Front Page Titles (by Subject) August 1831 to July 1832 - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II
Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
August 1831 to July 1832 - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II 
The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II, ed. Ann P. Robson and John M. Robson, Introduction by Ann P. Robson and John M. Robson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986).
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.
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.
August 1831 to July 1832
FRENCH NEWS 
Mill here resumes his regular comments on French political affairs, his last article having been on 24 Apr. (No. 102). Described in Mill’s bibliography as “A short summary of French affairs in the Examiner of 21st August 1831” (MacMinn, p. 17), the unheaded item is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
the french chamber of deputies has continued, during the whole of the last week the important debate on the address.1 Several orators of considerable ability have appeared among the new members; and several of those who had already distinguished themselves have signalized the present discussion by some of their most successful efforts.
The debate, too, comprehends every topic, both of internal and foreign policy; and contributes greatly to make known, and in no small degree probably even to form, the political views which will predominate in the conduct of the new Chamber.
We shall wait for the termination of this discussion, before we offer to our readers the facts which it discloses, and the observations which it suggests. Few debates, within our recollection, have been calculated to suggest so many; few have afforded so complete a picture of the situation of parties, and the state of the public mind, or such abundant materials for conjectures diving deep into futurity.
The discussion has been stormy; the natural consequence, among an excitable people, of the arrival of two hundred new deputies unused to the forms of debate, and the violent passions excited by a division of parties so nearly equal as to afford a hope of victory to each on every division.
It is not often that we have had it in our power to applaud the articles of the Times on foreign affairs, and we have the greater pleasure in referring to that of Friday last, in which the sitting of the Monday preceding, the most tempestuous of all, is commented upon with great good sense, and in the best spirit.2
STATE OF PARTIES IN FRANCE
This article, headed as title, begins the “Political Examiner.” Described in Mill’s bibliography as “An article headed ‘State of Parties in France’ in the Examiner of 28th August 1831” (MacMinn, p. 17), it is listed as title and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
of the four hundred and fifty-nine members of the late Chamber of Deputies, two hundred have not been re-elected: and although several of these will obtain seats in the new Chamber by means of the vacancies occasioned by the double, triple, and quadruple returns, the change is sufficient to render the present legislature of France essentially a new body.
This renovation is most auspicious to the tranquility and improvement of France, and of all Europe. It is far more than was anticipated from the very limited constituency by which the French Parliament is even now elected; and it is sufficient to induce us to desire, that the people of France may rest satisfied with their present electoral qualification for some time longer, and postpone any further extension of popular rights, until the great step which their institutions have now made, shall have had leisure to produce its fruits.
A body, which in so large a proportion consists of new members, who have never before figured in politics, and are not yet pledged to any specific course of public measures, was not likely to assume a very decided character all at once. The majority in the New Chamber has hitherto been a fluctuating one; but it is ascertained that the Liberal party has sufficiently increased in strength, to influence, though not to govern, the decisions of the entire body; and that all propositions, tending to the removal of defects, and the introduction of progressive improvements in the institutions and social condition of France, will meet with a far more favourable reception from the present Chamber than from the last.
This large increase in the strength of the popular party has not been furnished, agreeably to the trite generalities of common-place politics, by the great towns and manufacturing districts. These, in France, are the seats of the wealthy and pusillanimous, and in these, consequently, the popular party has sustained numerous defeats; in Paris itself they have decidedly lost ground, and of the great cities, Strasbourg is the only one where the elections have gone wholly in their favour. As we are writing this, we perceive that the contrary proposition has been put forth in the British Parliament with an innocent naïveté of self-complacency, which irresistibly invites us to quote. In the House of Commons, on Wednesday last, according to the Times newspaper, Mr. Praed delivered himself as follows:
His historical studies had convinced him, that at all times, and in all nations, the inhabitants of towns had been prone to support, and the inhabitants of the country prone to oppose, all kinds of innovation. No man had analyzed so closely as he had the constitution of the present Chamber of Deputies in France, and he saw invariably that it was the Deputy for the vineyard and the corn-field that opposed, and the Deputy for the manufactory and the workshop that supported, the party of the movement.1
Perhaps this Senator, who in the prosecution of his “historical studies,” has “analyzed so closely the constitution of the present Chamber of Deputies,” will condescend to substantiate the accuracy of his analysis by accounting for the following facts:
That three of the four Members for Lyons, three of the four Members for Bordeaux, two of the three Members for Rouen, two of the three Members for Metz, the Member for Havre, the Member for St. Etienne, both the Members for Arras, and two of the three Members for Nantes,* belong to the Ministerial, or stationary party:
That the manufacturing departments of Artois and Flanders return twenty Deputies, of whom five only belong to the popular party:
That the department of Seine-Inférieure, the principal seat of manufactures in the North of France, returns eleven Deputies, of whom at least eight are ministerial: while the other three departments of the same province (Normandy) which are chiefly agricultural, return twenty-two Deputies, of whom all except seven belong to the opposition:
That the Member for Beaune is M. Mauguin, and that the departments of Côte d’Or and Saône-et-Loire, comprising the ancient Burgundy, and electing twelve Deputies, have furnished only four to the Ministerial benches:
And, finally, that the south and west of France, the most peculiarly agricultural districts, return a decided majority of Members belonging to the popular party. Thus the Pyrénées-Orientales return three Deputies, Landes three, Ariège three, all on the popular side: Gers, four out of five; Gard, four out of five; Aude, three, if not four, out of five; Var, three out of five; Isère, five out of seven; Dordogne, five out of seven; Charente-Inférieure, six out of seven; Tarn, four out of five; Vendée, we believe, all five; Vienne, four out of five; Haute-Vienne, all five; Deux-Sèvres, three out of four. When Mr. Praed shall have explained all this, we will allow him to make what he can of the elections for Champagne and the Gironde, the only conspicuous cases in accordance with his theory.
The notion that there is an innovating tendency in manufactures and trade, while agriculture is essentially conservative, belongs to a mind accustomed to look at history only in the gross, without any capacity for scrutiny and analysis; and disappears on a more accurate sifting of the very facts which have suggested the theory. The principle of improvement in modern Europe has had its source in the towns, only because in them security and personal freedom were earliest enjoyed: resistance to innovation has generally been headed by the proprietors of the land, only because the institutions on which it was proposed to innovate, were usually of their making and for their advantage. It always affords a strong presumption of political quackery, to announce a principle of politics as true “at all times and in all nations;” but it may safely be set up, not as a universal but a very general truth, that the tendency to keep things as they are, prevails chiefly not among the town or the country population in particular, but among the wealthy: those who have most to lose and least to gain; those who have thriven under existing arrangements, and cannot be sure that they shall thrive equally if these arrangements are altered. And this conservative tendency (as it is called) belongs perhaps more strongly to manufacturing and commercial, than even to landed wealth; because the former descriptions of property are more precarious in their nature, more dependant for their value on general tranquillity, and more exposed even to total destruction. And hence, no doubt, it is, that in the great seats of French manufactures and commerce, the elections have for the most part afforded to the statu quo party the signal triumph evidenced by the facts which we have cited above.
The people of England must seek other informants than those in whom they at present trust, if they would understand the real character of the two great parties between whom the political public of France is at present divided.
There are thousands of good easy people who are simple enough to believe, that the whole of the opposition to the present Ministry of France consists of Republicans and Bonapartists. Now, the Bonapartists have for the most part far too much of the wisdom of this world, to place themselves in opposition to any Government; certainly not to that of Louis-Philippe, who being afraid of them, as he is afraid of all things whatsoever, made sure of them from the first, by scattering among them, with a lavish hand, places and honours. And as for the Republicans (though a great noise is kept up about them by the King and the Ministry, in order to make a bulwark for themselves of the superstitious terror which that word excites in the minds of the French nation), they are really very few in number; not accustomed to act in concert, confined almost entirely to Paris, consisting principally of very young men, and not likely, unless aided by some grievous blunder of the Government, to have any echo in France for many years to come. The Opposition party, on the contrary, is powerful and united, strong in the fame and abilities of its Parliamentary leaders, strong in its alliance with the prevailing tendencies of the national mind: long since predominant in the press and in the nation; already of equal strength, and certain to be soon a majority, in the strong-hold of its adversaries, the Chamber of Deputies.
It would give a very inadequate conception of the fundamental difference between the Ministerial party and the Opposition, were we merely to enumerate the acts, or state the professed principles, of either. The questions are but few, which there has yet been time to discuss, or on which they have made up their minds; and yet, whatever subject of debate may arise,—from the difference in their habitual feelings and modes of thinking it would not be difficult to predict which side they would respectively espouse. The leading minds on both sides have fixed principles, and systematically consistent opinions: but who is so wild as to inquire the fixed principles of five hundred men? In the age we live in, men class themselves according to their instincts, and not to their creeds: men’s characters are not determined by their opinions, but their opinions by their characters. The ministerial party is mainly governed by the instinct of conservation, the opposition by the instinct of progression. Dread of innovation is the strongest feeling in the one, desire of improvement in the other. They cannot be more happily characterized than by their current denominations, the party of Movement, and that of Resistance.
The stationary party, grouped round the King and the present Prime Minister,2 are anxious to keep all things unchanged, or to change as little as possible. Had it depended upon them, the nation must have been contented with a far smaller extension of the elective franchise: most of them voted against the principal clauses of the recent election law.3 They are mostly strong adherents of the hereditary peerage. They are averse to all further extension of popular privileges; averse to war, less on its own account, than because it would be a change; and enemies of the press, because it is perpetually thwarting their favourite purpose by calling for change.
The progressive party was that which extorted from the Government the recent change in the election law; and is about to extort from it, to its great displeasure, the abolition of a hereditary peerage.4 From them proceed the demands for complete liberty of the press, and its enfranchisement from the oppressive taxes, by which, as in our own country, it is almost weighed down. They it is who demand the abolition of the numerous monopolies, which restrain the free employment of industry in the interior of France. They are the most zealous advocates of popular municipal institutions, for managing the local concerns of the town or of the department. From them, too, proceeds the demand for abolishing the despotic surveillance which the government exercises over all places of education. They alone have manifested any real sympathy with the most numerous and poorest class: they alone have shown any disposition to retrenchment, or to altering the taxes so as to alleviate their pressure upon those least able to bear them; and it was they who caused to be inserted in the Address, a promise, though a distant and conditional one, of elementary education to be provided for the poorest classes at the public charge.5 They, too, are those who sympathise the most strongly with the oppressed patriots of foreign countries: and it is chiefly here that there is any danger lest they should drive their country into measures which, however generously intended, would be perilous to the progress of civilization and of the spirit of freedom in France and in Europe, which at this period, demands, above all other requisites, peace and tranquillity.
This is the party which, by the recent elections, is now barely not a majority in the new Chamber of Deputies. And until the national mind is formed by discussion and education, to a calmer and more practical weighing of public questions than it has yet proved itself to be capable of, there is perhaps nothing better to be hoped, than that the progressive and the conservative spirit, which fail to be properly tempered with one another in each individual mind, should yet be so equally distributed through the whole body, as to afford hope that between opposite passions reason may generally hold the balance. That it will be so, there are many gratifying indications, in the votes, and the general spirit of the new Chamber.
The progressive party are now sure of ultimate preponderance; for every month strengthens their hold upon the national mind, and every death or resignation which gives a younger deputy for an older, or one who is new to public life for one who is already committed, affords them a chance of an additional adherent. More rapid progress than this we do not desire for them; nor if they are wise, will they wish it for themselves. It is not always advisable that the strong should exert their strength, however conscious of a good cause. Great changes should not be made at the first moment when a bare majority can be obtained for them. The idlest fears, the most unfounded dislikes, must have some time allowed them to wear off. Nothing which can be gained by a slight acceleration of the improvement of institutions, is an equivalent for the danger incurred when they improve faster than the minds of a large and powerful part of the nation.
We now feel assured, that even the present ministry will not be allowed to carry on the government in a stationary spirit: that concessions, far beyond what seemed probable six months ago, must be made, and made continually, to the demands of the age for improvement: and, certain of this, we are not anxious that changes, even the safest in themselves, should take place with a rapidity alarming to the timid—that is, to the great majority of the possessors of considerable property. Nor have we any apprehension that the leaders of the popular party will urge its demands too impetuously, unless pressed forward with heedless violence by injudicious adherents out of doors. On the contrary, we perceive with pleasure, and if the phrase may be permitted us, with pride,—that while those who call themselves the moderate party have too often displayed an irritability and intemperance which has fixed on them the soubriquet of hommes furieux de modération,6 the popular leaders maintain, and have maintained throughout, a dignity, a calmness, and a forbearance, which entitles them, and them only, to the praise of genuine and honourable moderation. The two speeches of their principal orator, M. Odilon Barrot, in the discussion on the address, are not only temperate and conciliating in expression and tone, but he who can read them and ascribe violent sentiments or exaggeratedly democratic opinions to this wise and eloquent patriot, must have come predetermined to interpret the mind of an opponent in the spirit of his own perverseness.7
THE PEERAGE QUESTION IN FRANCE
The article, headed as title, appears in the “Political Examiner,” and is described in Mill’s bibliography as “An article headed ‘The Peerage Question in France’ in the Examiner of 4th September 1831” (MacMinn, p. 17). It is listed as title and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set; that edition includes the subheading, “(From a Correspondent),” that is not in other sets.
the french ministry has proposed the abolition of the Hereditary Peerage.1
M. Casimir Périer does not disguise that this is a concession, extorted from him, contrary to his individual inclinations, by the spirit of the times. This avowal has brought upon him the severe reprehension of the more vehement partisans on both sides. They treat him as one who abandons his political creed, from motives of convenience: a censure in which we cannot join. Principles of government are not laws of eternal nature, but maxims of human prudence, fluctuating as the mind of man and the exigencies of society. A truth, in politics, which is no longer suited to the state of civilization and the tendencies of the human mind, has ceased to be a truth. The will of the majority is not to be obeyed as a law, but it is to be attended to as a fact: the opinions and feelings of the nation are entitled to consideration, not for their own sake, but as one of the circumstances of the times; one of the elements of that existing state of society, upon which your laws have to operate; an important part of the situation of the country: a cause, which produces effects not to be overlooked; a power, which so largely modifies and interferes with all you do, that unless it is allowed for in your calculations, you can predict nothing.
M. Périer is at liberty to think that it is the faults, and not the virtues, of his countrymen, which render a hereditary peerage unfit for them: it is enough that he perceives that institution to be radically incompatible with the feelings and habits of the French people. Solon has not been accused of tergiversation, for saying that he had given to the Athenians, not the best possible laws, but the best which they were capable of receiving;2 and M. Périer, apparently, considers himself to be following in the footsteps of the Athenian lawgiver.
Though we cannot join with the French Minister in lamenting that state of public opinion which renders a hereditary peerage no longer possible in France; its expediency, like that of most other political institutions, is, with us as with him, a question of time, place, and circumstance. This is not the place for determining, with precision, the conditions which are required to render that institution eligible. The consideration would lead us far beyond the present subject, and we are not writing a treatise on the art of government. But, that the most indispensable of those conditions is wanting in France, the most superficial knowledge of that country is sufficient to evince.
All arguments in favour of an Upper Chamber assume that the Lower one is liable to be too much under the immediate influence of public opinion; that it is too accessible to sudden gusts of popular feeling; and if not held in check by another body, would vacillate between opposite extremes, and innovate too frequently and too suddenly. Suppose, therefore, a people liable to these sudden gusts, and a Lower House so constituted as not to be likely to resist them: where shall the Upper House find strength to withstand the united impulse of the people and the Chamber of Deputies?—Not in the sword: for the sword, without some one to wield it, is but cold iron. Mankind, in these days, are not ruled by the sword, but by opinion; and a power which will dare resist the people, must be conscious of a moral ascendancy over them. But birth and wealth confer no moral ascendancy in France; and the French Peerage, moreover, possess, for the most part, neither the one nor the other.
Persons who have never lived out of England imagine that the respect of mankind attaches itself to riches and genealogy by an inherent virtue; and the conception of those extrinsic advantages existing apart from unbounded deference and homage, is more than they are able to figure to themselves. Frenchmen, on the other hand, are no less astonished at finding that in this country the Duke of Northumberland3 is a greater man than Sir Humphrey Davy, and Mr. Baring than Sir Walter Scott. This is one of those broad and all-pervading differences between nations, which render it absurd to transfer institutions ready-made from one country to another. The only moral ascendancy in France is that of personal qualities; and personal qualities are not hereditary.
There is no great difference of opinion in France respecting the ends to be aimed at in the composition of a Second Chamber. The Courrier Français, one of the ablest and most stedfast of the popular journals, in a sober and well-reasoned article on the peerage question, lays down these principles: That the well-being of society depends upon the due intermixture of the conservative and the progressive spirit; that the progressive tendency is naturally predominant in an assembly purely popular in its constitution: and it is consequently desirable, that, in the other branch of the legislature, the balance should incline to the conservative side.4 A doctrine precisely similar was laid down by M. Casimir Périer, in his speech introducing the ministerial project. He said, that to each of the two Chambers was confided, in a more peculiar degree, the guardianship of one of the two principles, on the apt combination of which good government depends: to the Peers, the element of stability—to the Deputies, the element of improvement. The parties being thus sufficiently agreed on the question of principle, all that remains open to debate is a question of fact; namely, what are the materials in France for forming an assembly, which, with a decided overbalance of the conservative spirit, shall unite the greatest attainable amount of wisdom and virtue? With this view the popular party are ready to admit of rather a high qualification in age, and even in property, because the tendencies of age, and of riches, are generally adverse to change. And they contend that the Second Chamber should be exclusively composed of “les illustrations nationales;”5 of men of established reputation in all the greater concerns of mankind, in politics, judicature, literature, science, and war. Such persons, having little to gain in reputation and much to lose, have an interest against rash experiments, similar to that which men of large fortune have; while they possess also (what men of large fortune have not) tried abilities, to prevent their tardiness from degenerating into a stupid dread of innovation; and a natural influence on the public mind, which gives weight to their opinions, and ensures, as far as any thing can ensure, a willing acquiescence in their decrees. New men, on the contrary, who have their reputation to acquire, and who, having less of the self-distrust which is the fruit of experience, are supposed to be more easily fired by vast schemes of improvement, and less alive to difficulties and dangers, would find their fit place in the Chamber of Deputies, where this faulty excess of valuable qualities could do no harm, as all their acts would be subject to the revision of the more cautious body.
It is a great mistake, therefore, to suppose that the contest against the inheritableness of the Peerage arises from a levelling spirit, or a reckless impatience of any obstacle to the omnipotence of the popular will. It is an affair of philosophy and reflection, not of blind passion; although doubtless, in France, the hatred of unearned distinctions is a passion, and an almost universal one. Glad should we be, nevertheless, if we thought, that in our own country, such a question would be argued on either side with so impartial a judgment, or upon principles so unambiguous, definite, and comprehensive.
The project of M. Casimir Périer includes no change in the constitution of the Second Chamber, beyond the suppression of the hereditary principle. The Peers are to hold their seats for life, to be unlimited in their numbers, and to be named solely by the King. To the first of these three propositions, the popular party do not object; but the other two will be strongly opposed, and an attempt made for a partial introduction of the principle of popular election, either by requiring the King to select from candidates presented by the electors or by the Chamber of Deputies, or by giving the absolute nomination of a certain proportion to the King, and a certain proportion to the people.
On this occasion, as on almost every other, it will be found on trial how much easier it is to destroy than to rebuild; how much more obvious it commonly is, what is bad, than what is good. Yet we incline to the opinion that M. Périer’s plan has the advantage over every other which has been proposed. We are convinced that no functionary who holds his place for life, ought to be chosen by popular election. A numerous body (and the people are the most numerous of all bodies), is essentially unfit to perform any act that is to be irrevocable. Nothing but a keen sense of undivided responsibility is a guarantee for the degree of forethought and deliberation which such an act demands. What renders popular election endurable, and even causes it to work well upon the whole (more than this cannot yet be said of any government, in so imperfect a state of the human mind), is the frequent opportunities which the people have of correcting a first error. If they were held by an indissoluble tie to their first choice, how bitterly they would often repent of it. The public are scarcely judges of a man’s qualifications until he has been tried; and impostors, who knew that what was once gained could no more be lost, would exhaust all the resources of deception. On the other hand, if the election is for short periods, the Second Chamber is but another First Chamber, and may very well be spared.
Men who are nominated for life are, of course, irresponsible when once appointed; the utmost you can do is to secure a considerate choice: and this you are more likely to obtain from an officer responsible to the people, than from the people themselves. The King, it is true, is not responsible, but his Ministers are; that is to say (the only true meaning of ministerial responsibility), they incur more or less danger of losing their places by a misuse of this power, or of any other. If the constitution of the Lower House is not sufficient to prevent the systematic misapplication of the royal power, it is good for very little. The privilege of creating Peers is not more liable to abuse, under an adequately representative government, than that of appointing judges or general officers. The true wisdom of the people is, to take every possible security that whatever power is given to their supreme government shall not be abused to selfish ends, and then to let the measure of that power be large and liberal.
But the popular party in France are at present in a position which renders complete impartiality impossible. They are biassed by a well-grounded distrust of the present Ministry and King; who, during the transitional state of the national institutions, and the wavering and unsettled disposition of the representative Chamber, are sure to throw the whole weight of all the powers which may be entrusted to them, into the scale opposite to improvement. And it is feared, not altogether without reason, that the hereditary principle, though eliminated from the laws, may practically survive its nominal abrogation, in the hands of a King and Ministry avowed adherents of it, and empowered to confer the peerage, if it so please them, upon the lineal heir of every deceased Peer. If so, the new system will have all the disadvantages of the old one, together with the additional one of rendering the peerage still more dependant upon the Crown.
This danger, however, will probably be obviated by an amendment, which the Committee of the Chamber of Deputies, though composed almost entirely of adherents of the Minister, is expected to introduce, and by which the King, in his nominations to the peerage, will be restricted to persons of certain classes, or of a certain definite description. The limitations, no doubt, will leave ample scope for improper choice. But the promotions of the Dupin’s, and Jars’s, and Rambuteau’s,6 from one Chamber to the other, will at least have this advantage, that their places in the more influential body will be better filled; for the same electors who will not cashier an old representative, will often elect a fitter one in his place when he retires. And France will at least have gained the extinction of the hereditary principle; a good in itself, and an important step in the progress of constitutional improvement.
FRENCH NEWS 
This paragraph is headed “London, September 4.” The entry in Mill’s bibliography, covering this and forty-two other articles (up to and including No. 178), reads: “The summary of French news in the Examiner from 4th September 1831 to 15th July 1832 inclusive, missing only one Sunday (July 1st) and comprising many long articles” (MacMinn, p. 17). Actually one other issue, that for 13 Nov., 1831, also has no summary of French news. This brief notice is listed as “Paragraph on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
the speech of the French Minister of Finance, on presenting the budget, holds out expectations of a considerable relaxation of the restrictions on the importation of foreign commodities.1 We hail this with joy, as the first indication of an improved spirit on these subjects in the French Government.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The summary, headed “London, September 11,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
the commission, or Select Committee, appointed by the French Chamber of Deputies to examine and report upon the proposed law relative to the Peerage,1 is expected almost immediately to present its report. A day will then be immediately appointed for the commencement of the debate.
In the mean while the Chamber has afforded an agreeable earnest of its disposition to retrenchment, by making a reduction of one half in the emoluments of its own President, and its two executive officers termed Quaestors. One of the Paris correspondents of The Times considers this measure to be of most evil augury, and writes with great apprehension of the spirit of economy which is abroad.2 We hope that this specimen of the juste-milieu party so warmly espoused by The Times, will not be lost upon the readers of that journal.
The advantages of a cheap government are visible by the light of mere good intentions. We fear that less is to be expected from the Chamber wherever reading, meditation, and political experience, are among the requisites of practical wisdom. The new members who compose nearly half the Chamber, consist chiefly of obscure men, who have never stirred, either bodily or mentally, out of their little country village. This is to be ascribed to a variety of causes. One cause is the needless and mischievous provision of the Charter, by which every department is required to select at least half its deputies from the inhabitants of the department.3 Another is the narrow limits within which the choice of the constituency is still restrained, by the pecuniary conditions of eligibility. A third is the breaking up of the constituent body into small fractions, by the narrow extent of the electoral districts; many of which do not muster more than from two to three hundred electors, who do not include any inhabitants of considerable towns, nor even are under the habitual influence of such, by personal intercourse either in politics or daily life. Neither must we omit to observe, that most of the politicians who figured in public affairs before the revolution of 1830 were disqualified by their servile habits, and retrograde or stationary spirit, from being the representatives of electors who repudiate those habits and that spirit, and whose choice, consequently, was unavoidably made, in a great measure, from the young or the untried.
Three elections have lately taken place for Paris, Lunéville, and Boulogne; all have terminated in favour of the ministerial candidates. The last of the three is a victory, for the retiring member belonged to the Opposition. In the other two cases the predecessors of the new members were of the same politics as themselves.
The remarks of our Paris correspondent on the character and disposition of the Chamber will be read with interest.4
THE SUGAR REFINERY BILL AND THE SLAVE TRADE
This article is in response to the temporary alliance between the West India planters and traders and the “Saints” (the Evangelical Clapham Sect) and their fellow opponents of slavery, in opposition to “A Bill to Continue and Amend the Provisions of the Acts for Allowing Sugar to Be Delivered out of Warehouse to Be Refined,” 1 & 2 William IV (29 Sept., 1831), PP, 1831, III, 437-40 (not enacted), which was designed to amend and continue 11 George IV & 1 William IV, c. 72 (23 July, 1830). Mill’s leading article, in the “Political Examiner,” is headed as title. Described in his bibliography as “An article headed ‘The Sugar Refinery Bill and the Slave Trade’ in the Examiner of 18th September 1831” (MacMinn, p. 18), it is listed as title and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
the saints and the west indians, those inveterate enemies, whose quarrels, next to those of the Orangemen and Catholics, engross the unceasing attention of the Ministry and Parliament; those rival powers between whom the administration of the day is perpetually engaged in negociating a compromise, not on the principle of giving to each his due, but on the simpler and easier one of giving to each half his demand—the Saints and the West Indians, strange to say, are now, for the first time, enlisted under the same banner,—fighting in a common cause against the Ministry. The subject of this contest is the proposed renewal of the temporary act, which permits foreign sugar to be refined in this country. The West Indians oppose this, because the sugar does not come from their plantations; the Saints, because it comes, in great part, from countries which have not effectually abolished the African Slave Trade.
While the Reform Bill is pending,1 the reasons are obvious for keeping all other questions precisely as they are; for attempting no change, which can be deferred until it can be subjected to the deliberation of a better legislature,—commencing no discussion to which the attention of the public, those persons excepted who have a personal interest in the question, would be very slackly and lazily directed. Since, therefore, the proposed Bill does not change the existing law, but keeps it as it is for a year longer, when it would otherwise revert from what it is to what it formerly was;2 the course of every wise and disinterested Member of Parliament should be to vote with the Minister,3 leaving the ultimate disposal of the question to a reformed Parliament.
It is not, however, to be disguised that the objections to the measure, considered as an indirect encouragement of the Slave Trade, are of very considerable weight. And no subject calls more loudly for consideration, so soon as there shall be leisure for it, than the large annual sacrifices which the English nation has long made, and still continues to make, for the suppression of the trade in negroes, while it has yet failed to discover the means of rendering those sacrifices really available for the truly virtuous purpose for which it readily and eagerly incurs them. What follows? Not any motive for abandoning the attempt; but merely a new illustration of the maxim of universal experience, that half-measures are in the end almost always more troublesome and costly than effectual ones.
The treaties for the abolition of the Slave Trade were a phenomenon previously unknown; an indication of an immense step in the progress of mankind; the first solemn recognition by the European powers that nations have duties, other than the merely negative one of not molesting one another; the first international compact which had both for its avowed and for its true object, not the security or aggrandizement, real or imaginary, of the contracting parties themselves—but the performance of a disinterested service to a third party, which that party had no claim to, except the claims of humanity.4 This great step having been achieved, and the possibility having been demonstrated that nations, as well as individuals, may be induced to bind themselves to perform an act of virtue, at the sacrifice of their immediate selfish interests; what is to hinder them from combining in a similar manner to overcome another and a much less appalling difficulty—that of compelling a few unprincipled individuals, or a few unprincipled governments, to abide by the general compact?
For many years it was affirmed, that the French Government was the principal obstacle to the complete annihilation of the slave trade. The French Government would now be no obstacle. It is eager to render its measures of prevention as effectual as possible. In the last session, a bill passed the Chambers, and became law, for this express purpose.5 The interests opposed to the cause of slave-trade abolition, in France, are comparatively feeble; and the public feeling would support the Government (of whose good inclination on this subject there is no doubt) in any reasonable measure which could be proposed to it by our Ministry, for giving effect to the wishes of every honest man in the two countries.
The real obstacles to the extirpation of the Slave Trade are Portugal and Brazil; and shall England and France, either of whom could conquer both countries in a single campaign, allow their noblest purposes to be baffled by these contemptible little powers, when for half the annual expense of Sierra Leone, they might take means for searching every vessel which enters the ports of either country?
In the mean time, England is spending immense sums, and the lives of thousands of her people, upon a pestilential swamp on the coast of Africa; and, finding that this does no good, she is meditating another experiment of the same kind in another spot, little better than the first; she has her Sierra Leone, and her Fernando Po (compare either of them with the American black colony of Liberia!).6 But this is not all: she is inflicting a real injustice upon her own colonists, by restrictive regulations, which do not at all conduce to the suppression of the African Slave Trade, but which greatly aggravate the inevitable ruin of our ancient Slave Colonies. We allude more particularly to the prohibition of the trade in slaves between colony and colony.
It is well known, that the numerous and extensive colonial possessions, which we acquired in the last war,7 have by their inexhaustible productiveness, and the immense increase of their cultivation, so greatly undersold our old Slave Islands (which were never equally fertile, and are now in a great degree exhausted) that the proprietors of the latter are utterly and irrecoverably impoverished.8 As their estates have sunk in value, and their produce has fallen off, there is of course no internal market for their slaves. On the other hand, in the thriving colonies whose competition has ruined them, the increase of the demand for labour is constantly raising the price of slaves; and the difficulty of increasing the number is an increasing temptation to overwork them more and more. We are informed, that in Tobago the price of an able-bodied slave is not more than thirty pounds sterling, while in the neighbouring island of Trinidad, a new and fertile colony, it is not less than eighty. The ruin of the former colony would be partly alleviated, if its proprietors were permitted to dispose of their slaves to those who are suffering for want of them. The old colonies would then be almost entirely abandoned; and the British legislature would no longer be deafened with the din of never-ceasing demands, that the people of England may be taxed to relieve the distress of those, whose distress admits of no permanent relief, unless they are to be maintained as pensioners of the English nation.
We can conceive no motive for the prohibition of the internal Slave Trade, except the fear, that under colour of importing slaves from our own colonies, they would be imported from Africa. But this there could be no difficulty in guarding against, as the slaves are all registered. Governments, when they really wish it, succeed every day in taking efficacious precautions for the observance of regulations far more difficult to enforce.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The article, headed “London, September 18,” is listed as “Paragraphs on France” in the Somerville College set, where these two paragraphs are enclosed in square brackets (excluding the opening four paragraphs on the fall of Warsaw to the Russian army on 7 Sept., on which Mill comments in No. 120).
several partial elections have taken place in France, and have mostly gone against the Government. The most remarkable case was that of Dieppe, where the King has considerable property, and where the defeated candidate was his aide-de-camp, General Athalin.1
A bill has been brought in by the ministry for mitigating the penal code, by abolishing the punishment of death in certain cases, and mutilation, branding, and the pillory, in all cases whatever.2
FRENCH NEWS 
This article is headed “London, September 25.” For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The article is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set, where Mill makes one correction, here adopted: at 354.12 “academies, and of” is altered to “academies of”.
the intelligence of the fall of warsaw1 has produced much excitement in the public mind at Paris, and has been followed by serious disturbances. The shops of two gunsmiths have been pillaged, Casimir Périer and Sébastiani have been hanged in effigy, and their carriages pursued by the populace. A great part of the National Guard, sharing in the popular feeling, has refused to act against the rioters, who, however, have been put down by the troops of the line, in conjunction with another portion of the National Guard.2
It seems to be generally thought that the fate of Poland has added so much to the unpopularity of the Ministers, as must speedily compel them to resign. They have sustained a signal defeat in the Chamber of Deputies, by the adoption of a proposition for restoring the military rank of the officers appointed during the hundred days, by Napoleon, and by the provisional government which succeeded him.3 A debate, which was originated by MM. Mauguin and Laurence,4 and which has already lasted several days,5 on the state of the nation (as we should say in England), is likely, in the opinion of many, to give the final blow to the Périer Administration.
Meanwhile, this Administration has given another manifestation of its hostility to popular institutions, and to the spirit of the nation.
Those who are acquainted with the institutions of France, are aware that very extensive functions of local taxation and administration are confided to deliberative bodies, varying in number from nine or ten to about thirty members, and called departmental councils, councils of arrondissement, and municipal councils. The authority of a departmental council extends over the whole of one of the eighty-six departments of France—that of a council of arrondissement comprises one of the four or five sections into which each department is divided—and a municipal council manages the affairs of a single commune; that is, a township or village.
Under the government of Napoleon, faithfully copied by the restored Bourbons, every member of every one of these bodies was named by the Crown, or by its agent, the préfet or maire.6 France, therefore, presented, under these rulers, the unique spectacle (unique at least in Europe, and certainly unknown to the feudal and despotic monarchy which preceded the French revolution) of a country which did not contain a vestige of any local authority, even down to a village watchman, that did not emanate from the Crown.
A law which passed subsequently to the revolution of July 1830, restored to the people, or rather to a small portion of the people, the choice of the municipal councils. The responsibility, however, of these bodies was reduced almost to nothing, by one absurd provision: they are elected for six years.7
The councils of the departments and of the arrondissements, are still named by the Crown. Universal opinion, however, has long required that this should cease. That the “intervention of the citizens” should be allowed in the choice of the local authorities, was one of the pledges given by the Chamber, on the revision of the charter after the revolution, and sworn to by Louis Philippe on his accession to the throne.8 To redeem this pledge, a bill has now been introduced by the Ministry.9 But we are much mistaken if it fulfils the hopes of the nation; and we are sure that it ought not to satisfy their wishes.
Not only does this bill extend to the other local bodies, the clause which renders popular election almost nugatory in the municipal councils, that which enacts that they be elected for six years—not only this, but it assumes a basis for the representation of the people in the local councils, scarcely wider than that which has been adopted for the Chamber of Deputies. All who have votes for the Chamber, are to have votes for the local councils, together with all who are inscribed on the jury list; but these last consist only of the former, and of certain liberal professions, not numerous anywhere, except in the large towns. Should the number of persons thus qualified in each arrondissement not amount to one two-hundredth part of the population, that proportion is to be made up by the addition of the most highly taxed; and in no case is the number to be less than fifty in each arrondissement. This last provision shows how clearly it is foreseen that in some, and probably in many arrondissements, the electoral body will be little better than a select vestry, meeting to choose a sub-committee of its own body.
