, I would back Frere’s opinion at any odds against that of the Tory underling, Fitzgerald. He seems also to have a prima facie case of at least favoritism against Fitzgerald with reference to the Bombay firm whom he attacked. Do you not think that it is altogether a case which requires that a question or questions should be asked in Parliament? any further steps to be dependent on the kind of answer received? I am
Dear Sir Charles
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1560.
TO THOMAS HARE
May 29. 1870
Dear Mr Hare
My friendly correspondent Mr Barnard of Boston has sent me the enclosed cutting, which, if Mr Ware has not already sent it to you, you will be glad to see.
Have you seen the article by Mr Eugène Aubry-Vitet, in the Revue des Deux Mondes of May 15, entitled “Le Suffrage Universel dans l’Avenir et le Droit de Représentation des Minorités”? It is a most intelligent and thorough advocacy of your system, of which it will spread the knowledge and appreciation through France and Europe in a very effective manner. There is only one point on which he stops short of you. Thinking it vain to hope that electors will fill up intelligently, or fill up at all, a list equal to the entire number of the House, he would divide the country into large districts, and hold a separate election for each, the voter only putting down as many names as the district returns members. But he has a supplementary proposal which would give to this plan a great part of the advantages of yours. Whenever a district cannot make up the quota for its full number of deputies, then, instead of supplying the remainder by a simple majority of votes, all the voting papers which have not served for a return are to be sent to a central office, to have the quota made up whenever possible from the similar voting papers of the whole country. Now these voting papers would be chiefly those of the electors who had voted for national in preference to local names; so that persons of known merit, but without local influence, would have facilities for being elected, approaching to those which your system would give them.
I should much like to know what you think of this plan, both in itself and as an intermediate step.
A time seems to be coming in France, when improvements tending to correct the defects in the machinery of universal suffrage, without impairing, but on the contrary giving for the first time real effect to its principle, will have more chance than heretofore of a favourable hearing from the friends of universal suffrage; in order to take away weapons from the Orleanist and bourgeois party, who are thought to be making plans for indirectly reducing universal suffrage to a nullity.
What immense progress the cause of Women’s Suffrage has made since 1867: the number of votes rendered for it at one or other of the divisions 162, double the number of three years ago; making up with the known adherents who were absent, more than a fourth of the house: and including both Liberal and Tory names which were little expected. And the bill was only thrown out by a rally of its enemies in force, shewing that, for the first time, they felt it to be a serious matter; which it must be our business that they shall never hereafter cease to feel it. We may count among our gains, the tone of exasperation which has succeeded to that of mockery in the Saturday Review, Pall Mall Gazette, &c. which is at once a sign that they feel us to be getting on, and a help, by the resentment which their insolence rouses in women. As soon as a sufficient number of women can be sufficiently roused, success is certain. I am
Dear Mr Hare
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1561.
TO SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE
June 3. 1870
My dear Sir Charles Dilke
I think it ought to be the aim of our endeavours, to accelerate the period when male voters will vote against a member for refusing the franchise to women. In proportion as we succeed in inducing women to desire the suffrage, we shall gain the electoral votes of an increasing number of their husbands & fathers; and a small fraction of the constituency making any particular point a condition of their support, often compels the candidate to subscribe to it. Between now and the next general election a great deal may be achieved in this way. But there is still more to be hoped from the progress of conviction in the minds of members of parliament. It is not the pressure of constituencies which has doubled the number of our parliamentary supporters since 1867. Is there not something marvellous in so great a progress? It is an important fact to know that Noel & Col. Taylor voted for the Bill avowedly on party grounds. With the opinion of the whips and (we may be sure) of the leader of the party, that it is a good party move, we may count positively upon very soon gaining quite as many votes by “party hope” on that side as we lose by party fear on the other. And it is very encouraging to hear that in addition to the liberals who have voted or paired for us in spite of party fear, there are many more who would do the same if that disturbing consideration were absent. It shews what strong ground there is for hope from our continuing to act, with all the force we can command, upon the general mind of the country. Moreover, we have often found that the very Liberals who express the strongest fears for the Liberal party if women had votes, and ground their refusal to join in our agitation upon this fear, seem suddenly to lose it altogether when from some cause or other they begin really to wish that women had votes. In fact, this fear for the Liberal party is accordingly apt to be the last subterfuge in which men entrench themselves who have too much liberal principle and too much perception of logic to be able to take up any other, but who at the bottom of their hearts do not like the equality between men and women. Every year diminishes the dread and dislike of this equality among just such men; and in the same proportion diminishes their fears for the interest of the Liberal party. I am
my dear Sir Charles Dilke
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1562.
TO HERBERT SPENCER
June 3, 1870
Dear Sir:
In a Commission of Inquiry, the having already formed an opinion on the subject ought not to be a disqualification since the object is to appoint, not judges, but persons who are capable of extracting the evidence, for others to judge of. I don’t, however, feel that I should be warranted in tendering to Mr. Gladstone, unasked, a recommendation as to the persons of whom he should compose his Commission. I am,
Dear Sir
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1563.
TO SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE
June 8, 1870
My dear Sir Charles Dilke
I do not conceive that those who think as we do can support any proposal which would tax Catholics, Jews, and Secularists for religious teaching which (though it might be undenominational as regards the different divisions of Protestant Christians) would be such as they would not consent to have given to their own children. I see no mode in which the plan of the Dissenters, taken up by Vernon Harcourt, could be supported by us, unless provision were made that Catholics, Jews and Secularists on declaring themselves such, should be excused a part of the school rate. If this is not done, probably the best course for those who think as we do would be not to vote at all on Vernon Harcourt’s Resolution. It would not do to vote against it, because that would be giving the preference to the Government plan, which is worse.
When the time comes for succeeding in a proposal to leave religious teaching altogether to the voluntary principle, I think the different religious denominations should be left to organize the teaching as they please. It is not likely they would leave the expense to be defrayed exclusively by the parents of the children. It would be a point both of honour and of interest with every denomination, to raise a fund for the payment of religious instructors for as many of the children as would accept such instruction at their hands. The churches and sects, being relieved from voluntary subscriptions for secular instruction will have the whole amount available for religious, for the sake of which chiefly it is that many of their number subscribe for education at all. I am
My dear Sir Charles Dilke
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1564.
TO COL. THOMAS ALEXANDER COWPER
June 16. 1870
My dear Cowper—
I have received your three letters but (owing to my absence from England) not your pamphlet, & I shall not now see it until my return, which will be in the beginning of next month. From what I already know of the case, I am convinced that justice requires the Government to take upon itself the responsibility of culpable not to say criminal mismanagement which could not have taken place except through the connivance or guilty negligence of the Government directors & which by placing those directors on the Board the government pledges its integrity to prevent. I am therefore most desirous to give you all the help I can. When I have read your statement I shall be better able than I am to judge in what manner this can best be done.
I think it will be quite right that you should send copies of the pamphlet to Mr Gladstone & the D. of Argyll accompanied by a short letter & the draft you sent me is very good, but I think you might advantageously throw down into the letter something of what of course predominates in the pamphlet, a direct appeal to their sense of justice.
I am truly sorry to hear that in addition to your heavy losses by the Bombay Bank you are a sufferer by another insolvent company. Our commercial law even after its recent amendments is still deplorably lenient to the grave offence of dishonest bankruptcy.
1565.
TO SISSON C. NORRIS
[Before June 20, 1870]
. . . The oversight which you point out has been brought to my notice by other correspondents, though it seems, curiously enough, to have escaped the notice both of friends and of opponents until after the publication of the last edition. . . . The necessary correction will be made in revising the book for a future edition. . . .
1566.
TO GEORGE ADCROFT
June 21, 1870
Dear Sir—
I have read your little tract with interest but I perceive that you have either published or intend to publish another pamphlet containing the remedies you propose for the evils you so justly denounce. In the meantime I will only say that I think you underrate the power of Trade Unions to raise wages; & that I differ from you when you say that a general rise of wages would be of no use to the working classes because it would produce a general rise of prices. A general rise of prices, of anything like a permanent character, can only take place through a general increase of the money incomes of the purchasing community. Now a general rise of wages would not increase the aggregate money incomes, nor consequently the aggregate purchasing power of the community; it would only transfer part of that purchasing power from the employers to the labourers. Consequently a general rise of wages would not raise prices but would be taken out of the profits of the employers; always supposing that those profits were sufficient to bear the reduction.
The case is different with a rise of wages confined to a single, or a small number of employments. That rise if taken out of profits, would place a particular class of employers at a disadvantage compared with other employers: & as soon as they ceased to hope that the loss would be only temporary, they would withdraw part of their capital, or at all events, all new capital would avoid those trades & go into others. Consequently the supply of these particular articles would fall short, & their prices would rise so as to indemnify the employers for the rise of wages. But this would not happen in case of a rise of all wages, for as all capitalists would be affected nearly alike they could not as a body relieve themselves by turning their capital into another employment.
1567.
TO CHARLES LE HARDY DE BEAULIEU
Juin 21. 1870
Monsieur—
Le mot respect n’a pas en Anglais la signification que d’après votre lettre il paraît avoir en français. C’est un mot qui exprime particulièrement la considération pour les qualités morales, et qui s’emploie entre égaux autant qu’entre supérieur et inférieur. Par une des bizarreries que l’accident engendre souvent dans les langues, cette différence d’usage est l’inverse de celle qui a lieu à l’égard du mot “respectable”, mot qui a en français un sens moral, tandis qu’en anglais vulgaire il n’exprime guère qu’une certaine position sociale. Vous m’avez rendu un service en m’avertissant de la nuance en question qui, si je l’avais connue plutôt m’eût souvent permis d’éviter un manque d’usage.
Quant à la question du travail des enfants, l’opinion générale comme celle des hommes éclairés en Angleterre se prononce de plus en plus pour la limitation légale, accompagnée du système half-time. On étend cette législation de plus en plus, en sorte qu’elle s’applique maintenant à presque toutes les industries qui ne sont pas purement domestiques, sauf l’agriculture qui jusqu’ici fait exception. L’expérience a prouvé que la loi peut seule faire face à l’intérêt combiné des fabricants et des pères des enfants à exploiter le travail de ces infortunés aux dépens de leur éducation et même de leur développement physique, et cette expérience a graduellement prévalu sur les idées de liberté individuelle. En effet, la liberté individuelle n’est sacrée que dans ce qui ne regarde, au moins directement, que l’individu, et ne peut être invoqué pour l’exercice illimité d’un pouvoir quelconque sur les autres, dont les abus sont toujours dans le domaine légitime des lois. Cependant je suis tout à fait d’accord avec vous en ce qui regarde le travail des femmes, qu’en angleterre on a soumis à quelques-unes des mêmes restrictions légales que celui des enfants. Vous savez combien je condamne les iniquités de la position actuelle des femmes dans la famille et dans la société, mais cette habitude de les traiter comme des enfants me semble contraire à leur dignité et à leur véritable intérêt. Je voudrais qu’en les protégeant beaucoup mieux qu’à présent contre les abus de la force physique, on les reconnût comme moralement capables de se conduire et de s’engager par elles-mêmes, et qu’on ne fît aucune différence quant à la liberté des contrats, entre elles et les hommes.
S’il vous serait agréable de posséder les dernières enquêtes parlementaires sur le travail des enfants j’aurai grand plaisir à les procurer et à vous les envoyer après mon retour en angleterre qui aura lieu dans le commencement de juillet. Je vous serais de mon côté très reconnaissant de tout renseignement sur le succès du système half time en Belgique, système qui en angleterre rencontre encore quelque opposition.
