EconlibThe LibraryOther Sites |
Front Page  Titles (by Subject) 1871 - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XVII - The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill 1849-1873 Part IV
Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XVII - The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill 1849-1873 Part IVThe Online Library of LibertyA project of Liberty Fund, Inc.Search this Title:Also in the Library:
1871 - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XVII - The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill 1849-1873 Part IV [1869]Edition used:The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XVII - The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill 1849-1873 Part IV, ed. Francis E. Mineka and Dwight N. Lindley (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972).
Part of: Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, in 33 vols.
About Liberty Fund:Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. Copyright information:The online edition of the Collected Works is published under licence from the copyright holder, The University of Toronto Press. ©2006 The University of Toronto Press. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form or medium without the permission of The University of Toronto Press. Fair use statement:This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
18711626.TO EDWIN CHADWICK1
Jan. 2. 1871 Dear ChadwickI like most of the Resolutions2 very much (I have made a few verbal corrections in some of them). The only ones I do not agree with are Resolutions 8 and 18. I do not think it safe to trust entirely to voluntary enlistment for the large defensive force which this and every other country now requires. The perfection of a military system seems to me to be, to have no standing army whatever (except the amount required for foreign possessions) but to train the whole of the able bodied male population to military service. I believe that with previous school drill, six months training at first, and a few days every succeeding year, would be amply sufficient for the infantry. This would not take away the young men from civil occupations to any material extent: the six months would be taken at the very beginning of active life; and there would be at once the greatest amount of force possible, and the strongest security against its being called out unnecessarily: for a service from which no one would be exempt would inevitably be unpopular, unless the cause were one for which the nation at large felt a real enthusiasm. Any military force composed by voluntary enlistment even under the improved circumstances contemplated by you, would have, in a greater or less degree, the inconveniences of a standing army: it would consist principally of the more idle and irregular part of the population, it would acquire a professional military spirit, and it would have time to learn habits of passive and active obedience to its commanders which would make it, if of any considerable magnitude, an apt instrument of despotism. I am |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4Included with this letter at UCL is a note dated Sept. 9, 1893, and signed Charlotte A. M. Burbury: “The three marked uncertain were among the most certain. I was only reluctant to support the vote of censure on Miss Biggs.” | ||
| 5Probably John Macdonell. | ||
| 7Louisa Courtenay, a neighbour and friend of Charles Dilke. She was also a member of the General Committee of the National Union for Improving the Education of Women of all classes. | ||
| 6Probably Henry Joseph Wilson (1833-1914), business man and liberal politician; supporter of Josephine Butler’s campaign against the ContagiousDiseases Acts; MP for Holmfirth Div., Yorkshire, 1885-1912. | ||
| Certain | Uncertain | Perhaps hostile |
| Prof. Robertson | Mrs. Burbury4 | Mrs Fawcett |
| Prof. Hunter | Mr Macdonell5 | Miss Courtenay7 |
| Miss Hare | Mr Wilson6 | |
| Miss Orme | ||
| Mr Thornton | ||
| Mr Hare | ||
But then I should like to hear from you whether you think you can reckon on Mrs Burbury for certain. We do not know her at all; but, as you think so highly of her, shall be glad to have any opportunity of making her acquaintance when in town. Mrs Fawcett also may perhaps be removed to the column of merely uncertain: but I do not think she could ever be more than uncertain. But we should much rejoice if she can be brought right. She is quite public spirited, and is a recent convert to the C.D.A. movement, which I do not think her husband sympathises in. All this is favourable; but on the other hand, she has a prosaic literal way of looking at things, and is apt to be, as I dare say you have noticed Mr Fawcett also is, a little doctrinaire—to see a principle in its full force, and not to see the opposing principles by which it must be qualified. Hence she may at any time fancy that consistency demands what I might think foolish conduct. But she would be valuable on the right side, and doubly so because, if she is not right, she is likely to be wrong.
If my table is correct (which I hope it is not) you can never reckon with certainty on more than five good votes; and therefore it would be very dangerous to elect any new members of whom you could not be certain. If, on the other hand, Miss Courtenay goes out, and Mrs Burbury can be reckoned on with certainty, you will have six certain votes against three uncertain. Still, this would only leave margin for two new members, unless you can be certain of them, in order to keep a certain majority of one voice, the very least with which you can manage the Committee.
Now there is one thing the force of which I am not sure that you will see at first, but of which, the more I consider it, the more I am convinced: and that is, that your Committee, if judicious, will pass, at the very first meeting, a vote as nearly unanimous as possible, requesting Mrs Taylor8 to resume her place as Honorary Secretary.
Her name is more associated with the original Committee to the general public, than that of any one else whatever. The Committee, with her name still as Honorary Secretary, is still the London Committee; any other must be a usurper. But with her name gone, it becomes a question, which is the Committee: and even if I am on it, still it would appear like something new in which I am concerned. Keep Mrs Taylor’s name, and the others are the innovators, the introducers of discord. Lose her name, and there is nothing to distinguish you from them. She would be the link keeping up the continuity of existence between the old Committee and the present. Then, again, you do not know when she may be persuaded to join the others. You should have her with you, if only to prevent that; merely because, if her name is in the other, the other will seem to carry with it the weight of the old Committee. Now there cannot be a doubt that it is Miss Biggs who has led her wrong: without Miss Biggs you will find her tractable, and if she is not, you will always, I hope, retain the power in your own hands of outvoting her. But I do not think you will have trouble with her. She would never be an obstinate opponent, at the very worst. Her fault is vacillation, and she is more likely not to vote at all at a crisis, than to vote wrong. Then, again, if you come to public meetings, how great an advantage on our side it would be to have her as formerly for figure head. It would be carrying on the old tradition: and her age, her appearance, that very feminine weakness which is so evident about her, is invaluable for the purpose. Her bitterest enemy cannot accuse her of being a strong-minded woman. With her for Honorary Secretary, Miss Orme for the Secretary, and Mrs Burbury for Treasurer, I should think you would do excellently. To the public eye there will have been no change at all, and you will still carry all the weight that the old Committee has acquired. Also Mrs Taylor would then permit the old address, Aubrey House, to be used, and perhaps that is worth while. Where have your meetings been held lately? To Mrs Taylor herself the Committee should put the matter, that they accepted her resignation because they understood her reluctance to be concerned in anything like a personal contest with the other party: that now the Committee has fought out the contest for itself, without implicating her, and would be glad to have her in her old place among them, now that she cannot be implicated in any unpleasant feeling in the matter.
I cannot suggest any new members on whom we can thoroughly rely, whose names would add apparent weight: but I think that Mrs Taylor’s name would be of more weight than any dozen others. The only other person whom I can at present suggest is Sir Charles Dilke. I believe that if I myself asked him, he would probably consent to join the Committee: and you would have the advantage, that if he joins you, you secure his not adding such weight as his name has to the other party. I could not feel at all sure of how he would vote, but I fancy he does not like the C.D.A. agitation: at all events he has not committed himself to it.
If you had the present Committee (without Miss Courtenay) with the addition of Mrs Taylor and Sir Charles Dilke, I reckon that you would have six votes certain right (supposing Mrs Burbury to be so), five uncertain, and one (Mr Hare) occasional. It would be madness to add any more members to the Committee of whom you are not absolutely certain: and can you be absolutely certain of any one until after you have tried them a little. I think not.
I think also that twelve is really quite enough for a good Committee. When it is numerous, it gets unmanageable, and little parties form within itself.
Pray weigh well what I have said about Mrs Taylor. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, her name will weigh more than my own: besides that I have the greatest objection to giving my own. We could at any time have insured Mrs Taylor’s fidelity would either my daughter or I have consented to give our names to the Committee. We did not decline to do so because we could not have carried the Committee with us would either of us have made that sacrifice, but because we both thought, as we still think, that the true interest of the movement demands that a good and competent Committee should exist independently of us, excepting in so far as our friends may be disposed privately to seek our advice.
There is one more thing I could advise: that is, that you and Professor Hunter should continue to be the practical managers of the Committee yourselves. All well managed Committees are really managed by one or two persons; and in practically managing the whole matter yourselves, you are not taking any advantage of others, but are really conferring a favour upon them. I am certain that this is the point of view in which it would be looked at by Mr and Miss Hare and Mr Thornton. They will be obliged to you for indicating to them the policy to be pursued, and would be glad to feel that they can rely upon your judgment and activity.