The electors of the Chamber of Deputies are very far from sufficiently numerous, being only about 200,000 in a population of 32,000,000. But even were the fact otherwise, the qualification for local councils ought to be far lower than that which is usually thought desirable for the council of the nation. First, because less is risked, the interests at stake being less important, and the legislature being always there to interpose in case of serious mismanagement. Next, because the people at large, by superintending the management of their own local affairs, would be prepared and educated for the ultimate exercise of a more extensive share in the superintendence of the general government. And, lastly, because the local councils, not having, like the legislature, the eyes of a whole nation fixed upon them, stand in still greater need of the check of actual accountability to those whose interests are confided to them, and over whom they exercise their power.
In addition to this law respecting the composition of the departmental and arrondissemental councils, another law is proposed to define their functions and authorities;10 and a third to define, in like manner, the functions and authorities of the municipal councils,11 this object not having been provided for by the law passed in the previous session. These two bills ought to be attentively studied by our own statesmen; who will certainly be called upon, as one of the earliest duties of a Reformed Parliament, to create similar local councils for Great Britain, and to determine what portion of the public business shall devolve upon such bodies.
The commission, or select committee, appointed by the Chamber to examine the proposition of the Government respecting the peerage, have at last presented their report.12 The only material alterations which they propose in the ministerial plan, is the limitation of the royal choice to certain classes of persons, consisting chiefly of deputies, judges, law officers, and placemen of various descriptions, after a certain number of years service; members of the four academies of the Institute; military and naval officers of the rank of a lieutenant-general or a vice-admiral; and persons who pay 5,000 francs a year (about 200l.) of direct taxes. On the whole, the catalogue seems a very weak and ineffective attempt towards an enumeration of the sorts of persons who may be presumed fit to form part of a conservative branch of the legislature.
A law proposed some time ago by the ministry, for amending the existing laws on the recruiting of the army, has just been returned from the commission to which it was referred.13 The admirable practice of referring all bills and all propositions whatever to a select committee, whose duty it is thoroughly to examine the whole subject both in its principles and details, deserves to be introduced into every legislative assembly. The reports of these committees are frequently models of statesmanship, and practical political science. The excellent report just submitted on the loi du recrutement might be cited as an example. That steady and comprehensive perception of general principles, combined with a just appreciation of individual circumstances, which is characteristic of the better class of French public men, is nowhere more conspicuous than in these documents.
A most absurd petition has been presented to the Chamber of Deputies, for an application to the British Government to obtain the remains of Napoleon, in order that they may be buried under the column in the Place Vendôme.14 This gave rise to a debate, remarkable for the effusions of Bonapartism which several of the speakers thought it a favourable opportunity for giving vent to:—effusions which, however extravagant, may be excused in a Las Cases and a Bertrand, but which inspire unmingled disgust when emanating from Lamarque, Briqueville, Larabit, and others of the military faction.15 To hear these men, it might be supposed that Buonaparte had been not only the most virtuous and enlightened ruler, but the greatest man of modern times; the warmest well-wisher of free institutions; the most ardent promoter of civilisation; and that France would remember him, not as one of the most selfish, ungenerous, and narrow-minded adventurers who ever usurped supreme power, but as the greatest benefactor of his country during his life, and the man who sheds most glory upon her now when he is dead. In vain did M. Comte, the high-minded author of the Censeur Européen, lift up his voice against this senseless and degrading idolatry.16 The Chamber almost unanimously gave their countenance to the prayer of the petition, by referring it to the Council of Ministers.
M. Comte likewise laid on the table of the Chamber a proposition to abolish the vote by ballot in their own deliberations—in which its effect is obviously one of pure mischief; to shield the representatives from responsibility to their constituents.17 This proposition, however, obtaining the assent of no more than two out of the nine bureaux into which the Chamber is divided, was rejected without a public discussion. M. Comte should next propose the abolition of that most improper regulation of the Chamber, which prescribes that all propositions shall be discussed in the bureaux and in secret, before they can be debated in public; and that unless a motion passes three of the nine bureaux, it shall not be discussed, or so much as publicly declared, in the assembled legislature.18
DR. WHATELY’S ELEVATION TO AN ARCHBISHOPRIC
This unheaded comment, described in Mill’s bibliography as “A paragraph in the Examiner of 25th Sept. 1831 on Dr. Whately’s elevation to an Archbishopric” (MacMinn, p. 19), is listed (“Paragraph on Dr Whately’s elevation to an Archbishopric”) and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
it is stated, in several newspapers,1 that Dr. Whately has been, or is about to be, appointed to the vacant Archbishopric of Dublin. A minister desirous of saving the Church, by the only means by which it has now any chance of being saved—by improving its spirit—could not make a more advisable appointment. Dr. Whately is known to the public chiefly by his writings; and among these, less by the many which are of a religious character, than by such works as his Elements of Logic, his Elements of Rhetoric, and his Introductory Lectures on Political Economy.2 The merits of these are well known. Scarcely any writer of the present day has combined so great talents for popular exposition, with so much power of thought, so judiciously directed, on subjects of great importance in themselves, and not sufficiently cultivated even by the most educated class. His influence cannot but be most salutary in promoting among his clergy that general mental culture, now so rare in a profession which has heretofore produced so many great men. Dr. Whately’s works also display, along with abundant zeal for the established Church, an enlarged and liberal interpretation of religion, remote from the narrow and exclusive spirit of a sect, and more allied to the late lamented Bishop Heber3 than to the modern ascetics, who have inherited the worst qualities both of the Churchmen and the Puritans of former times, without the redeeming virtues of either.
FRENCH NEWS 
This article is headed “London, October 2.” For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
the debate in the french chamber on the policy of the Ministers, was terminated by a decision in their favour. On their foreign policy, the Chamber pronounced, by a large majority, that it was satisfied with their explanations: on their internal policy, the previous question was moved, and carried without a division.1
The Chamber may thus be considered to have pledged itself to a pacific policy in future, and taken its share of the responsibility of all the measures, by which the Ministry has hitherto endeavoured to preserve peace. But, on the internal policy of the Ministers, the Chamber is in no way pledged. It has merely declared itself unprepared to pass a sweeping condemnation on the whole Ministerial system. Its own conduct has shown, up to the present time, that neither is it prepared, nor even inclined, sweepingly to approve. And, although the Chamber has shown no fixed system, or definite views of its own, it has manifested several times, by its votes, that it is disposed to go much further than the present Ministers, both in administrative, and even in constitutional improvements.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The article, headed “London, October 9,” is listed as “Paragraphs on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
the discussion in the Chamber of Deputies of France, on the Peerage question, has commenced. The orators, who have put down their names to speak upon it are so numerous, and the number of amendments moved so considerable, that the discussion cannot be terminated for several days.1
The partial elections which are taking place in different parts of France, go generally in favour of the opposition.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The article, headed “London, October 16,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
the abolition of the Hereditary Peerage has passed the French Chamber of Deputies by a majority of 324 against 86.1 That it would pass, we never had the shadow of a doubt; but the greatness of the majority is wholly ascribed to the impression produced by the rejection of our Reform Bill,2 —especially as the advocates of the hereditary principle had been sufficiently ignorant of the social condition of England to imagine that our Peerage was a very strong example in their favour, and a conclusive proof of the compatibility of such an institution with the highest degree of prosperity and good government. It is seldom that a false theory in politics meets with so decisive a refutation, from the course of events, in the very nick of time; on the very day when the representatives of a great nation are called upon to pronounce, by their votes, upon the truth or falsehood of the doctrine.
As the voting was by ballot, there cannot be the slightest colour for imputing the result to personal fear of falling under public disapprobation.
The Chamber has still to decide what system of election or nomination it is disposed to substitute for the hereditary succession. Among the multitude of systems proposed, there is likely to be much difficulty in obtaining for any one the concurrence of a majority of suffrages.
The Ministerial plan leaves the nomination entirely to the King. This plan does not seem likely to obtain the assent of the majority, who have not sufficient confidence in the King to expect from him a good choice. Almost every deputy of note has, therefore, his pet scheme for restricting the royal choice by some partial introduction of the principle of popular election.
All these schemes appear to us to be bad. If a certain proportion were named by the King, and a certain proportion by the people, the two halves might be expected to act as the mere attornies of the power to which they owed their seats. They would fancy themselves placed there, not to legislate for the general good, but to defend kingly power, or popular rights. If, again, the people elect candidates, and the King makes his choice among them, it would be far better to give the choice to the people at once,—for to them it would, in reality, belong. If the King had the sole choice, but were compelled to choose from certain classes, or categories (to use the French expression), the objection would be that the widest categories cannot include all the fit persons, while the narrowest would leave ample scope for appointing unfit ones.
The best checks or restrictions which occur to us for preventing the abuse of the royal power of creating Peers, would be these:—That the ordonnance by which a Peer is created, should be countersigned by all the Ministers, and preceded by a particular statement of the merits or services which had entitled him to the Peerage; or that the Chamber of Deputies should have, not the right of electing Peers, or even candidates for the Peerage, but a negative on their appointment. Peers would then be created on the nomination of the King, with the concurrence and sanction of the Chamber of Deputies.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, October 23,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
the discussion on the French Peerage is nearly closed. The Chamber has rejected all the schemes for making the Peerage elective, or for obliging the King to select from candidates presented by the people.1 The system adopted has been that of restricting the royal choice to certain categories, or classes of persons. On one point of some importance, the Ministry has been defeated. The Commission had proposed, that landed proprietors, or heads of commercial or banking establishments, paying 5000 francs of direct taxes, should be eligible to the Peerage; but the Chamber has added, as a necessary condition, that they should have been for six years members of one of the Departmental or Municipal Councils, elected by the people.
The French Government has taken a great step towards free trade. It has introduced a new corn law, abolishing prohibitions, and permitting importation and exportation at a reduced scale of duties.2
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, October 30,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
the french ministry has proposed a bill for the establishment in every commune (parish or township) in France, of an elementary school, where instruction will be given, for a small fee, to those who can afford to pay it; and gratuitously to those who cannot.1 Education will thus be brought home to every man’s door. Nor will this education be confined to reading and writing; it will include (we quote from our contemporary, the Globe), “moral and religious instruction, according to the views of the parents; reading, writing, the French language, arithmetic, the legal system of weights and measures; and, according to the extent of local resources, drawing, surveying, and elementary notions of geography and history.”2
In none of the more civilized countries of the world was this great national measure more urgently required. It is computed by those Frenchmen who have most studied the statistics of their own country, that of the adult population of France not more than one-third can read. And we have been assured, that electors, and even members of the great or departmental colleges which existed before the late Revolution—men, therefore, who formed part of the twenty or thirty thousand richest persons in France—were obliged, in giving their votes, to have the name of the candidate for whom they voted written for them by others, being themselves unable to write.
On the details of the proposed Education Bill we shall give our opinion when it comes on for discussion. At present, we give from the English papers part of M. de Montalivet’s speech, to which we shall subjoin some excellent observations of the Globe.
M. de Montalivet passed in review the history of gratuitous elementary education in France, from the first dawn of the system, as originated at Rheims, in 1680, by the philanthropic Delasalle,3 to the present moment. Until after the breaking out of the French revolution, it can barely be said to have existed, but in 1791 the principle was adopted into the Constitution,4 and various laws regulating the mode and scale of retribution of the education of the lower classes, were passed in 1793 and 1794.5 Under the empire but little attention was paid to it, the nation being exclusively occupied by the ideas of military glory, but in 1816 the Lancasterian method was imported into France,6 and so fostered by various ordonnances and regulations of the government,7 that between 1816 and 1822 the number of pupils in the schools was nearly tripled. The impulse thus given to the system was sufficient to enable it to resist the effect of the Ordonnance prompted by the evil genius of the Restoration, which placed all the schools under the exclusive controul of the Bishops,8 and it is the proud office of the Revolution of 1830 to remove all the shackles which impede its progress, and render it fully available for the universal enlightenment of the mass of the population.9 The two great questions which present themselves in regulating the systems he stated to be—1st. Whether the reception of primary education should be voluntary or compulsory; and 2nd. Whether it should be open to free competition. On the first point he remarked, that in Germany all parents are compelled, under severe penalties, to send their children to the communal school,10 on the principle, that as, on the one hand, the government, in its paternal character, was bound to provide all its subjects with the means of education, it had on the other, a right to claim from them the filial duty of availing themselves of it in such a manner as to become useful members of the social body. He, however, stated that, powerful as this argument was, the system of compulsion was too much opposed to the character of the French nation, to admit of his recommending its adoption. He had, therefore, preferred leaving the system to make its way by the force of its intrinsic advantages, and that it would do so, was evident from the fact that since July 1830, three hundred new schools had been opened, and 600,000 volumes distributed. The second point was, he said, virtually decided by the promise of the Charter that education should be free; the most ample scope for competition would therefore be allowed (hear, hear), and every one who possessed the necessary moral and intellectual qualifications would be at liberty to open a school. (Hear, hear.) But in order not to leave education wholly to the fluctuating chances of private speculation, primary schools would be divided into two classes, communal and private, both of which would be subjected to the controul of a committee, in which the Government, the country, and the families of the children, would be alike efficiently represented; while misconduct in the masters of the private schools would be immediately punished by the civil tribunal of the arrondissement, which would be authorized to take cognisance of any complaint made by the committee, and for the rectitude of whose decisions there would be the additional guarantee of a power of appeal to the Cour Royale. The communal schools would afford gratuitous instruction to indigent families. Each master would be chosen by the commune through the mayor, and would have, in addition to his lodging, and whatever monthly sums he might receive from those able to pay for their instruction, a fixed salary, the amount to be fixed every five years by the municipal authority, the minimum of which would be 200 francs, and which would be raised by an addition to the principal of the direct taxes not exceeding five centimes. Provision would be made that such communes as were too poor to pay this salary should be assisted by the department, and that the State should come to the assistance of the department, in case that should not be able to discharge it. Retiring pensions for the masters would be provided from a fund formed by the annual payment by all the masters of one-twentieth part of their salary. The masters of the communal schools would, in case of misconduct, be amenable to, and liable to be suspended by, the committee of primary instruction, from whose decision an appeal would be to the academic council. In order to bring this system into action as fully and speedily as possible, each department would be authorized to establish one Ecole Primaire Normale for the education of young men intended to become masters of primary schools. The hon. member then read the bill, which was ordered to be printed.11
Briefly as we have been enabled, [says the Globe], to give the outline, it is of a nature to call for much attention in a country which piques itself on a passion for the diffusion of knowledge, and which possesses ample funds, too, for the purpose, were they administered wisely and honestly in the furtherance of instruction, congenial with the progress and the spirit of the age, instead of being frittered away by corporate bodies, and nominal trusts, too many of which are anything but trustworthy, and the interest of a great number of whom is directly opposed to the extension of the intended benefit. Allowing for the various difficulties and discrepancies which must necessarily be encountered, in maturing so extensive a scheme, is it possible to conceive the establishment of such a system of national education in France, for any time, without a necessity on the part of Great Britain of following the example? In spite of the satire, the squib, and the sneer of the multifarious cultivators of the department of Littlewit,12 the education of the many is a virtual emancipation from the monopoly and oppression of the few; and hence so much ultra, clerical, and patrician objection, cavil, discountenance, and ridicule. We will not say (for we are not for pressing down a corporation, which is so actively doing that business for itself) who they are who have never voluntarily stepped forward in the honourable path of promoting the instruction of their needy fellow-creatures, however forced in the sequel, by the activity of other people, to crawl after in the rear. Who cannot recollect the affected alarm, and sinister opposition, which the foremost man of the day had to encounter a few years ago, when he attempted to concoct the preliminaries of a plan that would render education general?13 We still hope to witness his master-mind engaged upon some scheme of kindred utility, with the countenance and support of the government, of which he forms a part. Were, indeed, Providence, in its anger to produce a Tory return to power, with this example of France before the national eye, something in the same line must be attempted, at least if the salutary operation of the two countries upon each other remain a substitute for the blind antipathy engendered by ignorance, and fostered by design.14
The forthcoming number of The Foreign Quarterly Review gives some very interesting information, with relation to the exertions made by private individuals in France, for the diffusion of knowledge, by the publication of elementary books of instruction, in the composition of which the French excel, as they do not (like most authors of elementary works in England) write upon the unfortunate presumption, that the reader is already, in some degree, acquainted with the subject.15
We have great satisfaction in perceiving numerous indications that the organs of the public mind in France are approximating to a juster appreciation of the impolicy of the restrictive and prohibitory commercial system. M. Mauguin, a few days ago, made profession of opinions favourable to free trade, and the Ministry at once professed concurrence in them, promising the speedy introduction of a bill, modifying the whole of the present custom regulations and duties.16
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography see No. 116. The item, headed “London, November 6,” is listed as “Paragraphs on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
the only circumstance of any considerable interest afforded by the French papers of the week, is the trial of the author and publishers of an article in the newspaper La Tribune, imputing to MM. Soult and Casimir Périer, the receipt of a corrupt consideration for a contract, concluded by them in England some months ago for the purchase of muskets.1 Enough was established to account for the general belief of this rumour, though not to prove it well-founded. The French Ministers, or their confidential agents, appear clearly to have paid a high price for bad fire-arms, when good ones were offered at a lower price. But they plead, in justification, that the necessity of immediately supplying the National Guard with arms, obliged them to close with the persons who could furnish them with the greatest number in the shortest time.
The Peerage Bill2 is not yet introduced into the Chamber of Peers, which is ascribed to the great difficulty found in securing a majority.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, November 20,” is listed as “Paragraphs on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
The Peerage Bill3 has not yet been carried up to the House of Peers; and it is still as uncertain in France as among ourselves, whether there will be a creation of Peers for the purpose of carrying the proposed Constitutional Reform.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, November 27,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
the french minister has at length carried the Peerage Bill into the Chamber of Peers1 —but not till after creating a batch of thirty-six peers, in order to secure its passing.
The list of newly-created Legislators, with one or two honourable exceptions, is utterly despicable. It puts an end at once to all those hopes, which alone induced the French nation to tolerate a second chamber not elected by the people. The Peerage ought to have been re-constituted, and if it was absurdly determined that the present members should retain their seats for life, it was at least understood that the chamber was to be recruited from the élite of France in politics, literature, science, industry, and art. Instead of this, the list is made up of fifth-rate diplomatists and prefects under the Imperial Government, and tenth-rate Bonapartist officers; all the eminent commanders whom France possesses being either peers already, or in the ranks of the opposition.
Science is represented in this batch of peers only by the weathercock Cuvier, who, with all his political demerits (and a more servile sycophant of every established government never existed),2 is, after all, the only man in the whole thirty-six possessing merits of any description which can justly be characterised as eminent in their kind.* The men of letters of France are represented solely by Count Philippe de Ségur.3 But the most egregious as well as the most ominous inconsequence is this—in a list of peers, created on purpose to carry a bill, abolishing the inheritableness of the peerage, are included persons whose only claim to that rank consists in the merits of their fathers. We allude to young Ney, Prince de la Moskwa, and to M. Bernard Foy.4
The minister has raised a storm by this proceeding, which appears to have taken our newspapers by surprise, though expected by all who have any acquaintance with French politics. The opposition intend to urge with their whole strength in the Chamber of Deputies a motion condemning this exercise of the royal prerogative. They contend that the creation of peers, while the article of the charter, which empowered such a creation, is actually undergoing revision, is beyond the legitimate powers of the executive, and, in fact, constitutes a coup d’état. We know not whether they will maintain that it is actually illegal, or merely unconstitutional; a violation of the written laws, or only of the unwritten maxims which jointly form the constitution of a state. The latter are as obligatory as the former upon a minister, and the breach of either would be an equally just ground for addressing the King to remove him.
It may be thought captious in the opposition to look so closely into the means adopted to carry an alteration in the constitution of the peerage, so earnestly demanded by themselves. To this we answer, that the opposition had gained their point from the moment when the Chamber of Deputies, by a majority of six or seven to one, had given their sanction to the doctrine of the unfitness of hereditary legislation to the present state of society, and of the human mind.5 The solemn recognition of this great principle was all the opposition wanted; whether the bill actually passes or not, they regard as of altogether secondary importance; for the hereditary chamber is so utterly discredited by this authoritative condemnation of its principle, that a breath will at any time sweep it away, if it should ever become an active obstruction to good legislation. And as for any practical good from the passing of the bill, if they have hitherto expected such a thing—which very few of them ever did, from a chamber nominated by the crown; this contemptible list of nominations must have completely altered their opinion.
It is now, at best, a matter of indifference to the opposition whether the bill passes or not. But if it is to pass, they contend, as they have always contended, that the Chamber of Deputies has a right to pass it, without the Peers, by their own sole authority as a constituent body. This, their opponents say, is unconstitutional. They answer, that it would be so, as a general rule; neither ought any article of the charter to be revised by a legislature elected by virtue of the charter, but only by a constituent Assembly or Convention elected for that express purpose. But it is a fact, that the Chamber of Deputies did, in August, 1830, take upon themselves the powers of a constituent body. They elected a king, and revised the entire charter. One article, that relating to the Peerage, they did not alter at the time; but formally reserved it to be altered now.6 This, therefore, is a peculiar case. In making the alteration by their own single authority, the popular branch of the legislature would merely continue and complete its own former act. On this principle the measure ought to have originated with the Chamber. The King himself did wrong in introducing the present bill. The King has, properly, no more to do with the revision of this article than he had with that of all the other articles, a year and a half ago. The King has no voice in making the constitution: it is tendered to him, and he simply accepts it; or else rejects it, and abdicates the throne.
The Chamber has waived its right as a constituent body, and thought fit to pass, with amendments, a bill presented by the Crown; and if the Peers also think fit to pass it, the Deputies will not object. But if the Peers reject it, then, says the opposition, is the time for the Chamber of Deputies to exert their constituent power. They have not claimed it: they have preferred not to raise the question. With that hope they have passed the measure in the forms of any ordinary law; but as it was optional at first, so it is at any time in their power to claim the right they have for the moment waived, and declare, that in the exercise of that right, they adopt either this or some other measure, and it becomes part of the constitution of France.
While this dispute is going on, the King has afforded the first example, since the establishment of a representative Government in 1814,7 of the refusal of the royal sanction to a bill which has passed the two Chambers. The bill in question was for restoring the military grades conferred by Napoleon, during the hundred days.8 If there is any part of French history of which all Frenchmen ought to be ashamed, it is the second usurpation of Napoleon; and nothing can be more foolish than to revive, and hold as valid, these acts of the usurper, which were set aside by the government which succeeded him. Many, indeed, of those who supported the bill, did so upon the principle that military rank, conferred by a Government de facto, is property, and that he who is deprived of it, on whatever pretext, suffers a wrong. Allowing this, however, the wrong was committed sixteen years ago; and why should one class of sufferers be compensated at the expense of the state,—partly, therefore, at the charge of many other classes of sufferers, whose wrongs go unredressed? The principle is untenable; it is the same upon which Villèle grounded the indemnity to the emigrants.9
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, December 4,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
an insurrection has taken place at Lyons.1 The silk-weavers have risen in arms; and how the greater part of those arms were obtained is still a mystery; after two, or, according to some accounts, three days’ fighting against the National Guard and the troops, they have remained masters of the town. The following description of their subsequent conduct, which we copy from the Times, is corroborated by every authentic account which has been received:
It is universally admitted that there has been no plunder or bloodshed beyond the two days, the 21st and 22d ultimo; that when the civil power had been overthrown, and the military force expelled, the directing chiefs of the workmen felt the necessity of order, and the utility of the laws which they had violated; that they had enacted severe penalties against pillagers, murderers, and disturbers; that they had appointed sentinels to protect the persons and magazines of their employers, whom they had overcome in the struggle; that they had placed themselves in amicable relations with the préfets and mayors, whom they had at first deposed; and that the city exhibited the strange and anomalous appearance of being at once loyal and rebellious—of uniting insurrection with legitimate authority—of maintaining a profound peace between hostile camps, and in the midst of civil contention. Those who had discarded the civil magistrate, who had beaten the troops of the line and the National Guard, acting under the magistracy, seem horrified at the very idea of being considered bad subjects, and loudly protest their “entire devotion to their citizen King, Louis Philip.”2
The Courrier Français might well say, “Même lorsqu’il est livré au plus terrible égarement, il y a maintenant chez le peuple français un instinct social qu’on ne rencontrerait dans aucun autre pays: certes, il y a loin des ouvriers de Lyon montant la garde avec les bourgeois, à la populace de Bristol se souillant des plus monstrueux excès.”3 Nevertheless, to moderate the honest triumph of the French journalist, and to avoid doing injustice to the morality and self-control of our own working classes, it is well to remark, that the outrages at Bristol were perpetrated by a very small fraction of the very worst part of the populace, mostly thieves, and other criminals by profession;4 who, in our great towns, owing to the defects of our police and criminal judicature, are more numerous in proportion to the population than in any other civilized community. If the affair at Bristol had been not a riot, but a general insurrection, events, even there, would have taken a far different turn. The superiority, in such emergencies, of the French working classes over ours, seems to consist less in their greater virtue or good sense, as compared with the corresponding class among our own people, than in that extraordinary power of extemporaneous organization, which belongs to the superior quickness and readiness of the French character, and to the military habits of a large proportion of the people. Englishmen, it is probable, could not have jumped out of anarchy into order by one leap, like the Lyonnese. But if a crisis should come, which we trust England may never know, but which we should never intermit to think of and be prepared for—if events like those of Lyons should, at any future period, take place at Manchester or Glasgow, or any other of our great towns where the people, by means of their Benefit Societies and Trade Unions, are accustomed to concert, and organize under chiefs whom they know, a new government would be ready at once to take the place of that which had been subverted; and though manifold horrors would too probably be perpetrated during the conflict, the moment it was over we are persuaded that these places would become as orderly and peaceful as Lyons at this moment.
The origin of the popular movement at Lyons, was what, in this country, would be termed a strike for wages. For some time past, the silks of France have been in a great degree supplanted in the foreign market by those of England and Switzerland.* The Lyonnese manufacturers, therefore, in attempting to maintain the competition, found themselves under the necessity of lowering wages. To this pre-existing pressure, was added that arising from the unsettled state of France during the last two years. The suspension of purchasers from want of confidence, which created the commercial distress, naturally fell heaviest upon articles like silk, of ornament and luxury. After long bearing their evils with exemplary patience, the workmen at last demanded an advance of wages. The Préfet, with that pestilent spirit of busy intermeddling, of which French officials can never divest themselves, sanctioned the increased rate of wages by an authoritative proclamation.5 The consequence was what might have been foreseen. Magistrates may fix a scale of wages, but it is beyond the power of any magistrate to compel the manufacturers to pay it. The employers could not afford to manufacture at a loss; they accordingly discharged their men, and the insurrection followed.
Troops will, of course, march against Lyons, and the revolt will be put down. But we do hope, though we scarcely dare expect, that the legislators of France, after this warning, will bethink themselves, and lay it to heart, that to pay some attention to the physical well-being of the class which composes fifteen-sixteenths of the whole nation, is really part of the duty of a Government. The Morning Chronicle will tell us, that the language we now use is mischievous, tending to make the working classes believe that their condition depends not upon themselves, but upon the Government. Undoubtedly any language would be mischievous, which should persuade the people that the Government could fix the rate of wages. But, without being able to raise wages, the Government has the power of making the present rate of wages sufficient for the subsistence of the labourers.
The French Government, with a reckless fiscality equal to that of the worst Ministries of our worst times, derives the greater part of its immense revenue, both general and local, from duties on the articles consumed by the great body of the people. The taxes which fall upon the most numerous and poorest class, yield most to the revenue; and this is all which a mere financier, either in France or in England, ever troubles himself with. It has been proved again and again, that the tax on salt, that on wine (which is to the French labourer what beer is to the English), the monopoly of tobacco, the octroi or town duties on all kinds of agricultural produce, and various other burthens imposed by the French system of finance, fall not only with greatest comparative, but with greatest absolute weight, upon those who are least able to bear it. A poor family actually pays a greater number of francs to the revenue, one year with another, on account of these taxes, than a rich family. Yet, whenever a voice has been raised (and few and faint have been such voices) in the late or present Chamber of Deputies, for the alleviation of these intolerable exactions, the sound has either been merely re-echoed from the bare walls, or has been drowned in clamour.
Were these taxes taken off, the silk-weavers of Lyons might be able to live, at least without danger of famine, upon such wages as their employers could allow consistently with being able to sell their fabrics in the northern markets at the same price with other nations.
Further, since the year 1821, a corn law, worse than our corn laws when at their worst, has artificially raised the price of food in all the manufacturing parts of France; and considerably more so in Lyons than in other places,—the importation price being, by the absurd provisions of the law, different in different districts.6 The French Ministry has lately proposed to the legislature a slight relaxation of this system; and the committee appointed by the Chamber of Deputies to examine the bill, have named for their President M. de Saint-Cricq, and for their Secretary M. Charles Dupin!7 They might have hunted through France for men more inveterately averse to free trade, and found none.
Not only the food of the labourer, but almost every other article of his consumption which is not raised in price by excise duties, is so by restrictions on trade. The cottons in which he does, or might, clothe himself and his family, he must not import from England (save at an enormous duty), but must purchase a bad and dear article produced at home. If the woollens in which he clothes himself are foreign, they have paid a high duty, to protect French manufactures; if French, they have paid a high duty on the raw material, to protect French agriculture. If he purchases French manufactures of any description, they are dear and bad, because made by dear and bad machinery, owing to prohibitory duties on foreign iron; the iron of France being of notoriously bad quality, and the mines far from productive: but this is for the protection of French mining and French forests. The sugar and coffee which the poor silk-weaver consumes, he must pay for at an immense increase of price, to protect French beet-root, and to save from ruin three little islands, Martinique, Guadaloupe, and Bourbon; the fee simple of all three not being worth ten years purchase of the tax annually levied, on their account, from the consumers of colonial produce. Finally, even live cattle cannot be driven into France from beyond the Rhine, except at an enormous duty; and a riot took place only a few weeks since, at Strasburg, on this very account.
All these evils the French Ministry, and the leaders of the Opposition, are fully alive to, and would gladly remedy if they were able. But the Minister dares not propose an alteration of this monstrous system, to a Chamber composed of cotton and woollen manufacturers, and proprietors of forests and mines.
The dissatisfaction of the people, we know, does not always take the right side; but they are seldom dissatisfied without good cause. What is a Government for, but to find the means of removing evils which the people themselves, either from ignorance or want of power, are unable to cope with? If a Government did its duty to the people—if it never inflicted evil upon any part of them, save for the general good—if it showed itself always eager to search out the causes of their suffering, and administer remedies where remedies were practicable—if it let the people see that, where it had the means of doing aught to serve them, it wanted not the will,—very rarely would it find the people unreasonable in their demands, or expecting impossibilities. The working classes are not like their enervated and effeminate superiors; they are accustomed to suffering, and exercised in endurance. Evil is no new thing to them; and their habit is, to regard it as inherent in their lot. Let them but see common sympathy, and a very little active goodwill, in those whom society has placed over their heads, and they are even more ready than they should be to let themselves be persuaded that their sufferings are inevitable, and that governments can do nothing for them.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, December 11,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
the duke of orleans and Marshal Soult have entered Lyons without resistance; and regular government is to appearance restored.1 On what conditions the insurgents have submitted, is not known; and what will be the dénouement of this singular drama, no one can predict.
The Moniteur, and the papers in the Ministerial interest, talk so big, that one would imagine the revolt of the second city in the kingdom was a glorious tribute to the wisdom of the Government, and the surest guarantee of its stability.2
A most disgraceful disclosure has been made before the tribunals of the low tricks by which the Périer Ministry attempts to maintain itself in office. It is completely proved, that numbers of the poorer workmen were regularly hired by the police, at three francs a-head, to assist in putting down the young men who attempted to plant a tree of liberty on the anniversary of the destruction of the Bastille. The brutal violence which was displayed by these bought auxiliaries had excited much disgust; and the fact of their having been regularly enrolled and paid, was asserted in two newspapers, the National and the Tribune. These papers were accordingly prosecuted, at the suit of M. Casimir Périer and M. Vivien, who was at the head of the police when these occurrences happened.3 But so clearly was the truth of the accusation made out, that M. Vivien abandoned his share of the prosecution, and the accused have been acquitted.
There was much vapouring in the Moniteur, about that time, on the hostility of the working classes to the “agitators” and “eternal enemies of order,” evidenced by the voluntary assistance given by them in suppressing what the Ministry was pleased to call anarchy.4 The world will now know what value to set on the assertions of the official journal.
The Chamber is slowly winding its way through a long projet de loi for mitigating the penal code. This bill when adopted will be some improvement on the existing law, but not a very material one. It deserves attention chiefly from the provision which it contains for incorporating the new enactments in the text of the code.5 We fear it will be long before our legislators will have the wisdom to learn from the French the art of drawing up their laws.
It is well understood that the people of Paris will no longer permit the punishment of death to be inflicted in that place. Preparations were commenced a few weeks since in the Place de Grève for a public execution, but the intention was abandoned in consequence of the strong manifestations of public disgust which it excited. The Parisians will not endure that the lives of any other criminals should be taken, when, to save those of Polignac and his accomplices, the Chamber of Deputies and the King united in expressing a wish for the abolition of capital punishment.6
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, December 18,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
lyons appears to be in a state of complete pacification.1 Marshal Soult, by virtue of the extraordinary powers with which he was invested, has set aside the tariff, or scale of wages, the ineffectual attempt to enforce which, was the cause of the insurrection. It is now, therefore, manifest, that the submission of the workmen has not been purchased by any improper concessions on the subject of interference between them and their employers. No injustice has been promised to the workmen—it remains to be seen whether justice will be done. We shall see what measures the Ministry has to propose, for the alleviation of the burthens which press upon the poorer classes, and for increasing the demand for their labour, by removing the obstacles which stupid legislation has interposed to prevent capital from flowing into the most productive channels.
The French papers of the last week are replete with interesting matter.
A trial has commenced before one of the Paris tribunals, implicating, most seriously, the private character of the individual who now fills the French throne. We allude to the application of the heir-at-law of the late Duc de Bourbon, that the will by which that prince bequeathed the bulk of his immense property to the third son of the King of the French, may be set aside.2 We shall take care that the disclosures of which this law-suit is the occasion, shall, when complete, be fully made known to the English public. It is sufficient now to say, that unless the evidence to be hereafter produced shall greatly alter the present complexion of the case, the French people have fastened upon themselves as their ruler, a man not only unfit to reign, but scarcely fit to live.
Several important proceedings have taken place in the Chamber of Deputies.
The bill for the mitigation of the Penal Code3 has passed the Chamber; a clause having first been inserted, by which the law attaching penalties to the assumption of a title of nobility, unless conferred by the King, is repealed. Any person, therefore, may now give himself whatever title he chooses, without incurring any consequences, except the forfeiture of the nickname in case any one should take the trouble to prosecute him for assuming it. Titles were already sufficiently ridiculous in France; as they cannot fail to become every where, when they are shared by many thousands of persons, and have ceased to be connected with any civil or political privileges. Except the émigrés, and the survivors of the old court, few persons who possess titles ever assume or claim them. They will now, we imagine, fall into utter desuetude.