Je regrette que vous soyez du nombre considérable des hommes distingués dans les lettres ou dans les sciences qui dans notre siècle comme en d’autres ont été privés de la vue. Cette privation vous est commune avec mon ami M. Fawcett qui de tous nos hommes publics d’aujourd’hui, s’est le plus occupé de cette question du travail des enfants. Comme vous il se soutient noblement contre ce découragement; il ne se relâche en rien dans les travaux qu’il s’était proposés comme l’occupation de sa vie et dans lesquels il promet à sa patrie une carrière aussi utile que distinguée.
1568.
TO COL. THOMAS ALEXANDER COWPER
June 26, 1870
My dear Cowper—
I knew before reading your pamphlet that the Bombay Government, having by the Constitution of the Bank the appointment [of] three of the nine directors, was morally responsible, not necessarily for the strict prudence of all the Bank’s transactions, but at all events for their not being in violation of the admitted & generally practised rules of safe & legitimate banking. I knew also that those rules had, by the directors of the Bank, been flagrantly & systematically violated. But even after all I had read, my idea of their misconduct fell short of what it is shown to have been by your detailed history of their proceedings, & the many years during which I knew, studied, & profited by the work you did for the Bombay Govt. have taught me to repose great confidence in any statements of yours, which moreover in the present case rest upon, & can be easily collated with, the report of a Government Commission.
It is hardly possible for abuse of trust to be carried to a greater pitch in the forms of banking than it was by the managers of the Bombay Bank, when, to omit many other disgraceful facts, nearly half the capital of the Bank passed, on nominal security, into the hands of a speculator who was himself one of the directors, or into those of friends recommended by him, generally for the purpose of puffing up his own special actions; when the Secretary, Mr. Blair, who was allowed to lavish the funds of the Bank without check or control, received large pecuniary favours from this person; and when two even of the Govt. directors, one of whom was long President of the Bank, realised large sums by the sale of allotments which they received from speculative companies to whom loans were made by the Bank: the case was certainly one which, in a good system of commercial law, would come within the definition of criminal bankruptcy, and if justice were done, the chief culprits would be expiating their guilt by fine & imprisonment. Now I find that the Government, through the whole course of the Bank’s misconduct, were as utterly regardless of their obligation to watch & control its management as if no such obligation had existed. They gave no instructions to the Govt Directors. They allowed the Bank to be carried on under the new charter without even any by-laws to govern & direct its management. And they neither obtained nor sought from their representatives on the Board any information respecting its proceedings. The great pressure of public business on an Indian Govt might be some, though a very insufficient excuse for this quiescence as long as there was nothing to excite suspicion. But the quiescence continued after the mismanagement & embarrassments of the Bank were so notorious even in England as to alarm the Secretary of State, who felt it his duty to warn the Bombay Govt. After this the conduct of the Govt. was if anything more discreditable than before. Their unwillingness to admit that anything was seriously amiss almost amounted to complicity. To the warnings & questionings which they now frequently received from their superiors in England & at Calcutta, they answered smooth things, extenuating to the utmost the amount of mischief, abetting the directors in witholding information demanded of them, & acting as if it were their deliberate purpose to screen the misconduct of the Bank, though probably only desirous of screening their own neglect of the duty of supervision. It is shown that had the Bombay Govt., even after they had become aware of the evil, done their duty in preventing further malversation, the Bank notwithstanding the great losses already sustained might have been saved from insolvency, & the property of the shareholders might have been in great part preserved to them. By not having done this, even if by nothing else, the Bombay Govt. made itself morally a party to the misconduct of the Directors & responsible for it to the sufferers.
It may be said that the majority of the Directors, including those most certainly guilty, were elected by the shareholders. But considering the extreme difficulty under which the shareholders labour, as well in England as in India, in choosing trustworthy directors or in controlling them, it is certain that the shareholders placed (as they had every reason to think themselves warranted in placing) their principal reliance on the Govt; whose representatives on the Board, themselves high in the public service, must if they did their duty to Govt even as the largest shareholder in the Bank, take care that its interests in common with those of the other shareholders, shd receive ordinary & decent regard from those to whose charge they were entrusted. The shareholders would have had no claim to indemnity from the Govt for ordinary losses, or for such as were occasioned by irresistible circumstances, or even by ordinary & venial mismanagement. But they have a just claim in foro conscientiae to reparation from the Govt for loss sustained by gross and criminal violation of duty on the part of its agents. An able speaker in the H. of C. who was master of the facts could make a speech on them which would resound through the whole country & which would be damaging to any Govt that resisted the claim.
You are at liberty to make use of this opinion of mine in any quarter in which you think it would be of service. If it goes to Mr Gladstone or the D. of Argyll, I would rather it shd be as an enclosure in your letter than directly from myself. But though I think well of the intentions of both those ministers, I think them sufficiently like ministers in general to be much more certainly influenced through the press than by any representation addressed to themselves. I could put your pamphlet into the hands of the editors of several newspapers & could probably induce them to pay some attention to the subject. How far they might be willing to proceed in what might be opposition to the Govt I cannot tell.
There are several courses to choose from, & it is for you to consider which of them you prefer. One is to defer any appeal to Parlt or the public until it is certain that your application to the authorities is unsuccessful. Another is to endeavour to get a motion made in the H. of C. And if this be determined on, the question occurs whether it shd be done in the present session, or early in the next, the public mind being in the meantime acted on as much as possible through the press. If you decide for this session, I will when I return to E. which will be in about a fortnight, consult with my parliamentary friends & try to find some one in the House willing to take up the subject & capable of doing it with effect. There shd if possible be simultaneously an organisation through the press & any influence I have with editors I will most gladly make use of but as I have said I do not know how far it is likely to be effectual.
As I leave Avignon very shortly, please direct your answer to Blackheath Park, Kent.
1569.
TO CHARLES ELIOT NORTON
June 26, 1870
Dear Sir
I have had the pleasure of receiving your letter of June 17. I agree in the main, with all that you say respecting the limitation of the right of property even in moveable wealth. I never meant to say that this right should be altogether unlimited, nor to ascribe to it sacredness in any other sense than that all the necessary conditions of human happiness are sacred. I do not, indeed, quite agree with your friend Mr Wright, when, in the passage quoted and concurred in by you, he seems to say that, from the utilitarian point of view, the right of private ownership is founded solely on the motives it affords to the increase of public wealth; because independently of those motives, the feeling of security of possession and enjoyment, which could not (in the state of advancement mankind have yet reached) be had without private ownership, is of the very greatest importance as an element of human happiness. But this is probably a difference rather in expression than in opinion between us.
There is, however, this great practical difference between the case of moveable wealth and that of land, that, so long as land is allowed to be private property (and I cannot regard its private appropriation as a permanent institution) society seems to me bound to provide that the proprietor shall only make such uses of it as shall not essentially interfere with its utility to the public: while, in the case of capital, and moveable property generally, though society has the same right, yet the interests of society would in general be better consulted by laws restrictive of the acquisition of too great masses of property, than by attempting to regulate its use. I have, in my Political Economy, proposed limitations of the right of ownership, so far as the power of bequest is part of it, on the express ground of its being injurious to society that enormous fortunes should be possessed by gift or inheritance.
My daughter and I are greatly obliged to you and Mrs Norton for your kind invitation. It would be a real pleasure to us both to avail ourselves of it. But we have been calculating lately whether we can afford to allow ourselves, this summer and autumn, a holiday of ten days or only of four, and such are the calls on our time and the quantity of work we have to do that we have been compelled to decide for the shorter of the two.
The announcement that I was to be at a meeting in London on the 15th of this month was quite unauthorized. The request did not even reach me till after the meeting had taken place. We leave here in a few days, and shall be at Blackheath (where please direct) in the second week of July for the remainder of the summer.
The death of Dickens is indeed like a personal loss, even to those who knew him only by his writings. I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
C. Eliot Norton Esq.
1570.
TO ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE
[Early July, 1870]
I hope that you will be able to attend, and that you will propose, as an addition to the programme, the important point which you suggested in your letter to me, viz., the right of the State to take possession (with a view to their preservation) of all natural objects or artificial constructions which are of historical or artistic interest. If you will propose this I will support it, and I think there will be no difficulty in getting it put into the programme, where undoubtedly I think it ought to be.
1571.
TO SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE
July 8, 1870
My dear Sir Charles Dilke
We hope to be able to be at the Club meeting on the 24th, and any place of meeting is equally convenient to us.
I am sorry that an engagement will prevent us from being at the Club next Sunday.
The programme was adopted at the meeting today in all its parts, with an additional article moved by Mr Wallace (of the “Malay Archipelago”) for taking possession by the State of all natural objects or artificial constructions of historical or artistic interest.
At the request of several members, the provision for allowing landowners to give up their land to the State at the market price was incorporated with article 4. One of the most recalcitrant opponents of the article, Mr Neville, hereupon gave in, and remains with us; and I think he will be valuable. I am
Dear Sir Charles Dilke
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1572.
TO CHARLES KINGSLEY
July 9. 1870
My dear Sir
I am greatly obliged to you for your letter, with the greater part of which I fully sympathize. Most especially do I concur in what you say about confining the movement as far as possible to women domestic in their tastes and habits, who have fulfilled their own duties in an exemplary manner; and also to women of good education and breeding, not lovers of fuss or notoriety. Unhappily the success we have attained attracts, like all other success, the sort of people who are always seeking to turn a penny or push themselves into notoriety. The very success which has brought home the knowledge that there are such opinions as ours to a sufficient number of households to influence the country, brings with it unhappily in its train the crowd of vulgar selfseekers. But however quiet the means we take for bringing opinion round to us, we cannot escape this hateful train of pushing and vulgar, except by escaping success. The very day and hour that it begins to be felt there are many who agree with us, the selfseekers will thrust themselves in, whether it be sooner or whether it be later. They are the signs of prosperity, and its curses, which we cannot escape. The question therefore, appears to me to be—Cannot we associate the cause with quiet, upright, and ladylike women, as well as with vulgar, questionable, and pushing ones? I am aware that nothing but a strong sense of duty will induce such women to expose themselves to be, even by mistake, associated with the others. But should we do well to leave the others as the sole public representatives of our cause? which will be the consequence if all the quiet and self-respecting women remain hidden in their own homes. This was a cause of great anxiety with us last winter. We knew that Mrs Taylor would have lady speakers, if possible, at the London meeting, and we knew that if we could not find ladies who would do what we thought credit to the cause Mrs Taylor would be thrown back upon those friends of the cause, of whom there are plenty, who have more energy than discretion. Now it has been our constant effort to keep the London Committee free from association with pushing people; and we feel that your influence will be of great use in helping this, weighing heavily on the side of discretion and reserve. Unfortunately, too many of those whose influence will be of use on this side, instead of joining in the work, and throwing their influence on the right side, are apt pusillanimously to withhold themselves altogether. Yet this is, in a manner, a monastic view of public affairs. If all the highminded shrink into the congenial privacy of their own homes (as in the middle ages into a convent) they leave none but the vulgar minded to occupy the public eye, and produce an effect upon the world at large. We must remember that there are vast numbers in the country, to whom the papers and public agitation are the only openings for obtaining knowledge of what other people are thinking. People of small means, who have little or no social intercourse, and who cannot afford to buy or borrow many books, yet see a penny paper, and hear of public meetings in their own neighbourhood. It would take many generations to touch these, solely through private intercourse. Yet this class of people are worthy and excellent, deserve as much attention as the higher classes, and by their numbers are fully as influential on the course of politics. Indeed, for a long time past, it has been they who have forced new ideas upon the upper classes, not the upper classes upon them. And yet, to work upon them, it is necessary to condescend to the vulgar instruments of the press and public agitation. Mrs Taylor, in all her action, mainly regards these: and we cannot say that we think her altogether wrong: but we should like to see a course of conduct struck out which might be suitable to all classes of society, and we think that with sufficient care and thought it might be done. If we regarded only the upper classes, it would be well to work only by social means: if we regarded only the lower and lower middle, almost any means of publicity would be useful. Is it quite impossible to strike a reasonable balance between the two? This is a question which we should like much to discuss with you.