I am Dear Mr Robertson
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1693.
TO WILLIAM FRASER RAE1
- Avignon
Nov. 11, 1871
Dear Mr Rae
We think the proposed scheme for an international copyright with the United States a very good one;2 and shall willingly sign a memorial in favour of it.3
Thanks for your kind enquiries about my health. My indisposition in the spring has been much exaggerated, and I am now very well. I am
Dear Mr Rae
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1694.
TO GEORGE CROOM ROBERTSON1
- Avignon
Nov. 15. 1871
Dear Mr Robertson
As I know by experience that it is uncertain whether my letter posted today will be delivered in London on Thursday evening or Friday morning. I write this to you at Univ. College.
I write in hopes that my letter may reach you in time to prevent any repudiation on the part of your Committee of the statements put forth by the seceders. The thing of all others that we have to desire is that they would put the secession, and the disagreements in the Committee, precisely upon the ground on which it appears that they have, with a most happy shortsightedness, decided to put it. What I had feared was, that they might attempt to give some other colour to the disagreements: this, as to a difference of opinion as to associating the suffrage agitation with the Anti C.D.A. being the one point on which we ought to take our stand firmly and immovably, proclaiming it on all occasions, publicly and privately, as the ground taken up by your Committee. Any other conduct on the part of the Committee I look upon as simply suicidal. Whatever apparent influence our opponents may seem to carry with them among some of the friends of women’s rights will be more than balanced by the enormous loss with the public in general: and it is this shortsightedness with regard to the general public which betrays their want of public spirit, or else of judgment, to combat which is the sole object of the existence of your Committee. If the only object were to lead into noisy activity those and those only who go all lengths in favour of women’s rights, their policy would be excellent: their fault consists in the fact that they absolutely forget, or do not know, that the majority of the people of England have yet to be led to see the propriety of giving women any rights at all. To the mass of the English people, as well as to large numbers already well disposed towards some little improvement in women’s condition, the union of the C.D.A. agitation with that for the suffrage, condemns the latter utterly, because they look upon it as indelicate and unfeminine. The question then is, whether it is not desirable that one Committee should still be in existence which is not utterly excluded from the sympathies of all this vast mass, as well as of influential people who shrink from vulgarity. The more distinctly your Committee places itself in this position, the surer is its footing, the clearer its reason for existence, and the stronger the sympathy likely to be felt for it by the world in general.
As to the minor detail, that the seceders assert that your Committee and I wanted to drive out those who were even members of the other Association, it is doubtless a misrepresentation: but I strongly recommend not correcting it, and passing it over in absolute silence for the present. It may be contradicted in due time and place, if it should seem desirable to take up that point of detail. In the meantime your Committee should accept to the full the colour put upon the matter by the opponents. Neither is there any harm, but rather good, in their asserting that I am mixed up in the matter: let them do so uncontradicted: I dare say I stand as high as they in the estimation of the general public, and they will not damage me more than themselves.
The other point I have now to suggest is that the next move for your Committee will be some appeal to the “London Society for Women’s Suffrage.” Whether this appeal had better take the form of convening a meeting, or only of sending round a statement of the dissensions, with voting papers, to every single subscriber to the Society, I have not yet had time to consider, and should like much to know what is the opinion of yourself and Mr Hunter, as well as of the Committee. It might perhaps be well to lay this before the Committee at this very next meeting; but I do not think that there is any need for immediate decision, and it is better to weigh well every movement, than to gain any advantages by immediate action. One thing is certain: the other party will go on do what you will: the only question is, how can we all of us do most to neutralize their mischievous effect upon the general public. A single mistake on our part would do more harm for this object than any number of apparent triumphs over us on their part. The fact is, they cannot triumph over us except by doing mischief.
Could you ask Mrs Taylor to allow your meetings to be held at her house, as a favour to the Committee, on account of the difficulty they have in finding a room for the present. I would not scruple to put this as a personal favour to the members of the Committee, and to ask it of her as a kindness to the Committee, which after all is still that of which she was the head for so long.
I am
Dear Mr Robertson
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1695.
TO GEORGE CROOM ROBERTSON1
- Avignon
Nov. 27. 1871
Dear Mr Robertson
I am glad to find that you and Mr Hunter had arrived independently at the same opinion as we had. It would appear from your last letter, as well as from letters I have received from Mr Arthur Arnold and from Mr Pennington,2 that the seceders profess the intention of doing nothing to give publicity to the quarrel, and that the Committee they intend to form will call itself a Central Committee, and not another London Committee.3 Mr Pennington writes with great moderation, and I believe, as far as he is concerned, with perfect truth. Mr Arthur Arnold writes very angrily, and asserts as a positive matter of fact that there is now no lady on your Committee except Miss Hare!
Mr Hunter’s paper appears to me very suitable. In regard to an appeal to the London Society, I am not sure that it should be made at present, if it turns out to be true that the seceders do not intend to profess themselves a London Committee. As they assert that their object is to anticipate the possible action of the Manchester people,4 they may do as much good as harm, (supposing that they lay no claims to represent the London Society) in as much as I think them a less detrimental set than the Manchester people, with whom they are perhaps better qualified to cope than people who are less like them. If at any time an appeal to the Society should become necessary, I think on further reflection, that it would be better not to make it by means of a meeting, which at best can only represent those present at it, and at which there might be disturbances. I think a better method would be a circular letter addressed to each separate individual whose name is down as a subscriber, and inclosing a halfpenny post card with an alternative vote printed on it. In this way, the opinion of a real majority might be got, if it should be thought desirable to get it.
I have not forgotten my promise to give my adhesion to you by name if a conflict should arise. But this could be done in some other way than by becoming an actual member of the Committee. If you would like to put me down as Honorary President of your Committee, I should have no objection to accept the post; but as neither my daughter nor myself are likely to be able, for some time to come, to attend the Committee, we should both of us prefer not to be actual members of it, and we think my name as Honorary President would be as useful to you.
We are sorry to hear that Miss Hare, on her approaching marriage (we do not know whether it is yet public, but we understand that it is to take place in January next)5 will live out of London, and does not, therefore, think she can remain in the Committee. Might it not be worth your while to ask her to remain nevertheless? It will be very difficult, I fear, to find good lady members. I do not know what you would think of asking Mrs Westlake to return; if she did, she would probably lend her house for meetings. There is also Mrs Grey,6 of 17 Cadogan Place, who stood for Chelsea for the School Board, and who, to our knowledge, was very lately much opposed to the Anti-C.D.A. agitation. She is a lady, and her age gives weight, but we do not know much of her. I am afraid we cannot suggest any one else; the ladies we could most rely on are unhappily more or less of invalids. But I do not see why you should not choose for yourselves persons in whom you have full confidence, and whom you could work comfortably with; supposing that you think it necessary to increase the numbers of the Committee. I myself think a small Committee best for work. However, these are things for you to judge of; and now that you are freed from associates against whose faults we thought ourselves qualified to warn you, by a larger experience of them than you had had, I have no doubt you will find much fewer difficulties and much less need of advice. I am
Dear Mr Robertson
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
P.S. I need scarcely say that although, if the opponents give any publicity to the differences of opinion, I should not hesitate to take up the challenge, I still recommend avoiding anything of the sort as much as possible, as long as they do.
1696.
TO T. E. CLIFFE LESLIE1
- A[vignon]
Dec. 1. 1871
Dear Mr Leslie—
It gave me great pleasure to hear such a good account of your improvement in health, & also to learn that you have been reappointed to the India Civil Service Examinership, & that the work is increasingly interesting to you.