In addition to the law for the modification of the penal code, the Chamber has adopted another law, of very considerable importance. The object of this is the introduction of the warehousing system, which, strange to say, did not before exist, or only to a very limited extent, in France.4 The present law permits those articles, (with, however, a very numerous list of exceptions) the importation of which is either prohibited or subjected to a duty, to be imported and warehoused for re-exportation either from the same or from some other port or frontier place, without payment of duty. In the debates on this law, several members expressed opinions highly favourable to free trade; but what is still more encouraging, is the mitigated tone of the enemies of that great principle.5 Not one of them (except the unconvinceable M. Charles Dupin)6 contended that the restrictive system was not in itself an evil. They went no further than to recommend that it should not be altered suddenly, but gradually, with due regard to existing interests, and in concert with foreign powers. On the whole, we cannot doubt, from the signs of public opinion in France, that the era is approaching of a great relaxation in the prohibitive laws of that country.
A motion has been made by M. Auguste Portalis, and seems likely to be adopted, for abrogating the compulsory observance of Sundays and holidays.7 We should greatly deprecate such a proposition in our own country. We are convinced, that it would lead, and that speedily, to but one result: the labourer would perform the labour of seven days, for the wages which he now receives for that of six; and would be deprived of all the enjoyment, and of the innumerable moral advantages attendant on periodical repose. But we do not anticipate these baneful consequences from the measure which is now proposed in France. The experiment has in fact been tried, and no such consequences have been produced: for the observance of the Sunday, in so far as it is compulsory, has long been practically at an end. The French people are often not better fed or clothed than the English; but in no case are they so much over-worked. They will not submit to be so. They will live upon brown bread, which an English workman will not; but they will not work fourteen hours a day, which an English workman will; nor seven days in the week, which an English workman would. The English are not reduced to a potato diet, because they will not marry and multiply their species on such terms; and the French save themselves by the same means, from being worn down and brought to a premature death by incessant toil. Would that the English might do the like!
The same deputy has proposed, with the same prospect of success, to abolish the solemnization of the anniversary of Louis XVI’s execution.8 The object of this motion is to get rid of all the remaining traces which the doctrine of legitimacy or divine right has left in the French laws. A great majority of the French public, and probably all the members of the Chamber of Deputies, disapproved of the conduct of the Convention in putting Louis XVI to death. But they see no reason why this particular act of injustice should be selected as a subject of national humiliation and penance, more than any one among the many judicial assassinations committed during the reign of terror upon far worthier men; or than the execution of the unfortunate Lally, for example, under the old regime, or of Marshal Ney, in 1815, in violation of the capitulation of Paris.9 There was nothing in the case of Louis XVI to distinguish him from any other person who is improperly put to death on a charge of treason, except the circumstance of his being a king. And this does not in any way add to the degree of guilt in the estimation of Frenchmen, or rational persons of any other country, unless they are believers in divine right.
A third motion of importance has been made by M. Salverte, and is likely to be adopted in France, as it must ultimately be in the legislative assemblies of all other countries: this is, that all bills which, having passed through some of their stages, are lost, not by being negatived, but by the prorogation of the Chambers, may be resumed in the ensuing session (unless a dissolution has intervened) at the point at which their progress had been interrupted.10
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The article is headed “London, December 25”; it is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
m. casimir périer has read to the two Chambers a long report on the affair of Lyons.1 In this document, he does not state a single fact which was not previously known, nor give intimation of any intentions which had not been already expressed. He commences with a loud flourish of trumpets, and undertakes to enter fully into the subject of existing evils and their remedies, yet, for aught we can discover, his portefeuille may be overflowing with great projects for the promotion of the public prosperity, or he may meditate nothing but to sit with his arms folded, and consume his salary. All which this production discloses of the state of his mind, is a vehement inclination to have it thought that his conduct is highly praiseworthy.
This empty document, however, afforded an occasion which was sure to be eagerly seized, for a violent debate on the general policy of the Ministry; and the debate has accordingly commenced, and promises to last several days.2
These demonstrations of party hostility are however becoming less and less frequent; while debates on specific questions are rapidly increasing in frequency and interest. The Opposition will speedily find that their true policy, both for themselves and the good of their country, is to load the President’s table with motions for well-considered and practicable improvements, and concert together to secure upon each a vigorous and well-sustained debate; acquiring for themselves the éclat of suggesting measures, which the Ministry may afterwards adopt, or throwing upon M. Périer and his majority, the odium of resisting improvement.
We see reason to expect a stormy debate on the Corn Law.3 In the French Chamber, even more than in our own House of Commons, the great landed proprietors predominate, and seem equally disposed with our own squirearchy, to hold fast to their usurpations. The Ministry and the Opposition will fight side by side against a large portion of the phalanx by which the Ministers are usually supported. Some say that the question will be postponed to the next session; and really, if it is not, we fear the Ministry will have a hard account to settle with the great “practical authorities” of their party, M. Humann4 and M. Charles Dupin.
An excellent speech on the corn question has been made incidentally in the course of another debate, by M. Laguette-Mornay.5
The Commission on the budget has not yet completed its labours. Those members of the Opposition who formed part of it, among others MM. Laffitte, Bignon,6 and Dupont de l’Eure, have at length discontinued their attendance, disgusted at the absolute failure of their attempts to extort from the majority any considerable diminution of the public expenditure. The impossibility of voting the budget before the conclusion of the year, has compelled the Ministry to solicit from the Chamber the continuance of the existing taxes and expenses for three months longer. This has been agreed to, but under a proviso of a novel and highly important nature: that if in the budget when voted, any salary, pension, or other allowance shall be reduced, the reduction shall take effect retrospectively from the beginning of the year.7 The parties interested being thus forewarned, will of course make their arrangements accordingly.
We mentioned in our last paper, that the Chamber had already adopted one law for the extension of the warehousing system:8 it has now under its consideration another.9 The former law related to goods warehoused for re-exportation: the present, has reference to warehousing for home consumption. In France, as in England, articles which have been imported are allowed to remain under the King’s lock, jointly with that of the owner, and to be bought and sold in the warehouse as often as a purchaser can be found; the duty being demanded only when the goods are taken out to be finally sold for consumption. The advantage of this arrangement to the merchant, we need not insist upon, and the advantage to the nation is not less. A large portion of the trading capital of the country is allowed to remain in active employment, when it would otherwise be locked up unproductively, being paid into the hands of Government, and not reimbursed until the goods were sold, which might not be till long after they were imported.
This privilege however, of warehousing goods without payment of duties, has hitherto, in France, been confined to the few sea-ports, and to certain frontier towns. Paris itself, and all the other places in the interior, are excluded from it. The object of the measure now proposed by the Ministry, is, to extend to other places the advantage at present enjoyed exclusively by the sea-ports and frontier towns. The bill accordingly encounters a noisy opposition from the members for the privileged places, and there seems to be some doubt whether it will be suffered to pass.
A bill has been adopted by the Chamber of Deputies, almost without opposition, for re-establishing the dissolubility of the marriage contract.10 This bill restores the law of divorce, not as it stood during the Revolution, but nearly on the footing on which it was placed by the Code Napoleon. Divorce must be pronounced by a court of justice. It will be granted at the instance of either party, in certain cases which are nearly the same with those in which the tribunals will now grant a separation. Divorce by mutual consent will also be allowed; but this likewise must be pronounced by a tribunal: there must be a long period of probation; the parties, once divorced, cannot again be united; and half their property must be settled on their offspring. On the whole, this measure seems to do as much as can be done by any means hitherto proposed, towards solving the difficulty of allowing marriages to be dissolved where their continuance is a source of insupportable evil, and at the same time avoiding to afford inducements to forming so important an engagement without a reasonable prospect of its permanency.
The Commission of the Chamber of Peers has at length presented to that Chamber its report on the new law relative to the peerage.11 The members of the Commission were equally divided in opinion; but their reporter, the Duke Decazes, is in favour of the law. An alteration, however, is proposed, which will enable the Ministry, if they think proper, to render the abolition of the inheritableness a nullity.
Among the categories, or classes of persons, to whom the Commission of the Chamber of Deputies proposed that the nomination to peerages should be limited,—one consisted of landed proprietors or chiefs of commercial establishments, paying 3000 francs of direct taxes. The Chamber, not being of opinion that riches were of themselves a sufficient qualification for a legislator, required as a further condition that the persons belonging to this category should have served for six years as members of a municipal council or a chamber of commerce, both which functions are conferred by popular election. This amendment, though violently resisted by the Ministers and their adherents, was carried against them. The Commission of the Chamber of Peers now recommend that it should be struck out.
Should this recommendation be adopted, of which we fear there is little doubt, the eldest sons of Peers will generally be eligible to succeed their fathers. It is true that the general law of succession in France divides the property of the parent equally among all the children.12 But one of the acts of the Bourbons, after their restoration, was to permit the creation of majorats, or entails, to accompany a title of nobility; and to require, in particular, that the Peers should, as a matter of course, tie up a certain amount of property, and transmit it to the next heir, together with the Peerage, which otherwise, should not be transmissible.13 The eldest son of a Peer, in consequence, generally succeeds his father in the bulk of his landed property, and therefore in the payment of the bulk of his direct taxes. It is worthy of remark, that a ministerial deputy, M. Jaubert, at a very early period of the present session, laid upon the table a proposition for the abolition of majorats.14 It was received with universal approbation, but a day has never yet been fixed for the discussion of it, nor has it been referred to a Commission; and there is every appearance of an intention to allow it to drop.
That the Ministers will generally name the successor to the estate as successor also to the peerage, if the law allows them, they have taken care to leave no doubt, by naming the sons of Ney and of General Foy;15 young men who have not had time to shew themselves either fit for the office, or worthy of the honour; one of them not even of age, and neither having attained the age of thirty, before which, by the regulation of the Chamber, they are not permitted to vote;16 and this, too, although the recent creation of Peers was for the express purpose of outnumbering a hostile majority.
We have given in another part of our paper an abridgment of the law proceedings relative to the will of the Duke de Bourbon.17 We invite particular attention to it. The defence not having yet been heard, nor the witnesses examined, we forbear any further comment in this stage.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The article, headed “London, January 1, 1832,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
the abolition of the Hereditary Peerage of France has passed the Chamber of Peers by a majority about equal in number to the new creation of Peers.1 The majority of speakers was, however, on the contrary side; and even of those who supported the bill, there was not one who did not openly lament the necessity of passing it.
The debate in the Chamber of Deputies occasioned by M. Périer’s statement respecting the revolt of Lyons,2 continued during four days. M. Périer, not denying that there was misconduct somewhere, threw the whole blame upon the local authorities: for which M. Bouvier du Molart, préfet of the Rhone, took a public opportunity of giving him the lie.3 After this proceeding, M. du Molart threw up his office, was struck off the roll of the Conseil d’Etat, and being thus freed from all connexion with the administration, commenced publishing in the newspapers a series of letters, of a highly interesting character, on the recent events.4
Omitting so much of the controversy, as consists only in crimination and recrimination between M. Périer and M. du Molart personally, we shall merely afford our readers the benefit of such light as is thrown by the disclosures now made, upon the causes of the insurrection.
The disturbances originated as the public are aware, in a tariff or scale of increased wages, promulgated under the sanction of the préfet; which was observed for a few days, but afterwards departed from by a portion of the manufacturers, who stopped their works, and refused to give employment to their workmen at the increased rate. Hereupon the operatives, who had previously had full confidence in the continuance of the tariff, and who, to use the expression of M. du Molart, regarded it as their charter, considered themselves to be cruelly injured; and their resentment broke out, in the manner which the public already know.
It now appears that when M. Périer was apprised of the promulgation of the tariff, he made an official intimation to M. du Molart of his disapprobation of it; and desired him, if possible, to allow it to fall into desuetude. This was imposing upon the préfet rather a difficult task; and we cannot be much surprised that no better result should have come of it.
M. du Molart, however, denies the circumstance, upon which the impropriety of the tariff principally depends. He denies that it was prescribed by the authority of government. He affirms, that it was the result of a free compact, concluded between delegates from the workmen, and delegates from the manufacturers; that a small minority only of the manufacturers had any objection to it; that these waived their objection; and that he, the civil magistrate, took no further part in the mutual agreement, than that of attesting and promulgating it. That on receiving M. Périer’s despatch, he hastened to lay before him the real state of the case, and hoped to induce him to withdraw his disapproval: but that in the meanwhile, the fact that the conduct of the préfet had been disapproved of, oozed out of the public offices at Paris (he says it was even mentioned by M. d’Argout, the minister of commerce, to the deputies for the place): that the news found its way to Lyons, and encouraged that small portion of the manufacturers who had originally disapproved of the tariff, to declare open hostility to it, some of them in a manner most unfeeling and insulting as respected the common people. Hereupon the revolt ensued. The conduct of M. du Molart throughout the trying circumstances in which he was afterwards placed, appears from all accounts to have been worthy of a hero.
If the statements of the ex-préfet are correct, it would seem that the fault, if any, imputable to him, was chiefly that of having taken any part in the convention between employers and workmen, even as a mere attesting witness, without first ascertaining that his conduct would meet with the approbation of his superiors. How far the blame of this want of concurrence between the government and its agent, lies with the agent, is a question which seems mainly to depend upon a despatch, which M. du Molart affirms that he wrote and sent, and which the minister denies having received. By what strange misadventure the two statements can both come to be true, or which of the two parties asserts a falsehood, we have no materials for conjecture.
A remarkable circumstance is, that M. du Molart denies the existence of any peculiar stagnation in the manufactures of Lyons. He affirms on the contrary, that they are in a state of unusual activity.
The late political events, [says he,] which have in general exercised so unfavourable an influence over mercantile affairs, have had little effect upon the manufactures of Lyons. There has been no want of employment, thanks to immense orders given by the Americans. The year 1829 was that of the greatest activity of the manufacture, which reached almost 600,000 kilogrammes. The year following the revolution, from July 1830 to July 1831, fell short of this maximum by no more than 15,000 kilogrammes. Not only all the workmen have been constantly employed, but the length of their day’s work has been greatly increased, and six thousand machines have remained idle for want of hands. In this situation, however, the workmen complained; they addressed respectful petitions to the authorities; they assembled with order, calmness, and decency, in a private house; they named a committee to state and support their claims. Public opinion was in their favour; they inspired general interest, and all the manufacturers of proper feelings admitted, that these unfortunate people, by working eighteen hours a-day, did not gain even enough to sustain life.5
This is very unlike what has been stated in all other quarters, as to the decline of the trade; and M. du Molart, it must be remembered, is strongly interested in making out a case for that rise of wages, to which, in an evil hour for the city of Lyons, he gave his official authority. This statement, however, is specific; and being in figures, may be disproved if not correct. It is important that the truth should be known.
If M. du Molart’s statement is correct, a rise of wages was warranted by the state of the trade; but also, it would have been brought about by the state of the trade without his interference, and then it is likely the workmen might not have considered the new law of wages as “their charter,” justifying insurrection, like that of Paris, if it were violated. Wages at starvation point, and six thousand looms standing still for want of workmen, are two circumstances, M. du Molart may be assured, which could not have gone on for many days together. We confess, the fact that any number of the manufacturers should have dismissed their workmen rather than pay the advance of wages, throws very great doubt in our minds upon M. du Molart’s assertion, that the increased scale was called for by the prosperity of the trade.
Under all suppositions as to this matter, the practical conclusion is one and the same. There exists unhappily no doubt as to the miserably low wages of the Lyons’ operatives. They are admitted to be in consequence the worst fed, sallowest, and feeblest in bodily frame, of all the working people of France. Now, there is not a single article of importance consumed by the labourer, which is not taxed to an enormous amount, either for revenue or protection. His clothes are taxed by the duties on cottons and woollens; his fire is taxed by the high price of wood occasioned by the duties on iron, his bread and his meat are taxed by the duties on corn and cattle, for purposes of protection. His wine, (which corresponds to our small beer) is taxed, his salt is taxed, his only luxury, tobacco, is raised by a monopoly many hundred per cent. in price, and all articles of agricultural produce are taxed over again by the octroi, for purposes of revenue. The genius of fiscality has exhausted every device by which the iron hand of the tax-gatherer can be driven hard and deep into the pockets of the very poorest class; who being in a still greater ratio the most numerous class, are the payers of the most productive taxes.
Let the government do its duty on all these points; let it abstain from robbing the people for its own benefit, or for the benefit of landholders and great capitalists; and it may leave the question between them and their employers to be adjusted between them and their employers. How much of the great concerns of society may or may not be brought within the functions of government, when government shall be something very different from what it is, it would be premature for us to decide. But we are sure, that as governments are at present constituted, the less they have to do with the regulation of contracts between man and man the better for society; and the more strictly they confine themselves to the mere protection of person and property from force or fraud, the better they know their proper stations, and the more good, or rather the less intolerable evil they produce.
But of all these matters M. du Molart is so far from being sensible, that while he thinks the regulation of wages quite a proper subject for the interference of authority, he is a declared partisan of the droits réunis, as preferable to direct taxation; and goes so far as to condemn even the trifling alleviation of the duties on wine, which was granted at the close of 1830, when the wine countries on the south were in a state in which the tax could not otherwise have been collected but at the bayonet’s point. M. du Molart was one of Bonaparte’s préfets; and this, to any one who knows what these were, means, that in the eyes of M. du Molart, the only one requisite of a good tax, is to be productive to the revenue. We mistake; there is another virtue, namely, to take the people’s money as it were while they are asleep, and without their being sensible who takes it. This is the ground of the preference for indirect taxes.
M. Fiévée, who knew this kind of men well, divides them into two classes: the teachers of Bonaparte, and his pupils. Such men as M. du Molart belong to the latter class. It was of them (and more especially of M. Louis, the present minister of finance) that M. Fiévée, writing at a time when these very men were in power, said, “Je connais bien nos administrateurs actuels: ils sont d’une fiscalité qui déconcertait quelquefois Napoléon, le plus fiscal des hommes.”6 Apt scholars, who surpassed even their schoolmaster.
The debate on the budget will commence in a few days. We shall then see what the sages of the Palais-Bourbon will think proper to do with the Taxes on Poverty. As for the Corn Bill, poor and insignificant as is the palliative which it offers of a radically pernicious principle of legislation, there seems to be a general understanding that the Landlords’ House (for such the Chamber of Deputies truly is) will not pass it this session.7 It cannot come on before the budget, and when the budget is passed, it is expected that the Chambers will be prorogued, leaving all other questions in statu quo.
In the mean time, two commissions of the Chamber, on two very important bills, have presented reports more liberal (a rare occurrence) than the original scheme. One of these bills is the highly important one for national education.8 A majority of the commission on this bill consisted (Heaven knows how!) of members of the Opposition; including several of the most respected leaders, with the venerable M. Daunou at their head. This eminent patriot, eminent alike by his talents and his virtues, was named the reporter of the commission; and though we have not yet seen his report, there can be no doubt of the benevolent and enlightened character of a document on such a subject, emanating from the founder of the Institute of France.9 The ministry, we perceive, are violently adverse to some of the amendments which he proposes.
The other bill to which we have alluded, is for defining the functions of the municipal councils: the composition of those bodies, by popular election, having been provided for by a law passed in the preceding session.10 The ministerial projet, though it modified to a certain extent, maintained in all its main features Napoleon’s system of centralization;11 that system which, while it crushed the provinces under the oppressive weight of the metropolis, rendered the fit performance of public business impossible: the local authorities not having power to perform the most trifling act of administration (unless it were a matter of mere routine) without orders from Paris, which, in consequence of the immense quantity of such business which flowed in and accumulated, they often had to wait months for, the exigency in the mean time passing away, and endless mischiefs occurring for want of doing that which could not under this system be sooner done. The report of the commission proposes a far greater alteration in the existing system, and confers upon the inhabitants of the different localities, through their local representatives, a far greater share in the management of their local affairs, than the scheme of the Government.
Let us hope that leisure will be found for disposing of these two great questions before the prorogation; or at all events that by the adoption of M. Salverte’s proposition with respect to dropped bills,12 they may be allowed to come on at once for discussion at the opening of the following session; which cannot be long after the close of the present, for it takes three months to vote a budget, and the budget of 1833 has also to be voted in 1832. The deputies of France, by the way, take their legislative duties rather coolly; a sitting of five hours seems to be the very longest which they ever allow themselves. One night’s debating in the House of Commons, from four in the afternoon to three in the morning, is equivalent to nearly a week’s exertions of the French Chamber. It is true that their deputies are obliged to be more regular in attendance than members of the English Parliament, as the Chamber cannot deliberate unless a majority of its whole members be present.13
The commission on the civil list has not yet presented its report.14 This question must, by the terms of the Charter be disposed of in the present session.15 It is true that there is little need for being in any hurry to vote money to the Citizen King, as he is already expending provisionally a far larger sum per month than any Chamber, not having arrived at the last stage of profligate impudence, will venture permanently to grant to him. Statements have been made, which, if not refuted, prove that the expenses on account of the civil list since the accession of Louis-Philippe have amounted to nearly forty millions of francs; fully as much as Charles X ever expended in the same time, and greatly exceeding the eighteen millions a year (£720,000) which were all that Louis-Philippe himself dared ask for, in the bill which was presented last year,16 and immediately withdrawn, from the explosion of public indignation at the magnitude of the demand. Let it be recollected, that the Civil List in France includes none of the expenses of the state, unless that of keeping up the Gobelins and Sèvres manufactories, and a few other items of no great consequence, are so considered. All the rest goes to the support of the King and royal family, and the officers of their household, to defraying their private expenses, and keeping up the domains of Versailles, Fontainebleau, and about a dozen other old palaces and their appurtenances; to which, however, forests are attached, sufficient, it is affirmed, even now, and more than sufficient under proper managements, to pay all the expenses. Along with all this, we must take into account the private fortune of Louis-Philippe, which is estimated to yield annually five or six millions more; exclusive, we presume, of the ill-gotten inheritance of the poor Duc de Bourbon, now owned by one of Louis-Philippe’s younger sons,17 but which, if the facts asserted are made out, the verdict of a court of justice may shortly require back from his hands.
This remarkable trial, to which we believe we were the first to draw public notice in this country,18 but which has since been much discussed in the other papers,19 is still far from being concluded, no more than one day in every week being dedicated to it. We shall keep our eyes fixed upon the proceedings, and form the best opinion we can of the weight of evidence which may be produced on each side.
We must defer till next week some observations which we had intended to make upon that part of the four days’ debate in the Chamber of Deputies, which related to the enrollment of a hired rabble in aid of the police on the 14th of July last.20
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The article, headed “London, January 8, 1832,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
the remainder of M. du Molart’s letters on the revolt of Lyons have appeared.1 They contain no further information of importance, on the causes or circumstances of the insurrection; but they charge M. Périer with asserting a direct falsehood in the Chamber of Deputies. The particulars of the case are these:—
When the Chamber, shortly after its meeting, had under consideration the validity of the election of M. Jars, by one of the electoral colleges of Lyons, it was affirmed that the president of one of the sections of that college had, during the election, communicated to the electors a telegraphic dispatch, received from Paris on the 6th of June, to the following effect: “Paris is perfectly quiet: the elections are declaring themselves there, as well as in other places, under the most favourable auspices: considerable majorities are declaring themselves.”2
This proceeding was severely censured, not only by the Opposition, but by the bureau of the Chamber which had to report on the validity of the election. It was declared to be an attempt to influence the votes of the electors, in violation of an express law, by which the electoral colleges are interdicted from deliberations or proceedings of any kind whatsoever, except simple voting.3 Hereupon, M. Périer positively declared that no telegraphic dispatch was sent on the 6th or 7th of June, and that the dispatch in question was not sent till the 8th, after the elections were over in almost all parts of France.4
Now, this statement M. du Molart asserts to be a falsehood. He affirms that the story, as it was first told, was strictly true: that the telegraphic dispatch was couched exactly in the words mentioned; that it was received on the 6th; that he still possesses the original copy, as taken down from the telegraph; and that he can establish the fact by the most perfect evidence.
Whether M. Périer, according to his customary practice, has prosecuted M. du Molart for defamation, we have not learned. But whichever of the two parties has falsified the truth (that either can be merely mistaken is in the nature of the case impossible), the exhibition is a curious one, and little creditable to the French character. There are a hundred points on which the tone both of public and private morality is far higher among the French than among ourselves. It would not seem to be so, in the important point of personal veracity. England is the classic land of cant; the hypocritical pretence of feelings and opinions utterly foreign to the character of the person professing them, is so much a matter of course in our Parliament, so completely conventional, that hardly any body is sensible of its baseness. But we solemnly assure our friends in France, of our firm belief that no man, Whig or Tory, who has been a Cabinet Minister of England within the present generation, was ever suspected, by his worst enemies, of deliberately denying, in the face of the public, any act of his own individually; and that no man who has held high office within the same period would have been capable of the falsehood which, if M. Périer is innocent, must be imputed to M. du Molart: unless indeed, he be an Irishman: for that nation, also superior to ourselves in some highly valuable qualities, is well understood to be, in all ranks of society, considerably below the English and Scotch in adherence to truth.
The recent proceedings in a French court of justice, on the trial of two editors of newspapers for defamation of M. Casimir Périer and M. Vivien,5 afforded some very significant circumstances in illustration of the state of moral feeling in France with respect to personal veracity, and of several other curious points of national character. The libel, as it would be stiled in this country, consisted, as is well known, in charging the authorities with having hired some of the lowest order of workmen, at three francs a head, to aid the police in case of the apprehended disturbances on the anniversary of the destruction of the Bastille. These workmen had acted with unnecessary violence and brutality against some young men engaged in planting a tree of liberty; and had never been called to account for this conduct, while their paid-for services had been celebrated in the Moniteur as a proof of the excellent spirit which animated the working population.6 On the trial, it was established that the workmen had been regularly enrolled, and formed into a kind of organized force, by a man named Souchet, who kept a tavern in the Faubourg St. Antoine; and that the belief was general in the Faubourg, that they were to receive three francs a head. The doubtful question was, whether the police, and the ministry, or either of them, were parties to the transaction. Souchet himself was brought forward to swear that they were not; and M. Carlier, the head of the local police, and M. Bouvatier, mayor of one of the arrondissements of Paris, both swore positively that they themselves had no concern in the matter, beyond having merely heard of it.7 But on the succeeding day, M. Bouvatier spontaneously presented himself before the Court, and stated that in a moment of irritation, occasioned by a calumnious imputation made against him by a previous witness, he had sworn to a falsehood; and that this had caused him so much distress of mind, that he was anxious to make all the reparation in his power, by publicly confessing his fault, and declaring the truth. He then gave evidence implying a much greater degree of participation, or at least connivance on his part, with respect to the proceedings of Souchet, than he had admitted in his testimony of the day before. This received evidence of M. Bouvatier, combined with the obvious prevarication of Souchet, were what chiefly induced the jury to acquit the accused.
Thus, then, the matter stood, when, in the recent debate of four days on the policy of the ministers, M. Mauguin revived the subject of the enlistments, and produced a letter from Souchet.8 In this letter, which was addressed to the editor of the National (one of the defendants in the trial),9 Souchet declared, that he also had committed perjury before the tribunal; that he also, like M. Bouvatier, wished to make reparation by proclaiming the truth; which when he should have done, he should, he hoped, be restored to the esteem of honest men. He then proceeded to declare, that he had enlisted the workmen at the express instigation of M. Carlier, the head of the municipal police of Paris, who, as we have already mentioned, had sworn on the trial, that he had nothing to do with the matter. The principal agent in the affair, Souchet added, was an employé of the police, by name Alexandre, who was not produced as a witness, and who, it seems, has absconded.
M. Périer, in reply, remarked, that no witness had appeared on the trial, who was able to swear to having actually received money.10 He affirmed that no money had been furnished by Government; that whatever might have been Souchet’s proceedings, he alone was responsible for them, having acted without the cognizance either of the ministry or of the police; and if he had held out to the workmen any hopes of pecuniary reward, he must have intended to deceive them, and to make a merit with Government of his instrumentality in persuading them to volunteer their services gratuitously. M. Périer accordingly produced a letter from Souchet, written shortly after the occurrences, soliciting some recompense of his zeal; and insisted upon what, indeed, was sufficiently obvious, the little credit due to the assertions of a man who, when all the world is already convinced that he was perjured, at last confesses it himself, and presents himself with a second story, in direct contradiction to his first.
The probability of M. Périer’s participation rests wholly upon the circumstantial evidence derived from the disappearance of the police agent Alexandre, and from the fact that no attempt has been made on the part of Government to clear up the mystery of the transaction, and to remove from employment any of its officers who may be found to have participated in it. This evidence is certainly very far from conclusive: but whatever degree of suspicion it is calculated to engender, M. Périer has done nothing to dispel it, having offered no explanation of either of the above circumstances.
The Bill relating to the Peerage11 has passed the second Chamber without alteration, and is by this time part of the Constitution of France. The mischievous alteration mentioned in our last paper as having been proposed by the commission, was almost universally scouted.12 It is said, that even the Ministers were averse to it, being anxious that the Bill should not be sent back to the Chamber of Deputies.
The Peers are now engaged in the discussion of a Bill, introduced by the Ministry into their House, for a reform in that part of the French law which relates to imprisonment for debt.13 The law, even with the proposed alteration, has excited surprise in this country by its extreme harshness; but it is stated that the tribunals of commerce, which are composed of mercantile men, possess and exercise the power of confining the operation of its provisions to debtors who are criminal, and not merely unfortunate.
M. Salverte’s proposition14 for allowing bills which are lost by a prorogation, to be taken up in the succeeding session at the point at which their progress had been interrupted, has passed the Chamber of Deputies, with a slight modification, confining its benefit to bills on which a commission has reported.
The Commission on the Civil List has at length made its report:15 and the subject is fixed for immediate discussion. This debate will be immediately followed by that on the budget; the report on the expenses (or the estimates, as we should call them) having been received: that on the receipts (or the ways and means) will shortly follow.16 The subjects of public education and municipal institutions are therefore postponed till after the budget—that is to say, to the next session: but in consequence of the adoption of M. Salverte’s proposition, these bills will stand for discussion immediately after the meeting of the Chamber. It is to be hoped that the Commission on the Corn Bill will at least make its report before the prorogation, that this great subject may also be disposed of at an early period of the next session.17 We hope, indeed, for no other good from the report, in the hands to which the composition of it has been entrusted.
The Commission on the Budget has excited great dissatisfaction among the popular party, by proposing no greater retrenchment than 10½ millions of francs, upon estimates amounting to 956,000,000, independent of 140,000,000 of extraordinary expenses, occasioned by defensive military preparations.
The Commission on the Civil List were equally divided on the amount at which it should be fixed: four members proposing twelve millions and a half, and four others fourteen millions.18 The ninth Member of the Commission, M. de Cormenin, who is for a much smaller amount than either, stands aloof from both, and is now publishing in the French papers a most able series of letters on the Civil List.19 It is said that Louis Philippe, whose ruling passion seems to be avarice, is greatly offended at the smallness even of the largest sum suggested by the Commission.
The lawsuit on the will of the Duke of Bourbon makes but slow progress.20 The Spectator is severe upon us for having said, that if the case stated for the plaintiff is made out, Louis Philippe is scarcely fit to live.21 We ask the Spectator whether this is too much to say of a man, who is a party to extorting a will in his own favour, from a feeble old man, through a long series of perpetual annoyance and persecution, by a woman who, from being the mistress, had become the tyrant of her protector? Has our contemporary read the letter of the wretched old man to Louis Philippe himself, beseeching him to use his influence with Madame de Feuchères to prevail on her to cease importuning him on the subject; and the canting answer of Louis Philippe to this letter, containing every thing which a man of common delicacy would not have written in answer to such a request?22 Even to accept the inheritance, were there no proof except this letter of the means by which it was obtained, is an indelible disgrace; though he had been the most necessitous of mankind, instead of being the monarch of one of the greatest nations, and possessed besides of one of the greatest private fortunes, in Europe.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, January 15, 1832,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
the french chamber of deputies continues discussing the Civil List.1 The amount is not yet decided upon.
In the course of the debate, M. de Montalivet, the Minister of Public Instruction, employed the expression, “subjects of the King;”2 and a great number of the Opposition Members took offence at the term, declaring, that since the Revolution of July, Frenchmen were not the subjects, but the fellow-citizens, of their chief magistrate. The sensitiveness evinced on the subject of a word has excited much surprise and a little contempt on this side of the channel; and it must be allowed to have been excessive, when contrasted with the much less violent feelings which would have been displayed on subjects of much greater importance. But we consider the incapacity which has been evinced in this country, to understand and sympathise in such feelings, a far worse symptom of national character than a little excess in the feelings themselves. Let us not lay the pleasing unction to our souls,3 that it is a proof of our superior wisdom and manliness. It arises simply from this, that in France, words really mean things; while our political vocabulary is a mere conventional jargon. We have reached that last stage of political hypocrisy, in which we are even unconscious of using the language of deception; because nobody ever dreams that we intend the obvious meaning of our words. The courtesies of politics, with us, have gradually attained the pure no-meaning of the courtesies of private life among the Orientals; who, if they were really ready to sacrifice their lives for you, would have no words in which to tell you so, every phrase they could have used for that purpose having dwindled down into a mere form of politeness. With them, as with us, it cannot be said that the person who uses the lying language shows himself personally indifferent to truth, for custom causes the words to be taken in a purely complimentary sense. But the very fact that the words have thus altered their meaning, is a far greater proof of long habits of hypocrisy than any other which could be produced, since it is evidence against the whole nation.
All our institutions are based upon falsehoods. English law is one mass of fiction. The law of real property is entirely founded upon pretended feudal rights in the King and his vassals,—rights which once existed, but have long ceased to exist. The whole practice of our courts of justice is made up of fiction. Every summons to appear before a court of law pretends that the King is personally present to try the cause. A common subpoena to attend as a witness, is an order to appear before the King, in company with a fictitious personage, named John Doe. You cannot bring an action in one of the courts without pretending to be a debtor of the King, nor in another without saying that you are in the Marshalsea prison, nor in either without telling the most ridiculous falsehoods about the nature of your claim. It is not wonderful, where falsehoods without an object are in the common course of things, that falsehoods of servility should be universal: that the King’s exemption from legal responsibility should be dressed up into that notable piece of sycophancy, “the King can do no wrong;”4 that Ministers of the Crown should call the King their master, and themselves his servants, that he should be stiled in all legal documents, “our Lord the King;” and, to crown all, that expressions like these,—expressions identical with those used towards God Almighty,—should be uttered of the chief magistrate of the State, by highminded men, without any intention of hypocrisy or sense of degradation.
Words have never been deemed a matter of indifference in politics, where anything like a healthful tone of political morality has prevailed. They were not deemed a matter of indifference in Greece or Rome, nor are they deemed so in the United States of America, nor in France. But they were so deemed at the Court of Darius, and at the Court of Louis XIV.5 They are so deemed in China, and in Hindostan, and in England. How should it be otherwise? When words are thought of no consequence, it is because feelings are thought of no consequence. It is words which bind together and call forth feelings. All but philosophers are mainly governed by the associations connected with words. Why did Julius Caesar wish to be a King, when he already seemed to have all the power of one?6 Because no one can have all the power, who has not the name. Why was the name of King necessary to France, after the three days of July? Because no other name would have had command over those associations, by which, far more than either by interest or duty, mankind are kept in obedience to established governments. Words are the grand instruments of educating the imagination; and all the affections except those of our daily life. And from this and other causes running parallel with it, arises the fact so often observed, that there exists no more certain symptom of national corruption than the corruption of the language. With the fall of Grecian liberty commenced the decline of the Greek language; the corruption of Latinity might be measured by the succession of the Roman Emperors: and our own language has advanced as much in effeminacy since the days of Milton and Harrington, and Bishop Taylor and Hobbes,7 as the French language has grown in masculine vigour since the death of Louis XV.8 For it is the national literature and the national character which first shape the language, and are afterwards reacted upon by the character which they have impressed upon it.