I cannot agree in considering the result of the division in the House of Commons this session as a check. Of course it was called so by opponents; if only to conceal the enormous progress it really shewed us to have made. I cannot conceive that the measure ever could have passed this year (or that it can pass for many years to come): but I had not imagined that 150 members of the House of Commons were prepared to vote for it, as they did. This year’s division has shewn that the measure has nearly doubled its supporters in the House of Commons in the last three years. I am not sanguine enough to hope that we can receive many more such “checks”; if we could, within nine years, by a very simple process of arithmetic, we should have the measure passed by unanimity through the House of Commons, and then we might defy the Lords! Surely, on due reflection, this cannot be fairly called a check.
As regards the other movement which has lately sprung up, to which you allude, there is no doubt that it has greatly intensified the bitterness of one or two writers in the press (who might be easily named) who however, at the best, were always vehement opponents of any emancipation of women. Those gentlemen are now really angry, because in this particular movement they see women’s point of view producing practical results upon the elections. Hence they are really frightened; but we should have had them just as bitter against the suffrage whenever that also was a sufficiently popular cry to influence the elections: and of course you and I hope it may be that, some day. I do not think that the majority of women who have interested themselves in this unpleasant matter are influenced by any of the base motive you seem to attribute to some of them. I believe that there has seldom been a movement of purer chivalry than this among respectable women who are exposing themselves to almost intolerable insult, wholly from the goadings of their conscience, and their belief that they are responsible if they do nothing for the horrible degradation of fellow-women. So far as I have seen, it has been this feeling, that the connivance of virtuous women alone makes it possible for so-called decent men to call into existence the “profession” which is in question—it is this feeling which has made the strength of this particular movement among women. Of course, there may be exceptions; but it so happens that all women whom I know of, concerned in the matter, are middle aged, and most of them mothers of families: and this movement also has convinced large numbers of people (including Mr Maurice, and Miss Carpenter) that women ought to have the suffrage.
I should be very glad to have an occasion for talking over these matters with you, and my daughter wrote in April last to Mrs Kingsley, asking her whether there was any chance of our seeing you and her at Blackheath this year, either in the month of July or August. My daughter’s letter was addressed to Eversley, and we suppose Mrs Kingsley has not received it.
With our best regards to Mrs Kingsley I am, my dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Rev. Canon Kingsley.
1573.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES
July 11. 1870
Dear Mr Cairnes
I find that the only days we shall be engaged this week are Friday and Saturday.
I shall be very glad to see you if you like to come in any day, either morning or evening. From 2 to 5 P.M. I am usually out.
I am
Dear Mr Cairnes
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1574.
TO JOHN MORLEY
July 11, 1870
Dear Mr Morley
Friday will suit us very well, and we shall be glad to see you then. We usually dine at five on week days as well as Sundays, but can defer it to a later time if you cannot be conveniently down here so soon.
My daughter sends her article by this post. She would be glad to have a proof. I am
Dear Mr Morley
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1575.
TO SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE
July 12. 1870
My dear Sir Charles Dilke
I shall be very happy to bring the subject of English land reform before the Club on the 31st, if you think it would make a good discussion. I am
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1576.
TO ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE
July 12 [1870]
Dear Sir
Did you leave a copy of Mr Herbert Spencer’s book on Education here? If so, I will return it to you. But if the copy we have found is not yours, do not trouble yourself to write as I shall take not hearing from you as a sign that the ownership is to be looked for elsewhere. I am
Dear Sir
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
A.R. Wallace Esq
1577.
TO SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE
July 19. 1870
My dear Sir Charles Dilke
Miss Taylor and myself propose to be present at the meeting of the Club on the 31st, but have not decided at what time we go, or in what way. Most probably however we shall drive over from Ramsgate on the Sunday. I suppose in that case there will be no difficulty in getting rooms in the Hotel for Sunday night. I am
My dear Sir Charles Dilke
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1578.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES
July 20. 1870
Dear Mr Cairnes
I think you should by all means publish the note. There is a slight obscurity in one part of it, which, on examination, I think depends on a single pronoun. You say “According to Comte (as will be seen by reference to the passage just quoted) the reason for this is” &c. It is not clear what is the antecedent to “this”. I presume “the reason for this” means the reason why the organic world must be studied in the ensemble. But it reads as if it meant the reason why every organism is an ensemble.
In consequence of letters which came last night, I shall be engaged on Friday from 12 to 1 and on Saturday the greater part of the forenoon. But I am disengaged on Friday either at 1 or at 2. I am
Dear Mr Cairnes
[Signature has been cut off.]
1579.
TO PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS
July 22d, 1870
Dear Madam:
It gives me the greatest pleasure to know that the service rendered by my dear wife to the cause which was nearer her heart than any other, by her essay in the Westminster Review, has had so much effect, and is so justly appreciated in the United States. Were it possible in a memoir to have the formation and growth of a mind like hers portrayed, to do so would be as valuable a benefit to mankind as was ever conferred by a biography.
But such a psychological history is seldom possible, and in her case the materials for it do not exist. All that could be furnished is her birth-place, parentage, and a few dates! and it seems to me that her memory is more honored by the absence of any attempt at a biographical notice, than by the presence of a most meagre one.
What she was I have attempted, though most inadequately, to delineate in the remarks prefaced to her Essay, as reprinted with my “Dissertations and Discussions.”
I am very glad to hear of the step in advance made by the Rhode Island Legislature in constituting a board of women for some very important administrative purposes. Your intended proposal that women should be impaneled on every jury where women are to be tried seems to me very good, and calculated to place the injustice to which women are subjected at present, by the entire legal system, in a very striking light.
I am, dear madam, yours very sincerely,
J. S. Mill
Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis
1580.
TO SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE
July 22. 1870
My dear Sir Charles Dilke
Any plan that suits the other members will suit me perfectly. And as I and my daughter are accustomed to travelling, we should not mind if rooms cannot be found for us: only, in that case, I should wish to know beforehand, so that I may get some kind of conveyance to take us to and from the nearest convenient sleeping place, or home. As far as we are concerned, if the meeting were at Broadstairs, Ramsgate would have suited us quite as well as the Albion. I am
Dear Sir Charles Dilke
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1581.
TO JOHN BOYD KINNEAR
July 22, 1870
My dear Mr Kinnear—
Though I regret very much that you do not sufficiently agree with the articles of the new Programme, to feel justified in remaining a member of the Association, it is not without deliberate consideration that I have concurred in a course of policy for the Assn which we knew would prevent many persons whose support would have been valuable from joining it. We had to choose, however, between losing their adhesion, & depriving ourselves of all support whatever from the working classes: & we might still hope that those who had accepted our first programme would cooperate with us from without on the important points on which they agree with us, while as an Association we shd have no power of usefulness whatever unless we could enlist in our support the most intelligent part of the working classes; who are very generally adopting as their creed the entire resumption of the land from private hands into those of the State. We thought it the wisest course, therefore, instead of limiting our demands so as to obtain the greatest attainable amount of adhesion among the higher & middle classes to go as far to meet the demands of the working classes as we conscientiously could, provided that by this means we could induce them to support us & act with us; and the Conference with some of their leaders at which you were present, showed that they were willing to do so.
The provision for the purchase by the State of land in the market, would be chiefly applicable to neighbourhoods in which there are neither common lands, nor lands belonging to public bodies, sufficient to give a fair trial to small holdings & to cooperative agriculture. I quite agree with you that public bodies ought not to hold lands; but I think it quite worth trial how the State could manage landed property (which is a great part of its business in India). And of one thing I feel certain that nothing but a trial on a large scale, & for a considerable period, would convince the working classes that such a system would be unsuccessful or injurious.
The article asserting the right of the State to the “unearned increase” &c is not so worded as to imply that landowners are to be dealt hardly with in this respect. Its purpose is simply to assert the legitimacy of special taxation on land, in consideration of the special property it possesses, in a prosperous country, of continually rising in value. No doubt, as you say, this rise could not have been so great as it has been & is, had there been no improvements in agriculture, because, without those improvements, the growth of wealth & population could not have reached anything like the same extent. The improvements however arise in great part, from the improved skill, & knowledge, & exertion of the tenants, not the landlords. And, for what the landlords have done, they would be indemnified by the option allowed them (& now inserted in the programme) of resigning their land to the State at the market price. It is probable, as you say, that the price of wheat is not now higher, proportionally to other things, than it was many years ago. But I apprehend that this is owing to foreign importation; & that nearly all other agricultural produce, especially cattle, meat, & dairy produce, have risen in an extraordinary degree.
Other property than land may, no doubt, rise in value without any exertion on the part of the owners. But I do not know of any other kind of property of any importance, which rises in value from generation to generation in every improving county by a sort of natural law, the exceptions to which are rare & only temporary. Not to mention that land being the gift of nature, & of limited quantity, a system of landed property which was just & reasonable so long as land was obtainable by all, is fairly liable to reconsideration as soon as the land has become insufficient in quantity, & has been engrossed by a small number of proprietors.
I hope your visit to the Channel islands will accelerate the restoration of your health which I was very sorry to hear stood so much in need of recruiting.
1582.
TO HENRY KEYLOCK RUSDEN
Blackheath Park, 22nd July 1870.
Dear Sir—
I have received and read the essays which you did me the honour to send. I am quite of your opinion as to the usefulness, in the present stage of human improvement, of speaking out, without reserve, whatever opinions one has deliberately formed on topics important to mankind, subject, of course, to the duty of satisfying oneself by calm consideration that one knows, and has taken into account, such qualifications and counter considerations as may be necessary to make one’s opinion a fair expression of the truth. I do not, however, blame a person who stops short of the complete public expression of unpopular opinions, when it would involve serious danger of the loss of his means of subsistence; for though it is often a merit, it is only in peculiar cases a duty, in any one to be a martyr for his opinions.
You are mistaken in thinking that I have purposely withheld, in my book on “The Subjection of Women”, any opinions which I thought relevant to the subject. The purpose of that book was to maintain the claim of women, whether in marriage or out of it, to perfect equality in all rights with the male sex. The relaxation or alteration of the marriage laws, in any other respect than by taking away all vestiges of the subordination of one sex to the other, is a question quite distinct from the object to which the book is devoted, and one which, in my own opinion, cannot be properly decided until that object has been attained. It is impossible, in my opinion, that a right marriage law can be made by men alone, or until women have an equal voice in making it. You say in one of your essays that my book recommends that marriage should be dissoluble at the will of either of the parties. Now I carefully avoided giving any opinion as to the conditions under which marriage should be dissoluble, for the very good reason that I have not formed, and do not consider either myself or any one else capable at present of forming, a well-grounded opinion on the subject. I, of course, accept your proposition that human freedom should not be interfered with, except by such precautions as are necessary to prevent injury to society; but what those precautions are, in this particular case, is precisely the question to be discussed, and it can only be determined justly or expediently by the joint experience, and with the full force and well-considered concurrence, of both sexes.
1583.
TO HIPPOLYTE TAINE
July 22. 1870
Monsieur—
Je me félicite de ce que vous avez bien voulu exprimer une opinion favorable de la notice que j’ai publiée de votre très remarquable ouvrage. Je sais combien cette notice est insuffisante mais j’ai voulu, au premier moment possible, attirer l’attention des hommes éclairés sur un livre dont la publication en France me paraît destinée à faire époque. Votre livre n’a pas besoin d’être interprété. Il suffit qu’on le lise, car vous possédez parmi tant d’autres qualités, le génie de la clarté.