I am much obliged to you for sending me your paper on Financial Reform.2 I need hardly say that I have read it with the greatest interest. You have made out a stronger case than I was aware could be made, of inconvenience & economic loss from the various restrictions on business necessitated by the existence of any excise or customs. Still, this does not decide the question, for every tax produces a great deal of incidental mischief, & the problem is to find which are those that produce the least. We have got to compare the evils of our remaining indirect taxes with those of the best substitutes that it is possible to provide in lieu of them. I cannot but think that to justify the entire abolition of indirect taxes there should be some better substitute suggested than a shilling income tax. You take no notice of the demoralizing effect of a tax of which the assessment depends on people’s own returns of their incomes. I look upon this as a very serious matter indeed. One who knew City people very well predicted when the income tax was first laid on by Sir R Peel,3 that the consequence of it would be a great deterioration of commercial morality. Since then we have always been hearing complaints of the growth of mercantile dishonesty; the most flagrant instances of it have been detected where they were least looked for, & though of course it is impossible distinctly to trace the connexion between this & the income tax, I have never doubted that the tax has greatly contributed to it. A false return of income has probably been in innumerable instances the first dereliction of pecuniary integrity. That this evil must be still further increased by every increase of the tax, could only be doubted, on the supposition that this dishonesty is now so widely spread as not to admit of any further increase. Besides, the evil would be actually added to and increased by one of the most necessary improvements in the income tax viz. that of requiring returns from those who at present have their income tax deducted from their income at the time of receipt. Nothing can be more unjust than to levy income tax from multitudes of people whose income is below the limit at which the tax professedly ceases, or at which the percentage is reduced, & throw upon them, poor, ignorant, & busy as the most of them are, the burthen of bringing evidence to get the money returned.
I wish that you, & all the really enlightened enemies of indirect taxation, would turn your minds to contriving some less objectionable mode of direct taxation than the present. The house tax considering that almost all our local taxes, at least in towns, are of that nature, cannot be much increased without making the overcrowding of dwelling houses still worse than it already is. The succession tax is a resource but not an unlimited one, for that too when the sum payable is large, is too easily evaded. A tax on total expenditure would be the best tax in principle, because it would exempt savings: but I do not see any mode of imposing it which would not depend on the returns made by the payers; not to mention that great objection would be made on the score of its falling most heavily on those who have many mouths to feed.
Your friends of the Financial Reform Association4 do not feel any of these difficulties because what they desire—& what most of the advocates of exclusively direct taxation desire—is to throw the whole burthen on what they call realised property that is to say on savings; which is certainly the reverse of expedient, & is not just on any principles but those of Proudhon.
I have not insisted on the special reasons commonly urged for maintaining taxes on stimulants, because it is possible that there may be a satisfactory answer to them. Nor do I lay any stress on the utility of custom houses, &c., for statistical purposes, because it may be practicable by a system of fines to induce importers or producers to make such returns as are required. These objections, though they have some weight are plainly not decisive. But the moral objection remains, & until some mode is pointed out of raising a large revenue by direct taxation to which that objection does not apply I must think that our indirect taxes had better remain, being only lightened from time to time as the prosperity of the country increases their productiveness.
Thanks for your kind inquiries about my health. My indisposition was a good deal exaggerated but has now quite left me. My daughter is still ailing but has been rather better since the cold dry winds set in.
1697.
TO GEORGE CROOM ROBERTSON1
- Avignon
Dec. 4. 1871
Dear Mr Robertson
I hardly know what advice to give, because I am not sure whether you and the Committee will quite go with my view of the best course to take, and I do not hold with any great tenacity to my own.
I look upon it that the important thing for your Committee is much more to be than to do, and I therefore can regard with equanimity the progress which the other is sure to make. Methods will be adopted, and I am certain have been adopted, which you cannot possibly emulate, and they will have that amount of success which such methods usually have. The essential thing appears to be precisely that a Committee should exist which keeps clear of them.2 I ought however to add that in regard to subscriptions, experience has taught us to be exceedingly sceptical of the assertions made by the getters-up of Committees. For instance—have you ever had any proof in the accounts of the Treasurer, Mr Biggs, of the existence of the £500 Lecture Fund stated in the newspapers to have been subscribed this year to your Committee? If so, what has become of it? We have seen only a statement of the expenditure from the Lecture Fund of something between £100 and £200 (to the best of our recollection) and we know we sent in cheques for £100 ourselves. What has become of the other £300 or more? Now it is our opinion that the greater part of this £300 was never subscribed, and that it would be very hard upon poor Mr Biggs to call on him to pay up whatever part of it cannot be shewn to have been spent. Mrs Taylor at first was free from all these devices. I cordially hope Miss Biggs was free to the last, and that you have got the £300 in hand.3 But if, as I fear, you have not, you may console yourself by reflecting that a large part of the subscriptions you hear of are in the same predicament. The grateful astonishment with which cheques for the full amount promised are received, combined with a comparison between nominal receipts and actual expenditure, have opened our eves on this matter: and we have been told it is an established maxim with Committees in general, which we know is fully approved by some of the members of the new Committee, that the statement that thousands have been received, helps to bring in hundreds. I do not see what weapon you have against all this except that of Time, and an established character. What is founded on sham, tends to fall away: but I do not doubt that you will lose subscribers for the present, and be the victim of all sorts of misrepresentations. Still, if you are not able to do much, you can secure that there shall exist in England one Committee, upright, moderate and judicious; to be referred to if scandals should arise in regard to others. This may seem a very modest office, yet it may be an all-important one.
In regard to the Memorial, I see two courses to take. One would be, to answer it formally and shortly, something to the effect that your Committee regrets that some seceders from its body should have thought fit to establish a new Committee, and fully agrees with the Memorialists that the utmost pains should be taken to avoid any further appearance of dissensions; that it understands that the other Committee disclaims any hostile feelings, and that therefore an appeal to the whole body of the Society would probably, when it became known to the general public, be interpreted by it as a sign of graver dissensions than any that exist; and that so long as the new Committee maintains the position you understand it has taken up, of independent but not unfriendly action, you think it would be most prudent not to make any more public than at present the knowledge of such disagreements of opinion as there actually are.
Another course would be, to state the ground you take up, and I inclose a sketch to shew what I mean.4 From these two alternatives you will see that we think it best not to appeal to the Society at present. But this opinion goes with our impression that a modest quiet steady position is the only one at present practicable for our Committee, and that we cannot pretend to rival the other in newspaper paragraphs, sham subscriptions &c &c.
If, however, you do not agree in this opinion, and see your way to more energetic action, I am not prepared to disapprove of it: because I am convinced that your energy will be honest, and not sham. But if you have any great expectations of success, I fear there will be disappointment; because, even if you had not this sort of opponents to contend with, success won by honourable means must be of very slow growth, and you will find misrepresentations anticipating you in every direction. I leave it, therefore, to your judgment and that of Mr Hunter what to lay before the Committee, and therefore I do not write you any letter for the purpose. I am
Dear Mr Robertson
very truly yours
J. S. Mill
1698.
TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1
- Avignon
Dec. 5. 1871
Dear Mr Cairnes
On referring to your last letter, I am surprised to find that it was written six weeks ago. It gave me news of your health, which, if not so favourable as I had hoped from the surgical operation, was still good, and I hope to hear that the improvement as well as that which you reported in Mrs Cairnes’s health, has not only maintained itself, but made further progress.
Your remarks on Laws of Coexistence2 came at a very good moment, as my chief occupation for some time past has been the revision of my Logic for a new edition to be published next spring,3 and I have retouched some parts of what I had written on that point; though the alterations and additions I have seen reason to make are not considerable. The question is gone into rather more fully in Prof. Bain’s Logic than in mine, and you would find there a good deal to illustrate, and perhaps to confirm, your own views. With regard to those facts of coexistence which as you say “have a manifest adaptation to each other as the teeth, stomach and claws of an animal”, these are the ones which seem to me to be par excellence referable to causation; they are probably explicable by natural selection, or some other form of the evolution theory. Undoubtedly they may be used as a basis for deductions but so may all empirical laws, within definite limits of time, place, and circumstance. There may be, and Mr Bain thinks there are, uniformities of coexistence that are probably alternate; and I have never denied this, but have maintained that in the logical proof and logical use of such uniformities, they are subject to the same conditions as empirical laws.
I have not seen Mr Jevons’ book,4 but as far as I can judge from such notices of it as have reached me, I do not expect that I shall think favourably of it. He is a man of some ability, but he seems to me to have a mania for encumbering questions with useless complications, and with a notation implying the existence of greater precision in the data than the questions admit of. His speculations on Logic,5 like those of Boole6 and De Morgan, and some of those of Hamilton, are infected in an extraordinary degree with this vice. It is one preeminently at variance with the wants of the time, which demand that scientific deductions should be made as simple and as easily intelligible as they can be made without ceasing to be scientific. I look forward with much interest to seeing your notice of the book,7 which I am sorry not to see in the December Fortnightly. There is another book lately published, called a Survey of Political Economy, by a Mr McDonell,8 which the author has written to me about, and which I am expecting to receive from Blackheath. This too, judging from reviews, seems to be of little worth, unless possibly for hanging one of your excellent articles upon. Have you seen it?