Of the immense advantages which France owes to her revolutions, it is not one of the least, that the language of her constitution is the expression of the real principles of her constitution. The words were framed to express things as they really exist; and being still new, they have not lost their original freshness of meaning. It is accordingly as much expected that a man shall mean what he says, in public as in private life. The language used by respectable men at the tribune, or through the press, is expected to be the expression of their real feelings; and there would be as much disgrace in substituting words of mere ceremony, as there is in practising hypocrisy towards an individual. When this shall be the case in England, Englishmen will be able to understand why the Opposition in the Chamber of Deputies, could not bear to be called the subjects of their shopkeeper-king. Till then, we shall probably continue to laugh at their folly, and to compliment ourselves on our good sense, upon the strength of our moral callousness.
The Morning Chronicle has had an able article on this subject, which was cleverly followed up in the same paper by an anonymous correspondent.9
There has been a conspiracy at Paris. An insurrectionary proclamation has been discovered: the conspirators were to sound the great bell of Notre Dame, and to set fire to a tower, by way of signal. Unhappily, however, the Times had awkwardly early information of the discovery. M. Périer had arranged that the conspiracy should break out on Monday, and informed the correspondent of the Times accordingly, but afterwards put off the discovery for two days longer, forgetting to give due notice to the said correspondent: who consequently wrote word to the Times on Tuesday, of what did not take place till Wednesday.10 This was a sad blunder of M. Périer. A conspiracy so miserably bungled can be of little use to any Government. It was well enough to have a plot, but it should not have been seen to be got up by the Ministers themselves.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, January 22, 1832,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
the civil list of louis philippe is at length finally voted by the Chamber of Deputies. It amounts to twelve millions of francs (480,000l.)1 It is therefore a trifle less than the Civil List of our own King; who, however, has not a private fortune, amounting to about half as much more; who, unlike Louis Philippe, thinks himself bound to pay to the richest noblemen of the land, salaries worth the acceptance of such persons, for consenting to be officers of his household; and who never said any thing about surrounding his throne with republican institutions,2 nor ever claimed or affected to call himself a Citizen King.
Even this large sum, however, is no more than two-thirds of that which was originally proposed, and which Louis Philippe has received provisionally up to this time. The Chamber has decided that he shall not be called upon to refund, although the disbursement was made without any legal authority.
Several young men, members of the Société des Amis du Peuple, have been tried for circulating some republican pamphlets. On the trial they avowed, and even ostentatiously proclaimed, their political opinions; for which conduct, although they were acquitted by the jury, the judge took upon himself to pass sentences of six, twelve, and fifteen months imprisonment on several of their number.3The Times is as abusive on the occasion, as every one who knows the habits and character of that journal would naturally expect.4 Its indignation against the principles professed by these “fellows,” as it calls them, in that elegant and polished style of vituperation for which it is celebrated, renders it utterly blind to the flagrant injustice of which they are the victims. These young men were not conspirators; they were not put on their trial for conspiracy, but simply for publishing opinions in disapprobation of the existing form of government. When the jury have declared by their verdict, that men ought not to be punished for publishing republican opinions, is the judge to set aside the verdict of the jury, and condemn the prisoners, on his own authority, to sentences even more severe than would have been the consequences of conviction, on the pretext that they have adopted an improper course of defence?—The defence of some of them was intemperate and silly; probably the original publications were so: but a prisoner on his trial is, by the laws of all countries, privileged to enjoy a great latitude, both in the topics he brings forward, and in the language he employs. And we solemnly affirm, that if some of those who have been thus nefariously treated, afforded some colour at least for such treatment, others, if the report we have read is correct,5 were absolutely innocent of using a single expression which ought to have subjected them even to a reprimand.
THE IRISH CHARACTER
This unheaded leading article, an early indication of the interest in national character that led to Mill’s unfulfilled wish to write an “Ethology,” is described in his bibliography as “An article on the Irish character in reply to a correspondent signing himself ‘Erinensis,’ subjoined to the summary of French news [i.e., No. 137], in the Examiner of 22d January 1832” (MacMinn, p. 19). It is listed as “Article on the Irish character, in reply to a correspondent” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner. The letter by Erinensis, which was not published in the Examiner, has not been located.
we have received a letter, signed Erinensis, accusing us of having “taken advantage of the Périer and Cormenin controversy to fling a deliberate and wanton insult on the Irish character,” and calling upon us to state “from what sources of authority” we have derived our ideas of the Irish character, “or what the relative veracity of our respective countries had to do with the squabbles of Messrs. Périer and Cormenin.”1 As we should be much grieved to be thought capable of going out of our way to say what might hurt the feelings of any one, we shall answer the second question first. We were laying claim, in behalf of our countrymen, to a superiority in private veracity over the French. Now, as the Irish, though they do not consider themselves our countrymen, are considered such by foreigners, we thought it right, in order not to make a false impression, to state that we meant the assertion only of the English and Scotch.
As for our “sources of authority” in regard to the Irish character, we have none that are peculiar to ourselves: our evidence is public notoriety. To go no further, we have reason to believe that most tradesmen of respectability will inform—not our fiery correspondent—but any cooler person, or himself in a cooler mood, that they will give credit to an Englishman or a Scotchman, but not to an Irishman.
Having now answered our correspondent’s two questions, we hope he will not think ill of us for saying, that, as we never hesitate to denounce the national faults and vices of our own country, often at a great sacrifice of our interest as journalists, we think it but fair that we should use as little reserve in speaking of other nations and races of men. We can assure our correspondent that the feeling with which we wrote was any thing but one of reproach or of triumph. We are but too grievously sensible of the load of guilt which lies upon the conscience of England for the vices of Irishmen. Would misgovernment be the crying and dreadful evil that it is, if ages of it were not sufficient to leave any visible stain upon the national character? The only wonder is, that any virtue should survive, in a society the most wretchedly constituted which has existed in Europe since the commencement of modern civilisation. We believe from our hearts that the virtue of Englishmen would, in a few generations, have become utterly extinct under such treatment. What has preserved Ireland from the lowest stage of moral debasement, has been that susceptibility of ardent and generous emotion, which is common to her people with the French, and in which the inhabitants of our own island are, in comparison with either, most conspicuously deficient. But this noble quality, the fountain of so many virtues, is the characteristic excellence of an impressible people—a people all alive to the sensation of the moment, little addicted to calm reflection, and on whom distant motives have comparatively little influence. The virtues of spontaneous growth among such a people, can never be the virtues of self-control: if these are found in such a soil, they must be the fruit of sedulous moral culture. Such a people will be generous, brave, hospitable, keenly alive both to kindness and to unkindness, ardent in their private attachments, in their humanity, in their patriotism. But it requires highly favourable circumstances to render them equally remarkable for the virtues which consist in curbing impulse, and resisting temptation: stern integrity, justice, forethought, self-denial, veracity. In many of the positive virtues, the Irish are probably, the French certainly, our superiors. In many of the negative ones, both, we fear, have much to learn even from so imperfect an example as ours.
EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN MANUFACTORIES
This leader, headed as title, is in the “Political Examiner.” See the further correspondence in No. 146. The article is described in Mill’s bibliography as “An article headed ‘Employment of children in Manufactories’ in the Examiner of 29th Jan. 1832” (MacMinn, p. 19), and listed as title and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner, where there is one correction: at 399.20, “this gradually; and” is changed to “this. Gradually, and”.
we have received a most able and interesting paper, emanating from a committee of operative flax-spinners at Dundee, and entituled “Reasons for a Legislative measure (similar to that lately proposed by Sir J.C. Hobhouse) to limit and regulate the hours during which young persons may be employed to labour in flax-spinning mills throughout Scotland.”1 The force of argument, and dignified calmness of manner, displayed in this document, to which the ablest periodical works of the day could not produce on this important subject any thing superior, entitle it to be read and pondered over by every one who takes interest either in the physical well being of the manufacturing population, or in the symptoms and results of that remarkable intelligence which, under so many unfavourable circumstances, has so generally diffused itself among them.
The moral and physical evils occasioned by the over-working of male and female children in manufactories are powerfully depicted in this paper; all the arguments against legislative interference, which self-interest or the spirit of routine has suggested, are refuted with much dialectical skill, and an enquiry before a parliamentary committee is prayed for to substantiate all the facts stated. For our own part, we should most strenuously applaud, not merely the measure proposed, of restricting the employment of children in manufactories to a certain number of hours out of the twenty-four, but even a far wider measure than this. Gradually, and, with due consideration of existing interests and expectations, we should wish to see a law established, interdicting altogether the employment of children under fourteen, and females of any age, in manufactories.
No one can hesitate to acknowledge how desirable it is that such employment should cease. No well-wisher to his species can desire that children, up to the age of fourteen, should be employed otherwise than in fitting their bodies by exercise and freedom, and their minds by education, and that best of all moral training, that of the parental fireside, for the duties which they have to discharge in life. As little can it be desired that the mother of children should be employed in any gainful occupation which withdraws her from the midst of her family. Another thing is equally obvious.
The Dundee operatives profess themselves willing to submit to the diminution of earnings, which would be the effect of the measure they propose; but the truth is, that neither that, nor the more extensive measure which we advocate, would produce any diminution of earnings. It would withdraw a certain number of competitors from the labour market; and the wages of the remainder would immediately rise to the same aggregate amount. The diminished production would be a diminution solely of the capitalist’s profits; which would no doubt be reduced by this, in the same manner as by any other rise of wages. Such diminution is desirable; since it is of greater importance that the labourer should have wages sufficient for his comfort, than that his employer should receive £2000 a year instead of £1000. If the manufacturer requires compensation, let it be given by a repeal of the corn laws, and a commutation of all taxes falling upon the necessaries of life, or the materials of manufacture.
The objections which are to be anticipated from well-meaning and enlightened men, are not to the desirableness of the end in view, but to the propriety of attempting to effect it by legislative enactment. They consist of arguments drawn from the non-interference philosophy, and resting on the maxim, that government ought not to prohibit individuals, not under the influence of force or fraud, from binding themselves by any engagement which they may think fit to contract, provided it do not violate the legal rights of a third party.
Of this principle we are ourselves partisans up to a certain point; but it appears to us that there is a large class of cases, to which the reason of the principle does not apply, and to which, therefore, the principle itself cannot properly be applicable. The reason of the principle is, that an individual may be presumed a better judge of his own interest than the government, at least as governments are now constituted. But is it not very possible that cases may exist, in which it would be highly for the advantage of every body, if every body were to act in a certain manner, but in which it is not the interest of any individual to adopt the rule for the guidance of his own conduct, unless he has some security that all others will do so too? There are a thousand such cases: and when they arise, who is to afford the security that is wanting, except the legislature?
The case now under consideration is a case of this description. It would be highly for the advantage of the labouring classes, to agree never to allow their wives or young children to receive employment in manufactories. If this agreement were made and executed, wages would rise, so that the man alone would be able to earn all that is now earned by the entire family. But as soon as this was the case, it would become the private interest of individuals to break through the rule. Any man whose wife and children work while others abstain, gets the advantage of the high wages, both for his own labour and for theirs. All needy and selfish persons would take advantage of this; wages would gradually relapse to their present low rate; and then, it would be necessary for all to revert to present practice, in order to live.
This is therefore precisely the kind of case in which the government ought to interfere. It is a case in which the private immediate interest of each individual is necessarily in opposition to the general interest, unless a universal compact among all individuals is made and enforced. But the only power which can promulgate and guarantee a compact among all the labouring people of the community, is the government; and the only mode in which it can do so is by a law. If it is beyond the competency of government to do this, it is beyond their competency to do any thing. No objection would apply to their right to make this law, which would not prove that they had no right to prohibit stealing. Even if there were no government, it would be for the general interest of the community that nobody should steal. Why not leave it then to individual interest? Because, although nobody would benefit if all mankind were to steal, yet if some abstain voluntarily, that very abstinence enables others to benefit themselves by stealing. It is necessary therefore that the compact made among the community generally, should be enforced by penal sanctions against any individual who, while he reaps the benefit of its observance by others, does not himself conform to it.
FRENCH NEWS 
Since this article contains a lengthy defence of the Saint Simonians, Mill sent a copy of it to Michel Chevalier (see n7) through his friend Gustave d’Eichthal (EL, CW, Vol. XII, p. 96). For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The article, headed “London, January 29, 1832,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner, with two inked corrections: at 402.18, “been as long” is altered to “been long” and at 403.23 “instituting” is altered to “substituting”.
the french chamber of deputies has been occupied during all this week in the discussion of the budget.1 The opposition universally demands far greater retrenchments than those purposed by the commission. Of the manner in which this demand is met, the reader may judge, from the expressions of a young ministerial deputy and placeman, M. de Rémusat, who said, “It is time to renounce the chimera or the charlatanism of retrenchments. The taxes are the best possible investment of the people’s money:”2 and this, in fact, seems to be a general opinion among the supporters of the ministry, particularly those who are receivers of taxes,—they all think that the greatest service a Government can do to a country is to tax it highly, because the revenue is all spent in the country. It naturally never occurs to these gentlemen, that it would also be spent in the country, if it were left in the pockets of the payers.
On the other hand, we cannot help blaming many members of the Opposition, for the vehement rhetoric with which they insist on the distresses of the working classes, as a motive for lowering the taxes. Those distresses are not such as could be sensibly alleviated, even by the greatest reduction of taxes, which any one has proposed. They are not caused by the amount of the budgets, but by their present want of employment, and the means of remedying this, are, first, whatever conduces to the restoration of mercantile confidence, and general security: next, whatever by increasing the return to the national capital, extends the range of employment, such as—beneficial public works, and the removal of restrictions on trade or production, and lastly, improvements (and in no country are they more required) in the mode of levying the revenue: which is at present derived, in a very great proportion, from taxes pressing with disproportionate severity upon the very poorest classes. It is chiefly to these three purposes, that an enlightened member of the French Legislature would direct such of his exertions, as are intended for the relief of the immediate sufferings of the labouring classes, and we are happy to say, that there are, even now, many deputies whose exertions are thus directed.
It is remarkable, how far the French public is behind ours on some questions of finance. The absurdity of continuing the payments to the Sinking Fund,3 while actually borrowing money; of borrowing with one hand merely to pay off debt with the other, losing the commission, and the expenses of management;—this flagrant absurdity, which has been long seen through and given up, even by the most ignorant of our hacks in office, is gravely defended at this time of day, not only by the French ministry and the commission of the French Chamber, but even by such men as M. Laffitte; who, undoubtedly, among French financiers, must be deemed a highly instructed man.4
The war against the press continues; The Tribune is now under prosecution, for the thirty-third time since July 1830. The government prosecutions of the press under Louis Philippe have already exceeded in number all those of Louis XVIII and Charles X in the sixteen years of the Restoration. Although in nine cases out of ten the prisoners are acquitted, the vindictive severity of the sentence in the tenth case pays for the whole. M. Allier, an advocate, member of the Society of the Friends of the People, having recently been convicted, for what, if the whole resembles the passages we have seen, appears to us a perfectly innocent publication of political opinions, has been sentenced to a fine and two years imprisonment.5 Three successive editors of the Tribune are now in prison, and have little prospect of ever more being out of it.6 Can any one affect to wonder that men, who are thus treated, without being conscious of any guilt, should write in a tone of exasperation? It is impossible that a government which needs to support itself by such odious means, can have much longer to exist.
Not content with prosecuting the republicans for publishing their speculative opinions, M. Périer has now instituted a prosecution of a similar kind against the chiefs of the St. Simonians.7 The republicans have often been intemperate in addressing the public, and have shown that they would at least not be sorry if the consequence of their writings were an insurrection; but the St. Simonians are as mild and pacific in their opinions and in their language as the Quakers themselves, and have studiously impressed upon the minds of the working people, in every way in which they could gain access to them, that nothing can, in the present age, be so prejudicial to their chances of improving their condition as violence in any shape.
We anticipate nothing from this most contemptible attempt at putting down opinion by the law, except a still more rapid growth of this religious and political sect: who, whatever may be thought of their system as a whole, (and from some parts of it few can dissent more strongly than ourselves) are yet, in our opinion, eminently right in many other of their views, whose leaders are among the ablest and most highly instructed men in France; whose writings and preachings are distinguished for literary talent, and can be read by few, who are capable of thinking, without advantage—who, in the course of a year, have entirely changed the character of political discussion, in the provincial, and, in some measure, even the Paris papers, by substituting important ideas of practical improvement for mere phrases and abstractions; and whose extraordinary success, up to the present time, we ascribe wholly to their real superiority over all other parties, sects, or classes of thinkers and writers in France. We have little expectation that the St. Simonian society will hold together for many years, nor are we by any means convinced that it is desirable it should. But we are satisfied that its rise and progress is an important event in history; at once an evidence, and a cause, of an entirely new tone of thinking and feeling in France, as well among philosophers and publicists, as in the nation at large.
HICKSON’S THE NEW CHARTER
This review, another of Mill’s infrequent newspaper comments on the current battle for British reform, indicates his early acquaintance with William Hickson (1803-70), philanthropist and educational reformer, with whom he was later intimately involved in journalism and municipal reform. The review, in the “Literary Examiner,” is headed “The New Charter. Humbly addressed to the King and both Houses of Parliament. Proposed as the basis of a Constitution for the Government of Great Britain and Ireland; and as a substitute for the Reform Bill rejected by the Lords. [London:] Strange, Paternoster-row. 1831. pp. 16.” It is described in Mill’s bibliography as “A review of a pamphlet entitled ‘The New Charter’ (by William Hickson), in the Examiner of 5th February 1832” (MacMinn, p. 19), and is listed as “Review of ‘The New Charter,’ a pamphlet by William Hickson” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
this little tract, the production of one who enjoys great and deserved influence among the middle classes of London, to whom he himself belongs, is well-deserving of attention from all who wish to know what is passing in the minds of the most intelligent leaders of the people. It displays considerable reflection, and some reach of thought. The writer has a mind sufficiently enlarged to feel the value of principles in politics, without falling into the common error of those who, having a little cleverness and a large stock of self-conceit, imagine that some one principle, which they have caught a glimpse of, contains all political science within itself.
After a brief introduction, the author enumerates the leading maxims on which, in his opinion, governments should be founded. We think we can perceive a tendency in the writer, which we regret, to a belief that his principles are of universal application; that the science of politics is fixed and unchangeable, like a system of abstract truth, instead of being, as we consider it, progressive with civilization, and fluctuating with the exigencies of society. But to most of his maxims, as applied to the present state of Great Britain and Ireland, we have little to object. Some of them, when stated in a general way, have the air of barren truisms; but even these, when interpreted according to the explanations and remarks which accompany them like a running commentary, will occasionally, we might say invariably, be found to rise into unexpected significance and importance.
Among the principles enumerated, will be observed, along with some which are familiar texts of the democratic reformers, several which have probably been the result of the author’s individual meditations, there being few accessible sources whence he can have derived them. His most valuable idea, in our estimation, is that of the importance of local representative bodies for the management of local affairs: his greatest error, the opinion that, by the aid of such local arrangements, portions of the human race so heterogeneous as the people of England and those of India, for instance, or our Slave Colonies, can possibly be united under a uniform representative government. His plan, too, of a ladder of elections, mounting by successive stages from the village to the empire—A electing B, who elects C, who elects D—is a part of his system which we strongly urge him to reconsider.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, February 5, 1832,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
m. de cormenin has published a letter1 to M. Casimir Périer, which is the hardest blow the Minister has ever yet received. With this exception, scarcely any thing of importance has occurred in France during the last week. The discussion of the Budget continues. The Chamber has decided, by a small majority, that it will persevere in the detected juggle of paying off debt by borrowing; the preposterous and self-contradictory job of giving large profits to contractors and stockbrokers for allowing the French Government the use of its own money.
Several good speeches have been delivered in the Chamber on this question. Those of MM. Pagès, Jollivet, de Tracy, and Mauguin, have excited our particular attention.2 Yet there are several points on which even they have curiously missed the mark.
It was contended, for example, by the advocates of a Sinking Fund, that its operations tend to keep up the price of public securities, and thereby enable the State, when it stands in need of loans, to obtain them on easier terms. Now, the answer to this, though extremely obvious, was not given.
There is no doubt that the purchases of stock made in redemption of the debt have some slight effect in keeping up the price of the funds, when the redemption is bonâ fide, from a real surplus revenue—that is, when the State has not occasion to borrow. But when there is no surplus revenue, but, on the contrary, a deficit,—when the State must borrow to defray even the expenses of Government, it is surely obvious, that if it then employs any of its own money in redeeming old debt, it must borrow so much the more: if it redeems ten millions of old stock, it must, in consequence, create an additional ten millions of new, which it would not otherwise have had occasion for. If, therefore, the one operation tends to raise the funds, the other must have an equal tendency to depress them.
It has even a greater tendency. For, the contractor of the new loan must have his profits—seldom so little as four or five per cent. More, therefore, than ten millions of new debt must be contracted, in order to redeem ten millions of old. More new stock must be created and thrown into the market than is numerically equivalent to the stock redeemed. The funds, therefore, instead of being raised, are actually lowered, by keeping up the operations of the Sinking Fund while the country is obliged to borrow. And this piece of hocus-pocus, instead of rendering the terms of the new loan more favourable, renders them actually more unfavourable.
We can believe, indeed, that before the subject was understood, the Sinking Fund might, even under the circumstances we have described, have had some influence in keeping up the price of stocks; not by its effect on the real pecuniary interests of the buyers and sellers,—for that, as has just been shown, is all the other way; but by what, in France, is called a moral influence: an influence of mere feeling. During the currency of the notions which were prevalent at the commencement of Mr. Pitt’s system,3 respecting the magical virtues of compound interest—when the Sinking Fund was regarded as a mine of wealth, as something which (to use the expression of Lord Henry Petty, now Marquis of Lansdowne) creates something out of nothing;4 —the vague feeling of confidence generated by this strange delusion, had a tendency, no doubt, to keep up the value of the funds, as of all other securities, public and private. In like manner we have no doubt that the funds would rise, if the public could be induced to believe that at ten o’clock every morning, beginning with to-morrow, food for twenty millions of people would be rained down from Heaven. But an increase of commercial confidence, arising from such a source, is not to be sought or desired: for the reasons which have led mankind, in all ages, to agree that delusion is an evil, and that it is a virtue to tell the truth.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, February 12, 1832,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
another conspiracy has broken out at Paris: whether of the same kind with that of which the “leading journal of Europe” had such timely information,1 it is impossible for us as yet to judge. Some hundreds of persons have been arrested, one of whom, a M. Poncelet, (a shoemaker), fired a pistol and wounded the sergent de ville who apprehended him. The conspirators are said to be a mixture of Carlists and Republicans: we shall see.2 If the plot was real, and Republicans had any concern in it, they have profited little by the advice given them by their leader, M. Cavaignac, in his defence, on a charge of conspiracy, about a year ago, when the prosecutors made so miserable a figure.3 But as far as we are yet able to judge, the imputation, so far as it affects Republicans, is sheer calumny.
All persons of any consideration in France, have long outgrown the juvenile folly of conspiracies. Experience to them has not been without its fruits. Eight or ten years ago, when anything like a popular government in France appeared hopeless; when M. de Villèle was lord of the ascendant, his famous chambre des trois cents in full glory, and events seemed to be rapidly retrograding towards jesuitry, superstition, and feudal privileges; such errors were pardonable: and at that time many persons of real virtue and ability were deeply involved in secret societies and Carbonaro intrigues. But they soon found that it is not possible to carry a great nation by a coup de main; and that nothing, in the present state of the world, is so idle or so insane, as a conspiracy; inasmuch as it cannot succeed, unless the public mind goes with it; and if this be the case, it is not needed. The only conspiracy which is not absurd, is a conspiracy of the public itself, in the face of day. Accordingly, though the government had never been able to get possession of more than a few detached threads of the great and well-knit web of French carbonarism, the combination speedily dissolved itself; and the men of talents and ardour who had taken the lead in it, found other and better means of doing their part towards improving the institutions of their country.
But if all men of tolerable judgment had found out, long before the revolution of July, that a conspiracy is a blunder, and therefore a crime; none but the most senseless of human beings can remain blind to the same conviction, after the memorable lesson of the three days—when that which so many had risked their lives in vainly striving to effect prematurely, came to pass as it were in a moment, almost without difficulty or resistance, when the hour had come, and the silent march of events had prepared the nation to see the overthrow of their government, some with joyful acclamation, the remainder with silent acquiescence.
The few, for there are but few, raw and hot-headed young men, who look with favour upon schemes for subverting the present French government by force, have yet to learn, that any attempt on the part of a minority, to impose upon a nation institutions not called for by a majority of those who habitually take part in public affairs, is a crime: still more so when the majority are not simply indifferent, but positively hostile: and that such an attempt, if it could be successful, is almost the only event which could now seriously retard the progress of political reform. It is the merest illusion to suppose that a government, established agaisnt the will of an active majority, whatever may be its name or forms, can be a free government. The Long Parliament, in our own country, made so miserable an end of its career simply from this one fault:4 and all the horrors of the Reign of Terror were the fruits of a mistake of the self-same nature in France.5 The men of our Commonwealth had, to a certain extent, a valid excuse in the force of circumstances, which rendered it extremely difficult for them to act otherwise than they did; and the same plea has been urged, though with far inferior force, in behalf of the more well-meaning among the abettors of the revolutionary government of 1793. But a similar miscalculation in a Frenchman of 1832 would be utterly without excuse. And every person in France of the slightest pretensions to sense or talents, to whom such designs have been specifically imputed, has been able, as might be expected, triumphantly to exculpate himself. The exertions of all such persons, whether in the Chamber or out of doors, are directed, so far as respects politics, to one only end, that of influencing the public mind. And this they will continue to do, in spite of the Citizen King, and his Attornies-General, who will not for a single moment let them alone.
The government of Louis Philippe regards, or pretends to regard, its own existence and that of a free press as incompatible. There needs not the gift of prophecy to predict, if this be the case, which of the two will be the survivor. The press, in France, has hitherto been more than a match for every government which has defied it to a contest.
Even the Times has, at length, pronounced its condemnation of these relentless persecutions of the Press.6 But it could not do so without hazarding the gratuitous and unfounded assertion, that all the journalists prosecuted would have been found guilty of seditious libel by an English jury. The case is so notoriously the reverse, that many of the pretended libels have been such as no English Attorney-General would have dared to bring before any jury. Is the Times aware that the juries, who, in nine cases out of ten, have dismissed the prosecutions, are much more select than even what are called in England special juries; being composed exclusively of electors paying 200 francs of direct taxes, and the members of a few liberal professions? Nine times out of ten, the convictions and feelings of these juries must have been unfavourable to the doctrines, for the promulgation of which the accused were put upon their trial. Principle, and not any fellow-feeling with the defendants, must have been the sole motive of the acquittals. Most fortunate was it that the law establishing Trial by Jury in political cases, passed the Chambers in the first temporary enthusiasm after the revolution of July.7 Had it been delayed till now, we may see, clearly enough, that it never would have been obtained while the present French government lasts.
The Chamber of Peers has thrown out M. Salverte’s proposition for allowing the unfinished business of one session to be taken up in statu quo in the next.8 The reason given by M. Roy against adopting this highly proper and useful measure, was, that if it were acceded to, the Committees on the bills pending at the time of the prorogation, might imagine that they had a right to convoke the Chambers, in violation of the royal prerogative!9 This, it will be allowed, is a notable specimen of a non-hereditary Peerage.
The Chamber of Deputies, after a long debate,10 has appointed a commission of its own body, to inquire into the deficiency in the public treasury, occasioned by the embezzlements and flight of the head cashier, M. Kesner;11 and to report through what defect in the manner of keeping the public accounts, this officer, and his predecessors before him, have been enabled to become defaulters to so great an amount. The monies abstracted from the Treasury by M. Kesner’s peculations, amounts to nearly six millions of francs; £240,000.
The Commission of the Budget has made its remaining report, that on the ways and means.12 In the present state of the finances of France, an increase of taxes was more to be expected than a relief from them: some change was however looked for in the mode of laying them on; which is even worse in France than it is among ourselves. This hope, however, finds little to encourage it in the report of the commission. The individual selected as the reporter, was M. Humann, the oracle of the non-improvement school; a man in whose estimation the existing system of finance, taxation, and commercial policy in France, is a pattern of perfection. Accordingly all the taxes which had been most justly complained of, as pressing with disproportionate severity on the poorest classes, are mercilessly adhered to; in particular, the salt-tax, and the tax on fermented liquors: imposts, which, independently of all other objections, are so vexatious in the mode of collection, that they, more than any other cause, have rendered every successive French government unpopular with the labouring people. It is proposed gradually to suppress the lottery; gradually enough, in all conscience,—the period fixed for its termination being 1836. The only real improvement recommended is the correction of an error committed last year,—that of increasing the impôt personnel, a kind of modified poll-tax, and the tax on doors and windows, and exacting them more rigorously from the poorer class of contributors.
The new taxes proposed are, an increased duty on cotton wool, and on sugar, whether imported from the colonies or manufactured from beet-root in France. There is also to be an additional tax on legacies and inheritances, beyond the fourth degree of consanguinity. There is something to be said in favour of a tax of this last description. Mr. Bentham, long ago, and others since his time, have proposed that the property of intestates should never pass to collateral relations at all, but, on failure of the descending and ascending line, should escheat to the State.13 This, however, though highly proper as a prospective measure, should not operate to the prejudice of existing interests and expectations: otherwise it is the height of injustice; and a peculiar tax on this class of inheritances is an injustice of the same kind, only less in degree.
It is melancholy to see, that an event so pregnant with meaning as the late insurrection of Lyons, should have made no deeper impression upon the men by whom France is now governed, than is indicated by all they do, and by all they fail to do, day after day, and month after month. Yet they have not been without better advisers. Not to mention any others, an excellent pamphlet by M. Decourdemanche, a Paris advocate, intituled, Lettres sur la Législation dans ses Rapports avec l’Industrie et la Propriété, and an able article in the Revue Encyclopédique, on the Budget of 1832, by M. Emile Péreire,14 contain, along with some errors, much valuable information and many profound views, which, if received with the attention they well deserve, would have placed the Government of the Citizen King in a very different position before the French people and the world, from that in which they now unhappily stand.
TODD’S BOOK OF ANALYSIS
This article, reviewing the work of Tweedy John Todd (1789-1840), physician and medical writer, witnesses to Mill’s concurrent work on logic. The first item in the “Literary Examiner,” it is headed “The Book of Analysis, or, a New Method of Experience; whereby the Induction of the Novum Organon is made easy of application to Medicine, Physiology, Meteorology, and Natural History; to Statistics, Political Economy, Metaphysics, and the more complex departments of Knowledge. By Tweedy John Todd, M.D. Royal College of Physicians of London, &c. &c. [London:] Murray, 1831.” It is described in Mill’s bibliography as “A review of a work entitled ‘The Book of Analysis, or a New Method of Experience’ by Tweedy John Todd, Esq. M.D.—In the Examiner of 19th February 1832.” (MacMinn, p. 19.) It is listed as “Review of ‘The Book of Analysis, by T.J. Todd, M.D.’ ” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
this is not a quackish book, though it is a book with rather a quackish title. When we first read the solemn announcement of “a new method of experience,” we expected to find a scheme for superseding the five senses: but it is not so: the author proposes no method of experience, other than the good old mode of seeing, hearing, and feeling. What he has invented is a method, not of experience, but of recording and marshalling our experience, in order to show more clearly and certainly the conclusions to which it leads.
In spite of the air of pretension about the title-page, the author seems a modest, sensible man. Indeed, the seemingly ostentatious manner in which he connects his own name with the words Experience and Induction, evidently arises from no worse cause than his understanding those terms in a peculiar sense. Else, what can he mean by saying that Lord Bacon was the discoverer of induction? (P. 6.) Lord Bacon was not the inventor of eyes and ears. The first person who discovered that fire burns, found it out by induction. Experience, in the received language both of philosophy and of the world, means seeing and feeling; and induction, judging from what we see and feel. But in our author’s sense, the two words mean, not the operations themselves, but some contrivances of our own to help us in performing those operations.
Not to dwell longer on the title, however, but to speak of the work itself; Dr. Todd has the merit of perceiving clearly and strongly the imperfect condition in which those branches of knowledge mostly remain, wherein we are chiefly dependant upon mere observation; as compared with those in which we possess almost unlimited power of making experiments, that is, of producing at pleasure such new combinations of circumstances, as we have reason to think will afford us a further insight into the laws of nature. To feel this imperfection of our existing knowledge, as vividly and keenly as Dr. Todd does, is already no inconsiderable indication of a philosophic intellect. If all who profess to be thinkers, had barely reached this one point of attainment, the knowledge of our present ignorance—the mouths of nine-tenths of the noisy persons we meet with in the world, would be closed, and the remaining tenth would seriously bestir themselves to acquire knowledge, instead of spending their time in trying to persuade themselves and other people that they have already got it. There would be an end at once, for example, to those clamorous appeals we daily hear, on the most complicated questions of state policy, to what are termed facts, that is, to history and statistics, by men, the sum total of whose knowledge of facts in history and statistics (though perhaps clever, well-informed men) is like an insect’s knowledge of the great earth; and their inductions, very like an oyster’s conjectures of the laws which govern the universe.
Dr. Todd, seeing the little progress which has been made towards a sufficient induction in the sciences of mere observation, and how inadequate to most practical purposes our experience has hitherto been, or else how inadequately that experience has yet been turned to account; being also well read in the standard works on logic and metaphysics, and in particular, being profoundly versed in the Novum Organum; very laudably determined to do what lay in him towards following up Lord Bacon’s great enterprise, and be himself also, in some sort, a reformer in philosophy. And in what he has done, it would be unjust to deny that there is both merit and utility, though we much question its power to produce such great results as he seems partly to expect from it.
The investigation of nature, consists in ascertaining by experience what are the facts which constantly occur in conjunction with one another. Whatever be the phenomenon which is the subject of inquiry, we discover the law of that phenomenon, by ascertaining what are the circumstances which are invariably found to be present whenever it occurs.
Now, this being the case, Dr. Todd’s plan is as follows:—To note down carefully all the circumstances of all the instances, or experiments, and arrange them in tables; the form of which tables, aided by a system of signs rather ingeniously contrived, shows at once, and almost at a glance, what are the circumstances which have been found to occur together in all the instances, and what are those which have been found not to occur together at all, or not with any regularity. If this were done, Dr. Todd thinks that much valuable experience would be preserved which is now lost, and that all the various generalizations which can be legitimately drawn from the instances which have been examined, would appear by simply reading off the signs. The principle on which the process rests, we give in his own words:
To recapitulate; having by the first process, the classification by affirmative circumstances, arranged and assorted the circumstances of all the instances, and formed them into classes; and having, by the second process of exclusion, or classification by negative circumstances, rejected from the classes all such circumstances as are not found constantly to belong to them; the circumstances which remain of each class may be collected and arranged together. Not having been able, by the evidence of any instance or individual fact, to separate these circumstances from each other, or from their class, it is allowed to conclude that they are connected with each other by some natural relation, either as cause or effect of each other as causes of a common effect, or effects of a common cause.