Quant à notre différence d’opinion, pour approfondir il faudrait entrer très à fond dans la théorie de ce qu’on peut nommer l’idéalisation d’une conception d’expérience; comme une ligne droite géométrique est l’idéalisation des lignes droites de nos sens. Cette conception idéalisée n’en est pas moins, comme vous l’admettez, un produit de l’expérience; mais vous dites qu’elle ressemble aux produits chimiques et que ses propriétés ne peuvent être connues que par l’observation directe. Je pourrais, peut-être, contester cela, et soutenir que c’est là l’une des différences entre une conception idéalisée et une conception comparée: mais même en admettant votre opinion, on peut dire que cette observation directe ne pourrait nous révéler que les propriétés du produit regardé comme conception mentale, c. à. d. des faits psychologiques, et qu’elle ne nous dit rien sur les lois générales de l’univers.
Ceci soit dit seulement pour vous mettre sur la voie que je pourrais suivre en combattant le système de [?] vous [?] deux derniers chapitres. Il ne me paraît pas essentiel, quant à présent, que cette différence d’opinion soit vuidée entre nous. Les experts la jugeront et je voulus n’en dire dans ma notice que ce qu’il fallait pour attirer là-dessus leur attention.
1584.
TO E. L. BURNETT
July 25. 1870
Sir—
I shall feel obliged by you laying before the Assessment Committee this my appeal against the increase of the valuation of my house in Blackheath Park to £180 Gross & £150 rateable value.
The rent I pay for the house is £150 with an additional £3.17.0 for insurance. But the continual cracking of the walls owing to the settling of the house from defect in the foundations causes incessant expenses falling little if at all short of half the rent. I have been under the necessity of twice underpinning the house, & during the ten years ending with 1869 it has cost me in absolutely indispensable repairs £422.19.4 in bricklayer’s bills alone, besides heavy bills of carpenters, plasterers, painters, paperhangers, plumbers & even glaziers, consequent on the unequal sinking of the house. This expenditure I can substantiate by vouchers, and the most cursory inspection of the house will shew it to be in need of much further expense of a similar nature at the present time.
A few years ago the Assessment Committee of the Lewisham Union gave me notice of their having raised the valuation of my house, but on representation from me of the continual & heavy expense of necessary repairs they reduced the rateable valuation to £100 per annum at which it has since stood & at which I hope it may be allowed to remain.
1585.
TO THE CLERK OF THE WOOLWICH ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
B[lackheath] P[ark] July 26. 1870
Sir—
Being informed by Mr Burnett that I ought to send you notice of the appeal against the new valuation of my house in B.P. which I have sent through him to the Ass Ctee I beg leave to inclose a copy of the appeal.
1586.
TO HENRY FAWCETT
July 26. 1870
Dear Mr. Fawcett—
Sir Charles Dilke ended the note in which he told me of your wish to make a public demonstration on the war, by asking me, if I disapproved of it, to write to you; and therefore I have not written to you.
I highly approve of having a demonstration, and I hope there will be many of them. For myself, I do not wish for the present to appear in any way in the matter. A time may come when it will be the duty of every one to speak out. But, while I do all I can in private, I think it best for the present, both for public and for private reasons, that my name should not appear. This letter therefore is confidential. In the meantime I think the points of most importance are, that the English public should know, and shew that it knows, that this war has been brought on wholly by Napoleon: that the Prussians are fighting for their own liberty and for that of Europe: that England is bound to protect Belgium, and that our utmost efforts can only, if Napoleon lives, defer war, not prevent it. Our turn must come. Therefore, that our people ought to arm at once, taking the responsibility off the Government, which is right to be prudent and silent. The Volunteers ought to be armed with the newest and best rifle by public subscription. It is not a time for talking about peace and the horrors of war when our national existence may be soon at stake. At the same time it is wrong to attribute this war to France. Neither in justice nor in prudence ought we to do so. The Germans are right in saying that it is Napoleon, and not France, they are fighting, and Napoleon, if he lives, and is successful in humbling Prussia, will attack England, the fourth of the great powers that fought at Waterloo. I am
Dear Mr Fawcett
yours very truly
J.S.M.
1587.
TO JOHN PLUMMER
July 26. 1870
Dear Mr Plummer
We are very glad to hear from you, and to know that you are going on prosperously. I do not recognize your hand in the two numbers of the Figaro, but I am glad that it may be seen in the Nonconformist.
With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer, I am
Dear Mr Plummer
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1588.
TO ALEXANDER BAIN
Aug. 4, 1870
Dear Bain—
I am much obliged to you for your letter which though it does not remove my difficulties affords material which may perhaps help me towards resolving them.
How do we know that any energy has ever been expended in “separating the masses to the distance at which they begin to gravitate towards each other”? The new theory of the universe in relation to Force shews the same tendency from all past time to draw the masses nearer to one another instead of separating them, to which it is supposed that the present order of the universe will finally succumb. If by the masses are meant the molecules, & if what you say refers to the separation into different stellar bodies by cooling, of what was originally a nebula; I would say that the molecules of the nebula must have already gravitated towards one another. If they were ever too close together to do so, how have they ever emerged from that state? I cannot see what preexisting force can have been hoarded by gravitation.
“Elimination” in the chemical application which you mention, still seems to mean only getting rid of, and not picking out & retaining.
If the old corporations retain and exercise the power of granting to women a complete medical education & if they can be induced to confer on those who avail themselves of it medical degrees, it is probable that the examining body to be created by the new medical bill would not be permitted by opinion to refuse them the license to practice. The bill I see is withdrawn so that there will be time to look into the subject.
The Woman’s Suffrage Committee is desirous of finding competent persons who would be willing to go to different places to speak at public meetings, help to form local committees &c. The Committee would remunerate them for their time & trouble. Are there any of your former pupils or other intelligent persons known to you who you think would be willing to cooperate with the Committee in this manner?
You have no doubt received the new programme agreed to at the General Meeting of the Land Tenure Association. There are still great difficulties made about the 4th article, that which relates to the unearned increase of rent, but these generally gave way after explanation & discussion as far as regards individual conviction; the objectors still thinking it premature & injudicious to include that point in the programme. There is however no hope of obtaining any support to the Assn from the leaders of the working classes without going at least as far as the fourth article goes in the way of a compromise with their larger projects. All that seems feasible is to get this part of the programme well explained, so as to meet such of the objections as are founded only on misapprehension.
1589.
TO WILLIAM TRANT
Aug. 4. 1870
Dear Sir—
The statement in the papers that I am about to publish a new ed. of my Logic is incorrect.
It has been suggested to me several times to publish a cheap edition but these applications have not, in general, been from working men. I shd be very happy to think that there is any considerable number of working men who desire to read a treatise of such length & on such a subject.
1590.
TO HENRY GEORGE
Aug 13, 1870
Dear Sir
The first intimation I received that my communication to you had appeared in print, was in a letter from California complaining of it as unjust to the Chinese, in such terms as to give me the idea that the writer had never seen the concluding part of the communication. He did not, I believe, inform me in what publication he had read it, nor did I suppose that even if garbled it must necessarily have been for a dishonest purpose, nor that you must have been the garbler. I am perfectly satisfied with your assurance that my letter was originally published as it has since been republished entire.
I am
Dear Sir
yours very faithfully,
J. S. Mill
1591.
TO JOHN BOYD KINNEAR
Aug. 13, 1870
Dear Sir—
I am sorry to hear that your progress towards recovery is so slow. There can be little doubt that rest from the exertion of the brain is the real cure, & this is seldom to be had except by the substitution of gentle & unexhausting excitement for that which is more severe. The mind flies back to its old occupations unless it obtains new.
What the working men of London aim at under the name of nationalization of the land, is nothing less than the entire abolition of private property in land, the State taking possession of all the land (at a valuation) & managing it as the public estate. As a step to this it is proposed by some of them to prevent all future purchase of land by private individuals, those who wish to sell being required to sell to the State.
With regard to the reasons that you give for thinking that the increased value of land is no more than a fair equivalent for landlords’ improvements, I expect that when the question becomes a serious one, a Commission will have to be appointed to collect all facts which have any important bearing on the subject.
1592.
TO M. E. GRANT DUFF
Aug. 14, 1870
Dear Mr Grant Duff—
If you are in town & can spare the time I shd like much to call on you & have some conversation on the affair of the Bombay Bank. Although both my opinions & my official experience make me anything but favourably inclined to the interference of Govt to shield individuals from the consequences of their own unfortunate speculations, it does appear to me that the Bombay Govt not only by the gross misconduct of the official directors & its own neglect to look after them but also by its course of conduct after the evil had become a matter of notoriety, has incurred a very grave moral responsibility to the shareholders; & that it cannot relieve itself from this except by taking on itself some pecuniary responsibility.
1593.
TO HENRY KILGOUR
Aug. 15, 1870
Dear Sir—
I beg to acknowledge your letter of Aug. 10 & the pamphlet to which it refers.
I am entirely in favour of retaining our connexion with the colonies so long as they do not desire separation. And I think the nation is of the same opinion, & would not tolerate, in the Government, any conduct which it believed to proceed from a desire to break the connexion. But I confess I do not think it likely that a periodical meeting of delegates from all the colonies & dependencies with no substantive powers, merely for the purpose of discussion, would excite sufficient interest in those countries to become a useful institution. What a colony desires from the mother country is generally something having reference to its own special wants, & which it would probably, in general, prefer to discuss singly with the Govt which has the power of decision. The participation of numerous delegates from other communities with no interest in the particular question, communities whose wants are different & who have little fellow feeling, would, I should think, be more likely to be felt as an incumbrance than desired as a help.
Allow me to express my surprise that one who attaches so much importance as you do to the mere public discussion of subjects by those who are specially interested in them, should see no use in the admission into the H. of C. of representative working men. Their presence there seems to me indispensable to a sufficient discussion of public interests from the particular point of view of the working classes; which assuredly is not less worthy of being considered, nor has fewer truths mingled with its errors, than the points of view of the other classes now so superabundantly represented in Parliament. The “Parliamentary tone” does not seem to me to be at present so elevated as to be in any danger of being lowered by the admission of such men as Mr Odger into a House a majority of whom seem to me to be abundantly endowed with all the characteristics you ascribe to him, except the “considerable mental vigour” for which you give him credit. The result I shd expect from bringing contrary prejudices face to face & compelling them to listen to one another would be a great improvement on both sides: & in my own experience the working classes are not those who have shown least willingness to be improved by such collisions.
1594.
TO PETER ALFRED TAYLOR
Aug. 22. 1870
Dear Mr Taylor—
I have the highest admiration for Mazzini, & although I do not sympathize with his mode of working I do not take upon myself to criticize it, because I do not doubt that to him is mainly owing the unity & freedom of Italy. Nor do I in the least doubt the reality of the danger your letter speaks of. But the real safeguard against that danger lies in the fact that the whole Italian people, friends & enemies, are assuredly fully aware of it, & that the Italian Govt must be fully aware that if any mischief happens to M. while under their custody no one in Italy will attribute it to natural causes. On the other hand, nothing whatever would persuade any but a few rare scattered English people that any such danger exists at all. To say so would simply be to expose oneself in England to the imputation fully believed by those who make it, of being a rabid & fanatical partisan: whereas in Italy the mildest & most moderate people will believe it even if it is not true. Hence I am sure that it would be impossible to bring the influence of English public opinion to bear in this matter. To attempt to do so would simply be to call forth such honest & genuine expressions of incredulity as might even convince the Italian Govt of what they would otherwise never suspect—that if M. dies in prison the English public may really not be sure that he was poisoned.