Lanfrey’s Life of Napoleon,9 of which the first volume (which appeared in the Revue Nationale) is all I have read, seemed to me, as it does to you, extremely valuable. It is a pity that he has accepted a diplomatic appointment, which may interfere with his work as a writer.
I conjecture that the prediction of Mr Brace which he says has been fulfilled, is that the people of the United States would not adopt Mr Sumner’s view of the Alabama difficulty.10
My daughter unites with me in kind regards to Mrs Cairnes, and I am
Dear Mr Cairnes
ever yours truly
J. S. Mill
1699.
TO CHARLES DUPONT-WHITE1
- A[vignon]
Dec. 6, 1871
Cher Monsieur—
Merci de votre brochure.2 J’y trouve, comme dans votre autres écrits des idées, des pensées, et ce qui est plus rare, surtout en France, l’absence de toute prévention de parti: ce qui fait que tous les partis y trouveraient quelque chose que d’ordinaire ils négligent, en ne regardant pas assez. Quant à vos conclusions j’adhère complètement aux deux principales; d’abord la république, c. à. d. l’élection seulement temporaire du pouvoir exécutif; ensuite que cette élection ne soit pas faite directement par le suffrage universel. J’aurais désiré que vous eussiez exprimé une opinion raisonnée sur le mode de l’élection. Un corps électoral spécial qui aurait le droit d’élire le président me semble à tous égards une mauvaise institution, à moins que ce corps ne soit lui-même nommé par le suffrage universel: encore faudrait-il qu’il ne fût pas nommé uniquement pour cela sous peine d’arriver au même résultat que celui des États-Unis, où les électeurs sont tous nommés avec mandat impératif de voter pour un tel, de sorte que le président est réellement élu par le suffrage populaire direct. Pour empêcher cela il faudrait que les électeurs spéciaux cumulassent avec leur devoir électoral d’autres fonctions, assez importantes pour qu’en les nommant le peuple ne regardât pas exclusivement au choix du président. Je ne vois en France que les conseils départementaux et municipaux qui remplissent cette condition, et attribuer à ces corps l’élection du pouvoir exécutif pourrait être nuisible en faisant de toutes les élections à des fonctions administratives encore plus qu’à présent une pure affaire de parti politique. A tout prendre, le seul système qui me paraisse convenable est celui de l’élection du pouvoir exécutif par l’assemblée legislative. C’est là de fait, bien que ce ne soit pas en théorie le système anglais: et c’est le seul qui n’expose pas le pays à des conflits entre les deux pouvoirs—conflits qui pourraient paralyser le gouvernement pendant des années entières à moins d’un coup d’état de l’un ou de l’autre côté.
Je remarque qu’en concluant pour la république, vous vous servez principalement des arguments propres à la recommander aux classes supérieures. Cela est naturel et licite dans un écrit de circonstance.
Vous me demandez si je crois la France en décadence: C’est une question qu’on pourrait se faire aujourd’hui dans beaucoup d’autres pays. A mon sens la décadence morale est toujours la seule réelle. Qu’il y ait ou non décadence morale en France je n’oserais le dire. Il est certain que le caractère français a de très grands défauts, qui ne sont jamais plus montrés que dans l’année malheureuse qui vient de s’écouler. Mais il n’est rien moins qu’assuré que ces défauts n’ont pas existé au même degré dans ce qu’on appelle les plus beaux jours de la France. D’un autre côté les événements récents ont démontré un immense progrès, la disparition presqu’entière de la férocité. Il n’y en a là, que je sache, qu’un seul exemple bien caractérisé l’événement déplorable de la Dordogne. Du reste, nous sommes dans une époque où l’on doit s’attendre partout à un relâchement transitoire des liens moraux: attendu que les anciennes croyances qui créaient un idéal, une règle, et un frein, sont très affaiblies et que les nouvelles qui doivent les remplacer n’existent guère pour le grand nombre et ne sont pas assez affermies chez les esprits avancés, n’étant pas encore entrées dans l’éducation. Une condition nécessaire de progrès n’est pas une décadence, quoiqu’elle y ressemble quelquefois à beaucoup d’égards.
Ce qui m’inquiète davantage c’est l’insuffisance intellectuelle de la génération présente pour faire face aux difficiles et redoutables problèmes d’un avenir qui a l’air d’être très prochain.
Je crains aussi que la guerre civile de Paris ne soit fatale à la disposition d’esprit nécessaire pour juger convenablement ces questions épineuses; et que l’exaspération mutuelle des deux partis n’éloigne plus que jamais chacun d’eux d’écouter ce qu’il y a de juste et de raisonnable dans les réclamations de l’autre. Quelque dangereuse que soit l’extrême crudité des idées des socialistes révolutionnaires, ce qui m’alarme beaucoup plus c’est l’effroyable abus de la répression par le parti aujourd’hui victorieux, aux yeux duquel il suffit d’avoir désiré le moindre des changements qui ont figuré dans le programme de la commune pour être un ennemi de la société, et qui semble vouloir massacrer ou déporter en masse s’il est possible, tout le parti opposé. J’avoue que dans les dispositions actuelles du parti de l’ordre, l’unanimité politique des classes supérieures que vous espérez obtenir par la république ne me semblerait promettre qu’un effort violent pour tenir la classe ouvrière en sujétion par tous les moyens usités de la tyrannie monarchique—moyens qui seraient même portés à un plus grand excès par des classes dominantes que n’oserait le faire aujourd’hui un seul homme. Et si par ces moyens on venait à supprimer pour un certain temps toute tentative de résistance légale ou violente, on ne se servirait pas de ce répit pour mettre les questions sociales à l’étude dans le but de donner une satisfaction légitime aux aspirations naturelles de la class ouvrière; non, on s’endormirait comme sous le régime impérial pour se reveiller au milieu d’un bouleversement général. Voilà ce que je crains pour la France, et à un moindre degré pour les autres pays de l’Europe.
Quant à la France j’avoue qu’en vue de l’avenir, et même d’un avenir proche, il me semble que la meilleure ressource serait dans le fédéralisme. Ce serait là le moyen d’adoucir la transition à une autre organisation sociale; en permettant aux novateurs de faire des expériences limités, sans entraîner avec eux des masses de population qui n’en veulent pas et qui s’y opposeraient par la force si on tentait de les mettre en oeuvre chez elles.
Ma fille se recommande aux bons souvenirs de Mme D. White à qui je vous prie d’être l’interprète de mes hommages.
[1. ]MS at UCL. MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Chadwick’s letter of Dec. 26, to which this is a reply. Published, except for first two sentences, in Elliot, II, 291.
[2. ]Draft Resolutions, as the Foundation for a Memorial, proposed for the consideration of the Special Committee of the National Association for Promotion of Social Science, appointed after the reading and discussion of Mr. Frederic Hill’s paper on the Military Policy of this Country (London, 1871). The British Museum has also a copy of the revised resolutions of the special committee, May, 1871.
Hill’s paper, “The Policy of England in Regard to War,” had been read at a meeting of the Jurisprudence Section of the NAPSS on Nov. 21, 1870. The paper was published separately, London, 1870; it contains, pp. 19-21, Chadwick’s comments at the meeting.
[1. ]MS at Cornell.
[1. ]MS not located. Excerpt published in P. J. and A. E. Dobell’s Catalogue No. 24 (1923).
Mrs. Fanny Hertz, a resident of Bradford, active in women’s causes. For a paper by her on “Mechanics’ Institutes for Working Women,” see NAPSS, Transactions, 1859 (London, 1860), pp. 347-54.
[2. ]A public meeting on the Contagious Diseases Acts was held in St. George’s Hall, Bradford, on Jan. 18, 1871. For a report of it, see the Bradford Daily Telegraph, Jan. 19, 1871, p. 4.
[1. ]MS at Cornell.
[1. ]MS draft at LSE.
[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. In reply to Morley’s letter of Jan. 3, also at Johns Hopkins. Published in Elliot, II, 292-93.
[2. ]See Letter 1620.
[3. ]As Morley had invited him to do for the Fortnightly Review.
[4. ]Including such men as Edward Beesly and Frederic Harrison. For an account, see “The Positivists: A Study of Labour’s Intellectuals,” chap. vi in Royden Harrison, Before the Socialists.