There is no doubt that where the complication of the subject is such, that it is impossible for the mind to take in at once the whole range of the evidence which it has to examine and decide upon, it becomes indispensable to bring our experience into a more compact and manageable shape. The utility of synoptic tables, for this purpose, is well known. And, of the immense increase of power which may be obtained by a well-contrived method of abridged notation, we have a memorable example in algebra; without the aid of which, our knowledge of the properties of numbers could never have reached much beyond common arithmetic. Dr. Todd’s is a contrivance somewhat similar. And that some invention of this sort will one day be brought into common use, for registering and methodizing the logical results of any extensive and varied series of observations, appears to us extremely probable. We only doubt whether the logical operation itself, which this plan is intended to facilitate, is one from which any great discoveries in philosophy are likely to flow.
In fact, when we consider the past history of philosophy, we find that not one of the great truths which have changed the face of science, was discovered in the manner which Lord Bacon and the author before us have laid down, namely, by collating an immense variety of very complicated instances, until, in the midst of the apparently inextricable confusion, there manifested itself something like an invariable order, or law. This is altogether a mistaken view of the nature of philosophical discovery; and Lord Bacon has here proved a false prophet. All the great laws of nature, yet known, have been ascertained by the observation of a few very simple, and generally very familiar phenomena; under circumstances of little complication, where the result of the experiment was not found liable to vary at each repetition from the effect of other unknown causes; where, therefore, that constancy of co-existence or of sequence, which constitutes the law of nature, is visible without any cumbrous apparatus of comparison, such as Lord Bacon conceived, and as our author has attempted to realize. These simple laws having thus been first brought to light in the simple cases, it was afterwards found, that we had only to suppose the same laws to be in operation universally—and all the phenomena of the more complex cases, however perplexed and intricate they had at first appeared, were, without any difficulty, fully accounted for.
Thus, (to use an example at once the grandest and the most familiar) when Newton discovered the laws of the motions of the heavenly bodies, it was not by comparing and collating a long series of astronomical observations. His conclusions were even, in many respects, contrary to those which had seemed to result from the method of direct observation. He did indeed most carefully and scrupulously examine every fact which authentic observation had brought to light respecting the solar system; but he did so, not in order to educe a theory from these facts, but to ascertain whether they corresponded to a theory already framed. The three laws of motion, the law of gravitation, and that of the composition of forces, had been ascertained in an unerring manner, by the simplest and most familiar experience; but experience confined of course to this earth. It occurred to Newton, that by merely supposing that these same laws extended to the whole solar system, all those phenomena of the sun, moon, and planets, which had till then been considered of so peculiar and mysterious a nature, might possibly be explained. And so, upon examination, it turned out. And in consequence of this discovery, there is scarcely any other science at the present day so perfect as astronomy; although (and this is one of the remarkable circumstances) a science of pure observation; for all mankind could not make the sun or moon budge an inch from its place, by their united efforts. But if we had remained destitute of the Newtonian theory till we could deduce it by generalization from the observed phenomena of the heavens, we probably should never, even with the aid of our author’s tabulae inveniendi,1 have made any nearer approach to it than Kepler’s discoveries.2
We suspect that, when any more comprehensive views shall be arrived at, or any greater certainty shall hereafter be attained, in the sciences, physical, moral, or political, than we at present enjoy, it will be in some such way as Newton’s, rather than by the road which our author has taken so much pains in marking out. We can illustrate this by a recent and highly interesting example. Among the branches of knowledge which our author has pointed out as standing in most need of an improved method of induction, is Meteorology. Has he ever read Mr. Daniell’s admirable work on that subject?3 If he have, he must be aware in how low a state that distinguished natural philosopher found his science, if science it could be called in which not one leading principle was ascertained; and to how respectable a rank among the sciences he instantly raised it, by simply reversing the course theretofore pursued; no longer attempting a direct induction from the results of atmospheric observation, but starting from laws of nature previously ascertained under less intricate circumstances—namely, the laws of evaporation and condensation, the properties of elastic fluids, and especially those of air and aqueous vapour; and examining synthetically how many of the phenomena with which meteorology is conversant, these laws would suffice to explain. The result was, that he found he could explain them almost all; and there now remains a much smaller residuum of atmospheric phenomena yet unaccounted for, than almost any one had been inclined, à priori, to set down to the account of agents yet unknown.
Dr. Todd might have dissected meteorological observations without limit, and persevered till doomsday in “translating circumstances into signs,” before his “induction by classification” would have led him to such a result as this. [Pp. 24, 54.]
We regret that, instead of only giving blank forms, Dr. Todd has not presented us with a specimen of his art, by the actual analysis of some interesting set of instances. If he had done this, nothing, we think, could have prevented him from seeing how much less his method is capable of effecting than he imagines, towards removing the difficulties of induction. Suppose, for example (as Dr. Todd considers his plan peculiarly adapted to inquiries respecting the mind), that the subject of investigation were the formation of character, and the instances individual men and women: has Dr. Todd ever considered what would be implied in a complete enumeration of the circumstances of each instance? It would include the whole history of the life of each of the individuals. Suppose that the subject were politics, and the instances nations: has he calculated the number of square miles which his tables would cover? To begin with a single instance, as, for example, England: we should like to see Dr. Todd attempt the analysis of this instance. Every law on our statute-book, every decision of a judge, which has passed into a law; every book which is in the hands of our youth; every idea or opinion, every feeling, every habit of thought or of conduct, which prevails among our people or among any class of our people; all the natural qualities inherent in our soil, in our climate, in our geographical position; every invention we have produced in the useful, or every work of genius in the fine arts; the constitution of our schools, of our universities, of our corporations, of our learned societies, of our church; nay, even the personal character of every individual in every rank of life who has any character that can be properly termed his own: and in addition to this, all the thousand-and-one accidents which are daily happening, or have happened any day for the last thousand years, tending to modify more or less the relations in which we stand to one another, to other countries, and to external nature. All this would be but a part of the analysis of one single instance. We ask Dr. Todd whether he seriously believes that the certainty he desiderates can be attained in politics, by collating a few (and the world affords but a few) instances of such vast and unmanageable complication?
And, after all, Dr. Todd’s method, if it were practicable and fulfilled its ends, would afford no help towards resolving the most difficult part of the problem—namely, to know whether the induction is sufficient. This does not depend upon the mere number of the instances. For it is evident that we should learn much more of the nature of animals, for instance, by examining one quadruped, one bird, and one fish, than by examining a hundred sparrows or a hundred eels.
Yet such methods as Dr. Todd’s are of very considerable use. Though they may never directly lead to scientific knowledge, they often, on subjects of empirical and probable evidence, afford an approximation to it, sufficient to be of practical use. They afford data for what is called the calculation of chances. The best knowledge we have, is often merely knowledge that certain things happen more frequently than not; without our being able to perceive in what circumstances the cases of exception differ from those which constitute the rule. Now, any process which methodises the substance of any great number of observed cases, and reduces them within moderate compass, attracts attention to combinations which had not before been suspected to be other than casual, and the knowledge of which, besides being of use for the guidance of conduct, probably suggests experiments which in time may bring to light a general law. Dr. Todd’s tables and system of signs seem not ill adapted to be of this kind of use. They will show, no doubt, in very many cases, that some conjunctions of circumstances take place more frequently than others—when, from the vastness and intricacy of the field of observation, this had not before been perceived. And medicine, Dr. Todd’s own subject, being one of those in which mankind have hitherto been least successful in discovering general laws, and are obliged to rely most on empirical observation; Dr. Todd’s method, by extending the range of such observation, may contribute to the enlargement of our knowledge and the increase of our power, in a degree sufficient to entitle its author to considerable gratitude, and his name to lasting remembrance.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, February 19, 1832,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
several important retrenchments have been carried in the Chamber against the French Ministry; while others of still greater importance have been lost.1 On the whole, however, there appears fair promise of a saving considerably exceeding the ten millions of francs (£400,000), beyond which the Commission thought that retrenchment could not go.
The Ministers have been assailed with vigour in the Chamber for their prosecutions of the press, and of the Saint Simonians.2 We trust that these attacks will continue, and that the Opposition will never relax their exertions till they have extorted from the Ministry a real liberty of the press, and real security against arbitrary imprisonment. It is monstrous that such powers should exist as have been exerted in the recent case of M. Lennox, who has been detained in prison for nine months on a charge of a pretended Bonapartist conspiracy, and only now brought before the Chambre de mis en accusation, a body of judges performing the function of our grand juries, who have decided that there was no ground for putting him on his trial.3 But who is to compensate M. Lennox for his nine months’ confinement?
There seems to be nothing like a habeas corpus act in France. M. Roger, a member of the Opposition, brought into the Chamber of Deputies a bill of that nature several months ago: it has not yet come on for discussion, and cannot now pass in this session, if at all.4
M. Casimir Périer and his colleagues are constantly preaching respect to the law, and holding up what they term l’ordre légal as the one and only thing needful in France.5 “Liberty,” said the Prime Minister in one of his recent speeches, “is the despotism of the law.”6 This curious definition—according to which no amount of tyranny and slavery inflicted by means of bad laws, constitutes an infringement of liberty—cannot but be deemed peculiarly insolent and odious in France. For, the laws of France have been enacted at so many periods of distraction and difficulty, and under so great a variety of bad governments, that until they are revised, and purged of all which is inconsistent with the new order of things, but which has never been formally repealed, there is no stretch of power for which legal authority cannot somewhere be found. Decrees of the revolutionary governments and of the empire, which all the world thought had long fallen into utter desuetude, are continually raked up and recalled from oblivion, for the purposes of arbitrary power. The “despotism of the law” in France, is but a polite expression for the despotism of the Minister for the time being. It will hardly be believed that the famous article 291 of the penal code, which interdicts all public meetings without the consent of the government, and under which the meetings of the Amis du Peuple and of the Saint Simonians have been put an end to, was originally a decree of the Convention, passed during the reign of Robespierre, and re-enacted by Napoleon in the code pénal, from its suitableness to the purposes of his despotism.7 This reminds us of another curious circumstance. It is, we believe, a fact, that the Bourbons, on their restoration, freed themselves from their just debts, by taking advantage of the decree of the Convention which annulled all engagements with them, and rendered all correspondence with them a criminal offence.8 In virtue of this decree, they not only took back St. Cloud, but have never indemnified the intermediate occupant for the trees he had planted, and which had become valuable timber.9 Well is it said, “Put not your trust in princes.”10
The Times declares the motion for abolishing the compulsory observance of Sundays and holidays, to be a gratuitous insult to Christianity.11 It might as well be asserted that Christianity is gratuitously insulted, because people are not bound by legal penalties to go to church. The logic of the Times is precisely that of the Inquisition. How hard it seems to be for some people to understand, that it is possible to have a conscience, without seeking to compel men whose conscience is different, to square their conduct by yours.
The same journal is facetious upon the motion of M. Salverte, for transferring, after a certain period, the remains of great men to the national edifice called the Pantheon.12 Has the Times ever heard of such a thing as burial in St. Paul’s, or in Westminster Abbey? Methinks such things have been deemed, in other countries than France, suitable testimonials of public respect, but perhaps the Times considers no achievements but those of a warlike character as of sufficient dignity and value, to warrant such a mode of commemorating the dead, and inciting the living to go and do likewise. Such, at least, would seem to have been the judgment of those who, in England, have been the dispensers of these honours. In surveying the interior of St. Paul’s, it is difficult to behold without a certain feeling of shame, a hundred Lord Howes, and but a single Howard.13
This note (in square brackets) is appended to a letter in the “Political Examiner” headed “To the Editor of the Examiner,”1 in which reference is made to No. 139, where Mill had responded to the address of the Dundee operatives. Described in Mill’s bibliography as “A paragraph in answer to a letter from ‘the female operatives of [Todmorden]’ in the Examiner of 26th February 1832” (MacMinn, p. 19), the item is listed as “Paragraph on a letter from ‘the Female Operatives of Todmorden’ ” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
we are much flattered by the favourable opinion of our fair Lancashire friends. To meet the case of females having no legitimate claim on any male relative for support, the interdiction might be confined to married females, and those whose parents are alive and not in the receipt of parish relief. But in spite of our correspondent’s jocular remarks on female emigrants, we must observe, that young women who have no parents or other near relatives to support and protect them, are exactly the persons to whom emigration holds out the greatest advantages. Our correspondent need not fear that on her first landing in Australia or Canada, the alternative will be straightway offered her, to marry or starve. On the contrary, labour of all kinds is so scarce, and consequently so highly paid, that for as long a period as she may prefer a single life, she may depend upon earning, with very moderate exertions, an abundant and comfortable subsistence.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, February 26, 1832,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
the chamber of deputies has disappointed the wishes of M. Casimir Périer, by making considerable reductions in the salaries of many of the high officers of state.1 This is so far well; but there is a much wider field of retrenchment open to them. Offices, great and small, are far too numerous: a reduction of their number would produce a far greater saving than a diminution of the emoluments.
The Chamber of Peers, which is daily setting itself more and more decidedly in opposition to the Deputies and to the nation, has determined that the anniversary of the execution of Louis XVI shall continue to be kept as a dies non by the courts of justice and the public offices.2 It is strange infatuation to incur the obloquy and danger of running counter to the national feeling for a matter of such trifling importance. The French people do not approve of the sentence upon Louis XVI, but they do not think it more iniquitous than a thousand other acts, both of the Revolution and of the ancien régime; they see no reason, therefore, for solemnizing it by any peculiar observances. They bear a particular aversion, moreover, to this celebration, because it was imposed upon them by the émigrés in 1816, as a studied insult to the defeated party. It is felt, and was intended to be felt, as an act of national penance and humiliation, much more for having attempted a republican government, than for having put a good kind of man to death without just cause.
The four young men, members of the Société des Amis du Peuple, who were arrested on pretence of being concerned in the late Carlist conspiracy, have been set at liberty.3 There was no ground for proceeding against them, and this was probably known from the first; but it is a favourite scheme of M. Périer, to propagate the belief, that the two extremes of opinion have united against his juste milieu.
The case of the Duc de Bourbon’s will has been decided in favour of the legatees.4 We are not minutely acquainted with the procedure of the French courts; but it seems strange, that judgment should have passed after hearing only the speeches of counsel, without examining a single witness.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, March 4, 1832,” is listed in the Somerville College set of the Examiner as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets, with a pencilled emendation: at 422.14, “eighteen” is underlined, and “should be fifteen” is written at the foot of the page. In the Somerville College edition, the article is on pp. 152-3.
the court of cassation has confirmed the iniquitous sentence, by which five members of the Society of the Friends of the People, after being acquitted by the jury, were sentenced by the Judges to periods of imprisonment, for what they said in their defence.1 “Some months’ imprisonment,” says the mealy-mouthed correspondent of the Times.2 Yes, good sir; six, twelve, and fifteen months imprisonment, besides fines. And it is but justice to say, that the speeches of MM. Blanqui and Thouret, two of these persecuted men, were such as almost any man might be proud of.3
One of the correspondents of the Times, on Thursday last, after railing at the Chamber of Deputies for its retrenchments, and bitterly lamenting the error which was committed in extending the elective franchise, calls on the Times to give the aid of its pen to the enemies of cheap government in France, and to tell them how much more wisely we order these things in England.4 We trust that this Paris correspondence is read; and that the indications it gives, of the real spirit of the Journal which publishes it, are not thrown away.
The reason why no witnesses were heard in the law-suit on the will of the Duc de Bourbon5 is, that in French law oral testimony is not received to invalidate a will, unless a certain primâ facie case can be made out; which, in this case, the Court did not consider to have been established. The decision has been appealed from, and the cause will next be brought before the Cour Royale.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, March 11, 1832,” is listed as “Article on the French expedition to Ancona” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
the french expedition to Italy, which has landed and taken possession of Ancona, has excited much speculation and remark, mostly of a vituperative kind, in the English newspapers.1 M. Périer has not yet made any declaration of the purposes with which this expedition was undertaken; but there is little difficulty in conjecturing their nature. The truth apparently is, that M. Périer, however reluctant to incur any danger of war, in order to prevent free principles and free institutions, in a foreign country, from being overwhelmed by an invading army, has none of these scruples when the matter at stake is what, in the old slang, were called national interests,—that is to say, preventing some other country from obtaining any accession of territory and power. Accordingly we see the consequence. The patriots of central Italy attempted to establish a free government; Austria interfered by force, put a stop to their proceedings, and M. Périer had nothing to say. The Italian patriots having been baffled in this first attempt, and finding that they had no chance of establishing a free government as long as Italy is cut up into little straggling principalities, are now willing to acquiesce in any government which will restore their nationality; and to that end are ready to join with Austria, if Austria will turn out the Pope, and unite all Italy under its own dominion. And this is obviously the next best thing to what they attempted at first; but this will not suit M. Périer. That personage has no objection to let Austria govern the Italians through their detestable native governments, but he has no idea of allowing her to govern them directly and avowedly, when there would be some chance of her governing them comparatively well. Thus French interference at present, is as hostile to the good government of Italy, as French non-interference was before. As England and France allowed Russia to swallow up Poland, but would not hear of permitting her to conquer Turkey, so now the mutual jealousies of France and Austria appear to show themselves precisely where there is some good to be prevented, after having remained dormant where there was any good to be done.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, March 18, 1832,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
the new corn bill proposed by the French Ministry, has, at length, been returned by the Commission appointed by the Chamber to report upon it. Their report, the production of the statistical M. Charles Dupin, is a compromise between right and wrong.1 We do not mean that its principles are true, but so tempered in their application as to soften the transition, and avoid defeating existing expectations: this we should not disapprove. What we object to is, that the principles themselves are neither true nor false, but half-and-half; a piece of theoretical patchwork, a kind of juste-milieu mosaic, a square of black and a square of white alternately. It is as if the Newtonian system had to be voted by show of hands; and the parties being unable to convince one another, agreed to a resolution that there was much truth in Newton’s principles, but that Ptolemy also had a good deal to say.
The recommendations of the Commission are, however, a considerable improvement upon what exists; and the Bill is to be discussed this session. The debate is to come between the voting of the Estimates and that of the Ways and Means.
The Ministry are desirous of voting in the present session, or in another to commence almost immediately after, the Budget of the ensuing year, as well as that of the present;2 in order to return to the salutary practice of not expending any of the nation’s money upon mere votes of credit, when the Estimates have not been regularly laid before the Chamber and discussed. We know not how the Deputies will relish this prolongation of their labours. The Chambers have sat almost without intermission since the Revolution of July; one respite of a month in the latter part of 1830, and another of less than six weeks, mostly occupied in the general election, and in the preparations for it, have formed the only interval of leisure. Yet it is astonishing how little business they have found time to transact. None of the most important Bills presented in this session, that on the Peerage excepted,3 have yet come on for discussion. It is true, the Chamber of Deputies does not sit at an average so much as four hours out of the twenty-four.
SMART’S OUTLINE OF SEMATOLOGY 
This review of a work by Benjamin Humphrey Smart (ca. 1786-1872), teacher of elocution and author of manuals and pronouncing dictionaries, is of importance to Mill’s speculations about logic and truth. For the second and concluding part, see No. 153. Both reviews are in the “Literary Examiner.” This first part is headed “An Outline of Sematology; or an Essay towards establishing a New Theory of Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric. [London: Richardson,] 1831.” The review is described in Mill’s bibliography as “A review of a work entitled ‘An Outline of Sematology,’ in two parts, the first of which on the study of Metaphysics; both signed A.B. In the Examiner of 25th March 1832 and 1st April 1832.” (MacMinn, p. 20.) In the Somerville College set, where it is listed as “Review of ‘An Outline of Sematology’ ” and enclosed in square brackets, there is one correction: at 426.36, “others” is altered to “other”.
it is singular, that in an age like this, when old systems of opinions and of things are crumbling in pieces, and that spirit of scepticism which metaphysical pursuits are supposed to engender, pervades the great majority of educated minds, the study of metaphysics should be held in discredit, rather than in honour. Upon the causes of this fact it would be interesting to speculate; but at present we shall only say of the fact itself, that among civilized nations it seems to be peculiar to ourselves. The tendency of the Germans to metaphysical speculation is well known; and in France the word Philosophy continues, even in the schools, to be appropriated as it was originally by Socrates, (the inventor of the term) to the science of mind, exclusively; while in England, which has produced so many illustrious names in that department of thought, the man who can analyse a pebble is held in greater estimation that he who can analyse the mind of man.
It is time that this should cease; for, if metaphysics unsettles men’s minds, metaphysics also must settle them; the doubts which it raises, it alone is able to solve. If there is any period in man’s history in which the scientific study of the human mind is indispensable, it is at a period of moral transition like the present; when those general creeds, which had kept the diversities of individual character in subordination by a common rule of right, are breathing their last—and others, more adapted to the present condition of the species, are slowly and with difficulty evolving themselves out of the shapeless and tumultuous chaos of conflicting opinions. The ancient doctrines will never more regain the ascendancy they have lost: the causes which have overthrown them are not causes which ever pass away. That unity of doctrine, however, which formerly existed, must exist once more, though under other auspices, ere man can yet again have earnest, solemn convictions, and yield willing obedience to a new and steady rule of life. Now, this unity of doctrine can only be brought about through metaphysics; for when all the questions most deeply interesting to human nature are under discussion, each man deciding them according to his personal predilections, the philosophy of mind is the only common arbiter to whom all can appeal, and who can constrain all to acknowledge his authority.
There are indeed to be found men, the depth of whose sensibility, and the vigour and comprehensiveness of whose imagination, enable them to summon up within themselves all the varieties of feeling incident to the human constitution; to see, at pleasure, any subject, as it would be seen by persons of all dispositions and turns of mind; and so, to understand and sympathize with human nature in all its diversities. Such were Shakspeare, Göthe, and perhaps one or two other persons since the creation of the world. But in general, man’s capacity of putting himself into the position of another man, and identifying himself with that man’s feelings and modes of thinking, when these are any way different from his own, is extremely limited. Most men, in consequence, regard the feelings and ideas excited in men of an opposite character to themselves, by objects which excite no such feelings in them, as monstrous and unnatural; or at least, radically wrong, and meriting no kind of consideration or allowance, either in reasoning or in conduct:—and few can feel the force of any argument which is either founded on, or addressed to, feelings in which they themselves do not participate. Hence we have hundreds of systems founded on the partial views of one-sided minds; and each half or quarter truth, instead of seeking out all the remaining fractions, and uniting with them, shuns them, or endeavours to beat them down by violence.
Now, the only permanent cure for this is metaphysics. The analytical philosophy of mind, can alone enable persons of dissimilar characters to understand one another. It explains, from data which all have within them, the genesis and growth of the most opposite mental habits. It expounds, not only how each habit was likely to originate, but what are the other habits with which each is naturally connected, what those of which it is naturally exclusive; and is thus enabled to sit in judgment upon the many conflicting modes of feeling and thinking, and pronounce which of them are, and which are not, founded in any real defect, either of the understanding or of the heart. Through the reconciling medium of this great interpreter, we discover, nine times out of ten, that what we fancied to be sheer error, had perhaps as much of truth in it as our own contrary opinion; that what we ascribed to a mental defect, really arose from some good quality, not excessive in itself, but unaccompanied by some other which ought to have qualified and corrected it, and which, again, in our own mind, stands as much in need of correction from the former, over which, in its turn, it unduly predominates. And we learn, that instead of eradicating, or restraining the growth of a feeling, or a faculty, the only proper method, almost in every case, of guarding against its excesses, is by cultivating other feelings and faculties up to it.
It is chiefly through metaphysics, that men can thus be brought practically to understand and admit, that feelings of which they themselves are incapable, are nevertheless legitimate feelings; and to correct their own partial views, by means of the partial views of other people. And so naturally do these effects seem to follow from habits of metaphysical analysis, that as it has been said that an astronomer must of necessity be pious, so we are almost tempted to say that it is impossible for a real metaphysician to be one-sided, intolerant, or scornful. How much this is at variance with the notion commonly entertained of metaphysicians, we are not ignorant: nor do we affirm that notion to be always destitute of foundation. It has befallen this science, as well as many others, that men have resorted to it less to form opinions, than to find reasons for opinions already held. And it has been the misfortune of this science, even more than of most others, that whereas its subject-matter is peculiarly concrete, and immersed in circumstances, the inquiries of those who cultivate it have, on the contrary, rested for the most part in the highest regions of abstract generality; insomuch that the same person, who may excel all others in analysing belief, or memory, or perception, or any other of the mental phenomena common to all mankind, would perhaps be farther to seek than many common men, if called upon to shew that he understood any one individual human mind, and could tell what are the few leading peculiarities which make it, in all important particulars, what it is. This however will not always be the case: it is not the case with all metaphysicians, even now; and if metaphysicians have not yet done all that ought to be required of them, it remains not the less true, that any one who has it in view to improve the moral nature of man through the understanding, can in no way dispense with an accurate and analytical study of the human mind.
These observations have been drawn from us by what is now no frequent occurrence, the publication of a new, and a clever and interesting work, on a portion of metaphysics. The book demands observations of greater length than we have left ourselves room to insert in the present number; we shall therefore return to it in our next.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, March 25, 1832,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
there have been some disturbances at Grenoble, apparently not premeditated, but arising from a carnival frolic which took a political turn. All is now quiet.1
An important point has been carried in favour of the liberty of the press. Not contented with such verdicts as could be obtained against newspapers from Paris juries, M. Périer resolved, that as he found it difficult to get leave to punish his political opponents after trial, he would try whether it was feasible to punish them before. He accordingly commenced the practice of throwing journalists into prison as soon as process had commenced against them. After this had been done four times (the monstrous illegality was only attempted once during the sixteen years of the restoration; and in this one case, that of M. Cauchois-Lemaire,2 the explosion of public indignation was such as prevented the act of tyranny from being repeated), M. Armand Carrel, the principal editor of the National, published in his paper a declaration, signed with his name, that if such illegal violence should be attempted against himself, he would resist it by force, as he would any other assault upon his person or property.3 The Ministry, hereupon, discontinued the obnoxious practice, but prosecuted M. Carrel, and the editors of another paper, who had adhered, as the French phrase is, to his declaration.4 They have now been tried, and acquitted. This usurpation, therefore, is knocked on the head.
The Chamber continues to make various retrenchments; not indeed of great amount, but sufficient to excite the bile of M. Casimir Périer, who has accused the Deputies to their faces of an “esprit de vertige,” and “jalousie des supériorités sociales,” because they reduced a few salaries.5 The people now in power actually make a point of honour of their cupidity: they hold fast to the national purse-strings, with the feelings with which a soldier defends his post. Marshal Soult, the Minister of War, being accused of receiving, in defiance of an existing law, his emoluments as Minister, and his emoluments as a Marshal besides, burst out into a passionate exclamation, that his salary should only be torn from him with his life. On ne me l’ôtera qu’avec la vie!6 These were his very words. A new species of chivalry!
The French officer who broke open the gates of Ancona,7 is to be brought, it is said, to a court-martial. The Pope goes on protesting against the invasion of the French.8 His Holiness need not be alarmed. The French will not dethrone him, nor even suffer the Austrians to do so. The natural tendency of events when they are let alone is, that the better Governments swallow up the worse; but “French interests” will not allow this, though they allowed despotism to be re-established, and poor Menotti to be hanged.9 When will it be felt in this country, that there is more good in the most hot-headed republicans, than in the coterie of jobbers, tricksters, and low intrigans who form the existing Government of France!
SMART’S OUTLINE OF SEMATOLOGY 
For the context and the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 151. This second part is headed “An Outline of Sematology; or, an Essay towards establishing a New Theory of Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric. / (Concluded from the Examiner of last week.)” It is listed as “Review of ‘An Outline of Sematology’ concluded” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.
the principal fault of this work is its pretension to the character of a New Theory. There is no room now for a new theory in the sciences here treated of. We shall not, probably, be suspected of upholding old opinions because they are old, and we are less inclined than almost any one, to underrate the importance of original thinking. Much remains to be done towards perfecting these sciences: the author before us has contributed to this end something not inconsiderable, and has shown a capacity, which, if fitly improved, may enable him to effect much more; an abundant harvest will also remain for subsequent inquirers: but whatever scope there may be for new theories of particular points, now mysterious, or misunderstood, any thing which can justly be called a New Theory of Grammar, Logic, or Rhetoric, will most assuredly be erroneous. These subjects have now occupied the attention of thinking men for upwards of two thousand years, without intermission; and have formed the principal subject of the meditations of some of the most powerful and comprehensive intellects, which the world, we may safely predict, will ever see. No doubt, there still remains to be done, much which they have left undone, and to be undone, much which they have done. But it would argue a very slender faculty of appreciating the mass of valuable truth which their successive labours have called into existence, to imagine that what can be added to the heap by any single individual, can ever bear more than a very insignificant proportion to the entire bulk. A new contribution, whatever may be its absolute importance, cannot now alter the face of a science, as it might formerly have done. The most powerful thinker, in constructing a scheme of the entire science, can be indebted for a small part only of the materials to his own genius; the far greatest portion will be derived from the thoughts of his predecessors. Indeed, the greatest proof of genius, perhaps, which any person of our times has it in his power to give, consists in being able to see the worth of existing materials, from which half-taught mediocrity turns away in scorn; to disengage a great and pregnant thought from the trammels of a language suited to the comprehension of another age, or involving philosophical theories now exploded, and clothe it in the phraseology of the present day; to dare to think that a great man of a former age was substantially in the right, when some flaw, unavoidably or unguardedly left in the mere accidents of his theory, has sufficed to disguise the intrinsic truth of its essentials from the intellects of the minute philosophers who succeeded him. He who perpetually and systematically does this, is a great man; for, the very attempt to do it, or the conception of it as a thing proper to be done, seems to be a stretch of intelligence which not many have attained to. Without it, however, mankind would be no wiser after twenty generations than after one, since each generation would be unable to profit by any inquiries but its own.
The author before us has not afforded this evidence of genius; yet he is not so blind to the merits of his predecessors, as might be suspected from his laying claim to be the founder of a new theory of Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric; that is, if the words have any meaning, to have placed those three sciences upon an entirely new foundation. We fully believe that whatever, in this work, is either expressly, or by implication, laid claim to as original, has been the bonâ fide produce of the writer’s own thoughts; and this is saying a great deal, even where the thought has occurred to others before him. He often shows, too, that he is acquainted with what others have done, and can appreciate it; so often, as to make us confident that he will hereafter feel the value of much which hitherto he has not known, or has not appreciated.
His own contribution to philosophy consists fundamentally of one idea; which having clearly conceived and firmly grasped, he has followed it out into numerous ramifications, and traced its bearings upon the general problems of Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric, in a manner evincing no ordinary capacity for metaphysical investigation. Where he has failed, it is, we suspect, from being in too great a hurry to finish his book. We do not blame him for not carrying the precept, nonum prematur in annum,1 into literal excecution; for we should have been sorry to forego for so long a period the pleasure and instruction which he has afforded us: but the results of any intellectual process must suffer greatly by being given out to the world the moment they are conceived in the author’s mind. The first principles of the work are set forth in a manner giving token of mature consideration; but as the exposition advances, marks of haste become visible:—after having arrived at some results which he thought important, the writer seems to have been impatient to bring the inquiry to a conclusion, and has therefore not unfrequently stopped short in an interesting train of thought, or left its results in a state of vagueness, which is, we think, the source of the only material errors we have to lay to his charge. This vagueness is by no means a general characteristic, either of our author’s conceptions, or of his style; both, wherever his mental powers seem to have been fully called into play, are clear, vigorous, and masculine.
Sematology, from σήματα, signs, is the name which our author gives to the doctrine of Language; the office of which, as an instrument of thought, he well understands, and the several uses of which he considers to form the subjects respectively of Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric. Now the one idea, which is the basis of his speculations, is the following.
What we wish to communicate on any one occasion, by means of words, is some state of our consciousness; say, for instance, the bodily sensation we are experiencing at that particular moment. This we might express by one single word, if we chose; as many things are expressed in a state of nature by single cries. But, it being impossible to have a separate word for every state of feeling which we desire to communicate, we are obliged to express our states of feeling by a limited number of words, variously combined. Now, (says our author,) although the state of feeling we desire to express, may be complicated to any extent, and of course susceptible of being analysed into parts; it is by no means true, that the words which we put together to express this state of feeling, will, when separated, express severally those parts. It is not true that the meaning of a sentence, is made up of the separate meanings of the words composing the sentence. If we take the separate meanings of the separate words, and add them together, the sum total includes much more than is intended to be conveyed by that one sentence; for it includes all that we otherwise know of the objects which we find it necessary to name in order to convey a notion of that one matter of fact.
Let us take, for our first fact, the cry for food of a new-born infant. That is an instinctive cry, wholly unconnected, we presume, with reason and knowledge. In proportion as the knowledge grows, that the want, when it occurs, can be supplied, the cry becomes rational, and may at last be said to signify, “Give me food,” or, more at full, “I want you to give me food.” In what does the rational cry (rational when compared with the instinctive cry) differ from the still more rational sentence?—Not in its meaning, but simply thus, that the one is a sign suggested directly by nature, and the other is a sign arising out of such art, as, in its first acquirement, (we are about to presume) nature, or necessity, gradually teaches our species. Now, that the artificial sign is made up of parts, (namely the words that compose the sentence) and that the natural sign is not made up of significant parts, we affirm to be simply a consequence of the constitution of artificial speech, and not to follow from any thing in the nature of the communication which the mind has to make. The natural cry, if understood, is, for the purpose in view, quite as good as the sentence, nor does the sentence, as a whole, signify any thing more. Taking the words separately, there is indeed much more contained in the sentence than in the cry, namely, the knowledge of what it is to give, under other circumstances, as well as that of giving food; of food, under other circumstances, as well as that of being given to me; of me, under other circumstances, as well as that of wanting food; but all this knowledge, in this and similar cases for which a cry might suffice, is unnecessary, and the indivisible sign, if equally understood for the actual purpose, is, for this purpose, quite adequate to the artificially compounded sign.
. . . Collectively, that is in sentences, they (words) can signify any perception by the senses, or conception arising from such perception, any desire, emotion or passion—in short, any impression which nature would have prompted us to signify by an indivisible sign, if such a sign could have been found:—but individually (we repeat) each word belonging to such sentence, or to any sentence, is not the sign of any idea whatever which the mind passively receives, but of an abstraction which reason obtains by acts of comparison and judgment upon its passively-received ideas. The sentence, “John walks,” may express what is actually perceived by the senses; but neither word, separately, can be said to express a part of that perception, since the perception is of John walking, and if we perceive John separate from walking, then he is not walking, and consequently it is another perception; and so, if we perceive walking separate from John, it must be that we perceive somebody else walking, and not him. The separate words, then, do not stand for passively-received ideas, but for abstract notions:—so far as they express what is perceived by the senses, they have no separate meaning; it is only with reference to the understanding that each has a separate meaning. The separate meaning of the word John is a knowledge that John has existed and will exist, independently of the present perception, and the separate meaning of the word walks is a knowledge that another may walk as well as John. This is not an idea of John or an idea of walking such as the senses give, or such as memory revives; for the senses present no such object as John in the abstract, that is, neither walking, nor not walking; nor do they furnish any such idea as that of walking independently of one who walks. There is then a double force in these words,—their separate force, which is derived from the understanding, and their united force, by which, in this instance, they signify a perception by the senses.