The safety of M. depends on the fear that his death might arouse feeling in Italy dangerous to those in whose hands he is. As I believe this to be the case, I think in all human probability the Govt will be very desirous of avoiding anything of the sort & of setting him free as soon as they conveniently can. Some action on the part of English liberals to request his liberation on grounds of humanity, his age, his health, &c., might, a little time hence, give an excuse to the Govt they might be glad to take to set him free. At present I fear they would not think it prudent to do it.
Were I an English personal friend of Mazzini I shd certainly endeavour to obtain access to him, for I think the greatest danger at present is of his fretting himself into an illness, which in the hands of Italian doctors might naturally terminate fatally. The presence of a real friend might be of great use to him, & as English people’s word is generally believed, the Italian Govt might more easily permit English than Italian friends to see him, since they might trust them better to do nothing that they undertook not to do.
1595.
TO PATRICK HENNESSEY
[After Aug. 25, 1870]
Dear Sir—
I so far agree with the promoters of the meeting to which you do me the honour of inviting me, as to be very desirous to see a movement commenced for the thorough military training of the general population. I wish the mass of soldiers to be identical with the mass of citizens, & standing armies to be eventually dispensed with, except the scientific corps, & probably a permanent staff of carefully trained officers, not taken as at present from one class of the community, but from all.
But I do not agree with what seems to be implied in a “Protest against this country being brought into the war.”
To declare beforehand that no amount of iniquity perpetrated before our eyes, shall induce us to go to war, would be the surest way of encouraging wars abroad, and would infallibly, like all other selfishness & cowardice, finally redound to our own cost. If war between nations is ever to be put an end to, it can only be as war between individuals has been checked in civilised societies—by the creation of a police & an impartial umpire to settle quarrels. To create such a system it is necessary that all courageous & right feeling men shd be ready to suffer in protecting the weak in politics as they ought to be in civil life. And to stand by & see a free & civilised [right loving?] nation, such as Belgium, which appeals to us for help, deprived of its liberties by overpowering force, would be to set an example as injurious to the best hopes of civilization as it would be base & pusillanimous. What is necessary to prevent the generous spirit of the nation from being abused to bad purposes & leading either to iniquities or to unnecessary wars is that the nation itself shd closely watch its governors, shd refuse to enter into any war which does not approve itself to its conscience as just, & shd steadily in time of peace as in time of war examine into & control all the military expenditure & organisation.
I have put down these few remarks for yourself & the Committee, but I shd be obliged by your not giving any further publicity to them.
1596.
TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL
le 27 août 1870
Mon cher d’Eichthal
Merci d’avoir pensé à moi dans un temps si douloureux. Depuis longtemps je suis arrivé à la triste conviction que malgré l’incontestable réalité des progrès modernes, nous ne sommes pas encore à l’abri des grands malheurs et des grands crimes que notre siècle se flattait d’être parvenu à bannir de la terre. Je plains profondément le peuple français, qui n’est pas responsable de tout ceci, qui n’aime pas et n’a pas voulu la guerre, et qui est condamné à la payer du meilleur de son sang, et peut-être d’une humiliation nationale la plus difficile à supporter. Pourvu que l’Europe, et surtout la France, apprenne de ces tristes événements, que lorsqu’un peuple abdique la direction de ses propres destinées, et se résigne à ce qu’un gouvernement fasse de lui un simple instrument de sa volonté, il est condamné à supporter toutes les conséquences de ce qu’il a laissé faire en son nom; et qu’un gouvernement qui par les conditions de son existence a besoin de tout ce qu’il y a de plus malhonnête et de plus corrompu dans le pays, finit par être trompé par eux, au point que même son appui de prédilection, l’administration militaire, se trouve pourrie et en décomposition au moment du besoin.
Quelles que puissent être pour la France les suites immédiates de ces événements, il ne lui faudra pas beaucoup d’années pour redevenir tout aussi grande qu’auparavant. Mais elle devra se contenter d’être l’une des grandes puissances de l’Europe, sans prétendre à être la seule, ou même la première: il lui faudra reconnaître pour les relations internationales comme pour celles de la vie civile, le règle de l’égalité. La prétention d’un pays quelconque à être tellement au dessus des autres pour que rien d’important ne se fasse sans le consulter, ne peut plus se soutenir aujourd’hui, et la France devrait voir dans la répudiation universelle d’une telle prétention, le triomphe du principe qui fait sa propre gloire.
J’espère qu’au moins vous n’aurez pas d’autres malheurs que le désastre public à déplorer, et que la guerre épargnera toute votre famille.
Je suis arrivé ici huit ou dix jours avant la déclaration de guerre, alors qu’un pareil coup semblait presque aussi peu probable que la destruction de Paris par un tremblement de terre. La rapidité foudroyante des grands événements d’aujourd’hui n’est pas ce qu’ils ont de moins étonnant.
Votre toujours affectionné
J. S. Mill
1597.
TO JOHN WESTLAKE
Sept. 7. 1870
Dear Sir—
The question respecting the expediency of making the sale of instruments of war by neutrals to belligerents an offence against the law of nations, is a difficult one, & though I have given it some consideration I cannot say that I have arrived at a positive opinion. Your paper will probably assist me in forming one.
About one thing I feel quite clear; that the matter ought not to depend, as it does by our present laws, on the discretion of the executive. For the sake both of principle & of policy the question shd be determined by law. And it cannot well be determined by law without a previous agreement among the principal nations; since otherwise we should either be adjudging to ourselves rights which might not improbably be disputed, or acknowledging obligations which might not be reciprocated.
On the rule itself, there is a conflict of considerations. On the one hand real neutrality seems to me to consist in not aiding either side with means of carrying on the contest: including under “means,” any articles of which the sole, or at all events the principal, use, is for warlike purposes. On the other hand, it is generally, though not universally, true that the party most benefitted by, because most needing, supplies from neutral countries, is the weaker of the belligerents, who is the more likely to be the oppressed or injured party; including among the rest all who are in arms, on however just provocation, against their own government. It is significant that the only case in which the power given to our own executive in this matter has been acted on (the case of the Greeks & Turks) is of this last description.
A further consideration is the difficulty of preventing exportation to the belligerent countries without stopping exportation altogether. It would be of little use to prevent guns being sent to Dunkirk if they can be sent to Ostend & from thence find their way into France. But this only amounts to saying that it is of no use for one country to act on the rule unless it is adopted generally. If it were so adopted, the Belgian Govt would be responsible for preventing the guns exported to Ostend from entering France.
On the whole, I incline most to leaving the exportation free, but not without misgiving; for when the access to foreign supplies operates as it generally does, unequally upon the two belligerents, it seems to me hardly possible that the public opinion of the party suffering shd not regard the professing neutral as substantially an ally of the enemy; & perhaps with still greater resentment as one who without any ground of quarrel seeks to make profit by a neighbour’s misfortunes.
There is but too much ground for your apprehensions as to the feelings likely to be left by this war; but if it had been unattended with a great & decisive success on either side, it would probably have been much more prolonged, & the case is preeminently one in which the shortest evil is the best. Then too it was important that a striking retribution shd fall on the aggressor [in] an unprovoked war. It is the justice of their cause which has roused the whole German people & given them this irresistible might. But it is deplorable to think that the French nation may from a false point of honour, persist in an unjust war which they neither originated nor desired.
1598.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES
Sept. 15. 1870
Dear Mr Cairnes
I think your article very good, and likely to be useful. It is very complete in the logical, and also in the purely economical, point of view. Some other time perhaps you might find it useful to carry on the examination of Bastiat’s doctrines to the social, or practical, point of view, and shew how far from the truth it is that the economic phenomena of society as at present constituted always arrange themselves spontaneously in the way which is most for the common good or that the interests of all classes are fundamentally the same. There is not, however, room to do this in addition to what you have already so conclusively done, and I should not recommend attempting it. I have therefore sent on the proof to Virtue, after correcting two or three typographical errors which had escaped your notice.
The events in Europe are indeed overwhelming. What will be the end of them no one can foresee. But it is melancholy to see that the French, even those who opposed the war, have not the magnanimity or the common justice to feel and admit that they are responsible to their neighbours for injuries done by any one whom they allow to govern them; and instead of making reparation to Germany for perhaps the most unprovoked attack in modern European history, and for the myriads of lives which have had to be sacrificed in repelling that attack, they think it fine to persist in the injury, and to slaughter more and more of those against whom they are already such deep offenders.
Thornton’s article is, as you say, very weak; but metaphysical subjects are not among his strong points. You have laid your finger very precisely upon one of the principal of his many fallacies. All he says is answered by anticipation in Bentham’s Introduction to Morals and Legislation, and in my father’s Fragment on Mackintosh.
With our kind regards to Mrs Cairnes
I am Dear Mr Cairnes
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1599.
TO WILLIAM TRANT
Sept. 15, 1870
Dear Sir—
I should be happy to give copies of my “System of Logic” to some of the Institutions you refer to if you would let me know what are those where you think it would be valued. The degree in which these copies are read by working men would be some indicator of the degree of utility of a cheap edition.
What sort of price would in your opinion meet the requisites of a cheap edition of such a book as the System of Logic? I must however add that in permitting a cheap edition I am simply sacrificing nearly the whole of any profits made by my work, even if the sale is very considerable. No cheap edition of a serious work appears ever to pay the author anything more than a trifle. If the sale is likely to be large among really working class people, that is to say if many persons are really benefitted by my sacrifice I am willing to make the sacrifice of my own profit for their benefit. But unless the sale is largely increased I am not sure that it is the best use I can make of the money. I am not sure even whether the same amount of money might not be better spent in making presents of gratuitous copies of the library edition.
1600.
TO SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE
Sept. 30. 1870
My dear Sir Charles Dilke
On the first of the points mentioned in your note, I think that the Government of National Defence, being to all appearances obeyed as the Government of the country by all parts of France which are not in the power of a foreign army, ought to be recognised officially (it is already recognised semiofficially) as the de facto Government by Great Britain: which recognition I understand to consist in giving to our ambassador new credentials, addressed to the new authorities. I think that what was done in the case of the Provisional Government of 1848 should be done in the present case. But, after Gladstone’s answer to the deputation, I do not think that there is any chance of inducing him to do this.
The second point I cannot see in the same light. The Germans have a very strong case. One of the wickedest acts of aggression in history, has been by them successfully repelled, but at the expense of the bitter suffering of many thousand (one might almost say million) households. They have a just claim to as complete a security as any practicable arrangement can give, against the repetition of a similar crime. Unhappily, the character and feelings of the French nation, or at least of the influential and active portion of all political parties, afford no such security. I feel, with you, a strong repugnance to the transfer of a population from one government to another unless by its own expressed desire. If I could settle the terms of peace, the disputed territory should be made into an independent self governing state, with power to annex itself, after a long period (say fifty years), either to France or to Germany; a guarantee for that term of years by the neutral powers (which removes in some measure the objection to indefinite guarantees), or if that could not be obtained, the fortresses being meanwhile garrisoned by German troops. But there may be many objections to this which I do not see; and at all events, our Government would probably suggest it in vain. Our Government is not likely to have the smallest influence at present with Germany. English public opinion might have some little influence. But all demonstrations of the kind seem only likely to encourage France in a hopeless struggle.
If Gladstone had been a great man, this war would never have broken out, for he would have nobly taken upon himself the responsibility of declaring that the English navy should actively aid whichever of the two powers was attacked by the other. This would have been a beginning of the international police we are calling for. I do not much blame Gladstone for not daring to do it, for it requires a morally braver man than any of our statesmen to run this kind of risk.
I have willingly given you my opinion on the points on which you ask it, but I do not wish any public use made of it with my name, as I have no desire to put myself or be put forward in the matter; for public opinion in England appears to me on the whole so reasonable and well intentioned on the subject, as to be likely ultimately to arrive at a right conclusion; and I am not sure whether we have really yet sufficient data as to the mere facts, to entitle us to form a very definite opinion. I am
My dear Sir Charles Dilke
Yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1601.