[5. ]Morley had reported that Cairnes was going to write on the question of national defence. Cairnes’s article, “Our Defences: A National or a Standing Army,” appeared in FR, n.s. IX (Feb., 1871), 167-98.
[6. ]Comte Agénor Étienne de Gasparin, La République neutre d’Alsace (Geneva, 1870).
[1. ]MS at Arsenal.
[2. ]JSM was to address a women’s suffrage meeting in the Music Hall, Edinburgh, on Jan. 12, 1871. His speech was subsequently printed as a pamphlet (Edinburgh, 1873). For a contemporary account, see The Times, Jan. 13, 1871, p. 3.
[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Chadwick’s of Jan. 13 to which this is a reply.
[2. ]See Letter 1626.
[3. ]See Letter 1631, n. 5.
[1. ]MS at Brit. Mus. In reply to Dilke’s of Jan. 16, MS at Yale.
[2. ]The Roll of the Club to 1920 does not record the names of any women members.
[3. ]William Newmarch was Treasurer of the Club from 1855 to 1882.
[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. In reply to Brace’s of Dec. 11, 1870, MS also at Johns Hopkins. Published in Elliot, II, 294-97.
[2. ]Elizabeth Garrett (Anderson) and Emily Davies.
[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Mrs. Halsted’s letter of Dec. 29 to which this is a reply. Published in Elliot, II, 293-94.
Mrs. Halsted in her letter identified herself only as an American, resident in Florence.
[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. In reply to Willcox’s of Oct. 11, 1870, but with a postscript dated Nov. 11, also at Johns Hopkins. Partly published in Elliot, II, 303. Bears note in JSM’s hand: From New York Liberal Club, with diploma of membership and reply Jan. 20, 1871 (letter on protection). For publication. J.S. Mill.
J. K. Hamilton Willcox (1842-1898), American insurance broker and politician, prominent in the woman suffrage movement. He had visited JSM at Avignon in Sept., 1869.
[2. ]JSM had been elected a member of the New York Liberal Club, an organization founded in 1869 on the hundredth anniversary of the birth of Alexander von Humboldt, for the discussion of papers on both political and non-political subjects. See next Letter.
[3. ]Including a synopsis of a lecture delivered by Willcox to the New York Liberal Club on Aug. 19, 1870, headed “Women’s Sphere—Population and Suffrage—New Views,” in Woodhull and Claffin’s Weekly, Aug. 27, 1870.
[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published in New York Tribune, Feb. 13, 1871, p. 2, and in Elliot, II, 298-302. In reply to the letter of the Secretary of the New York Liberal Club of Oct. 11, 1870, announcing JSM’s election as a corresponding member.
[2. ]See preceding Letter, n. 2.
[3. ]David Ames Wells, a recent convert to free trade, in his Report of 1869 as Special Commissioner of the Revenue took such an extreme free-trade point of view that President U. S. Grant abolished the office of Special Commissioner in 1870.
[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as are also Leslie’s letter of Jan. 22 to which this is a reply and his rejoinder of Feb. 7, 1871. Published in part in Elliot, II, 303-304.
[2. ]The meeting was on Feb. 3, with Sir Charles Dilke leading on the question, “Would the institution of Free Schools have a tendency to pauperize the parents of the children who might be taught in them?”
[3. ]At St James’s Hall on March 25, 1871.
[4. ]Sir Robert Anstruther (1834-1886), lord lieutenant and sheriff principal of Fifeshire from 1864; MP for Fifeshire, 1864-80.
[5. ]“The Military Systems of Europe in 1867,” North British Rev., n.s. VIII (Dec., 1867), 404-40, reprinted in Leslie’s Essays in Political and Moral Philosophy, pp. 128-47.
[6. ]In Switzerland every male citizen between the ages of nineteen and forty-four was required to serve in the army each year, but for very short periods in time of peace.
[7. ]Edwin Chadwick was an ardent advocate of military drill in schools as part of his half-time scheme of education.
[1. ]MS at Brit. Mus.
[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published, except for last paragraph, in Elliot, II, 304-305.
[2. ]Italy had occupied Rome by force on Sept. 20, 1870.
[3. ]The preliminary peace treaty between France and Germany was signed on Feb. 26, and the final treaty ending the War, on May 10, 1871.
[4. ]Villari had been appointed undersecretary for education in 1869.
[5. ]Eventually published as Niccolò Machiavelli e i suoi tempi (3 vols., Florence, 1877-82).
[6. ]See Letter 1516.
[1. ]MS at Brit. Mus. The year is pencilled in in another hand.
[1. ]MS not located. Excerpt published in S. H. Harris, Auberon Herbert: Crusader for Liberty (London, 1943), p. 123.
Auberon Edward William Molyneux Herbert (1838-1906), third son of the Earl of Carnarvon; political philosopher and author; MP, Nottingham, 1870-74. He had become acquainted with JSM in 1866.
[2. ]Herbert had endorsed the Swiss system of universal military training in the debate in the House of Commons on March 13, 1871. See Hansard, CCIV, cols. 1947-48.
[1. ]MS draft at LSE, as is also Longman’s reply of March 16, agreeing to publish the pamphlet.
[2. ]See Letter 1466, n. 5.
[1. ]MS draft at LSE, as is also Longman’s reply of March 20. See preceding Letter.
[1. ]MS not located. Published in Elliot, II, 306. Attributed by Elliot to Helen Taylor.
Mark Hayler Judge (1847-1927), architect, writer on socialism, trades unions and the law, and health conditions.
[1. ]MS draft at LSE, as is also Longman’s of March 20.
[2. ]See Letter 1643.
[1. ]MS at Huntington.
[2. ]See Letter 1653.
[3. ]See Letter 1650.
[1. ]MS at the Women’s Service Library, London.
[2. ]Rhoda Garrett (1841-1882), a cousin of Mrs. Fawcett, and by profession a house decorator.
[1. ]MS draft at LSE, as is also their letter of March 24 to which this is a reply.
[2. ]See Letters 1643 and 1646.
[1. ]MS at Huntington. See Letter 1647.
[2. ]The Works of Jeremy Bentham, ed. John Bowring (11 vols., Edinburgh and London, 1838-43).
[1. ]MS in 1944 in the possession of Professor Harold Laski.
[2. ]Village Communities in the East and West (London, 1871).
[3. ]“Mr. Maine on Village Communities,” FR, n.s. IX (May, 1871), 543-56, reprinted in Dissertations, Brit. ed., IV, 130-53, Am. ed., V, 143-68.
[1. ]MS not located. Excerpt published in A. R. Wallace, My Life: A Record of Events and Opinions (2 vols., New York, 1905), II, 256.
[2. ]The first public meeting of the Land Tenure Reform Association, originally scheduled for May 3, 1871, was held at Freemasons’ Hall, Great Queen St., London, on May 15, with JSM as Chairman and principal speaker (see The Times, May 17, 1871, p. 7).
[3. ]See Letters 1570 and 1571.
[1. ]MS at Huntington.
[2. ]See Letters 1647 and 1650.
[1. ]MS draft at LSE, as are Holyoake’s of March 24, to which this is a reply, and of April 12.
[1. ]MS draft at LSE, as is also Longman’s of April 18.
[2. ]Longman had reported that, although the agreement with respect to On Liberty had expired the previous November, they had inadvertently printed 1,000 in January.
[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Kelsall’s letter of March 20 to which this is a reply. Partly published in Elliot, II, 306-307. The original of this letter in 1935 was in the possession of Kelsall’s granddaughters, the Misses E. W. and F. E. Kelsall; see H. W. Donner, The Browning Box (London, 1935), pp. lxiv-lxv.
Thomas Forbes Kelsall (1799-1872), solicitor who lived at Fareham; close friend and literary executor of the poet Thomas Lovell Beddoes.
Kelsall had written to protest against JSM’s remark in his “Explanatory Statement of the Programme of the Land Tenure Reform Association” that the game found on common lands was the property of the lord of the manor.
[1. ]MS not located. Excerpt quoted in Frederic Harrison, Autobiographic Memoirs, I, 302. The portion in brackets is Harrison’s introduction to the quotation.
[1. ]MS draft at LSE, as is also Odger’s reply of May 19. The draft also contains a covering note to d’Eichthal to accompany the letter of introduction: “Mon cher d’Eichthal, Tiens un mot d’introduction à M. Odger. Son adresse est. . . . May 1, 1871.” D’Eichthal was then visiting London.