This, as the reader will have perceived, is far from new; but it has never, perhaps, been presented precisely in this manner. Most metaphysical writers of name have said the same thing, or things distinctly implying it:—equally true is it, however, that they have said other things, as distinctly implying the contrary, and that much of the received language seems to take for granted that the meaning of a sentence is the sum of the meanings of the separate words. Our author has, therefore, rendered a useful service, by making the principle so clear, and illustrating it so copiously and forcibly, that no one who reads him with due care and thought, will be in danger of ever forgetting or overlooking it. And its consequences will be found to be more important than most persons would at first suspect.
For instance, our author is, we think, perfectly right in deeming the truth which he has expounded to be the only rational foundation for philosophical grammar, affording the only explanation of the real nature of the distinction among the parts of speech. It seems to be taken for granted, says he,
That the parts of speech have their origin in the mind, independently of the outward signs, when, in truth, they are nothing more than parts in the structure of language. . . . We are not to confound the instrument with the intelligence that uses it, nor to suppose that the parts of which it is composed, have, of necessity, any parts corresponding with them in the thought itself. It is not what a word signifies that determines it to be this or that part of speech, but how it assists other words in making up the sentence. . . . As to the meaning, that does not of necessity differ because a word is a different part of speech; the following words, for instance, all express the same notion: Add, Addition, Additional, Additionally, With,* And.†
This view of the nature of the parts of speech accords in the main with that taken in a work, with which our author is apparently unacquainted, Mr. Mill’s Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind.2 It is not surprising that both writers should have fallen into the same train of thought, since it was evidently suggested to both by the etymological discoveries of Horne Tooke.3
In the spirit of these general observations, our author proceeds to inquire into the nature and object of each of the several parts of speech. There is much instruction to be gathered from this part of the work, and the results he brings out are, we think, substantially correct. His definition of the verb appears to us to fall short of perfect philosophical precision; the author should analyze more particularly the meaning of a phrase he often uses; viz., to make a communication. What is it we do when we assert a matter of fact, more than when we merely suggest the idea of the same fact? What is the difference between belief and simple conception? What do I communicate when I say there is a God, more than when I merely say God? When our author can answer this question, he will not only be able to perfect his definition of a verb, but he will discover that the distinction between the subject and the predicate of a proposition, is something more than a merely grammatical distinction, which is the notion he has of it.
The second chapter of the work, which relates to Logic, is that of which we think least highly. We are not surprised that our author should join in the common cry against the doctrine of the syllogism, since we find it is his opinion that errors in philosophising are always in the premises, and never in the reasoning process. But though men often reason from false premises, or without taking into consideration all the premises which might be obtained, it is surely very common also to conclude from the premises which we have, more than those premises will warrant. If our author will but duly advert to this circumstance, he will, we think, discover that nearly all which he says respecting the nature of the syllogism may be true, and the syllogistic doctrine may nevertheless be of great utility. But a popular journal is not the proper place for explaining ourselves fully on this topic.
Our author’s views as to the manner in which general terms serve us in the investigation of truth, are just and profound, notwithstanding some superficial inaccuracies and even contradictions, and although his language in many places is far from satisfying us in point of definiteness and precision, owing to his having not yet analyzed some of his notions into their ultimate elements.
The third chapter, on Rhetoric, is, in our opinion, the best of all: it is full of valuable truth and high moral feeling. We regret that the length to which this notice has extended, renders it impossible for us to attempt even the most meagre abstract of this portion of the work.
In addition to the other merits displayed in this volume, the author is evidently no contemptible scholar. On the whole, there are few works among those recently produced, which do so much credit to the writer.
What has most displeased us, is the tone with which, in more places than one, the author permits himself to speak of so eminent a person as Archbishop Whately, and which we are sure, on reflection, he must feel to be unworthy of him. He naturally cannot value very highly the Elements of Logic, from the opposite views which he himself entertains on the subject, but even that work he admits to possess considerable merit; and the author of the Elements of Rhetoric, the Lectures on the study of Political Economy, and The Errors of Romanism traced to their origin in Human Nature,4 has afforded evidences of intellectual power, which might have been sufficient to protect him against this disrespectful and jeering style of criticism; a style which certainly would not be adopted by those, if any such there be, who could be entitled to adopt it towards such a man.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, April 1, 1832,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
the press and the chamber of deputies in France have, during the past week, been chiefly occupied with angry discussions respecting the late disturbances at Grenoble.1 It appears that several lives were lost, and many persons wounded; and the Opposition represents the affair as a sort of Manchester massacre, asserting that there was not the slightest justification for calling in the troops. This seems also to be the opinion of many competent witnesses who were present on the spot. What makes the matter worse is, that M. Casimir Périer does not scruple (it is said) to admit in private that the Préfet was greatly to blame, though in public he associates himself in that magistrate’s responsibility by sanctioning and commending his proceedings.2 This, however, is in the spirit of his entire administration: his subordinates are all made to understand that in the repression of tumults it is safe to go too far, but fatal not to go far enough. The Cour Royale of Grenoble has commenced a judicial investigation of the whole transaction; so that if not justice, publicity at least may be counted upon.
The Chamber, after interrupting the debate on the Budget in order to discuss the new Corn Bill, has, strangely enough, broken off the discussion of the Corn Bill to resume that of the Budget. The spirit of most of the speeches yet delivered on this important bill has been commendable. All, or nearly all, the speakers supported the measure, either as brought forward by the Government or as altered by the Commission: most were for the project of the Government, the most liberal of the two. Even M. de Saint-Cricq declared for altogether effacing the word prohibition from the corn laws of France.3
FLOWER’S SONGS OF THE SEASONS
For Mill’s first tribute to Eliza Flower, see No. 112. This item, in the “Musical Review,” is headed “Songs of the Seasons. By the author of the Musical Illustrations of the Waverley Novels. [London: Novello, 1832.]” It is described in Mill’s bibliography as “A review of Miss Flower’s ‘Songs of the Seasons,’ in the Examiner of 8th April 1832” (MacMinn, p. 20). In the Somerville College set it is listed as “Review of Miss Flower’s ‘Songs of the Seasons’ ” and enclosed in square brackets.
in the examiner of the 3d of July last, we paid such offering of admiration as we knew how to give, to Miss Flower’s Musical Illustrations of the Waverley Novels. If time and familiarity have shewn us anything to regret in the testimony we then rendered to that delightful work, it is that we hardly trusted ourselves to say all we might have said in its praise, nor to try it by so high a standard as that to which alone it can be referred, without a certain insensibility to what constitutes its highest excellence. There is in every strain that which denotes it to be the work not merely of an accomplished musician, but of a mind penetrated with the spirit of a true artist; of one who recognizes in art (what the mere trader in its productions, let him trade for fame or money, will never see in it) a language for the most earnest feelings of the most susceptible minds: for those feelings which, when they vent themselves in articulate sounds, give birth to poetry and eloquence—when in any other kind of language, to Art in all its branches. The language which Miss Flower has chosen is music, and she speaks it like one to whom none of its dialects is unfamiliar, because none of the feelings to which it is appropriate, from the loftiest to the most tender, is a stranger to her. When to these qualities of the inmost nature, is added originality of melody, together with adequate scientific knowledge of harmonic principles, we have all which constitutes musical genius, in the highest and most exclusive sense of the term. And whatever may be the place assigned to Miss Flower among the comparatively few, whom this union of endowments entitles to the rank of artists in music, that she belongs to the class, no competent judge, we are persuaded, will for a moment doubt.
We welcome a new work from the same hand, with the greater pleasure, as there are many motives not likely to be durable which may lead to the appearance of a first production, but it is the second which shews that the author has chosen her career—that she has found an answer to the question which every mind of any inherent power asks itself, what it is fittest for? in what manner the faculties which it possesses can be called into fullest exercise, and turned to the most valuable account? We are now authorized to hope that she will many more times have to receive our thanks, for benefitting and delighting us as she has already done.
The work before us consists of four songs, illustrative of the Four Seasons. This design did not allow of such lofty flights as her “Lament of Meg Merrilies” or her “Lady in St. Swithin’s Chair,”1 the unearthly character of which could only correspond to words as solemn and impressive; nor would the wild strains in which she has so characteristically shadowed out the mental wanderings of the dying Madge Wildfire, have suited an occasion where neither poetry nor music had anything more to do than embellishing familiar objects. Her present subject required not so much imagination as fancy, and a mind at peace and in sympathy with all nature. There are minds to whom Autumn and Winter are more congenial than Spring and Summer, or over whose emotions at least, those gloomier seasons have greater command. The contrary seems to be the case with Miss Flower; her disposition must be sunny and cheerful, for it is evident to us, that her heart is in the first two of her songs, and only her understanding in the two last.
The first in particular must be admired by every lover of chaste and expressive music. It is one of the sweetest pastoral duets which has been produced in this country for many years. Miss Flower, who is usually happy in the choice of her words, has been indebted for them in this case to a friend who is not named. They appear to us so delicate and fanciful, that we permit ourselves the pleasure of quoting them at length: they are worthy of the music, and the music of them.
The second, “Summer,” we think little if at all inferior to the first. The words (by the author’s sister)2 mingle another expression with that belonging to the season, being a summons from a lover to his mistress, to partake of its delights. Both the words and the melody (the simplest of the collection) are overflowing with a gentle and placid tenderness.
“Autumn” is less a favourite with us than any of the others: we have met however, with persons who admired this most of them all. We should praise it too, if the author had not so often far excelled it.
“Winter” is highly original, but sounds to us somewhat odd and uncouth: perhaps because the rhythm of the words is unusual, and not very well adapted for music. Nowhere has Miss Flower scattered the materials both of melody and accompaniment with a more lavish hand, but we think she has been less felicitious than usual in putting them together. The air is not marked with that singleness of conception, which is the surest indication, and indeed, the only rational definition ever given, of true taste. It has the appearance of being not one air, but fragments of several. In particular, there is in the very middle a startling modulation from minor to major, which must have produced a great effect if there were at that place any corresponding change of sentiment in the words. A modulation exactly the converse of this, in “St. Swithin’s Chair,” was extremely striking and characteristic: but the higher resources of the art should be reserved for occasions to which its more ordinary means are not adequate.
Miss Flower’s worst pieces, however, are superior to the best of many popular composers, and her best are such as “will not willingly be let die.”3 We hope for many more, both of the one and of the other.*
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, April 8, 1832,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
the total number of persons who have been attacked by the cholera in Paris, from the commencement of the disease (that is, within one week) is 1,052. Of these, 395 have died. When considered with relation to the amount of population in the two cities, the disease has been in the proportion of three to one more destructive in Paris than in London. This greatly exceeds any proportion which we should have anticipated from the comparative unhealthiness, and greater average rate of mortality, in ordinary times, in Paris than in London.
The epidemic has also appeared in several parts of France simultaneously, and all quarantine restrictions have consequently been withdrawn.
There has been a riot at Paris (which seems to have been grossly exaggerated by some of the English papers),1 excited chiefly by the chiffonniers, or rag-pickers. This is an unfortunate class of men, more numerous than the nature of their occupation might have led us to expect, who gain their living by going with lanterns at night and picking up such rags as are to be found in the sweepings which are thrown out of the houses in the evening and carried away by the scavengers before morning. A new system which has been adopted, it seems, for cleaning the streets, threatened to deprive all or some of these poor creatures of their miserable livelihood; and this, together with some absurd misconceptions by the populace of Paris concerning the cholera and the sanitary measures of the civic authorities, gave rise to the disturbances.
The Bill for the amendment of the Corn Laws has passed the Chamber of Deputies, having first been mulcted of all its valuable provisions, except that which puts an end to absolute prohibition.2 Importation will in no case hereafter be prohibited, but only subjected to duties tantamount to a prohibition. This proves that on the great questions of commercial legislation, the Périer ministry, though not coming up to several of the leading members of the Opposition, is far ahead of the great bulk of either party. It is most unfortunate that the secret voting, so mischievously established by the regulations of the Chamber,3 prevents the disclosure of the names of the Deputies composing the majority and minority. Were these published, France would see who among the clamorous advocates of democratic principles are the real friends of the people, and who are merely disappointed aspirants for place.
The bill for the re-establishment of divorce, which had passed the Chamber of Deputies almost unanimously, has been thrown out, by a large majority, in the Chamber of Peers.4 Every day now widens the breach between the two Chambers. Nothing else was to be expected without an entire recomposition, as the French would say, of the personnel of the Second Chamber.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, April 15, 1832,” is listed as “Article on France” in the Somerville College set, where brackets surround all but the first paragraph1 (before which a bracket has been erased).
the cholera has thus already carried off more than twice as many persons at Paris as have perished by it in London since its commencement. In one day the number of new cases amounted to 1024. We have abundant reason to rejoice that the disease broke out first in our own country. If it were yet to come, no one can think without horror of the alarm which would have been spread by these accounts of its ravages at Paris.
So little is known of the nature of this disease, that it is impossible to pronounce certainly why it has proved peculiarly fatal at Paris, peculiarly mild in London, and all over Great Britain. But we may suspect that the thin and low diet of the working classes at Paris, aggravated by long slackness of employment, has co-operated with their crowded mode of life, and with the bad draining and cleansing of the streets, to generate a predisposition to disease. No one who has ever passed through (to have lived there is impossible) certain quarters of Paris, seldom visited by foreigners—the Marais for example, eastward from the Rue St. Denis—can be astonished that such places should be foci of pestilential maladies.
The most absurd rumours were set afloat in the first few days after the irruption of the disease. Its symptoms were believed to be the result of poisoned provisions; and there seems to be little doubt that some individuals, whether madmen or worse, pretended to put, or did really put, into articles of food and drink, drugs of some kind, but not poison. However, the usual readiness of the French to suspect the most horrible crimes, on less evidence than would be required to make out the most trivial fact, has displayed itself, with even more than its wonted force. No less than five persons were massacred in the streets on suspicion of being poisoners.
The guilt of the murders rests with their perpetrators; but the reproach of credulity rests not with the populace alone. A proclamation by the Prefect of Police,2 which was placarded in the streets afforded so much countenance to the absurd and odious suspicions, that some of the newspapers would not make themselves parties to its probable consequences by inserting it in their columns.
The progress of the disease, which is not sparing the higher classes, and of which M. Périer himself is said to be even now lying ill, is wonderfully accelerating the proceedings of the Chamber of Deputies. Laws are now hurried through with an indecent precipitation, which prevents any resistance to the will of the ministers, except, indeed, where they meditate some real improvement. They had introduced a bill for reducing the enormous bounties on French fisheries;3 a considerable step towards a system of free and equal law, bribing no one branch of industry at the expense of other branches: but this law has not passed without suffering considerable mutilation, at the instance of the deputies for the maritime towns.
The whole of the estimates have been passed,4 and the Chamber is now debating on the Ways and Means.5 This debate, which will necessarily involve all the great questions of taxation, would, probably, have been long and interesting at any other time, but, under present circumstances, it is likely to be summary and insignificant.
We have now, at length, an authentic account of the events at Grenoble.6 The mayor of the town has made a long report to Government, more deeply inculpatory of the authorities than even the enemies of the Ministry had previously surmised. To this report all the members of the Municipal Council have given in their adhesion, except one,7 who abstains on the ground, that, as chief judge of the Cour Royale, he will have to pronounce judicially on the transaction.—We shall return to this subject hereafter.8
COMPARISON OF THE TENDENCIES OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH INTELLECT
This letter was sent to Charles Duveyrier for insertion in the Saint-Simonian newspaper Le Globe, where it appeared on 18 Apr., 1832, two days before Le Globe ceased publication. The letter witnesses to Mill’s continued friendship with the Saint-Simonians, who shared his interest in the formation of character and the influence of circumstance on national traits. That Mill’s letter was originally written in English is made clear in a letter to D’Eichthal and Duveyrier: “It was very well translated, though with some omissions & abbreviations which made it rather more St Simonian than I intended” (EL, CW, Vol. XII, p. 109). Since the translation is not by Mill, it is given here as App. B. This English version of the letter, published in the Monthly Repository a year and a half later, is there headed as title. The added introductory paragraph (probably by Mill), explains the circumstances, as do the two entries in his bibliography. The first reads: “A letter to Charles Duveyrier, intended as introductory to a series of letters to the Editor of Le Globe, the S. Simonian paper at Paris. This was translated garbled in some passages and published in ‘Le Globe’ of 18th April 1832. The stoppage of the paper prevented any continuation. The English original of this letter with an introductory paragraph appeared in the Monthly Repository for November 1833, headed Comparison of the Tendencies of French and English intellect.” (MacMinn, p. 20.) The second reads: “An article headed ‘Comparison of the Tendencies of French and English intellect’ in the Monthly Repository for November 1833, being the [original] of my letter to [Duveyrier] published in the Globe with a new heading” (MacMinn, p. 35). The English version contains four passages (one of them the introductory paragraph) not included in the French; these are identified in the variant notes, where “32” stands for Le Globe of 18 Apr., 1832.
athe following letter appeared in a French dress, with some omissions and alterations, about a year and a half ago, in Le Globe, the journal of the political and religious sect of Saint-Simonians. It was intended to be the introduction to a series of letters, principally relating to the moral and social condition of Great Britain. In consequence of the discontinuance of the journal to which it was addressed, the design was never prosecuted. The original of the only letter which appeared has been communicated to us, and as it contains remarks which, though addressed to Frenchmen, concern Englishmen, and draws a parallel between the intellectual biasses of the two nations, which is at least not common-place, and is drawn (as we can certify) from nearly equal familiarity with the literature and politics of both, we offer it to our readers. In doing so we are requested to state, by way of apology for its somewhat egotistical style, that (although the observation may sound epigrammatic) the tone of French composition is naturally egotistical, and it is hardly possible not, after much mixing with Frenchmen, to assume the externals of egotism in discussing with them, whether orally or in writing.a
you ask me to correspond occasionally with the editor of the Globe on those subjects on which an Englishman, well acquainted with your doctrines, has more to tell of what you would desire to know than is attainable by any Frenchman. I accept your proposal. The idea had already occurred to myself; and the honour which you have spontaneously tendered to me, I should probably sooner or later have solicited as a favour to myself.
But before I commence, it is due both to myself and to those for whom this correspondence is intended, that I should state somewhat more fully than I have yet done, even to yourself individually, the motives and views with which I undertake it. I do so the more readily, as this is in itself no unimportant element of that knowledge which you have done me the honour to suppose that the readers of the Globe may be able to derive from my letters. To a St. Simonian who desires to know England, it cannot be indifferent to learn what are the inducements which may lead an Englishman, himself no St. Simonian, and agreeing with the St. Simonians though partially on almost all points, entirely perhaps on none, to place himself in communication with the St. Simonian Society.
You will imagine, perhaps, that the motive is a desire to do my part towards what you are labouring for with so much success, namely, to enable two nations, each of which possesses so many of the elements of greatness and goodness, but developed in an unequal degree, to understand each other; to make them do justice mutually to each other’s merits, and acquiesce in the necessary results of those laws of human and of external nature which have made the characters of the two nations different, and in so doing have marked out to each of them a different vocation, and commanded each to pursue the end of our common existence by separate, yet not by opposite, roads. An arrangement which, viewing it as St. Simonians, you cannot but regard as providential. Viewed in any way in which it can be looked at by an enlarged intellect, and a soul aspiring to indefinite improvement, it is a subject of rejoicing; for it furnishes the philosopher with varied experiments on the education of the human race; and affords the only mode by which all the parts of our nature are enabled to move forward at once, none of them being choked (as some must be in every attempt to reduce all characters to a single invariable type) by the disproportionate growth of the remainder.
You are not wrong in supposing that I have this object deeply at heart, and that the earnestness with which you on your part pursue it, is not the weakest of the ties of sympathy which connect me and you. I am sensible, moreover, that at the point of view at which you are placed, this must be the principal source of any expectation of good which you can entertain from my correspondence. But such is not the only, nor even the principal, of the motives which induce me to choose the Globe as a vehicle (so far as your permission extends) of many of my feelings and opinions. There is a stronger still; it is, that among the readers of that journal I find a public capable of understanding those opinions, of entering into those feelings; and in the members of your society, a body of thinkers and writers with whom I think it may be of use publicly to discuss them.
It is not necessary for any one to remind you, that the St. Simonians are, just now, the only association of public writers existing in the world who systematically stir up from the foundation all the great social questions; even those which have been settled long ago upon a footing which revolution has not yet completely carried away; even those on which the ancient doctrines, howsoever they may have declined in their practical efficacy, have not yet ceased to be speculatively acknowledged by every one. You declare that all social questions must receive a new solution; and while you propound with that view the best ideas you have, you call upon all who are capable to do the same, and are yourselves willing to hear and desirous to understand all men.
If even in France to have done this has exposed you to the misinterpretation and the odium of which you are the objects, it is more utterly impossible than you yourselves are as yet able fully to understand, that any set of public writers should for a long time to come stand up openly in England and do the like. In England there is no scope at present for general theories; unless, indeed, they be generalizations of such narrow views as make no call even upon the most uncultivated mind to look beyond its own miserably contracted horizon.
M. Michel Chevalier has frequently propounded in the Globe, the doctrine that Germany excels all nations in science and intellect, England in industry, France (as having the most widely-spread sympathies) in morality.1bThis was doubtless intended merely as a general indication, not to be taken literally, but with many explanations and modifications; some of which you are, I know, aware of, and I may have opportunity of suggesting others in the course of this correspondence. What I am now going to mention is, however, literally true, and is, I think, the principal truth contained in M. Chevalier’s remark.b It is, that the German nation is eminently speculative, the English essentially practical, and the French endeavour to unite both qualities, having an equal turn for framing general theories and for reducing them into cpractice. As far as this goes, the palm of intellectual superiority, you see, belongs to France, and not to Germany. Considered in other points of view, I could prove that it belongs to England. In short, I conceive it might be shown that every one of the three nations possesses some intellectual and some moral qualities in a higher state of development than either of the two other nations; and that each excels in some department, even of industry; witness the woollens of Saxony, and the well-known superiority of your country in almost all fancy articles.
But this is not the point I intended to enlarge upon just at present. What I meant to say was, that ifc any person has ideas which he thinks important to propound to the public of Germany, it is a positive recommendation to them that they are brought forward as part of a systematic theory, founded on a combined view of history, and on a general conception of philosophy, literature, and the arts. This would perfectly chime in with the tendency of the German mind. Views very extensive, and therefore, of necessity, promising only a gradual and distant realization, have a better chance of being listened to in that country, than those of a narrower kind. Even in France, though the general and systematic character of any opinions are no recommendation to the public attention, neither are they a positive hinderance. But in England they are so.
The extremely practical character of the English people, that which makes them, as men of business and industriels excel all the nations of Europe, has also the effect of making them very inattentive to any thing that cannot be carried instantly into practice. The English people have never had their political feelings called out by abstractions. They have fought for particular laws, but never for a principle of legislation. The doctrines of the sovereignty of the people, and the rights of man, never had any root in this country. The cry was always for a particular change in the mode of electing members of the House of Commons; for making an act of parliament to meet some immediate exigency; or for taking off some particular tax. The English public think nobody worth listening to, except in so far as he tells them of something to be done, and not only that, but of something which can be done immediately. What is more, the only reasons they will generally attend to, are those founded on the specific good consequences to be expected from the adoption of the specific proposition.
Whoever, therefore, wishes to produce much immediate effect upon the English public, must bring forward every idea upon its own independent grounds, and must, I was going to say, take pains to conceal that it is connected with any ulterior views. If his readers or his audience suspected that it was part of a system, they would conclude that his support even of the specific proposition, was not founded on any opinion he had that it was good in itself, but solely on its being connected with Utopian schemes, or at any rate with principles which they are “not prepared” (a truly English expression) to give their assent to.
To you, who know that politics are an essentially progressive science, and that none of the great questions of social organization can receive their true answer, except by being considered in connexion with views which ascend high into the past, and stretch far into the future; it is scarcely necessary to point out that any person, who thinks as you do on this point, must have much to say, which cannot with advantage be said, just at present, to the people of England. In writing to persuade the English, one must tell them only of the next step they have to take, keeping back all mention of any subsequent step. Whatever we may have to propose, we must contract our reasoning into the most confined limits; we must place the expediency of the particular measure upon the narrowest grounds on which it can rest; and endeavour to let out no more of general truth, than exactly as much as is absolutely indispensable to make out our particular conclusion.
Now, as the people of England will be treated in this manner, they must: and those who write for them, must write in the manner best calculated to make an impression upon their minds. When, therefore, I see, that parliament ought to enact a certain law to-day or to-morrow, and that it is my duty to exert myself for that purpose, I will state to the English people such immediate advantages as appear to me likely to result from the measure:—but when I wish to carry discussion into the field of science and philosophy, to state any general principles of politics, or propound doubts tending to put other people upon stating general principles for my instruction, I must go where I find readers capable of understanding and relishing such inquiries, and writers capable of taking part in them.
I come to you as littérateurs and artists come to Europe from that country of pure industrialism, the United States of America; because there is no call in their own country for the kind of labour which is their vocation. I conceive that, in political philosophy, the initiative belongs to France at this moment; not so much from the number of truths which have yet been practically arrived at, but rather from the far more elevated terrain on which the discussion is engaged; a terrain from which England is still separated by the whole interval which lies between 1789 and 1832. Every one, therefore, who can contribute any thing towards the elaboration of political principles, should carry his ideas, such as they are, to France, and if to France, to none rather than to you, who are in so many respects the furthest advanced of all persons in France at the present moment.
I have yet another reason for placing myself in communication with the readers of the Globe. Englishman as I am, I understand them better than I do almost any class of my own countrymen. The cause is, that you have determinate views on all the subjects most interesting to mankind; and you keep none of these back, but state them to the public on every fitting occasion. In England, on the contrary, whatever may be a man’s opinions, he never brings any of them before the general public, except those which are naturally suggested by the topics of the day; the rest he keeps to himself, or reserves for philosophical works. You can never tell what sort of persons those are who read the Times, or the Morning Chronicle, or the Edinburgh Review, or the Quarterly Review; except that you can in some measure guess whether they are Tories, Whigs, or radicals; even in this, your guess is often wrong, and at the best, how little this discloses of all that constitutes a man’s real belief (if he have any) or the real furniture of his mind, no one knows better than yourselves. But whoever reads Le Globe, tells you by that alone, an immense deal of his character and modes of thinking. And I, who have long read it assiduously, as well as almost every other publication which has proceeded from your society, may say that I now know the opinions of the St. Simonians, understand their language, desire to hear more of it on all subjects, and know in what manner my own ideas must be expressed, to find readiest access to their minds. I cannot say so much of any body of English readers, to whom I could address myself.
To these reasons for corresponding with you, permit me to add one, which needed not to be backed by any others in order to render it sufficient;—the high admiration which it is impossible for me not to entertain for you, your purposes, and your proceedings. When I see men doing all that the St. Simonians do, and sacrificing all that they sacrifice, for a doctrine which has as much truth in it as theirs has, and which, though I am unable to adopt it, must, in my opinion, do infinitely more good by its good, than it can do evil by its evil; when I see this, it is enough for me that such men think I can be of any use to them, to induce me eagerly to obey their call, as far as is consistent with what I owe to my own views of truth, and to the superior claims of my own country upon my labours and sacrifices.
LEWIS’S REMARKS ON THE USE AND ABUSE OF POLITICAL TERMS
Mill reviewed this work at greater length in Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine for May 1832 (see CW, Vol. XVIII, pp. 1-13). On 29 May, 1832, outlining for Thomas Carlyle his recent activities, Mill evaluates his writings in the Examiner on France, his review of Smart, Nos. 151 and 153 (by implication), and his two reviews of Lewis: “On the whole, the opinions I have put forth in these different articles are, I think, rather not inconsistent with yours, than exactly corresponding to them; & are expressed so coldly and unimpressively that I can scarcely bear to look back on such poor stuff. I have not yet come up even with my friends the St. Simonians; & it would be saying very little even if I had.” (EL, CW, Vol. XII, p. 105. Cf. the concluding sentence of the introductory paragraph of No. 158.) This review, the first in the “Literary Examiner,” is headed “Remarks on the Use and Abuse of some Political Terms. By George Cornewall Lewis, Esq., Student of Christ Church, Oxford. [London: Fellowes, 1832.]” The item is described in Mill’s bibliography as “A review of Geo. Cornewall Lewis’s Remarks on the Use and Abuse of certain political terms. In the Examiner of 22d April 1832.” (MacMinn, p. 20.) It is listed as “Review of Geo. Cornewall Lewis’s ‘Use and Abuse of Political Terms’ ” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner, with one correction: at 450.33 “to other” is altered to “to draw other”. One passage of the “poor stuff” was deemed worthy of quotation in A System of Logic; in the variants resulting from its collation, “L” signifies A System of Logic.
mr. lewis is already known as one of the accomplished translators of Müller’s Dorians, and Böckh’s Public Economy of Athens;1 but, with the exception of a little tract on Logic, of considerable merit, published a few years ago,2 he now appears (we believe) for the first time before the public as the author of an original work.
The nature and purpose of the book are accurately enough expressed by its title. Such works are the natural results of the call which is now making itself heard, for stricter and more precise thinking on political topics. Whoever is au courant of the great intellectual movement of the age, is aware that the scientific study of politics as a branch of philosophy, (though scarcely half a century old), is now the chief and engrossing occupation of thinking and instructed minds throughout Europe: whether as embodied in the speculations of Mr. Bentham and his successors; in the labours of the French and English economists; or in the attempts which have been made with various success in France and Germany (from Herder and Johannes Müller3 down to Guizot and Saint-Simon), to philosophize upon the facts of history considered as a connected whole, governed by determinate and assignable laws. In England, (where the hindmost minds remain longer ignorant than in any other reading nation, of what is doing by the foremost) the bare idea that such studies exist, for any purpose which a sensible man can attach value to, has only within this last year or two, if at all, been diffused and popularized. Yet even in England all minds are now turned to politics, if not as yet with great comprehensiveness of views, at least with the certainty of great results, for good or for evil. And though the questions immediately at issue are likely to be decided by more summary methods than those of logic, yet on a subject on which the magnitude of the interests at stake forces all to think after some manner, such as have any capacity for philosophy will endeavour to think philosophically, and to contribute what lies in their power towards enabling as many others as are so disposed to do the like; of which this work of Mr. Lewis is an example.
It is a highly creditable production; less however in itself, than as an earnest of better things to come. Were it to be considered as the ultimatum of a completed and ripened mind, we should have nearly as much to say of it for ill as for good. But there is no other ill in it than that of not being good enough; the most hopeless of all faults in a mind which has attained maturity, the most excusable in one which is in a state of adolescence. Every thing in the book which is justly liable to objection, proves merely that Mr. Lewis has begun to think and to inquire, and has yet only partially realized any result from his thinking and inquiring. It is already no little matter to have fairly and in singleness of purpose set about the task:—above all, when we consider of how many voluminous and even popular writers and instructors it may be said, that they have never, properly speaking, thought at all; that to have had a thought of their own, or even to have made a thought completely their own which was originally another man’s, is an event in their lives which is yet to come, and which, if it ever should come, would most certainly effect an entire change in their whole manner of existence. Mr. Lewis belongs to a very different category; and we have far other hopes from him. Many a mind of the highest capabilities, if it had attempted to fix upon paper such views of things, or such views of other men’s views, as passed through it in the middle stage of its growth, while rising from the learner into the teacher, would have made a far less advantageous appearance than Mr. Lewis has done. This middle stage is the most critical period in any man’s intellectual history, and few are they who pass through it. There is nothing in the work before us which forbids us to believe that Mr. Lewis is destined to be one of those few; unless, unfortunately (what sometimes happens), impressions, some of which would naturally be evanescent, should derive from the very process of committing them to paper, that fixity and tenacity which is frequently given to a notion by much pondering over it.
Mr. Lewis’s purpose in this work, as a political philosopher, is to set people right in their use of terms. An important object; yet not all-important; and, indeed, essentially secondary in its nature, the primary end being, to set people right in their notions of things. True it is, that our judgments of things are frequently vitiated by fallacies which creep in by means of words; but this is only the common case of an effect reacting upon its cause, since an illogical use of words also still more frequently arises from an imperfect conception of the nature and properties of the things which these words are employed to designate. Almost all the faults of this book may be traced, we think, to the attempt to treat one of these two classes of errors independently of the other. aFew people have reflected how great a knowledge ofbthingsb is required to enable a man to affirm that any given argument turns wholly upon words. There is, perhaps, not one of the leading terms of philosophy which is not used in almost innumerable shades of meaning, to express ideas more or less widely different from one another. Between two of these ideas a sagacious and penetrating mind will discern, as it were intuitively, an unobvious link of connection, upon which, though perhaps unable to give a logical account of it, he will found a perfectly valid argument, which his critic, not having so keen an insight into the cthingsc , will mistake for a fallacy turning on the double meaning of a term. And the greater the genius of him who thus safely leaps over the chasm, the greater will probably be the crowing and vain-glory of the mere logician, who, hobbling after him, evinces his own superior wisdom by pausing on its brink, and giving up as desperate his proper business of bridging it over.a
When it shall be deemed as essential to the character of a logician to be able to recognise the substance of sound reasoning, howsoever overshadowed, as to detect irregularities in the form; it will be acknowledged, that in order to sit in judgment upon any man’s philosophical phraseology, it is often necessary to be more thoroughly master of his ideas than he is himself.
But if there needs all this knowledge, not of words but of things, to ascertain whether one man has preserved sufficient clearness and consistency in the use of language, never to make a stumbling-block to himself of his own terminology; how much more of such knowledge does it require to determine what meanings can be annexed to what words, most conveniently for the general purposes of philosophy! Language to a philosopher is like an army to a general-in-chief; like that, too, it is often all too scanty for the work it has to do. To judge what positions must be occupied, and what may be left unguarded; to make the most advantageous disposition of a small force for the defence of an extensive territory,—requires the most familiar knowledge and careful study of the localities. To give the law to philosophical nomenclature, requires the most intimate acquaintance with the strong and the weak points of philosophy and of general opinion; so as to know where on one quarter a fallacy creeps in, because the most common name of an object suggests a part only of its essential properties, and not the whole; on another, an all-important distinction lies unheeded for want of a short and compact expression pointing it out:—to save words from being engrossed, as they are apt to be, by objects or thoughts which are safe from being overlooked by their own obviousness; and afford the aid of language to draw other less palpable and familiar (though possibly more important) combinations of ideas out of obscurity.
Yet we blame no one, if, in the present state of the human mind, he begins to be a critic in words, before he is adequately conversant with the things which they signify. The greatest intellects, in our time, have had scarcely any other beginnings.