TO THE SECRETARY, SOUTHWARK RADICAL ASSOCIATION
September 30, 1870.
Dear Sir,
I am highly honoured by the wish of the Southwark Radical Association to nominate me as a candidate for the School Board, and I regret that the pressure of other occupations puts it out of my power to perform the duties of that most important trust.
Yours very sincerely,
J. S. Mill.
1602.
TO THE REV. DAVID KING
[Oct. ? 1870]
Dear Sir
I have most certainly never on any occasion whatever, in public or private, expressed any approbation of the book entitled Elements of Social Science. Nor am I likely ever to have done so, inasmuch as I very strongly object to some of the opinions expressed in it. You are therefore quite at liberty to say that I am not correctly represented by anyone who asserts that I have commended the book.
Yours very faithfully
J. S. Mill
1603.
TO FRANÇOIS BARTHÉLEMY ARLÈS-DUFOUR
Oct. 29, 1870
Cher Monsieur—
Je n’ai pas eu le coeur de répondre à votre lettre du 26 Sept. parceque je ne pouvais vous rien dire de consolation dans l’immense malheur qui pèse sur la France.
Aujourd’hui votre voeu pour une médiation anglaise semble être exaucé, dans la mesure de ce qui est possible.
Ici la sympathie pour les malheurs de la France est grande, et le désir est général qu’elle sorte de cette crise aux conditions les plus favorables que comportent les circonstances. Mais on ne pense pas moins qu’elle doit une grande réparation à l’Allemagne pour les vastes sacrifices de son sang le plus précieux qu’une agression injuste lui a imposés. Et l’on craint que cette facilité à croire ce qui est agréable, et à résister à l’évidence des faits, qui est propre aux habitudes du français ne leur fasse refuser des propositions supportables, pour être réduits à subir plus tard des conditions encore plus rigoureuses. Si le patriotisme éclairé de tout ce qu’il y a de meilleur en France pouvait décider les classes lettrés de la nation à voir dans les sacrifices qui sont devenus inévitables, une leçon pour ne plus jamais se laisser aller à préférer des rêves d’agrandissement au dehors, à la recherche de la liberté et du progrès moral et social au dedans et pouvait décider l’immense majorité de la nation à ne se laisser gouverner que par eux-mêmes alors on pourrait espérer que les tristes événements de cette année, quelque puisse être leur dénouement, deviennent la date d’une véritable régénération pour la France.
Je n’ai guère besoin de vous dire cher monsieur à quel point moi-même je partage votre douleur, et combien ma sympathie est profonde pour tous les français qui n’ont à se reprocher ni le commencement de cette déplorable guerre ni sa prolongation.
1604.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK
Oct. 29. 1870
Dear Chadwick
I have no improvements to suggest in your paper on elections to the school board. I see objections to house to house voting, but those objections are much less strong than in the case of elections to Parliament and are perhaps outweighed by the advantages in this and other elections for local purposes.
By whom, and how, is the Committee of Selection in the City appointed? I am glad that Ellis is a member of it; but he ought to be in the School Board himself, as well as you.
What you say of the general indifference to considerations of special qualification, is painfully confirmed by other testimony. The leaders, however, of the working classes do not seem to share this indifference: it was much complained of at a meeting of the Representative Reform Association last Saturday in which Odger, Mottershead, and Lloyd Jones took an active part; and the response was general to what I and others said of the bad quality of the instruction.
You, of all men, ought to be on the Board, and I will certainly urge your claims wherever I have an opportunity.
I have myself received two offers, but the matter does not lie in my speciality, and I have refused.
The Journal des Economistes is not sent here, but to Avignon and I have not seen the September number. I am
Dear Chadwick
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1605.
TO WILLIAM RIDDLE
Oct. 29, 1870.
Dear Sir:
No question can be greater or more urgent than that of the relations of the poor to the rich, and though for the rectification of those relations political and social reforms are the principal requisite, I am quite prepared to admit that “practical engineering measures” may be highly useful auxiliaries. But of this part of the subject I cannot deem myself a competent judge; though I should be very willing, when I know your proposals, to tell you whether, in my opinion, there are any objections to them on the score of political economy.
I am, Dear Sir,
Yours very faithfully
J. S. Mill
W. Riddle Esq.
1606.
TO FREDERIC BOOKER
Oct. 31. 1870
Dear Sir—
I have not a copy of the Act by me, but I have always understood that the prohibition of payment had reference only to payment out of taxes, rates, or any public fund. I do not believe that there exists any legal obstacle to payment of the representatives by their constituents, as the Trades Unions pay their officers & delegates. It would not cost the Trade Societies of Manchester much to pay, if necessary, to those working men whom you may succeed in electing, the weekly wages which they would earn if they worked at their ordinary employment. There appears to me, however, a more serious difficulty. If really, as you say, the working men will not have confidence in any man as a real working man, who has saved enough to be independent or who can spare even a portion of his time from earning his daily bread, it would appear that the moment they have elected a man they must lost confidence in him if he is to be supported by subscription, since from the moment when he is so supported he ceases to be a working man. I shd have thought it had been the first object of all who have the interest of the working classes at heart, that some among the working men whose talents or good fortune enable them to be pecuniarily better off than the majority of their companions, shd continue to be, & to be considered, still members of the working classes. But if they are to be looked on with suspicion & dislike, this cannot be the case. It has always been my hope that the working classes might come to have a moderate portion of leisure, & I shd regard it as a great misfortune if the moment a working man is able to attain this he shd lose the confidence of his fellow workmen unless he is dependent on their bounty. It cannot be impossible that a working man shd retain the principles which are honestly entertained by so many individuals among the richest classes of the country, merely because he has been able to become a master workman, or a writer, &c. &c, & as he will if he has been born & has generally lived among the working classes, understand & sympathize with them better than most persons of other classes can do, I think such a man shd be trusted till he has proved himself unworthy of trust. Doubtless many men will do so, as many men in every rank shew when put to the test that their real motives for entering into public life were vanity or self interest, but I cannot believe that a larger proportion of men mainly inspired by such unworthy motives will be found among the self-raised men of the working classes than among the self-raised men of the leading mercantile, manufacturing, literary, and others.
1607.
TO WILLIAM TRANT
Nov. 2. 1870
Dear Sir—
I thank you for your kind letter and will order the publisher to send six copies of the “System of Logic” to yourself which I beg that you will dispose of in the manner suggested by you, or in any manner you think best, retaining one copy for the library you mention of your own.
Will you kindly tell me also whether there are any of my other writings which might be usefully presented to any of the Institutions you mention or to your own Library.
1608.
TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE
Nov. 3. 1870
Dear Mr Christie
I am glad to hear that you are exerting yourself in favour of Miss Garrett’s election, and although I am not disposed to subscribe towards it, yet I hope she may succeed.
I hope there may be a chance of your coming into the House of Commons for some early vacancy. There are many signs that the influence of the Ministry for or against a candidate will not go quite so far now as it did at the General Election. I am
Dear Mr Christie
yours very truly
J. S. Mill
1609.
TO WILLIAM TRANT
Nov. 15, 1870
Dear Sir—
I have directed Messrs. Longman to send to your address 6 copies of “System of Logic” 2 of “Examination of Hamilton” 1 of “Dissertations & Discussions” 1 of “Analysis of the Human Mind” written by my father and edited by me, three of “Utilitarianism” and 3 of “Subjection of Women”. I have also directed Mr. Trübner, who is the publisher of “Auguste Comte & Positivism” to send you a copy of that. Please inform me if they all reach you that, if not, I may correct the mistake. One copy of each is for yourself, the remainder to be employed by you in the manner proposed in your letters, or otherwise in any better mode which occurs to you.
I am sorry that the rules of the Cobden Working Men’s Club, Bermondsey Square, limit its advantages to “males.” I shd like to see women admitted on equal terms to all such societies. At least the benefit of the Library ought surely, on every consideration, be extended to them. From the just & enlightened opinion you express respecting Mixed Schools I hope that we are of the same opinion also about Mixed Libraries.
1610.
TO JOHN MORLEY
November [16?], 1870
Dear Mr Morley—
I have been much disappointed at not seeing Lady Amberley’s lecture in the Fortnightly yet. I hope it is to be in the December number.
When I last heard from you you mentioned that you might have some points on which you would wish to speak to me. I do not know whether that time is yet come; if so I shd be glad to see you at any time if you will let me know when. As I understand you have not a home in London now, we have a bed at your disposal when you come down here.
I am glad to see you have not yielded to the utterly false & mistaken sympathy with France & indeed I go farther than you do on the other side. Stern justice is on the side of the Germans, & it is in the best interests of France itself that a bitter lesson shd now be inflicted upon it, such as it can neither deny nor forget in the future. The whole writing, thinking, & talking portion of the people undoubtedly share the guilt of L. Napoleon, the moral guilt of the war, & feel neither shame nor contrition at anything but the unlucky results to themselves. Undoubtedly the real nation, the whole mass of the people, are perfectly guiltless of it; but then they are so ignorant that they will allow the talkers & writers to lead them into just such corners again if they do not learn by bitter experience what will be the practical consequences of their political indifference. The peasantry of France like the women of England have still to learn that politics concern themselves. The loss of Alsace & Lorraine will perhaps be about as painless a way of learning this lesson as could possibly be devised.
1611.
TO LEONARD H. COURTNEY
Nov. 18, 1870
Dear Mr Courtney—
As I intend to publish the inclosed or something like it in one of the papers I send it to you first to know whether you think it best that I shd send it first to the Times through yourself. I almost take it for granted that you are of my way of thinking in the matter & that the articles in the Times I so strongly object to cannot be yours. If you think it best that it shd find its way to the Times merely through the post might I ask you to be kind enough to close it & drop it into a letter box to save the time that would be lost in returning it to me as I intend to send it to the Times before sending it elsewhere, in case they think fit to insert it.
1612.
TO HENRY FAWCETT
Nov. 18. 1870
Dear Mr Fawcett
You will be glad to hear, if you have not already heard, that the Commons Committee yesterday acted in the spirit of your telegram, by determining to bring in their own Epping Forest Bill in the approaching session, whether the Government bring in theirs or not. It was also determined to take up the subject of the New Forest, and that of the preservation of footpaths, with a view, on the latter subject, of getting the power of stopping paths put into better hands.
The newspapers are raging and blustering on the subject of Russia, in a manner which will be very dangerous, if the Government and the House of Commons once think that their ravings express the opinion of the country. Writers who for many months have never ceased sounding an alarm about our total want of preparation for a war even of self defence—telling us that we have neither troops, nor horses, nor guns, nor officers, nor organisation, nor men capable of giving us these things—all, I believe, too true—now demand that we should instantly say to Russia, Retract that declaration, or War: and when Russia refuses (as what power, in such a case, would not refuse?) we are to go to war with Russia at once, and as they themselves think not improbable, with Prussia too. And all this, for what? Because Russia shakes off an obligation which, though it may sometimes perhaps be rightly imposed as a temporary penalty for unprovoked aggression, no nation can ever be expected permanently to submit to. One would think such a thing had never happened before, as that a nation on whom hard terms had been imposed by victorious enemies, has ever treated them as no longer binding after she had recovered her strength. The truth is, such things are often happening, and must often be submitted to, when the object itself is not worth a war; and so it will be, until treaties are concluded, as they ought to be, for terms of years only, instead of affecting to be perpetual. Will any one pretend that a nation can bind its posterity for all time by the conditions to which it has been forced to submit at a moment of difficulty? If not, such stipulations, unless they still remain in themselves desirable, must be allowed to become obsolete; and the only questions are, after what lapse of time, and under what conditions; questions which no one, I believe, is yet prepared to answer. Strength and opportunity have always decided them hitherto.