[1. ]MS at Melbourne.
[1. ]MS draft at LSE, as are also Charles and Duncan McLaren’s letters of April 23 and 24.
[2. ]Charles Benjamin Bright McLaren (1850-1934), in later life a highly successful barrister and man of business; MP for Stafford, 1880-86, and for the Bosworth division of Leicestershire, 1892-1910; created first Baron of Aberconway, 1911. No copy of Charles McLaren’s printed but not published volume of essays has been located. At this time he wanted a testimonial to support his application for an examinership in philosophy at Edinburgh.
[1. ]MS at UCL.
[2. ]The issues with which JSM was chiefly to concern himself in his correspondence with Robertson over the following year with reference to the split in the woman suffrage movement remain obscure. One wing of the movement, led by the Manchester group which included Lydia Becker and Jacob Bright, sought to supplant the London committee of the London National Society for Women’s Suffrage (with which JSM had been closely associated since its founding in July, 1867) by setting up a Central Committee of the National Society for Women’s Suffrage in which the London Society would be represented but would no longer be dominant. The agitation led this year to a breaking off of a new “Central Committee” from the London Society. An important reason for the split was the desire of JSM and his supporters to avoid linking the women suffrage movement with the agitation for the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts. JSM strongly favoured the repeal of these Acts but believed that the cause of women’s suffrage would be seriously injured if it became involved in the highly controversial movement led by Josephine Butler. See Letters 1669 and 1680. In 1877, four years after JSM’s death, the London Committee amalgamated with the Central Committee.
[3. ]Thomas Hare and William Alexander Hunter were both members of the London Committee.
[4. ]Mrs. Peter Taylor had been a leading member of the London Committee from the first.
[1. ]MS draft at LSE.
[2. ]The following has been cancelled in the draft: “The book itself was intended to be intelligible to beginners, & was made full & minute in its explanations on purpose that it might be so. I think I have done enough in publishing a very cheap edition of it, & I am afraid of anything which might tend to make it available for cram.” No abridgement of the Pol. Econ. appears to have been published before the one prepared as a college textbook by J. L. Laughlin (New York, 1884).
Possibly William Howitt (1792-1879), miscellaneous writer.
[3. ]Not otherwise identified.
[1. ]MS at UCL.
[2. ]See Letter 1661.
[1. ]MS draft at LSE, as is also Longman’s of May 15, to which this is a reply.
[2. ]See Letter 1662.
[1. ]MS draft at LSE, as is also Longman’s of May 19.
[2. ]In Aug., 1870, the Germans had laid siege to Strasbourg and for three nights (Aug. 23-26) heavily bombarded the city. Among the many public buildings destroyed was the Bibliothèque municipale, with its 200,000 volumes, 5,000 incunabula, and 1,600 manuscripts. Shortly after the capitulation of Strasbourg on Oct. 5, 1870, the victors launched an appeal, signed by many German publishers and librarians, for a fund to rebuild the Library. Committees were formed all over the world to collect money and books. The new University Library was inaugurated in 1871, but was not installed in a new building until 1895.
[1. ]MS at Arsenal. Largely published in D’Eichthal Corresp., pp. 232-33, and in Cosmopolis, pp. 789-90. In reply to d’Eichthal’s of May 16, MS at Johns Hopkins. D’Eichthal, then visiting London, dated his letter from Queen’s Road, Bayswater.
[2. ]The Land Tenure Reform Association, of which the first public meeting had been held on May 15, with JSM presiding.
[3. ]See Letter 1658. Odger’s letter of May 19 is at LSE.
[4. ]Louis François Michel Raymond Wolowski, French economist and politician, elected this year a member of the national assembly.
[5. ]A revolution by the working class and the National Guard against the conservative national assembly led by Thiers had broken out on March 18 in an effort to establish the Commune de Paris. Government troops under General MacMahon marched on Paris from Versailles in May, and defeated the Commune in savage street battles, May 21-25. It has been estimated that 80,000 Parisians lost their lives in the revolution.
[1. ]MS draft at LSE, as is also Hales’s of May 27 to which this is a reply.
John Hales (b. 1839), by trade an elastic web weaver, active in the International Working Men’s Association since 1866, had succeeded J. G. Eccarius as secretary to its General Council on May 16, 1871.
[2. ]Hales had written that a committee had been formed to see whether something could be done “to stay the brutalities of the Versailles Government.” On May 31 a meeting of representatives of various republican and democratic societies in London, convened by the General Council of the International Working Men’s Association, was held at the Association Rooms, 256 High Holborn, to consider steps to be taken to prevent the English Government’s extraditing any French Communist refugees who might seek refuge in England. This letter by JSM was read at the meeting. See The Times, June 1, 1871, p. 6, and Daily News of same day, p. 3.
[3. ]See preceding Letter, n. 5.
[1. ]MS not located. Excerpt published in S. H. Harris, Auberon Herbert, p. 131.
Herbert’s engagement to Lady Florence Amabel Cowper had been announced on May 22.
[1. ]MS in a collection of Ward’s papers in the Library of the University of Texas. Ward’s name is pencilled on the MS in an unknown hand.
Thomas Humphry Ward (1845-1926), man of letters and a member of The Times staff; husband of the novelist Mrs. Humphry Ward.
[2. ]Two letters, signed “A Hertfordshire Incumbent,” on JSM and the land question with reference to the meeting of the Land Tenure Reform Association on May 15, had appeared in The Times, May 19, p. 9, and May 23, p. 12.
[3. ]“Mr. Mill and the Land Question,” Daily News, May 29, 1871, p. 5.
[4. ]Joseph Williams Blakesley (1808-1885), author, Vicar of Ware, Herts., 1845-72; widely known as the “Hertfordshire Incumbent,” who contributed many letters to The Times on social questions.
[1. ]MS at UCL.
[2. ]Caroline Ashurst Biggs became secretary of the new Central Committee several years later.
[3. ]Joseph Biggs, a well-known radical of Leicester, who married Matilda Ashurst, sister of James Stansfeld’s wife.
[4. ]Probably Eliza Orme, who in 1875 became perhaps the first woman lawyer in England.
[5. ]Mrs. John Westlake.
[6. ]Mrs. Charlotte A. M. Burbury.
[1. ]MS at UCL.
[2. ]See preceding Letter.
[3. ]Thomas Hare and his daughter Katherine, afterwards Mrs. Clayton.
[4. ]William Thomas Thornton.
[1. ]MS at Cornell.
[2. ]Christie’s A Life of Anthony Ashley Cooper, first Earl of Shaftesbury, 1621-1683 (2 vols., London, 1871).
[1. ]MS draft at LSE, as is also Longman’s of June 26, agreeing to publish Bissett’s essays.
[2. ]Published later this year by Longman: Andrew Bissett, Essays on Historical Truth. The volume contains an essay on James Mill.
[3. ]History of the Commonwealth of England from the death of Charles I to the expulsion of the Long Parliament by Cromwell (2 vols., London, 1864-67).
[1. ]MS at LSE.
Dated by JSM’s botanical notebook at LSE and by the reference to The Times.
[2. ]The richest of the Scottish mountains for botanizing.
[3. ]See “Floods in the Tyrol,” The Times, July 11, 1871, p. 11, a letter from a correspondent about floods and avalanches in the Alps, particularly in the Engadine Pass, where in June the walls of snow were twenty feet high.
[1. ]MS at LSE. Cairnes’s reply of Aug. 25 is in MS copy at LSE.
[2. ]“Berkeley’s Life and Writings,” FR, n.s. X (Nov., 1871), 505-24, reprinted in Dissertations, Brit. ed. IV, 151-87.
[3. ]Officers of H.M.S. Agincourt were convicted on July 26 of negligence in the stranding of the ship on Pearl Rock, Gibraltar, and on Aug. 19 the Admiralty superseded Vice-Admiral Wellesley and Rear-Admiral Wilmot for negligence in plotting the course of the squadron of which the Agincourt was a member. On June 17, H.M.S. Megaera was grounded on St. Paul’s Island and abandoned.
[4. ]Eyre’s legal expenses were paid by Gladstone’s government in 1872, and in 1874 he was awarded a pension by Disraeli’s.