Quintilian remarks, that in a youthful production, redundancy of invention and exuberance of fancy are faults which the teacher should see not merely with indulgence, but with pleasure; since every year of experience and culture helps to cure defects of judgment, but the imagination which is not overflowing in youth, will surely be jejune and scanty in maturer years.4 In our own times Quintilian’s observation must give place to its exact opposite. Circumstances for which no individual can with justice be held responsible, have reversed the order in which the capabilities of the youthful intellect successively unfold themselves. What even the best minds of our day are remarkable for in the outset, is seldom fertility and fulness, but the forced and premature predominance of the faculty of judgment, or rather, of judging; exercised, be it well understood, not upon their own stores, but upon other people’s. What remains to be accomplished by subsequent culture is nowise to root out weeds, and prune luxuriant growth, but rather to plant anything in the mind, which else would remain almost a waste. The first lesson, that which men begin by teaching themselves, is not to do anything, great or little, but to perceive that other people have not done it. Some imperfect faculty of criticism is what men first attain to. Imperfect it must necessarily be, for none know really what is false but he who knows also what is true: the knowledge of good and of evil are fruits which grow upon the same tree. Accordingly the criticism generally addresses itself not to the substance of what is taught, but chiefly to the qualifications of the teacher. Criticising in our time is mostly confutation only of the man, not of what he delivers as his opinion: it ends not in throwing any new light upon the subject treated of, but in shewing that some man who is undertaking to treat of it, is inconsistent, or puzzle-headed, and is incapable of giving instruction upon the matter to any one, or at least has not succeeded in giving any to the critic. It is scarcely necessary to add, that even the man, in this mode of proceeding, seldom meets with fair play; for when the presumption set out with is that every man, even though he be a great man, is at least as likely to be wrong as right, what more natural than to conclude that he is talking without a meaning, rather than take any considerable trouble to make out what his meaning is? The critic squares his author’s understanding by his own; and if the two do not exactly fit, with whom is it more natural to suppose the fault to lie—his author, or himself?
All this must be; or, at least, in an age of transition like the present, will be; which is all that in such a case can be meant by must. Numbers of persons who make considerable noise in the world, never emerge from the state of mind above described. Even the best must generally pass through such a state, but rapidly, and without exemplifying any of its more baneful consequences.
Mr. Lewis has begun where it is scarcely possible, just at present, even for the most vigorous minds, not to begin: he has obtained some insight, not into the truth, but into the deficiencies of others in seeking for it, or in setting it forth. And if amidst many sound and valuable criticisms on the established usage of language, and on the phraseology of particular writers, he occasionally condemns what he has not seen to the bottom of, and for want of sufficient familiarity with an author’s ideas, does not see correctly what that author means by his words; if at other times he is almost captious in refusing to writers the use of, perhaps, the only familiar terms which the language affords them to express their meaning, because he has laid hold of those terms to mark distinctions of his own, the importance of which he more clearly sees; all this is but the almost necessary consequence of attempting to settle the language of a science before mankind have agreed about the science itself. Instead of blaming Mr. Lewis because his work contains such blemishes, we will rather give him all praise that it consists of anything else; and will exhort him to persevere in his attempt to reform philosophical language, but to remember that such reform cannot proceed faster than the reform of the doctrines of philosophy; that the two must go hand in hand, and that it is as impossible to use language precisely while ideas are uncertain and confused, as it is for ideas to remain clear without a nomenclature suitable for the accurate expression of them.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, April 22, 1832,” is listed as “Paragraphs on France” in the Somerville College set with the first two paragraphs of the article (to the printer’s rule) enclosed in square brackets.
the french chamber of deputies has galloped through the Ways and Means, disposed of all the great questions of taxation with scarcely a word of discussion, and then virtually adjourned, it being now impossible to make a house.1 It must be remembered that by the regulations of the French Parliament, the number necessary to form a quorum is not forty members, as with us, but a majority of the whole house.2 This is one of the causes which practically disable the Chamber from transacting public business after dinner time.
The Session will not close for some days, the Peers having yet to pass several bills already adopted by the other Chamber.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, April 29, 1832,” is listed as “Paragraphs on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
the french chambers were prorogued on the 21st of April, after a session of nine months, in which but little that is of any real use has been even talked about; and of that little, nothing but the most paltry and insignificant fraction has been accomplished. The first session of the first Parliament elected under the Citizen King and the charte-vérité,1 has demonstrated nothing but the vices of the institutions of France, and the backwardness of her national mind.
In our next paper, we purpose giving a summary of the res gestae of the session; with the remarks, which such a survey naturally suggests, on the two comprehensive questions—what France now is, and what she has next to do and to become?
The illness of MM. Périer and d’Argout has set much vain speculation afloat concerning the chances of a change of ministry.
THE CLOSE OF THE SESSION IN FRANCE
This comment on the background and meaning of the legislative session, with its companion article, No. 172, employs a genre later used by Mill for British sessions (see CW, Vol. VI). The article, headed as title, is described in Mill’s bibliography as “An article headed ‘Close of the Session’ in the Examiner of 6th May 1832” (MacMinn, p. 21). In the Somerville College set of the Examiner it is listed as “The Close of the Session in France” and enclosed in square brackets; at 455.11 “ong” in “longer” is inked over, but no obvious correction can be inferred.
when the french chambers met, after the general election in June 1831, the situation of France and of the French Government presented many features of resemblance with the position of affairs at the opening of the States General in 1789.
There was not, indeed, as at the former period, an accumulated pile of the abominations of centuries, to be carted off and flung into the bottomless pit. The extirpation of evil had ceased to be the first and greatest good; the destroying angel had done his work, and a gentler and more beneficent spirit must henceforth preside over the accomplishment of the milder task which remained. Neither had the men of 1831, like the far greater men of 1789, to construct a Government, from the foundation upwards. There was a Government: in a degree more or less perfect, it was, and could keep itself, obeyed; and had therefore full leisure to look about it and think of deserving to be so. What is called a Constitution, too, that is, the bare walls and rafters and doorways, the mere carcass of the social edifice, had been bequeathed to the new French Legislature by its immediate predecessors. What is deemed the great question of Government, the question who shall govern, (not how), had been provisionally decided, by those who had accidentally found the sceptre lying at their feet, when it fell from the incapable hands of its former holders. The workman had got his new tools, and fit was it that he should try how he could work with them, ere he flung them away and looked out again for another set. To this extent, therefore, the position of the French Chambers differed from that of the Constituent Assembly; and was a far easier one. But in other respects the two were strikingly analogous.
In both, the sense of the whole nation, or of that part of it which the law presumed to be the fit guide and guardian of the remainder, had been appealed to; in the one case, after the happening of a revolution; in the other, under circumstances which were in themselves a revolution. In both, a call had been made upon the people to choose out all their best and wisest men, and send these to assemble in one place and consider what could be done to make the condition of the French Nation better. Both bodies were invited by the circumstances under which they were called together, to review all the institutions and the general political condition of their country. Both assembled at the opening of a new era; and on the will of each it mainly depended, what, in the first instance, the character of that era should be.
But the two bodies were very differently fitted, by talents and acquirements, for the task which lay before them.
The Constituent Assembly, with all their faults, were the élite of France. There was scarcely a man in the kingdom who had given public proof of integrity and abilities to the nation, or to his own province or district, who did not find a place in that illustrious body. The ruling spirits were inexperienced, which was not their fault; they were also vain and presumptuous, which was. But they were, almost to a man, persons whose talents would in any sphere of life have made them conspicuous; well versed in the best studies and the most valuable ideas of their age. If any one doubts this, he does not know them; he has not read, or has not understood, their speeches and writings. It is true, such culture as their age afforded had possessed the most of them thoroughly and deep-rootedly, with little besides this, that Evil was Evil. That it was possible to extinguish the Evil and yet miss the Good, was a lesson which they had not learned, but which their best and bravest were destined to leave to posterity written in their blood. Yet they warred against evil with an undaunted spirit, and did unflinchingly and effectually the great work of their own time.
The work of our time requires far greater men, and is likely, for all we can perceive, to devolve upon far smaller.
It is a very simple matter, if we will but consider it, to see when things as they are, are wrong: the signs of a vicious constitution of society glare obviously upon us: though men who have slept over their evils for centuries, are apt to think that they have accomplished something mirific, because, when their eyes are no longer shut, they can see. But to know the essentials of a healthy state of society, and what it is in the power of a government to do towards realizing these, is quite another affair. Whatever requires only that we shall see what now is, many may accomplish; but to conceive and foresee things yet to come, the results which will ensue hereafter from our actions now, so as to be able to translate a mere opinion that things go wrong, into a practical effort of any profitable kind to make them go right—is a faculty given in any high degree to very few, and which even in its lower degrees, seems to be but sparingly possessed by the present generation of public men in France. There is but little of it in the nation; and the legislature represents most imperfectly even that little.
For sixteen years previous to the Revolution in 1830, France had enjoyed a practically free press, and an approach to a representative constitution. During this period, the minds of her youth, absorbed as they have even morbidly been in political speculation and discussion, might have been expected to make some advances in political knowledge; for, in the absence, there as elsewhere, of any systematic instruction on such subjects, it is to the collision of opinions on the questions which practically arise, that mankind are indebted for such faint light as they anywhere see, and guide themselves by. But this improvement, the peculiar character of the battle which French patriotism had then to fight, in a great measure forbade. The contest for good Government, under the Restoration, was essentially conservative. The legitimists and divine-right men were then the innovators. The Liberal party were struggling, not to acquire further good, but to hold fast that which they had, against ever-repeated efforts, both open and covert, to take it from them. Consequently, by a strange and unhappy fortune, although the cause of Representative Government against feudal monarchy seemed finally won, and had been followed up even to judgment and execution, it was yet kept open for a perpetual rehearing, and no new cause was ever called on. Still the endless, and then and there almost profitless, dispute about the mere instrument of Government, occupied all tongues and all minds, to the exclusion of every thought about Government itself: to say nothing of the still greater problem, in what fashion man, well governed or not, is called upon to conduct himself in this world. Any question which seemed to have no immediate bearing on that preliminary one, “The Charter, or the ancien régime,” was all but overlooked. The natural consequence followed. While patriotism was busily and noisily engaged in defending the mere external rampart of French legislation, the watchful eye and quiet hand of private interest were ever at work moulding the whole interior of the structure to its purposes. It was in the years of fiercest anti-Bourbonism, that the most systematic and all-comprehensive system of commercial monopoly under the name of protection, which the world has seen for centuries, was silently organized and brought to perfection. And how much of the public mind was taken up with this, during the process? About as much as was bestowed upon the dismissal of a single public officer, for having voted against orders at an election.1 During the same period, the roads of France, which Napoleon left in good order, were allowed (the public voice remaining nearly silent) to fall into such a state of dilapidation, and the canals to remain so heavily taxed, that except near the great rivers or the sea, France could produce little either in agriculture or manufactures, save what could be consumed on or near the spot where it was called into existence. No one asked why France, for her extent and population, had neither internal nor foreign commerce deserving of the name. If even the almost total extinction of the Lancasterian schools made any noise during its progressive accomplishment, the cause was chiefly, that, in the minds of the Liberals, it was inseparably connected with Jesuitism and the Camarilla.2
We mention not these things for censure, but for the light they throw on what France at present is. We may well lament, not indeed that France, but that man, can seldom think earnestly on more than one thing at a time. But when the sole and indispensable instrument of all other political good, freedom of thought and of utterance, and its accompaniments, exemption from the iron yoke of a caste-oligarchy over the body, and of a retrograde priesthood over the soul, when these were possessions which, while they seemed irrevocably gained, did not the less require to be perennially battled for with all the energy of manhood; it must even be set down to the mere infirmity of our nature, that the French, in the engrossing interest of the contest for a form of government, found little leisure to think of those things for which forms of government were intended.
During the short respite which the Martignac Ministry afforded, (a truce which it was hoped might be the preliminary of a lasting peace), the minds of the French youth eagerly turned from thinking only of the tools, to think of the work itself; and a strong tendency to the study of the details of government, with a view to substantial improvements, was beginning to impress itself on the national mind. The accession of the Polignac ministry brought this march of improvement to a dead halt. And then came the Revolution of July: the greatest advance which any nation perhaps ever made by a single step—an advance which no one expected, and for which no one’s habits and ideas were prepared—a change which gave the French nation a clear field to build on, before they had possessed themselves of the materials to build withal; a leap, which cleared in an instant a space of many years journey; and transported France through mid-air, away from the scenes with which she was familiar, into regions unvisited and unknown.
Nothing worse has ensued than ought to have been expected. The peculiarities of the French character render public opinion (when such really exists) in that country more even than elsewhere, all but irresistible: but there has been no public opinion since the Revolution of July; only public discontent and irritation, and a voice perpetually crying out “Do something,” but not telling what to do, not having any thing to tell. On one point, and no more, since the accession of Louis Philippe, has there been in France a public opinion: this was the Hereditary Peerage:3 and on this, accordingly, the Government, though with the worst grace in the world, yielded: it had no choice: and it will yield every thing which shall hereafter be demanded with like energy of conviction by the French people; but, unfortunately, the French people have not yet known what else to ask; their time, however, is coming.
Men have not always convictions, but they have always interests: with difficulty enough controlled even by the firmest convictions, but paramount and omnipotent wheresoever there are none. Accordingly, the most remarkable feature in the French literature of the day, whether books or newspapers, is the unceasing complaint proceeding from every earnest mind, that there is no faith, no strong persuasion of any kind; an all-pervading scepticism; nobody feeling sufficiently certain of what he calls his opinion, to be willing to part with five pounds because of its truth; and even the men from whom such conduct was least to be expected, sacrificing what seemed their most cherished principles of action for place or favour. Yet these are probably not bad men, nor incapable, even yet, of sacrifices for conscience sake. They have simply nothing for which their conscience commands them any sacrifice. The plain fact is, man doubts of every thing else, but feels perfectly certain that he has a stomach; for amidst all the changes of religious, moral, and political creeds, and even during the interval betwixt one creed and another, these truths remain eternally recognizable—that man lives by bread, and that sugar is pleasant to the palate.
In all this, France is neither worse, nor worse off, than other countries; she has only got forward into another phasis of the change which all Europe is passing through, and of which we ourselves are in the earlier stages, but which, we may trust, is destined to be softened to us by the example of our predecessors. The difference with us is, that more of the old house will probably be left standing until the new one is ready: but who is to build the new one, here any more than there? or who has arrived at any clear notion even of the principles of its construction? Whether the resting-place in which the mind provisionally houses herself, be an old ruin, or a temporary shed, certain it is that she never feels herself at home in it, but dwells in an uneasy uncertainty until Thought and Experience have enabled her to erect for herself a permanent abode. But for this, time is required; and it must be given.
In the meanwhile, for want of clear guiding perceptions to incite or to restrain, such activity as is still to be met with will be the result of passion and instinct. The young and ardent, who hope eagerly, and know not such a feeling as self-distrust, will be impatient and angry because nothing, or less than they expected, is done:—having, themselves, as yet, mostly nothing to propose but this, “Let the people decide:” as if those maxims of political wisdom which they, the friends and leaders of the people, have hitherto failed to discover in their own heads, were to be brought to light of a sudden through some magical incantation by means of balls in a balloting-box. On the other hand, the old and timid, but especially the class possessed of property, will be palsied by a nervous dread of innovation. They who have aught to lose—until improvement is brought before them in a palpable shape, so that they fancy they can see and touch all its consequences—are instinctively its enemies; for they love not a leap in the dark, and, it must be owned, do not trouble themselves greatly to seek for light, feeling easy in their bodily attitude where they now are, and unhappily being apt to esteem that the principal, or the only essential point. But by degrees, as the thinking minds of a country throw more and more light upon question after question, the demands of the one party become more definite and circumspect, the terrors of the other abate, and they lend a more willing ear to what originally appalled them; until, at length, not at one stroke, but by a series of partial efforts, new and wiser systems of policy are bodied forth and wrought into the people’s minds, and the practice of the state insensibly moulded thereon.
In spite of superficial appearances, in themselves affording no materials for right judgment, and seen besides with purblind and jaundiced eyes by the newspaper-writers of all parties in England; the public mind of France is already making a perceptible progress towards this desirable consummation. Great indeed are the obstacles, and long will it be ere they are entirely overcome: yet even now, not a day passes without some fresh indication of the good which is silently preparing: a sensible brightening has long indicated the commencement of the twilight which precedes the rising of the sun. Many are the new and practically important ideas which have for the first time been thrown into general circulation within the last year; and along with the increased tendency to the more directly applicable parts of the art of government, may be plainly discerned the natural accompaniment of a more careful study of that art—an increasing sense of its difficulties. It is chiefly from the press, that we gather these satisfactory indications. Such marks are not indeed wholly wanting in the Chambers also, but are almost imperceptible, and would not, perhaps, be detected there by any person who had not previously observed the same tokens elsewhere. For in this, as in all else, the French Legislature is but an indifferent representation of the good sense, the talent, or the acquirements of the nation, or of anything else therein which deserves to be represented. The proofs that it is so, deduced from the history of its last session, and the reasons why it must be so, drawn from its own constitution, we shall next lay before our readers. Be this, however, the work of a separate, and a future article.4
PROPERTY IN LAND
This unheaded paragraph (in square brackets, here removed) is appended to a long letter to the editor, headed “Westminster Review—Landlords’ Claims,” in which “A Claimant of Justice” objects to a passage on p. 306 of “Saint-Simonianism, &c.,” Westminster Review, XVI (Apr. 1832), 279-321, by Thomas Perronet Thompson (1783-1869), Radical writer and proprietor of the review. It is described in Mill’s bibliography as “A paragraph in the same paper [as No. 162], on Property in Land, in answer to a Correspondent” (MacMinn, p. 21). In the Somerville College set of the Examiner, it is listed as “Paragraph on Property in Land, in reply to a correspondent” and enclosed in a second set of square brackets.
we agree entirely in all the doctrines of our correspondent, except the practical conclusion which they are probably intended to suggest. We cordially concur in the opinion that land, or any other possession or advantage for which the first possessor is not indebted to his own labour, but to accident or mere priority of occupation, ought to be retained and managed for the benefit of the community generally, and not granted away to individuals; but when it has been so appropriated, perhaps ages ago, it would be the height of iniquity to take it away from the possessors without full compensation. The lands of Great Britain, or of any other ancient community, have, for the most part, been acquired by the labour of the present owners, or of their progenitors; having been purchased from former proprietors, in exchange for property honestly earned by industry, and prudently accumulated by forethought and frugality. The land, therefore, considered as property, is just as much the produce of labour, as if it had been made with hands. That which was given for the land was made with hands, as fairly as any other kind of property: and the land is a mere equivalent obtained in exchange. We are speaking only of the land as a source of income; not of the land as a source of mischievous power. As far as the ownership of land gives any one an influence which it were desirable he did not possess over its cultivation, and over the interests of its inhabitants, so far, there would be no injustice in placing that kind of property on a different footing. Neither would there be any injustice in buying up all the land in the country, paying to the present proprietors its fair value. We only contend that it would be supremely unjust to take away from any person whatever, what the law has hitherto recognized as his property, without a full pecuniary equivalent. Property is made an idol in England; the sacredness of property is made a shield for every abuse; it should be clearly understood, that the State is at liberty to modify the general right of property as much as it likes; to new-model it altogether, if the public interest requires it: but never to the pecuniary injury of the present possessors, unless by a spontaneous sacrifice on their part.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, May 6, 1832,” is listed in the Somerville College set of the Examiner as “Article on France” with the first three (of five) paragraphs enclosed in square brackets.
it is feared that M. Casimir Périer will not survive his present illness, and no one seems to believe that he will recover sufficiently to be again capable of public business. Notwithstanding this, the King has found so much difficulty in determining on the choice of a successor, that M. Périer still retains, nominally, the rank of President of the Council,—in other words, of Prime Minister. There is, therefore, no Prime Minister, that is, the King is his own Minister,—the flattest contradiction of all the principles of a free government, since the King, not being subject to be turned out by a change of Administration, is Minister without any responsibility.
The place of Minister of the Interior1 has been filled up by M. de Montalivet, who held that office under M. Laffitte. M. Girod de l’Ain succeeds M. de Montalivet as Minister of Public Instruction. We hail this gentleman’s appointment to this situation, as we should to almost any situation upon earth, which removed him from the function of President of the Chamber of Deputies. His gross partiality in that office, was only surpassed by his indecision, and want of presence of mind. The scenes of confusion and disturbance which have so often disgraced the sittings of the Chamber, during the session which has just expired, were mainly to be ascribed to his incapacity and unfairness.
The Courrier Français observes on this appointment:
After great efforts of imagination, and when the matter seemed almost desperate, the name of M. Girod de l’Ain was hit upon; and, what is almost as extraordinary as the discovery, this name a fait merveille: nobody’s susceptibility was so easily excited, as to take any umbrage at the accession of such a colleague; accordingly, the decision was adopted almost at once. In this state were affairs this morning; and M. Girod de l’Ain will be Minister of Public Instruction, unless the difficulties proceed from himself, which is not probable. Since a strong ministry is wanted, this choice was judicious; it cannot be denied that a Cabinet which comprises M. de Montalivet and M. Girod de l’Ain, possesses a certain homogeneity. If this nomination gives rise to much criticism, it ought likewise to occasion lively and sincere congratulations; the Chamber of Deputies being the party to whom the latter are addressed.2
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, May 13, 1832,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
the telegraphic despatch given in the Standard,1 relative to an insurrection at Marseilles, and which we conceived to be a forgery, was, it seems, genuine: but the insurrection was of the most contemptible description, and was put down without shedding one drop of blood. The ringleaders have been arrested: and it is affirmed that a steam-vessel, which was bringing the Duchess of Berri from Italy, to join the conspirators, has been seized, and that personage made prisoner.2 Should this prove to be the fact, it is said that the French Government intends to dismiss the Duchess quietly to her family in Edinburgh, but to deal with her accomplices according to law.
M. Casimir Périer is said to be slowly recovering. The cholera at Paris is rapidly disappearing
The interest of foreign politics now fades before that of our own. The theatre of political excitement has changed. The current of the mouvement has now shifted to Great Britain: how rapidly to proceed, or in what latitudes to terminate, he must be a bold man who deems that he can foreknow: nor needs he: it is not now the time to hope, but to do.
DEATHS OF CASIMIR PERIER AND GEORGES CUVIER
This article on the deaths of Périer and Cuvier is headed “London, May 20, 1832.” Though presumably included in the entry in Mill’s bibliography given at No. 116, it is listed in the Somerville College copy of the Examiner not as “Article on France” but as “Obituary Notice of Casimir Périer, and of Cuvier”; it is there enclosed in square brackets.
m. casimir périer is dead:
On no view of French politics has France any good to expect from his ceasing to be Minister. His successors, whosoever they be, will be chosen from no other party, nor will act upon any other views of policy, than his; but without the vigour of purpose, the resolute determination to make all things bend to his conviction, by which he gave a sort of dignity to the most uninspiring cause which any statesman ever devoted himself to uphold. In any other hands than his, all the evil of his system will become more evil, all the redeeming good which was in it will dwindle away. He was at least an able man—at least a brave man—not other than an honest man thus far, that the main springs of his conduct were public, not private motives. He was less scrupulous in the means he used for compassing what he deemed good ends, than a sound morality will approve. But where, save in a few instances, have been the French Ministers, of whom this might not be said? He should have lived, until there had been a hope of his being replaced by a better man, not by some one (it matters not whom) among a hundred worse.
We have been no admirers of the policy of M. Périer’s Ministry. But it is not one short twelvemonth’s alienation, which can efface from our memory the unwearied public services of fifteen years. We cannot forget, that to him, more than to any man, belonged the overthrow of the Villèle Administration; the first decisive check to the royalist faction: whose encroachments upon all that France had gained by her revolution, were then only stopped in their formidable advance. And the bodily constitution which has at length succumbed to a long series of labours and vexations, was first broken by the fatigues of the daily and hourly struggle of life and death which he maintained with Villèle at the tribune of that memorable chamber, which contained three hundred creatures of the Jesuits, and but sixteen representatives of the people.
This arduous contest, in which he displayed talents which excited the admiration even of the courtiers of Charles X (of him alone, among the leaders of the liberal party, they never spoke without respect) will be his chief title to the friendly remembrance of posterity; and to this, in order that the remembrance may be as affectionate as possible, let it go down to posterity that he in reality sacrificed his life. For it is ill dying a martyr to a falling cause, when that cause is also one which ought to fall. Cranmer and Latimer and Ridley2 will live for ever; but is it for his martyrdom that we remember Sir Thomas More? Devotion to a long line of kings, or to a constitution which has stood the shock of ages, though now rotten, and worm-eaten, and harbouring unclean vermin, we can understand. But to die for a temporary compromise, a patch-work of yesterday, a thing constructed on no principle, to which no human being ever carried hypocrisy so far as to pretend to have any attachment, to which nobody affects to look for any guidance, but only for keeping him from being robbed or murdered;—to be martyred for worshiping at an empty shrine—without an oracle, without a God, without even an idol; no Gothic cathedral or Grecian temple, but a wooden shed, run up in a hurry, because any shelter was better than the open sky, and which men resort to, not because it is good, but because they know not whither to seek for any other—is a death little worthy of an apotheosis; no dying for one’s country, but a common suicide.
It is not by this that M. Périer will hereafter be known. Happily for his fame, while the last year of his life, from the insignificance of its permanent results, will sink gradually into comparative oblivion, the former years, because their consequences become every day more momentous, will loom greater and greater in the distance, even as they recede from the eye of mankind still moving onward. And when the noisy and acrimonious disputes of the present day shall be stilled, and he and his contemporaries shall be judged, with those large allowances of which all the men of the present generation stand so sorely in need; then may the close of his career again be profitably reverted to, as a lesson of indulgence rather than as a subject of reproach; and errors, for which he has so cruelly suffered, and the evil effects of which shall long since have been cured and past away, may perhaps render him more interesting to men of those days, than even if his character had been a more perfect one.
For ourselves, we shall hereafter speak of him no otherwise than in honour; he now belongs to history; his greatest enemies may now be content that their quarrel with him should be buried in his grave.
Almost at the same time, France has lost another of her most eminent men, the celebrated naturalist, Cuvier; the most distinguished, perhaps, among the physical philosophers of his age; and less honourably noted, as the humble servant of all governments. M. Cuvier was far vainer of being supposed a man of importance in politics, than of his immense merit and reputation as a man of science, and was the laughing-stock of Paris, for the ridiculous consequence which he attached to his title of Baron. Yet, although a conseiller d’état for some fifteen years, and latterly a Peer of France, he continued lecturing at the Ecole de Médecine on comparative anatomy and physiology till within a few days of his death: a striking fact, and one which throws great light on the state of feeling in France on many important matters.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, May 27, 1832,” is listed in the Somerville College set of the Examiner as “Paragraphs on France” with square brackets around the first two paragraphs.
no successor has yet been appointed to M. Casimir Périer, as Prime Minister; and there is no appearance of an intention to fill up the place. All the departments of the Ministry are filled, and the King will be his own Prime Minister. Good: but if so, he must recollect that there is such a thing as a change of Ministry.
It is now affirmed, that the lady found in the Carlo Alberto steam-packet is not the Duchess of Berri, and that the real Duchess has escaped.1 Some, on the other hand, surmise that this is the real Duchess; and that the Government, after officially announcing the fact, now asserts the contrary, to get rid of the embarrassing alternative of either bringing her to trial or liberating her by an assumption of authority contrary to law.
PEMBERTON’S LECTURES ON SHAKESPEARE
Charles Reece Pemberton (1790-1840) quickly abandoned an acting career in 1829 after receiving mixed notices of his Virginius and Shylock (under Charles Kemble’s management) and devoted himself to lecturing, largely at mechanics’ institutes. He also became a frequent contributor to the Monthly Repository. This unheaded review in the “Theatrical Examiner,” is described in Mill’s bibliography as “A notice of Mr. Pemberton’s Lectures on Shakespeare in the Examiner of 3d June 1832” (MacMinn, p. 21). In the Somerville College set of the Examiner, it is listed as “Article on Mr Pemberton’s Lectures on the Characters of Shakespeare” and enclosed in square brackets.
mr. pemberton is now delivering, at Saville House, Leicester Square, a series of lectures on some of the principal characters of Shakspeare (illustrated by the characteristic delivery of the most striking passages), which we think highly worthy of the attention of the public.
Mr. Pemberton’s object is not solely to state and establish his view of the particular characters delineated by Shakspeare, but still more to set forth and illustrate his own theory on the subject of acting. This theory, though not the prevalent one, is not peculiar to him; and we conceive that it must have occurred to almost every one who has given himself the trouble to think long and attentively on the subject: we ourselves have stated the same doctrine pretty fully in this newspaper, just a year ago, (Examiner of the 22d May 1831), in our remarks on the admirable acting of Mademoiselle Léontine Fay.1 The proposition is simply this: that in acting, as in every thing else, genius does not consist in being a copyist; even from nature: That the actor of genius is not he who observes and imitates what men of particular characters, and in particular situations, do, but he who can, by an act of imagination, actually be what they are: who can so completely understand, and so vividly conceive, the state of their minds, that the conception shall call up in his own the very emotions, and thereby draw from him the very sounds and gestures, which would have been exhibited by the imaginary being whom he is personifying. Such a man’s representation of nature will have a consistency and keeping in it, and will reach depths in the human heart, which no man’s opportunities and powers of mere outward observation could ever have enabled him to attain to.
If any one doubts this, we exhort him to go without delay, and see and hear Madame Schröder Devrient;2 and if he does not admit that such acting as hers comes not from the eyes and ears, but from the heart, we give him up, as a person not competent, in respect of sensibility, to judge of Art.
Mr. Pemberton knows these truths so well, and explains them so happily, that he would be well worth listening to, even were he incapable of practically exemplifying them. But he also lays claim to the actual possession of the faculty to which we have alluded: the power to call up by a voluntary effort of imagination, what he not unhappily terms secondary feelings, that is, feelings suggested by a vivid conception of similar feelings in others: and by thus realizing for the time being, an imaginary character, to give a profoundly true dramatic representation of it. Though his claim to these powers cannot by us at least, be admitted without considerable explanation and qualification, yet we must, in the main, admit it; and we can at least promise to our intelligent readers both amusement and instruction from listening to him.
Mr. Pemberton has hitherto lectured on three characters only; Macbeth, Hamlet, and Shylock: we have heard him on the two former; and he has certainly succeeded in giving us a far clearer and more comprehensive view of those characters than we had before.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, June 3, 1832,” is listed in the Somerville College set of the Examiner as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets.
the most important circumstance which has occurred in France during the last week was a meeting of the leading deputies of the Opposition, at the house of M. Laffitte, for the purpose of drawing up a collective address to the nation.1
When this manifesto shall be agreed upon, and shall make its appearance, it will doubtless excite much interest here; among those at least who do not think, with the Times of Friday last, that the internal affairs of France are no concern of the British public, because they are not connected with “English interests.”2 The Times wrongs the British public, and wrongs even itself. We should feel shame for our country if such things were true. We know not why it should be less shameful in a nation than in an individual, to care about nothing but its own interest; nor why we should impute to Englishmen the egregious folly of deeming the interests of good government and civilization throughout the world no interests of theirs. This is but a poor sample of English feeling from the “leading journal,” on the very day which brings us the news of a patriotic banquet at Paris, whereat M. Armand Carrel, the Editor of the only influential Paris newspaper in which there lingered some remains of anti-English feeling, was selected, perhaps for that very reason, to give, as a toast, “The People of England,” with expression of the warmest sympathy and congratulation upon our late glorious though pacific Three Days.3
A subscription is getting up among the friends and dependants of the Ministry for a monument to M. Casimir Périer. We predict that it will bear a closer resemblance to the subscription for Chambord, so felicitously shown up by the admirable Paul Louis Courier,4 than to the grateful adoption by the French nation of the children of General Foy; when the poorest and humblest citizens of France gave each his mite to shield the orphans of him who was her stay, from the honourable poverty which his virtues had bequeathed to them.5
DEATH OF JEREMY BENTHAM
The death on 6 June of Jeremy Bentham, the day before the great triumph of the enactment of the Reform Bill, signalled the end of an epoch for the Reform movement, and for Mill, just approaching an assessment of his own role as a reformer. The text of this article is remarkably close in many respects to Thomas Southwood Smith’s dissection eulogy on the day before this article was published; see A Lecture Delivered over the Remains of Jeremy Bentham, Esq., in the Webb-Street School of Anatomy and Medicine on the 9th of June, 1832 (London: Wilson, 1832). Compare also Mill’s comments on Bentham in 1833 and 1838 (CW, Vol. X, pp. 3-18 and 75-115). The unsigned obituary, headed as title, appears in the “Political Examiner.” It is described in Mill’s bibliography as “An obituary notice of Jeremy Bentham in the Examiner of 10th June 1832” (MacMinn, p. 21). In the Somerville College set of the Examiner, it is listed as “Death of Jeremy Bentham,” with square brackets around the portion ending at a printer’s rule; the rest of the article, not by Mill, gives the details of Bentham’s life.
jeremy bentham is no more! In him, the world has lost the great Teacher and Patriarch of his time; the man who of all men who were living on the day of his death, has exercised and is exercising over the fortunes of mankind the widest and most durable influence; and who is even now in some sort governing the world, although not yet recognized and looked up to as their leader by those who are daily obeying the impulse which he gave; no unusual fate of the real guides and rulers of mankind, especially in these latter days.
Had such a man died at an earlier period of his life of usefulness, when much of his task yet remained for him to perform, and many years of possible existence to perform it in, there would have been room for sorrow and lamentation. It is one of the evils of the untimely death of a great man, that it mixes other feelings with those with which alone the thought of a departed sage or hero ought to be associated—joy and pride that our nature has been found capable of again producing such a man, and affectionate gratitude for the good which we and our posterity have received from him. Such feelings only can find a fitting place near the tomb of Jeremy Bentham; nor know we, since all must die, what happier or more glorious end could have been desired for him, than to die just now, after living such a life. He has died full of years, and (so far as regards all minds throughout the world, which are yet fitted for appreciating him) of honours. He has lived to see many of the objects of his life in a train of accomplishment, and the realization of the remainder rendered certain at no remote period. He has achieved the hardest, but the noblest of problems, that of a well-directed and victorious existence, and has now finished his work and lain down to rest.
This is not the time for a complete estimate of the results of his labours. He is not like one of those who go to their grave and are no more thought of. The value of such a life to mankind, which is even now insensibly making itself acknowledged, will be felt more and more, as men shall become more capable of knowing the hand which guides them. Nor need we fear any lack of opportunities for commemorating what philosophy owes to him, when all which has been doing for ten years in English politics and legislation, and all which shall be done for twice ten more, proclaims and will proclaim his name and merits in no inaudible voice to all who can trace the influence of Opinion upon Events, and of a great mind upon Opinion. These things, however, are worthy of notice at the present hour, chiefly as they conduce to a due appreciation of his life; and under this aspect also, as under so many others, will they continue valuable, not for to-day or to-morrow only, (but so far as eternity can belong to any thing human) for ever.