When we consider that England might have done the inestimable service to mankind of preventing the present terrible war, if we had chosen to run a very slight risk of being involved in it ourselves; the proposal that after shrinking from this, we should rush precipitately into war to limit the number of Russian ships of war in the Euxine, shews a degree of criminal fatuity almost greater than that of Louis Napoleon and his advisers, four months ago. I am
Dear Mr Fawcett
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1613.
TO JOHN MORLEY
Nov. 18. 1870
Dear Mr Morley—
We congratulate you very heartily upon your marriage, of which it gives us great pleasure to hear. Home life is the best possible “milieu” for work, & I hope you will be able to subordinate your work to the claims of your health, a task however which is found very difficult by everybody who can & will work well.
I am very anxious just now that there shd be some proper protest against the infatuation of our press on the Russian question. I can compare it to nothing but the infatuation of the French press which we have all been wondering at. Almost in the same breath in which our journals tell us only too truly that we are utterly unprepared for war, nay unprepared for the most essential defence, they call upon us to declare war with one of the most powerful military empires of the world—a naval power too, & that at the very same time that our quarrel with America is still pending. So much for their common sense. As for the rights of the question, it is doubtful whether they are not substantially on the side of Russia. At all events we are not bound in honour to attempt to carry out the Treaty when our most important co-signatory can give no help. Least of all are we bound in honour to insist upon the perpetual adhesion to a treaty which in all probability we ought to be ready to abrogate. As for the argument that Russia is simply casting off all treaty obligations, that simply points to the fact that all such obligations always have been disowned directly the party unwillingly bound by them perceives a relaxation of force in the powers which attempted to bind it. This will always happen so long as treaties are made in perpetuity. Were they terminable, as they ought to be, those who object to them would have a rational hope of escape in some more moral way than an appeal to the same brute force which imposed them. It points also to the inherent weakness of the scheme of joint treaties & guarantees which must of their own nature fall to pieces directly there is any great change in the conditions or the relations of the joint powers. This treaty of 1856 shd have been allowed to fall into disuse. That it has not been so allowed is a legacy of the evil Palmerstonian days. Now, I conceive that the only dignified thing for us to do is to let the treaty be abrogated by Russia with a protest reserving our own liberty of action. The way in which Guizot dealt with the annexation of Cracow is a case in point & would form a very good precedent for us in this matter.
We shall hope to see you on Tuesday next as you say in the forenoon. There is a train at 35 min. past 12 from Ch. X, by which perhaps you can come & take luncheon with us.
H. T.
1614.
TO LEONARD H. COURTNEY
Nov. 19. 1870
Dear Mr Courtney—
I thank you very much for your kindness about my letter.
I perfectly understand that what you & other thoughtful men, regard as the important point in this matter is the declaration of the Russian Govt that it intends to throw off one of the obligations of the Treaty, without asking the consent of the other contracting parties. My position, however, is that it is not every breach of treaty that requires to be, or that ought to be, resented by war. The fons et origo mali is the great error of concluding treaties in perpetuity, instead of only for a term of years; which, by making it inevitable and sometimes even a duty to break treaties, creates that conflict of possible obligations which both fosters & shields unconscientiousness. No treaty is fit to be perpetual. When, however, a treaty is an amicable contract between nations for their joint advantage, it is in most cases possible to get necessary modifications effected by joint consent. But it is not, & never has been thought to be so in the case of treaties which are real capitulations—terms of peace imposed by victors on the vanquished expressly because known to be disadvantageous to them. Even such treaties if they were temporary might be kept. But when no term is fixed for their expiration these treaties—those conditions of them especially which directly restrain the freedom of action of the country—always have been & always are violated as soon as the nation on whom they are imposed is able & willing to risk another war. And such violation is habitually condoned, unless the other parties to the violated treaty think the particular object worth a war. Was there ever a more direct violation of a treaty to which all the powers of Europe were parties, than was committed by France when she placed another Bonaparte on the throne? But what country dreamed of going to war with France to prevent or chastise that breach of engagement? Instances more or less similar are too frequent in recent history for it to be necessary to enumerate them; but there is one worth mentioning because it affords a precedent applicable to the present case. When Russia, Austria, & Prussia combined in violation of treaties, to destroy the Republic of Cracow & annex it to Austria, Guizot was foreign minister of France. He made a public declaration, I do not remember if it was by a circular to his diplomatic agents or by a speech in the Chamber, or by both, that France took notice of this breach of treaties; that she did not intend to take any active measures in opposition to it; but that she reserved to herself the exercise of all such rights as the violation without her consent of a treaty to which she was a party, in her judgment restored to her. It seems to me that something similar to this is the only wise & dignified course for the English Govt to take: unless indeed the repudiated engagement be such as it would enforce de novo if the thing were res integra, & that too at the cost of a war under the most disadvantageous & perilous circumstances: but as you, in common I shd think with all rational persons who know anything of the subject, totally reject this supposition, I need not discuss it.
As for Mr Forster, with the fullest respect for his many excellent qualities, he is so hot headed a man—so thorough a Quaker unfranchised —that he needs little inducement to come to blows. However I venture to think that he knows nothing whatever about foreign politics. Excuse me for saying that you have not chosen your instance well if you thought I shd think his opinion could add any weight to yours.
1615.
TO SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE
Nov. 19. 1870
Dear Sir
Thanks for your kind invitation, but I am too busy just now to avail myself of it.
The newspapers are madder than ever, and it is alarming to hear of the kind of persons, some of whom participate in the madness. You have, no doubt, seen my protest in the Times. We have much need of calm good sense in our public men in this matter at present.
I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Sir C. W. Dilke Bart. M.P.
1616.
TO WILLIAM THOMAS THORNTON
Nov. 21. 1870
Dear Thornton—
I am very happy that you so entirely agree with me about this insane clamour for war. I think there is a great deal in your argument. Even were there no other reason the total inability of the most powerful of the parties to the treaty to do anything towards enforcing it goes a very great way indeed to release the others from any obligation they might have contracted to do so. Will you not write a letter on the subject to one of the newspapers? Every additional protest at this particular time is of great value by shewing that Englishmen are not all mad together, & that those who determine future opinion will pass a severe judgment on a government which should sacrifice the safety of England to mere bluster & brag. To do the present Govt justice however it is my belief that they only want support from the public to shew themselves yielding & conciliatory; & therefore we ought all the more to give public expression to this point of view. Those who pretend that we are bound by our engagements to go to war rely chiefly on the tripartite treaty of England, France, & Austria. I send a page of the Economist which contains it. By the first article those powers guarantee, jointly & severally, not the Treaty with Russia, but the integrity of the Ottoman Dominions. It cannot be pretended by any one that this guarantee comes into force until Turkey is attacked. By the second article, they engage to consider any infraction of the treaty a casus belli: & if there are causes, to determine with Turkey & with one another what it has become necessary to do. This merely promises that when a case has arisen which gives them a right to go to war, they will take counsel together whether to do so or not. But a still plainer point is that by this Treaty the three powers did not bind themselves to Turkey at all. Turkey was not a party to the Treaty. They bound themselves only to one another, & can therefore release one another from the engagement. More, since one of the three, France, cannot possibly fulfil that engagement it cannot require the others to do so, nor is there the least probability that Austria will make any such requirement from us while even if she did the practical impossibility of attaining the end without the aid of France would be a full justification for non-compliance, even in the case of the 1st article, much more in that of the second. It is perhaps also worth mentioning, for the sake of the completeness of the argument, that this very condition of the neutralization of the Black Sea has been already broken through by the U. S. & that on that occasion none of the contracting parties to the Treaty thought fit even to protest.
With regard to Utilitarianism, you have not said anything yet which would give to the most irrational or most irritable person living anything to “forgive.” But were you to attack my book or my arguments with any amount of severity I shd only see in the attack, coming from one of whose friendship I am so certain, an additional proof of friendship. Of course one is more glad when a friend agrees with one in opinion than when he differs, unless he brings one over to his opinion. This you have not done, as yet. I think you will find all your arguments answered in Bentham’s Introduction to the Principles of Morals & Legislation or in my father’s Fragment on Mackintosh, long before I wrote anything on the subject.
We have had two very pleasant excursions, one on the Wye, & one through Belgium & Germany to Geneva. From there Helen went on to Avignon to fetch some of Buckle’s MSS, as we made up our minds that the posts through France would be too irregular to enable her to carry on the printing from there this winter.
During our journey along the Rhine & through Switzerland & my stay at Geneva we had most exceptionally beautiful weather, seeing the scenery more finely in some respects than we had ever done before: Indeed we had never seen such magnificent autumn colouring; it reminded one of the descriptions one reads of America. I return your letter in case you want to use it in writing to any of the papers.
1617.
TO HENRY FAWCETT
Nov. 23. 1870
Dear Mr Fawcett
At the meeting of the Commons Preservation Committee yesterday, the resolution to proceed with our Epping Forest Bill this year was, with my full concurrence, rescinded. I am very sorry you were not there, but I think, if you had been, you would have agreed with us. The principal reason which decided my own opinion, was that the danger of being thwarted by the Government would now be incurred by going on, not by stopping short: for, the time for giving the first notices having expired, the Government cannot now bring in a bad bill of their own this session; but if we brought in ours, they would be enabled, and probably induced, to turn our good bill into a bad one. Another reason is, that our Solicitor says the fight would cost us some £5000, a sum we have not got and do not expect to get. There were some minor reasons: particularly this, that bills have been prepared to carry into effect the voluntary transfer of all Lord Spencer’s rights in Wandsworth and Wimbledon Commons to the public, for an annual payment equal to what he now gets from them; and it is hoped that these bills when actually passed will establish a precedent, and also make other lords of manors more compliant when they see that Lord Spencer has had to give up the attempt to enforce ulterior claims by law. I think myself, that the public mind grows more favourable to us every year, and that our agitation would be more effectual next year than this, especially considering with what subjects the public mind is now engrossed; and the New Forest bill of the Government will give a good opportunity for putting forth right doctrines on the whole subject.
I am truly glad that you report so favourably of the opinion of the Cambridge Liberals on the war frenzy. I think every day will now raise up more resistance. Did you see the excellent letters of Cairnes and Freeman in yesterday’s Daily News? I am myself writing something for Morley on the subject. I shall be glad to hear what your correspondents think about public meetings. One has been already appointed for Birmingham on Friday the 2nd and I have been consulted about one in Westminster. I am
Dear Mr Fawcett
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1618.
TO JOSEPH STURGE
Nov. 23, 1870
Dear Sir
I am most happy to hear that public feeling in Birmingham is believed to be against the frantic clamour for war, and that it is in contemplation to hold a public meeting next week, to which you have done me the honour of inviting me. But the uncertainty of public events, on which indeed the holding of the meeting is itself contingent, makes it difficult for me to determine beforehand whether to take part in it. I have good hopes that the course taken by the Government will be the right one, and that if a meeting is needed, it will be to give them support. We shall probably know more about this, some days before the day named. In my case I should be glad to hear when you have come to a final decision about the meeting.
I am Dear Sir
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
Joseph Sturge Esq.
1619.
TO EMILE DE LAVELEYE
Nov. 26. 1870
Cher Monsieur—
Votre lettre du 21 Nov. me paraît si importante que je prends la liberté de vous demander la permission de la publier avec votre nom dans quelqu’un de nos journaux. Elle est pleine de choses qui me semblent de nature à causer une heureuse influence sur l’esprit public dans ce moment critique. Rien ne contribue autant à jeter la nation anglaise dans la folie fatale d’une guerre avec la Russie que la crainte de paraître poltronne aux yeux de l’Europe. Il lui sera utile de savoir de quel œil cette folle entreprise est vue par l’un des hommes les plus éclairés du Continent, dans la position impartiale d’un citoyen Belge.