[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. In reply to Giles’s letter of May 10, 1870, also at Johns Hopkins. Published, with one omission, in Elliot, II, 308.
Joseph Giles, of Westport, N.Z. (1832-1930), physician, editor, later magistrate and farmer. He had sent JSM a copy of an essay on the need of higher education for women and a review of a lecture by a Judge Richmond on man’s place in creation. Giles had asked JSM, “How far is a strict and logical philosophy consistent with religious faith?”
[2. ]Probably Christopher William Richmond (1821-1895), from 1862 a judge of the Supreme Court of New Zealand.
[3. ]Giles had written: “Your letter to Mr. Pharazyn [Letter 991] places all our views upon such subjects on the basis of an hypothesis, but what I want to know is whether the fact that this hypothesis when assumed solves more problems, and produces more human excellence, than any other, does not in your opinion warrant a considerable degree of confidence in it.”
[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published in W. M. Wood, “Octroi Taxes and J. S. Mill’s Opinion Thereon,” in “Things of India” Made Plain; or a Journalist’s Retrospect (Part 1-3, London, 1884-89), pp. 380-82, from The Times of India, Sept. 22, 1871; and in Elliot, II, 307.
William Martin Wood (b. 1828), then editor of The Times of India.
[2. ]Wood had called JSM’s attention to a letter by one R. Knight, Indian economist, of Bombay.
[1. ]MS at LSE.
[2. ]Arnould Frémy (b. 1809), French novelist and journalist.
[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published in Elliot, II, 308-10.
Emile Acollas (1826-1891), French jurisconsult and politician, then professor of French law at the University of Berne.
[2. ]Manuel de droit civil à l’usage des étudiants, contenant l’exégèse du Code Napoléon (3 vols., Paris, 1869).
[3. ]A letter of Aug. 3, 1871, to Charles Mismer, published with Mismer’s reply, under the heading “Le Problème Social,” in The Levant Times and Shipping Gazette, Aug. 19, 1871, p. 787.
[4. ]La République et la contre-révolution (a letter to the Journal de Genève, April 21, 1871), republished at Geneva, 1871.
[5. ]JSM was mistaken as to the date; the reference is to his review, “Scott’s Life of Napoleon,” WR, IX (April, 1828), 251-313.
[1. ]MS at LSE. In reply to Cairnes’s of Aug. 25, MS copy also at LSE.
[2. ]Cairnes had written: “I remember telling you how much struck I was by a remark in your Logic to the effect that there was no necessary law of coexistence, as there are laws of succession. It has since occurred to me that this is only true of inorganic science, and that in the case of organisms the presence of certain elements implies the presence or absence of others. Thus in animals teeth of a certain kind imply a certain sort of stomach, claws or hoofs as the case may be, and so forth: so that we may conceive the ‘form’ of an organism in Bacon’s sense of the word. And similarly, it seems to me, we find necessary laws of coexistence in the social organism: certain moral conditions implying certain complementary conditions in the political religious and aesthetic spheres: indeed this is the meaning of society being organic. The same law holds very obviously in the economic domain. Given conditions of productive industry and a given state of rent implies certain facts as to profits and wages; and vice versa profits and wages within certain limits determine rent and the productiveness of industry. These are the sort of relations which I think Comte had in view when he spoke of the statistical [copyist’s error for statical ?] treatment of the social science as opposed to the Dynamical; and what my point comes to is this, that the true analogy for the distinction in question is not that between statics and dynamics, but that between laws of succession and laws of coexistence, which distinction runs pretty nearly parallel with that between the inorganic and organic method of study.”
[3. ]See Logic, Book III, chap. xxii, “Of Uniformities of Coexistence not dependent on Causation.”
[4. ]See Letter 1674, n. 2.
[5. ]Of July 4, 1871, MS at Johns Hopkins.
[6. ]Which speech of Senator Charles Sumner is referred to is not clear. It may have been his famous speech of April 13, 1869, which led to the rejection of the Johnson-Clarendon treaty to settle the Alabama Claims. Sumner supported, however, the Washington Treaty of 1871 in a speech on May 19.
[1. ]MS at UCL. Bears note: “read to Committee.”
[2. ]For JSM’s alterations in the wording, see the next Letter, a private one to Robertson.
[3. ]See Letter 1661, n. 2.
[1. ]MS at UCL. Bears note: Private.
[2. ]William Alexander Hunter, a member of the London Committee.
[3. ]See preceding Letter.
[4. ]Caroline Ashurst Biggs.
[5. ]Mrs. Peter A. Taylor.
[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published, except for final paragraph, in Elliot, II, 310-12. In reply to Brace’s of July 4, MS also at Johns Hopkins.
[2. ]Quoted from Brace’s letter of July 4.
[3. ]Brace had written: “Thus far in this country, in recent struggles between Labor and Capital, Labor has had the advantage—in shortening hours of work and in keeping up wages—for which I am rejoiced—as certainly the employing class has had most of the good things of life in the past. Large fortunes can not be made as easily as once—the gains of the capitalist being smaller relatively. Working men seem in a very prosperous condition, though they feel the tariff much.”
[4. ]The Treaty of Washington, signed on May 8, 1871, provided for four separate arbitrations of the disputes between England and America, the most ambitious arbitral undertaking in world history up to that time. The principal arbitration was that of the Alabama Claims, concluded on Sept. 14, 1872.
[5. ]Brace was one of the founders of the Children’s Aid Society in New York, and for many years its executive officer.
[6. ]Vol. LXXXIX, pp. 73-100.
[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as are also Robinson’s letter of Sept. 28, to which this is a reply, and his rejoinder of Oct. 21. Published in Elliot, II, 312-13.
Robinson (d. 1877) identified himself as trade accountant of the West Riding Prison, Wakefield, then the largest manufacturing prison in the kingdom.
[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as is also Stapleton’s letter of Aug. 19 to which this is a reply.
Stapleton, a resident of Plymouth, was an advocate of nationalization of the land. See also Letter 1690.
[2. ]Apparently never published.
[1. ]MS not located. Published in the New York Tribune, November 18, 1871, p. 5, with the remark that it “was read to the Liberal Club last night.” Though the published letter bears no indication of the recipient, it is highly probable that he was Willcox. See Letters 1637 and 1638.
[2. ]Letter 1638.
[3. ]Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, on the same day that he published JSM’s letter of Jan. 20, 1871, vigorously attacked its free-trade views: “Mill on Protection,” Feb. 13, 1871, p. 4. Further attacks were published by the Tribune: “Mill’s Logic,” Feb. 15, p. 4, and “Intentions in Statesmanship,” Feb. 17, p. 4. Greeley also attacked this letter of JSM in an editorial in the Tribune, Nov. 20, 1871, p. 4.
Willcox in his article, “A Visit to John Stuart Mill at Avignon,” Appleton’s Journal, IX (June 14, 1873), 785-88, reported that in reply to Willcox’s question whether Greeley and Carlyle did not have much in common, JSM replied that “in intensity of purpose, doggedness of opinion, sincerity of character, one-sidedness of judgment, and blind hatred for the higher forms of liberty, they are much alike.” In reply to Willcox’s question, “But has Carlyle been of any real use in the world as Greeley has?” JSM replied: “Yes, though he has usually advocated objectionable ideas, he has been so sincere that he has compelled sincerity in others. Where he has not convinced people of the truth of his beliefs, he has forced them to re-examine the grounds of their own beliefs, and has obliged them to believe much more sincerely, and thus has accomplished great good. He has materially aided also to break up a large amount of pretence and imposture.”
[1. ]MS at UCL. Bears note: Private.
[2. ]See Letter 1681.
[3. ]The Manchester Women’s Suffrage Society, led by Lydia E. Becker and Jacob Bright.
[1. ]MS at Brit. Mus. Last paragraph in Dilke, p. 638.
[2. ]William Newmarch, “Address on Economy and Trade,” delivered Oct. 11, 1871, at a meeting of the NAPSS at Leeds. See NAPSS, Transactions for 1871 (London, 1872), pp. 109-33. The Times has a long report of it, Oct. 12, 1871, p. 10.
[3. ]Newmarch opposed articles 7-10 of the programme of the Land Tenure Reform Association, which he thought threatened private property.
[4. ]Newmarch pointed to four or five Land and Building Societies that had become wealthy and powerful, and maintained that their owners would resist appropriation of future increases of income of rent.
[5. ]He mentioned the mismanagement of the Jarndyce estate by the Court of Chancery in Dickens’ Bleak House as exemplifying what might happen if government were to own or manage land.
[1. ]MS at UCL.
[2. ]Probably William Dougal Christie.
[3. ]The movement for the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts.
[1. ]MS at UCL. Bears note: “Read to Committee, except last half page.”
[2. ]The last half page, which JSM did not want to have read to the Committee, begins here.
[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as are also Stapleton’s letter of Oct. 18 (to which this is a reply) and a rejoinder of Nov. 10. Published in Elliot, II, 313-15. See Letter 1684.
[2. ]This was the year of the exposure of widespread corruption in New York City under the rule of William M. (“Boss”) Tweed and Tammany Hall.
[3. ]The MS is illegible at this point.
[1. ]MS at UCL.
[2. ]Mr. and Mrs. Peter A. Taylor. See Letter 1681.
[3. ]Mrs. James Stansfeld.
[1. ]MS at UCL.
[2. ]The crisis within the Committee of the London National Society for Women’s Suffrage had been surmounted. Miss Carolyn Biggs resigned as Secretary, and her supporters withdrew from the Committee.
[3. ]JSM subsequently consented to serve as Honorary President.
[8. ]Mrs. Peter Taylor.
[1. ]MS in the Osborn Collection, Yale.
[2. ]In Oct., 1871, a great flurry of interest arose in England over the question of international copyright. In response to a number of letters to the Editor, The Times on Oct. 14, p. 9, in a leader urged American acceptance of a copyright law which would protect foreign authors. On Oct. 20, p. 10, The Times published a reply by William H. Appleton, a partner in the New York firm of D. Appleton & Co., stating that “an International Copyright Law, rigorously in the author’s interest, requiring him to make contracts for American republication directly with American publishers, and taking effect only with books entirely manufactured in the United States, would be acceptable to the [American] people.”
Efforts to pass an international copyright law in the U.S. Congress in 1872 failed as did ten other efforts between 1843 and 1886, and it was not until 1891 that the American Copyright Acts were passed.
[3. ]William Appleton drafted a bill incorporating the principles of his letter to The Times of Oct. 20. A Memorial favouring this bill was presented on Feb. 7, 1872, by Appleton to the Library Committee of the House in Washington, signed by fifty British authors, including JSM, Carlyle, Darwin, Morley, Ruskin, Froude, G. H. Lewes, and Thomas Hughes.
[1. ]MS at UCL.
There is also at UCL the MS of a second letter to Robertson of the same date, bearing the note: “Read to Committee.” The second letter is virtually identical with this one, except that the first paragraph is omitted and these two relative clauses are added to the last sentence of this letter: “which would be glad to have her among them again, and which acceded to her own wish to retire because they understood her wish to be grounded on the desire to keep free of personal ill will.”
[1. ]MS at UCL.
[2. ]Frederick Pennington (1819-1914), a member of the Central Committee of the National Society for Women’s Suffrage; later (1874-85) MP for Stockford.
[3. ]See Letter 1692.
[4. ]See Letter 1661.
[5. ]Katherine Hare, daughter of Thomas Hare, married the Rev. Lewis Clayton, of St. James’s, Northampton, on Jan. 2, 1872.
[6. ]Maria Georgina Grey (1816-1906), sister of Emily Shirreff; wife of William Thomas Grey, a nephew of the second Earl Grey. In 1870 she was defeated by a few votes in the first election for the London School Board when she ran as a candidate for Chelsea. In 1871 she formed the National Union for the Education of Women. She was a frequent contributor on social and educational subjects to Fraser’s, Contemporary Review, The Nineteenth Century, and The Fortnightly Review.
[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins, as are also Leslie’s letter of Nov. 1 to which this is a reply, and his rejoinder of Jan. 3, 1872. Published in Elliot, II, 315-18.
[2. ]“Financial Reform,” Cobden Club Essays, Second Series, 1871-2 (London, Paris, and New York, 1872), pp. 185-259.
[3. ]An income tax had first been imposed by Pitt in April, 1799, and abolished at the end of the war with France. The tax was reinstituted by Peel in 1842.
[4. ]Established in Liverpool in 1848, it favoured economy in government, free trade, and direct taxation: it published occasional papers and pamphlets.
[1. ]MS at UCL.
[2. ]See Letters 1661 and 1692.
[3. ]Included with this letter at UCL is an undated note (probably the same date as the note in Letter 1692, n. 4) signed Charlotte A. M. Burbury: “The Lecture Fund of £500 was fully accounted for by Mr Biggs. When I became Treasurer the balance then remaining was handed over to me.”
[4. ]The draft was as follows:
“The Committee much regrets that in consequence of some differences of opinion, some of its members should not merely have decided to retire from it, but to establish another Committee: because it is possible that the mere facts of the existence of the other Committee may in some quarters give rise to the impression of grave dissensions. So long however as the new Committee disclaims all hostile feelings and intentions, and professes merely to desire tooccupy ground different from that of our Committee, it appears to us that an appeal to the general body of the subscribers would be calculated to make generally public differences of opinion which since they must exist, had better, if possible, be confined to the knowledge of the Executive Bodies and of such persons only as are intimately acquainted with the working of the movement.
“Should the new Committee place itself in any degree in a hostile position towards the original Committee, or take any measures at all calculated to attract public attention to disagreements of opinion, it might become the duty of the original Committee to appeal to the general body of the Society for support. But we are of opinion that it is not impossible that the two Committees should co-exist without hostile feeling, working upon different plans undoubtedly but with the same object: and we think that such a division of labour would be more consistent with the objects we all have in view, than any concession, on our part, of the principle upon which we have taken our stand, viz. a careful avoidance of even apparent mingling of any other agitation with that which we are engaged in for women’s suffrage. We hold it to be important that no person conspicuously engaged, either as officer or as lecturer, in some other agitations now proceeding, to which we will not further allude, should hold any conspicuous place in the movement for Women’s Suffrage. In this opinion the founders of the new Committee totally disagree; in proof of which we have merely to refer to the names of its Honorary Secretaries. We believe that there are many who will agree with them, as well as many who will agree with us. We see no occasion for unfriendly or personal feeling in the matter: but we have arrived deliberately at the opinion that it would be better that two Committees should coexist than that one only should exist exposed to the reasonable dissatisfaction of those friends of Women’s Suffrage strongly opposed to some other movements now on foot: inasmuch as if there existed no executive body entirely disconnected with those other movements,many friends of Women’s Suffrage might find themselves compelled to withdraw their support.”
[1. ]MS at LSE. In reply to Cairnes’s of Oct. 23, MS copy also at LSE.
[2. ]See Letter 1679.
[3. ]The 8th ed., 1872.
[4. ]William Stanley Jevons, The Theory of Political Economy (London and New York, 1871). Jevons (1835-1882), economist and logician, then professor of logic and political economy at Owens College, Manchester; later (1876-81) professor of political economy at University College, London. He was probably the most acute of JSM’s contemporary critics in both economics and logic.
[5. ]Jevons in 1865 had sent JSM a copy of his Pure Logic, or the Logic of Quality apart from Quantity, with remarks on Boole’s System and on the Relation of Logic to Mathematics (1864). In a letter of May 8, 1865 (MS at Johns Hopkins) Jevons upbraided JSM for ignoring Boole’s writings, particularly on the question of the quantification of the predication in both the Logic and the Hamilton. Johns Hopkins also has a letter by Jevons to JSM of March 16, 1868, but no replies by JSM have been located.
[6. ]George Boole (1815-1864), mathematician and logician, from 1849 professor of mathematics at Queen’s College, Cork.
[7. ]“New Theories in Political Economy,” FR, n.s. XI (Jan., 1872), 71-76.
[8. ]Sir John Macdonell, A Survey of Political Economy (Edinburgh, 1871).
[9. ]Pierre Lanfrey, Histoire de Napoléon Ier (5 vols., Paris, 1867-75).
[10. ]See Letter 1679, n. 6.
[1. ]MS draft at Johns Hopkins. Published in Elliot, II, 318-20. Last sheet marked: Dupont White / Dec. 6. 1871 / For publication / J.S.Mill.
[2. ]Presumably Dupont-White’s pamphlet République ou Monarchie (Paris, 1871), reprinted with alterations in his Politique Actuelle (Paris, 1875).