1620.
TO JOHN MORLEY
Nov. 28, 1870
Dear Mr Morley,
I have been thinking much over our conversation when I last saw you, & I feel so very strongly how wrong it is that your health shd be seriously risked as I fear it is being, by the impossibility of putting the F[ortnightly] Review aside for a time that if you cannot find any other friend to whom you would like to confide it, & if you think it would be possible for me to do it for you in a satisfactory manner temporarily, I shd be very happy to do what I can. We do not intend in any case to leave England until my daughter has finished, or very nearly finished, her task with Mr B’s MSS., & as her health only permits her to work very slowly she has no expectation that this will be for many months. The books & MSS she is obliged to refer to are so voluminous that they cannot well be carried about. They must be worked at at home, & as the stoppage or uncertainty of the French posts debars her from doing it at Avignon, we intend to remain here till it is done. It would be some satisfaction if this circumstance shd enable me to be of use to yourself; at all events shd other motives induce you to accept my proposal, you need have no scruples on the score of keeping us in England. I presume that the business part of the Review—money matters, advertisements, printing &c.—are or could be deputed either to the publisher or to some one who could act as man of business; & I shd think that whoever this may be might in the event of my undertaking the temporary editorship, write, under my directions, any letters that might be absolutely essential to contributors, & might receive & send on to me letters & articles. I could in that case undertake to read & judge of the articles & take upon myself the literary editorship, & either forward the letters to you or read them & forward only such as I might think you ought to see. What I myself shd most shrink from in undertaking such a thing, would be not the work of editing itself, but the enormous increase of unnecessary correspondence which I fear I should incur if it were generally known that I had undertaken it & on this account I think it would be best for letters to be sent to the publisher or some man of business, & for some one, other than myself, to be the ostensible name in such correspondence as could not be carried on by yourself. If you still continue to feel that an interval of at least comparative leisure would be of benefit to you, & can make no more satisfactory arrangement for the Review, I beg that you will not scruple to avail yourself of any help it is in my power to give.
I returned the proof of my little article yesterday to the printers.
1621.
TO MRS. MILLICENT J. FAWCETT
Dec. 9. 1870
Dear Mrs Fawcett
The inclosed letter is one which I have been requested by Miss Robertson to forward to you. The newspaper cutting came to me from Mrs Howe, of Boston, with a request that I would send it to you. Both ladies say they have written to you, and no doubt they have given whatever explanation they thought necessary.
I confess I do not hope for any good from Mrs Howe’s projected congress.
My daughter sends her kind remembrances, and I am, Dear Mrs Fawcett,
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1622.
TO ALEXIS MUSTON
Dec. 9. 1870
Monsieur—
Pardon du retard que j’ai mis à répondre à votre lettre, et qui ne fut causé que par le manque de temps. Ce fut un véritable rafraîchissement pour moi de recevoir de vous une pareille lettre au milieu d’événements si malheureux, comme ce doit être pour vous même une grande consolation que de pouvoir dans le malheur public vous rejeter sur la paisible étude des grandes questions qui importent tant aux intérêts permanents du genre humain.
J’ai très bonne opinion de l’ouvrage de M. Taine sur l’Intelligence, sauf les derniers chapitres où il me semble renier ses principes en croyant pouvoir étendre les généralisations de l’expérience humaine à des régions étrangères à cette expérience. Quant à la doctrine communément dite matérialiste, c. à d. que toutes nos impressions mentales résultent du jeu de nos organes physiques, je trouve comme vous que jusqu’ici ce n’est qu’une hypothèse, puisqu’on n’a pas pu remplir la condition qu’exige une bonne logique inductive dans la recherche des causes, en établissant que, la cause donnée, l’effet a lieu. Pour cela il faudrait pouvoir fabriquer un organisme, et essayer si cet organisme pense et sent. Dans ce cas-là on saurait si les conditions organiques que nous savons être nécessaires à la pensée, sont suffisantes pour la produire, si enfin ce sont de véritables causes, ou seulement des accompagnements obligés.
Quant à la question du moi, je ne puis rien ajouter à ce que j’ai dit làdessus dans le livre sur Hamilton. Je doute si cette question comporte dans l’état actuel de nos connaissances une solution complète. Je suis allé jusqu’où je pouvais aller et j’ai indiqué le point où s’arrête mon analyse. Pour la question du sentiment moral il en est autrement, et je crois que l’association en rend compte. Ce sentiment me paraît un résultat très compliqué d’un grand nombre de sentiments plus élémentaires. Mais la discussion de cette question serait impossible dans les limites d’une lettre. Je pourrais vous nommer des livres anglais où elle est bien traitée, mais ils ne sont pas encore traduits. J’en ai touché un côté dans un petit livre qu’on a traduit en francais “L’Utilitarisme”: je ne me souviens pas si je vous l’ai envoyé. Sinon, veuillez me le dire et je vous ferai parvenir cette traduction lorsque les communications avec Paris seront rouvertes.
1623.
TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL
le 17 décembre
1870
Mon cher d’Eichthal
Vous trouverez des maisons plus facilement dans les environs qu’à Londres même, surtout puisque vous êtes beaucoup de monde. Si donc vous n’avez pas encore réussi à Londres, venez ici, je vous prie. Nous avons une chambre à votre disposition jusqu’à ce que vous ayez trouvé ce qu’il vous faut pour votre famille. Je viendrais vous voir si ce n’est que d’après ce que vous dites, je vous trouverais probablement dehors. Écrivez-moi donc quelques mots pour me dire quand nous devons vous attendre ici, ou quand je pourrais vous voir sans vous déranger.
Acceptez, je vous prie, mon offre sans façon. Nous menons une vie très tranquille ici à cause également de mon goût pour l’étude et de la petite santé de ma fille; mais vous ne craindrez pas l’ennui sans doute pendant que vous aurez tant d’occupation à vous trouver une maison.
On vient ici par la gare de Charing Cross. Vous demanderez un billet pour Blackheath, et il y a des convois toutes les heures, et le soir toutes les demiheures même.
Tout à vous
J. S. Mill
1624.
TO EDWIN CHADWICK
Dec. 21. 1870
Dear Chadwick
I noticed the article in the Echo, and remarked how good it was, and although I did not know it was your writing, I saw clearly that the matter must have been obtained from you. The Times had a long extract from the article yesterday. I hope you will go on in the same work. I wanted whatever you could furnish me on the subject, because I often lend and give away the papers you send me to people who are likely to work usefully in the matter. They have arrived safely, and I hope to get good use made of them.
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1625.
TO JOHN NICHOL
Dec. 29.1870
Dear Sir
The chairman of the late meeting on Women’s Suffrage had already conveyed to me the invitation which I have been honoured with, to attend and address a meeting; but though it would give me much pleasure to do so, I have been obliged to answer that my engagements do not admit of my visiting Glasgow this winter.
I do not care much to discuss the C[ontagious] D[iseases] A[cts] with yourself, because, being willing as you are to allow women their fair share in electoral representation, you hold a perfectly defensible position when you differ from them on a point of legislation which concerns them. The position of those men, however, who, while they refuse women any share in legislation, enact laws which apply to women only, admittedly unpopular among women, is totally different from yours, and appears to me as base as it is illogical, unless indeed they are prepared to maintain that women have no other rights than the cattle respecting whom a kindred Act has been passed. I fully agree with you that the true fundamental point to be set right is the franchise. I will, however, without referring to all the points in your argument which I disagree with, note down one or two of my reasons for differing with you on the main question.
1. There is very strong evidence that in the country (France) where legislation similar to the C. D. A. has been long in force, and its full effects have been produced, it increases the number of the class of women to whom it applies. The comparative safety supposed to be given, increases the demand, and the number of women temporarily removed from the market makes vacancies in the supply which have to be, and are, made up. This is not necessarily shown by statistical returns; inasmuch as these can take no account of the great mass of clandestine prostitution, practised in evasion of the law, and which, if prevented, could only be so by a still more tyrannical use of the powers given to the police, and by exposing respectable women to a still greater amount of injury and indignity than at present.
2. No reason can be given for subjecting women to medical inspection which does not apply in a greater degree to the men who consort with them. The process is painful, even physically, and sometimes dangerous, to women—not at all so to men: and it is idle to say that its application to men is impracticable: the same kind and degree of espionage which detects a prostitute, could equally detect the men who go with her. The law, being one-sided, inflicted on women by men, and delivering over a large body of women intentionally, and many other women unintentionally, to insulting indignity at the pleasure of the police, has the genuine characteristics of tyranny.
You say that you think there is no weight in the objection that the law applies to one sex only, inasmuch as enlistment does the same. I think you will see that my replies are unanswerable. In the first place, the laws that regulate enlistment are not made by women only, themselves not liable to it, and then applied to men only, who have no voice in making them; as is the case in those penalties, or discipline, proposed to be applied to prostitutes by a legislature which neither consists of, nor is elected by, any proportion of women. Moreover, so long as women who offer themselves as soldiers are not accepted, the being a soldier must be taken as a privilege, and not a penalty, of sex. If women were only not soldiers because they are incapable of the fatigue and labour, then those women who in men’s clothes have proved themselves capable would not be ejected on their sex being discovered. So long as this is the case, military service is as much a privilege of our aristocracy as it is in Mahomedan countries where Christians are not allowed to serve. And the discipline to which this aristocracy voluntarily submits itself through the voice of a legislature which itself elects, cannot be compared to the discipline inflicted by those who do not share it, without the consent of those who are alone exposed to it.—Secondly, if it was impossible for any man to expose himself to military discipline without a woman as his companion, and if he, only, was liable to the discipline and punishment, the case would be more nearly parallel. You must remember that no woman can render herself liable as a prostitute without a man for her accomplice: yet when it comes to the punishment, or, if you prefer so to consider it, the discipline, we hear no more of him. Thus the man only is a soldier, and he subjects himself voluntarily to the discipline: a man and a woman must be associated in prostitution, the woman only is subjected to discipline, and that without her own consent.
3. There are important medical opinions against, as well as in favour of, the Acts. If the preponderance is in favour, this carries no weight with me; for professional men look at questions from a professional point of view, and it being a medical man’s professional duty to ascertain disease as early as possible and put it under treatment at once, this professional association is quite sufficient to account for a medical bias. I suppose medical men would desire to place men also under the discipline, which would then be decidedly less odious, and more effectual. We cannot take their authority for the half, and then refuse it for the whole. Some of the warmest medical advocates for the Acts admit that their operation can never be satisfactory until men also are submitted to them, which, they say, they know men will never consent to.
4. With regard to those who object to the C. D. A. as encouraging vice, I do not undertake to defend all they say; but I think them so far in the right, that even if there were the strongest reasons of other kinds for the Act, it would always have this for one of its drawbacks. To soldiers and ignorant persons it cannot but seem that legal precautions taken expressly to make that kind of indulgence safe, are a license to it. There is no parallel case of an indulgence or pursuit avowedly disgraceful and immoral for which the government provides safeguards. A parallel case would be the supplying of stomach pumps for drunkards, or arrangements for lending money to gamblers who may otherwise be tempted into theft in moments of desperation, and thus injure their wives and families. We have no such parallels by which to prove to men of lax habits in this particular that we disapprove of, while taking care of them. It is tolerably plain, therefore, that as a matter of fact the legislature does regard this with less disfavour than any other practice generally considered immoral and injurious to society: and the public evidence of its doing so must of necessity tend to remove feelings of shame or disapprobation connected with it. I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly
J.S.M.
Titles (by Subject) 