Let it be remembered what was the state of jurisprudence and legislation, and of the philosophy of jurisprudence and legislation, when he began his career. A labyrinth without a clue—a jungle, through which no path had ever been cut. All systems of law then established, but most of all that in which he himself was nurtured, were masses of deformity, in the construction of which reason in any shape whatever had had little to do, a comprehensive consideration of ends and means nothing at all: their foundation the rude contrivances of a barbarous age, even more deeply barbarous in this than in aught else; the superstructure an infinite series of patches, some larger, some smaller, stuck on in succession wherever a hole appeared, and plastered one over another until the monstrous mass exceeded all measurable bulk, and went beyond the reach of the strongest understanding and the finest memory. Such was the practice of law: was its theory in any better state? And how could it be so? for of what did that theory consist, but either of purely technical principles, got at by abstraction from these established systems, (or rather, constructed, generally in utter defiance of logic, with the sole view of giving something like coherence and consistency in appearance to provisions which in reality were utterly heterogeneous); or of vague cloudy generalities arbitrarily assumed à priori, and called laws of nature, or principles of natural law.
Such was existing jurisprudence and that it should be such, was less surprising than the superstition by which, being such, it was protected. The English people had contrived to persuade themselves, and had to a great degree persuaded the rest of the world, that the English law, as it was when Mr. Bentham found it, was the perfection of reason.1 That it was otherwise, was the only political heresy, which no one had been found hardy enough to avow; even the English constitution you might (if you did it very gently) speak ill of,—but not the English law: Whig, Tory, and Democrat joined in one chorus of clamorous admiration, whenever the law or the courts of justice were the subject of discourse: and to doubt the merits of either appeared a greater stretch of absurdity than to question the doctrine of gravitation.
This superstition was at its height, when Mr. Bentham betook himself to the study of English law, with no other object than the ordinary one of gaining his living by practising a liberal profession. But he soon found that it would not do for him, and that he could have no dealing or concern with it in an honest way, except to destroy it. And there is a deep interest now, at the close of his life, in looking back to his very first publication, the Fragment on Government, which appeared considerably more than half a century ago,2 and which exhibits, at that remote period, a no less strong and steady conviction than appears in his very latest production, that the worship of the English law was a degrading idolatry—that instead of being the perfection of reason, it was a disgrace to the human understanding—and that a task worthy of him, or any other wise and brave man, to devote a life to, was that of utterly eradicating it and sweeping it away. This accordingly became the task of his own existence: glory to him! for he has successfully accomplished it. The monster has received from him its death wound. After losing many a limb, it still drags on, and will drag on for a few years more, a feeble and exanimate existence; but it never will recover. It is going down rapidly to the grave.
Mr. Bentham has fought this battle for now almost sixty years; the greater part of that time without assistance from any human being, except latterly what M. Dumont gave him in putting his ideas into French;3 and for a long time almost without making one human being a convert to his opinions. He exhausted every mode of attack; he assailed the enemy with every weapon, and at all points; now he fell upon the generalities, now upon the details; now he combatted evil by stripping it naked, and showing that it was evil; and now by contrasting it with good. At length his energy and perseverance triumphed. Some of the most potent leaders of the public became convinced; and they, in their turn, convinced or persuaded others: until at last the English law, as a systematic whole, is given up by every body, and the question, with all thinking minds even among lawyers, is no longer about keeping it as it is, but only whether, in rebuilding, there be a possibility of using any of the old materials.*
Mr. Bentham was the original mover in this mighty change. His hand gave the impulse which set all the others at work. To him the debt is due, as much as any other great work has ever been owing to the man who first guided other men to the accomplishment of it. The man who has achieved this, can afford to die. He has done enough to render his name for ever illustrious.
But Mr. Bentham has been much more than merely a destroyer. Like all who discredit erroneous systems by arguments drawn from principles, and not from mere results, he could not fail, even while destroying the old edifice, to lay a solid foundation for the new. Indeed he considered it a positive duty never to assail what is established, without having a clear view of what ought to be substituted. It is to the intrinsic value of his speculations on the philosophy of law in general, that he owes the greater part of his existing reputation; for by these alone is he known to his continental readers, who are far the most numerous, and by whom, in general, he is far more justly appreciated than in England. There are some most important branches of the science of law, which were in a more wretched state than almost any of the others when he took them in hand, and which he has so exhausted, that he seems to have left nothing to be sought by future enquirers; we mean the departments of Procedure, Evidence,4 and the Judicial Establishment.5 He has done almost all that remained to perfect the theory of punishment.6 It is with regard to (what is the foundation of all) the civil code, that he has done least, and left most to be done.7 Yet even here his services have been invaluable, by making far clearer and more familiar than they were before, both the ultimate and the immediate ends of civil law; the essential characteristics of a good law; the expediency of codification, that is, of law written and systematic; by exposing the viciousness of the existing language of jurisprudence, guarding the student against the fallacies which lurk in it, and accustoming him to demand a more precise and logically-constructed nomenclature.
Mr. Bentham’s exertions have not been limited to the field of jurisprudence, or even to that of general politics, in which he ranks as the first name among the philosophic radicals. He has extended his speculations to morals, though never (at least in his published works) in any great detail; and on this, as on every other subject which he touched, he cannot be read without great benefit.
Some of his admirers have claimed for him the title of founder of the science of morals, as well as of the science of legislation; on the score of his having been the first person who established the principle of general utility, as the philosophic foundation of morality and law. But Mr. Bentham’s originality does not stand in need of any such exaggeration. The doctrine of utility, as the foundation of virtue, he himself professes to have derived from Hume:8 he applied it more consistently and in greater detail, than his predecessors; but the idea itself is as old as the earliest Greek philosophers, and has divided the philosophic world, in every age of philosophy, since their time. Mr. Bentham’s real merit, in respect to the foundation of morals, consists in his having cleared it more thoroughly than any of his predecessors, from the rubbish of pretended natural law, natural justice, and the like, by which men were wont to consecrate as a rule of morality, whatever they felt inclined to approve of without knowing why.
The most prominent moral qualities which appear in Mr. Bentham’s writings, are love of justice, and hatred of imposture: his most remarkable intellectual endowments, a penetrating deep-sighted acuteness, precision in the use of scientific language, and sagacity and inventiveness in matters of detail. There have been few minds so perfectly original. He has often, we think, been surpassed in powers of metaphysical analysis, as well as in comprehensiveness and many-sidedness of mind.9 He frequently contemplates a subject only from one or a few of its aspects; though he very often sees further into it, from the one side on which he looks at it, than was seen before even by those who had gone all round it. There is something very striking, occasionally, in the minute elaborateness with which he works out, into its smallest details, one half-view of a question, contrasted with his entire neglect of the remaining half-view, though equally indispensable to a correct judgment of the whole. To this occasional one-sidedness, he failed to apply the natural cure; for, from the time when he embarked in original speculation, he occupied himself very little in studying the ideas of others. This, in almost any other than himself, would have been a fault; in him, we shall only say, that, but for it, he would have been a greater man.
Mr. Bentham’s style has been much criticised; and undoubtedly, in his latter writings, the complicated structure of his sentences renders it impossible, without some familiarity, to read them with rapidity and ease. But his earlier, among which are some of his most valuable productions, are not only free from this defect, but may even, in point of ease and elegance, be ranked among the best English compositions. Felicity of expression abounds even in those of his works which are generally unreadable; and volumes might be filled with passages selected from his later as well as his earlier publications, which, for wit and eloquence, have seldom been surpassed.
Few persons have ever lived whose lot in life, viewed on the whole, can be considered more enviable than that of Mr. Bentham. During a life protracted far beyond the ordinary length, he enjoyed, almost without interruption, perfect bodily health. In easy circumstances, he was able to devote his whole time and energies to the pursuits of his choice, those which exercised his highest faculties, moral and intellectual, and supplied him with the richest fund of delightful excitement. His retired habits saved him from personal contact with any but those who sought his acquaintance because they valued it. Few men have had more enthusiastic admirers; and if the hack writers of his day, and some who ought to have known better, often spoke of him with ridicule and contempt, he never read them, and therefore they never disturbed his tranquillity. Along with his passion for abstruser studies, and the lively interest which he felt in public events, he retained to the last a childlike freshness and excitability, which enabled him to derive pleasure from the minutest trifles, and gave to his old age the playfulness, lightheartedness, and keen relish of life, so seldom found except in early youth. In his intercourse with his friends he was remarkable for gaiety and easy pleasantry; it was his season of relaxation; and in conversing he seldom touched upon the great subjects of his intellectual exertions.
His principal works are his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation;10 the Fragment on Government, already referred to; the Rationale of Judicial Evidence, in five volumes, including a very full examination of the procedure of the English courts;11The Book of Fallacies; the Plan of a Judicial Establishment, one of his most finished productions, printed in 1792, but never regularly published; his Defence of Usury; Panopticon,12 an admirable work on prison discipline; and many others: besides the excellent treatises edited in French by M. Dumont, from the above works and various unpublished manuscripts, and containing all his most important doctrines, well stated and illustrated, though with little of the piquant criticism on existing institutions with which they were always interspersed in his own writings.
FRENCH NEWS 
Since Mill’s last article on French affairs, the leftist leaders and secret societies, disappointed that Périer’s death had not been followed by a change in government policy, had tried to start an insurrection, using as occasion the funeral on 5 June of the popular General Lamarque. The turmoil was increased by the participation of the Bonapartists and Carlists. Fighting continued for two days, with 800 killed or wounded. Mill was much preoccupied in subsequent articles with the imposition of martial law by the government and the harsh trials of the alleged conspirators, signs of the fragility of the gains of July 1830. For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, June 10, 1832,” is listed in the Somerville College set of the Examiner as “Article on France” with the first three paragraphs enclosed in square brackets (the rest of the article is in smaller type).
before this paper meets the eyes of our readers, it will be known whether a new revolution has or has not taken place at Paris. At the moment when we write, it is only known that an immense concourse of people assembled on Tuesday at the funeral of General Lamarque; that a collision, apparently unpremeditated, took place between the people and the troops; that a desperate struggle commenced in almost all parts of Paris, which, beginning in the afternoon, lasted till late at night; that the Government, by telegraph, the next day announced the suppression of the insurrection, but that hostilities afterwards broke out afresh, with what result it is yet unknown.1
A day or two before these events, civil war had also broken out in the West. The roving bands of Chouans, who had rendered life and property insecure for a twelvemonth before, and whom the Government had taken no means effectually to suppress, had at last swelled into a general rising of the Carlist party. The Duchess of Berri and M. Bourmont were among them, having, it is now ascertained, effected a landing near Marseilles before the capture of the vessel which brought them from Italy and Spain; and having contrived, either by the connivance, or the want of vigilance of the authorities, to make their way to La Vendée.2 But a few weeks before, the contemptible Ministry of Louis Philippe had obtained from the Chamber of Deputies a parting gift of three millions of francs for secret police expenses.3 The money, we may be very sure, has been spent; yet, in spite of passports and all the formalities and restraints of the French Police Administration, two persons, who must be so well known, have crossed France from one side to the other undiscovered.
General Clouet is said to be at the head of the Carlist insurgents.4 The National Guard has every where taken arms against them. Cathelineau, a son of the celebrated Vendean chief, has been killed by a party of Government troops.5
FRENCH NEWS 
This lengthy and detailed account follows up the general discussion of the session in No. 162. For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, June 17, 1832,” is listed in the Somerville College set of the Examiner as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets.
the following article, on the results of the Session of the French Chambers, was written, and even in print, before the late catastrophe.1 It is as true now as it was then, and will be as useful, if it ever could have been useful; we, therefore, persevere in our intention of publishing it.
the nature and amount of the doings of the French Chambers, during the session which has just expired, raise a serious doubt of the capacity of those assemblies as at present constituted, we will not say to legislate tolerably, but to legislate at all. For our part we have watched the progress of the session from day to day, in hopes of learning what a Chamber of Deputies is intended for—what function it is designed to fulfil in the body politic: and we regret to be obliged to confess, that this remains as much a mystery to us as ever: the use and purpose of that somewhat noisy and vapouring member of the French sovereignty has not transpired. While Charles X reigned in France, it had a mission which was obvious enough; it was sent there to resist and overawe the King, in case he attempted to bring back the emigrants and the priests. The present King, however, is suspected of no such propensities; and, that the Chamber does not deem itself intended for an antagonist power to his, it demonstrates by throwing its whole weight into his scale. On the other hand, it clearly is not appointed to make laws. We have our suspicions that its allotted office is to prevent them from being made. For it is a fact, not unworthy of commemoration, that if the Chambers, instead of sitting nine months, had sat only one day, and had employed it in passing a vote of confidence in the Ministry, and another vote authorizing the King, until the opening of the next session, to enact whatever laws he pleased by ordonnance, France would now have been in the actual enjoyment of a considerable number of very passable laws, affecting some of her most important interests; for many such have been presented by the Government. But now we question if one single law has passed the Chambers during three-fourths of a year of continued sitting, for the passing of which the French, or any other portion of mankind, will be perceptibly the better:—the number of those which have had even an apparent tendency that way, is contemptibly small; while every measure of any intricacy or importance standing for debate, which could possibly be put by, without bringing all things to a dead stand, has not even come on for discussion.
There were three questions which could by no contrivance be put off to another session. There was the budget, a question of every year; the civil list, a question for the first year of every reign; and the reconstitution of the peerage, a question for this year in particular.2 These three things, in one way or another, it was absolutely indispensable to get through. And if it be asked, what has the Chamber done, the answer which must be returned is, these three things. The wise men of France have laid their heads together for nine months, or until the cholera morbus dispersed them, for the purpose of accomplishing these three things.
The Ministry, however, gave them the opportunity of effecting much besides this. The following, among other bills, were drawn up by Ministers, and laid before one or other of the two Chambers, mostly at an early period of the session:—
A bill for establishing a school or schools in every town and every village or parish in France, at which no inconsiderable amount of useful instruction would have been given to the whole of the rising generation; public provision being made for defraying the expense, where the parties themselves were not in a condition to sustain it;3
Three bills,4 which, together with the municipal law passed in the preceding session,5 were destined to substitute for Napoleon’s odious system of centralization, local representative assemblies, invested with adequate powers of local legislation, administration, and taxation;
A bill for the general revision of the custom laws of France, and for the relaxation of some of the restrictions on trade;6
A bill for abridging in some, though far from a sufficient degree, the tedious and expensive formalities and law proceedings, necessary for dispossessing individuals of landed property required for the purpose of public works, such as roads, railways, and canals7 —a most serious obstacle to the improvement of the productive resources of that fine country,—as may be judged when we mention, that rather than resort to the legal process, road and canal companies or the state not unfrequently find it their interest to pay for a piece of land four or five times its value;
A bill for giving representative assemblies, and a government of law, to the French colonies8 —which have hitherto, in defiance of a distinct promise in the Charter of 1814,9 remained under the illegal régime of royal proclamations;
A bill for securing to officers in the army and navy, the possession of their rank in the service, and preventing them from being dismissed from it, except after sentence of a court-martial.10
One of these bills, the last, has passed the Chamber of Peers, but did not come in time for discussion in the Chamber of Deputies: the seven others, neither of those hard-worked and ill-used bodies found leisure to enter upon. And when we consider the length and intricacy of the provisions they contain, and the snail’s pace at which these two assemblies travel at all times, except when the cholera is at their heels, the passing of these eight statutes is as much as there seems any likelihood of their accomplishing, together with the regular annual business, in several sessions to come. And yet (though all these bills are very defective, and stand greatly in need of being remodelled) whoever has sufficiently adverted to the proceedings of the two Chambers, to have formed an estimate of their fitness, moral and intellectual, to cope with such subjects, may safely predict that the sum of all the amendments they will introduce into the eight bills, are not worth the postponement of the first alone (the Education Bill) for one single year.
The Ministry proposed three other measures, of importance in themselves, and valuable still more highly as an earnest of further improvements to come: these were—
A corn bill, which permitted exportation and importation at all times, subject to much lower duties than before, and abolished, not entirely, but in a great measure, the absurd division of France into many districts, each with a separate corn law of its own;11
And two bills, reducing the exorbitant bounties on the whale and cod fisheries.12
For the corn bill of the Ministry, the Chamber substituted another of its own,13 abolishing indeed the prohibition, so far as respects importation, but retaining the high duties, and the division of the country, such as they were fixed by the very worst of all the previous corn bills.14 In the bounties to the fisheries, the Chamber made but a small reduction, instead of the great one proposed by the Ministry.
These specimens of what the Chambers have not found time to touch upon, and of what they have touched, and spoiled in the handling, give the measure of their fitness for legislation, as contrasted even with the second-rate statesmen who at present fill the various departments of the French Ministry.
As a set-off to all these things which they could not find time to consider of, or which they considered of, and could not find in their hearts to do, the following is a table of the things which they have actually done. We omit the remodelling of the peerage, as a thing which they could not avoid, and of which, therefore, the credit or discredit depends wholly on the manner of doing it.
They have passed two bills for the extension of the warehousing system:15 measures right in principle, and, perhaps, not wholly useless in practice, but which might have been dispatched in the same number of days; and even at the slow rate at which the Chambers wind their way through the maze of additions and amendments which invariably start up on all sides, did not occupy them for more than a week, or thereabouts.
They have abolished in some small number of cases the punishment of death16 —a penalty but rarely inflicted in France, comparatively speaking. This bill may possibly make the difference of one or two executions in a year. They have also mitigated in some measure the law of imprisonment for debt.17
They have tampered with the existing laws on the subject of recruiting, and of promotion in the army and navy;18 perhaps, the only part of the constitutional law of France with which the public was on the whole not discontented. Though possessing a specious equality which recommends them to the French people, and probably not ill-adapted to the circumstances of France, the principles of her military organization are open to well-grounded objection, being no other than the conscription on the one hand, and rigid legal restraints upon rapidity of promotion on the other. But these principles are not meddled with by the new enactments: all the alterations are in the details; and as far as we are able to judge, there is not one which is either decidedly for the worse, or decidedly for the better, though the passing of them has wasted as much time, and stirred up as much ill-blood, as if the destinies of the French nation hung suspended upon it.
Lastly, greatest achievement of all!—a bill has been passed, by which the elder branch of the Bourbon family is exiled from France.19 This statute does not even provide any penalty in case the parties concerned should attempt to return from banishment; it is, therefore, in every sense as harmless to all mankind, as a parliamentary recognition that there is a sun in heaven, or the legislative enactment by which the Convention, during the reign of Robespierre, determined that there was, or should thereafter be, a God.20 Of this crowning glory of the session of 1831, the Chambers are entitled to the undivided credit. The Ministers had no share in it, and the liberal press washed their hands of it. So important a matter, naturally could not be brought to a successful issue without some squabbles; accordingly a dispute broke out between the two houses, and the bill flew backwards and forwards from one to the other several times, like a shuttle-cock, before they could agree in what terms the unmeaning announcement should be made.
There remains only the unavoidable business of the session—the money bills, and the change in the constitution of the second branch of the legislature.
The inheritableness of the Peerage has been abolished. The majority of the deputies had given pledges to their constituents, which rendered this no longer optional with them. But it was not enough to regulate the succession to the Peerage, the Peers themselves remaining as they were before. If there has been any difference in their conduct since the passing of the bill, it is that they have been more audacious than ever in their resistance to public opinion. The law of divorce, which had passed the Chamber of Deputies with scarcely a dissenting voice, they ignominiously threw out.21 The bill abolishing the ridiculous celebration of the martyrdom of Louis XVI, met with the same fate.22 M. Salverte’s proposition for allowing the unfinished business of one session to be proceeded with in the next, which from its manifest expediency had met with universal assent in the elective chamber, was rejected by the Peers.23 The quarrel between the two houses respecting the bill for banishing the Bourbons, has been already alluded to; we wish that we had room to place it before our readers, in all its ridiculous details.24 Finally, they so fell out respecting a clause in the law for closing the accounts of the financial year 1829,25 that the prorogation took place before the dispute was brought to an issue; and that important part of the annual business of the country remains still unperformed.
With regard to the public expenditure, this has been a session of large prodigality, and petty economy. Seldom has there been seen in the memory of representative governments, an assembly so penny-wise, nor one so pound-foolish. Few governments excite an Englishman’s surprise so much as the French does by the absurd multitude of its public officers, and by the curiously small quantity of work, day by day, which seems to be expected from each of them; while at the same time, he is often no less astonished at the low rate at which some of the most important and dignified functionaries are remunerated. The Deputies, having come up from their departments boiling over with economy, vented their noble rage by curtailing, not the number of the officers of government, but their salaries; beginning with the most important of all, the judges, for which station if for any, there ought to be the means of purchasing first rate abilities; whose pay already was not large, even with reference to the average of incomes in France, and now falls short of what many English attornies give to their clerks. But there is fully as much jobbery as imbecility in this. The public voice insisted upon some retrenchment; and it was the desire of the deputies that places should at all events continue numerous, in order that they might retain the power of dispensing to as great a number of persons as possible, that swelling turkey-cock dignity and self-importance, which the lowest member of the French bureaucratie, though he touch but a few sous a day, feels himself equally a partaker of with the highest.
All the oppressive taxes on the necessaries of life have been continued; not a thought entertained of commuting them for any others less burthensome upon the many: but while borrowing with one hand to defray current expences, with the other they flung away into the lap of the landed proprietors, the extra land tax which was laid on afresh last year, after a reduction of double the amount a few years ago.26 The loss is supplied partly by a larger borrowing, partly by laying additional taxes upon the public at large.
Finally, so ignorant was the majority of the Chamber of the very first principles of finance, that they would not suspend the operation of paying off debt until there should be money to pay withal, but continued to buy up old debt by contracting new. That any human being, to say nothing of a whole people, should have been capable of being so far juggled as to be made firmly to believe that this was not only an advantageous financial operation, but a source of unexampled prosperity, was marvellous enough at any time, even the time of Pitt and Dundas.27 But that the French Legislature should believe it still, after so many years of argument, and when the subject has become too stale even for ridicule, with the newspapers shouting the true doctrine in their ears, day after day, turning it over in every way, viewing it under every aspect, and putting it with that pellucid clearness with which French writers almost always explain whatever they understand—is something which we should not have thought possible, and which might well render Dulness herself proud of such disciples among the élite of a people so renowned for quickness of apprehension.
Recent events give us unfortunately something to add to what may appear a disparaging estimate of the utility of the French representative constitution. We have said that it is of no use, but a hindrance, to the making of good laws; it is now proved to be quite equally useless as a protection to the French nation against arbitrary power. The government of the barricades has done what Charles X was not permitted to do. It has assumed the power of dispensing with the laws and the courts of justice. Paris is under martial law.28 Not during the insurrection, but after it was completely suppressed, and the authority of the regular tribunals was restored; Louis Philippe has assumed the power of trying all offences by a Court Martial, with the declared intention of exercising that power retrospectively—not only against persons taken in arms, or suspected of being concerned in the insurrection, but against the writers of any articles in newspapers which he affects to consider as constituting their authors accessaries to revolt. A warrant has been issued against M. Armand Carrel, the principal editor of the National, and the most powerful writer among the journalists in France. Never having been able to obtain a verdict against M. Carrel from a Paris jury, the Government has taken this method of depriving him and others of the protection of jury-trial.
Well was it said not long ago, by an enlightened Frenchman, no friend to a Republic or Republicans—“you, in England, are accustomed to see even bad Governments keep within the bounds of law; but, with us, it is universally understood that une constitution, c’est pour rire!”29 This is the meaning of the fetish-worship professed by the rabid moderate party, for l’ordre légal.30 Respect for the law is easily observed, when you have the laws of the old régime, and those of the Reign of Terror, to fall back upon; and when you are able to revive an edict of the despot Napoleon,31 for the purpose of setting aside several distinct articles of the Charter. So, again, the Republicans, if they had prevailed, had no occasion to violate the law; they needed only to enforce the decree of the Convention banishing Louis-Philippe from France;32 for it has never been abrogated, and, consequently, by his Citizen Majesty’s own logic, is as valid as ever.
There is not an article of the Charter more express and formal than this, nul ne pourra être distrait de ses juges naturels, to which it was added, “there shall never more be created extraordinary commissions or tribunals.” In the Charter of 1814, one exception was reserved,—that of cours prévôtales: this exception was suppressed in the Charter of 1830, and the provision which it qualified remains without any qualification.33
Another article of the Charter declares expressly, that the King shall in no case whatever be at liberty to set aside the laws, or dispense with their execution.34
But what matters it? The people thought they had abolished the trial of political offences by packed commissions; but did not Napoleon once issue an edict authorising it?35 The Duke of Reichstadt, we suspect, is lawful Emperor of the French at this moment, by virtue of another edict of the same Napoleon.36
It is not yet known who is or is not compromised, or whom the Government means to make its victims. Its whole conduct with respect to émeutes, conspiracies, and the press, for the last twelve-month, convinces us that it will not be troubled with many scruples in taking this opportunity of ridding itself of any troublesome enemy. Fortunately, most of the leading Republicans were already in prison; so that it would be rather too great a stretch of audacity to impute any participation to them. Warrants have, it seems, been issued against three Deputies, MM. Garnier-Pagès, Laboissière, and Cabet.37
All medical men have been ordered by the Government, under a penalty, to make a return of the wounded; which most of them have honourably and spiritedly refused to do.
These events have produced a salutary reaction of public opinion, in England, on the affairs of France. The real character of Louis-Philippe and his advisers might have been preached in the highways, and to all eternity; the public would never have believed it, until it was proved by some acts which left no room even for the most ignorant to doubt.
The Times is now furious against the French Government; and will not take the King into favour again, unless he will “endeavour to heal the wounds of the nation, by consulting the opinion of those in whom the nation has reposed its confidence. The formidable party who have signed the Laffitte manifesto, cannot now be despised with impunity, and must furnish Ministers either to modify the existing Cabinet, or to supply its place.”38
This prudent counsel has come somewhat late, methinks. It is scarcely kind, after having, for eighteen months, applauded and encouraged the course of policy which has brought on this catastrophe, and denounced all who opposed it as the silliest or the vilest of mankind, now, when nothing has changed but the interest of the Times newspaper, to turn round upon the man whom itself has contributed not a little to mislead to his ruin, and tell him that he is going wrong, and must alter his course. It is not quite so easy for a king to change his counsels, as for the Times to eat its words, or rather, without any confession of error, to bluster and bully on one side as it had just before blustered and bullied on the other. Louis-Philippe, thanks to counsellors like the Times, is so far committed, that it would not be in kingly nature to retract; and he will go on the remainder of the way to destruction. Even were he to retrace his steps, the blood which has been shed would scarcely be forgiven him. There is the barrier of mutual injuries between him and the Republicans: they are as the serpent and the man in the fable.39 But a time was, when Louis-Philippe was yet hesitating, or had a retreat still open behind him, and when the public opinion of England, energetically declared through the most subservient but the most powerful of its organs, might have arrested his blind and fatal career. The weight which might have decided him for good, was thrown into the scale of evil: and now, when he seems lost beyond redemption, his adviser turns round upon him, and bids him mend his ways. Just so was it with Polignac and Charles X.
But would not any man of common candour or feeling, who had written what the Times has been writing for two years, be now burning with shame and self-reproach for the calumnies he had propagated against the Mouvement party in France, painting them in the blackest colours, as men who, from low passions, reckless obstinacy, or personal ambition, sought to subvert the government by a Republican revolution? A Republican revolution is attempted; and the insurgents turn out to be few in number, with the whole people against them, and countenanced by no name known to the nation; and just then the Times discovers that the great bulk of the nation is with the Mouvement party; that its chiefs have alone the confidence of the French people; that the King and his Ministers are detested (the very word of the Times);40 and that the Opposition, who were before classed with the scum of the earth, ought to be taken into the Ministry.
When, till now, has the Times admitted that there was an opposition party at all, except Carlists, Napoleonists, and Republicans? or that any one who held more popular principles than Casimir Périer was a friend to kingly government, or any government of order and law? All at once it finds out that it has made the slight mistake of simply leaving out of its enumeration of parties the majority of the nation.
The wide circulation, and the audacious assuming manner of the Times, together with a skill and energy in popular writing, which it would be affectation to undervalue, render it so efficient a promoter of the popular cause as soon as it finds its account in joining the standard of improvement, that the real patriots are too apt to forgive, and omit taking note of its tergiversations. The men who by the labours and sacrifices of perhaps half their lives, have wrought some valuable idea into the public mind, and have at last triumphed over prejudices and indifference, and rendered their cause worth advocating to the mere trading politicians; having during all this period had to endure, in nine cases out of ten, all the scorn and contumely which the Times could express, by putting into requisition the whole of its copious vocabulary of coarse abuse,—such persons are generally too well pleased to find themselves sure of carrying their point (which they know they are when they see the Times advocating it), to be much inclined to quarrel with the enemy who deserts to them at the eleventh hour. The “leading journal” then thrusts itself forward to the front of the engagement, lifts up its loud voice till it drowns all the others, and struts in triumph over the field of battle, saying, aha! behold my victory. The real victors have gone forward hours before; they are not seekers of glory, but of a new work to perform; and are buckling on their armour to fight a fresh battle, knowing and foreseeing all the while that the Times will be, as before, their bitter and unscrupulous antagonist in the fight, and will again join them when on the point of victory.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the uprising, the suppression of which Mill traces here, see Nos. 171 and 172. For the entry in his bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, June 24, 1832,” is listed in the Somerville College set of the Examiner as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets.
the longer we reflect upon the present deplorable measures of the French Government, the more pregnant they appear to us with the most fatal consequences.
Have the struggles of forty-five years, and the sacrifice of an entire generation, brought France no nearer than this, we say not to a good government, but to any government of law? Is it still to be a matter of course, that whatever is the form of the government, the executive, in reality, does what it likes; and that a constitution or a charter is not a thing to be regarded when the Government finds the slightest momentary convenience in breaking it?
If there were any mode of rivetting in the minds of the French people a practical conviction that no restraints which they can impose on the instruments of government are the slightest security to them, and that the perpetually-impending terror of popular vengeance is alone sufficient to keep their public men in awe, Louis Philippe and his Ministers have found that mode. If any thing exists which can make the next French revolution a sanguinary one, this will do it.
How many years, rather how many ages, of legal protection seem necessary to engender that habitual reverence for law which is so deeply rooted in the minds of all classes of Englishmen, from the prince to the pauper! Never can we too much rejoice that we have accomplished the first and hardest stage of our national emancipation, and have therefore a reasonable chance of accomplishing the succeeding stages, without any sensible weakening of that salutary association; the first and fundamental condition of good government, and without which any people, however civilized they may imagine themselves, are little other than savages.
Is it not the vainest of fancies to look for any sensible improvement in the government or in the condition of the people, while even honest men are apt to consider any misconduct on the part of the Government a full justification for civil war, and when every King, every Minister, considers every act of resistance to Government a justification for suspending the constitution and assuming dictatorial power?
Of the two parties who are guilty of the present and of the impending mischief, incomparably the most guilty is the Government. That small part of the people of Paris who planned, or who joined the insurrection, are not without considerable excuse. To compare them with our own people under recent circumstances, would be to judge them unfairly. If we English could neither have formed Political Unions nor held public meetings, how could we have escaped the same extremity? And with those powers, it was seen in the case of Catholic emancipation,1 what even such a people as the Irish could do. Both these invaluable rights are denied to the French nation. There are no means left open in France, by which public dissatisfaction can manifest itself through a peaceable display of moral strength. The press is the only organ of public opinion which exists at all; and the press is weighed down by taxation, and persecuted by the law-officers of Government, to the extent, in the case of one single paper,2 of fifty-two prosecutions within two years.
For the Government, there is now no forgiveness. What no necessity could excuse, but that which would excuse a revolution, they have done without even an appearance of necessity. Paris was already quiet; and the ordinary tribunals would have served the vengeance of the conquerors but too well. The whole guilt of anarchy and confusion, should such hereafter ensue, will be on the heads of those who have severed the last cable which, for eighteen years, has held France, though agitated and even inundated by the waves, still steady to such anchorage as she had found, and saved her from drifting out into the unfathomable ocean. France has now no constitution. It has been well said, by one of her own writers, that a constitution which is violated is destroyed.3 How much so then a constitution of yesterday, to which, being consecrated by no ancient associations, when once relinquished there is no return? A friend who has been faithful to you from infancy, may be tempted and may succumb, and yet be trusted again; but the man whose first word to you is a lie, remains to you a liar for ever.
It is not many weeks since we idly amused ourselves and our readers with dreams of progressive improvement, and the growth and strengthening of the national mind, by sober study and manly discussion of the art of government itself, as distinguished from the mere instrument of government.4 It is no time now for such thoughts. One of the smallest evils of the present tyranny is, that all such prospects are now, for a season, overclouded. As the French themselves would say, tout est remis en question. The forty years war, which we did think was terminated by the final rupture with the fallen dynasty, has broken out afresh. The prize to be contended for is still, as heretofore, whether France shall or shall not have a constitutional government: the skeleton of absolute monarchy has been taken from its grave, clothed once more in flesh and blood, and re-enthroned in the Tuileries. Manuel, and Foy, and Constant, have lived, and the martyrs of the Three Days have died, in vain. Alas! it was the forecast of something like this, which abridged the life and embittered the dying moments of the most illustrious of those patriots.5
There is little novelty in the Paris intelligence of this week. The courts martial are sitting: two persons have been tried, and acquitted,—whether to give an air of mildness to the illegal transaction, or, as has been surmised, because the witnesses would not tell what they knew, before an unlawful tribunal. Two others have been convicted, and one of them sentenced to death.6 Whether, after the canting which the world remembers, on the occasion of a former trial, of far greater delinquents, Louis Philippe will dare to execute the sentence, time will disclose. Nothing is impossible; but if he take the life of this person, let him look to his own.
MM. Chateaubriand, Hyde de Neuville, and the Duc de Fitzjames,7 have been arrested and placed au secret. It is ridiculous to suppose that any, especially the first, of these three men is a conspirator. That they were named members of a Carlist Regency in nubibus, is likely enough, and may be true without the slightest blame on their part. They are, perhaps, of all the partisans of the exiled dynasty, the most likely to be ostensibly put forward, and the least likely to be actually implicated.
The final version of the Reform Bill, “A Bill to Amend the Representation of the People in England and Wales,” 2 William IV (12 Dec., 1831), PP, 1831-32, III, 1-54, had been enacted on 7 June. Thereafter, major campaigns to bind candidates to their constituents’ views were waged by thorough Radicals. Writing to Carlyle on 17 July, Mill says his two articles opposing pledges (this and No. 177) are “in very bad odour with some of our radicals”; he praises “the honest and brave character” of Fonblanque for including them, and hints that the circulation of the Examiner may have suffered as a result (EL, CW, Vol. XII, pp. 112-13). Late in 1835 he makes the same comment to Tocqueville, saying the articles “offensèrent beaucoup le public radical et lui fit perdre plusieurs de ses abonnés,” and adding that James Mill agrees with him (ibid., p. 288; 11 Dec.). In a note to the early draft of his Autobiography (later excised) he admits that the articles were ill-timed. They had been, he says, based on a mistaken impression that the fight for democracy had now been won: “The doctrine of these articles was right in itself, and very suitable to democratic institutions when firmly established and rooted in the habits of the people: then no doubt it would be wise in the electors to look out for the most honest and most instructed men whom they could induce to undertake the office of legislators, and refrain from binding them beforehand to any definite measures: but I did not sufficiently consider that the transition from bad to good institutions was only commencing” (CW, Vol. I, p. 180n). This is the first leader in the “Political Examiner,” headed as title. It is described in Mill’s bibliography as “An article headed ‘Pledges’ in the Examiner of 1st July” (MacMinn, p. 21). In the Somerville College set of the Examiner, it is listed as “Pledges” and enclosed in square brackets.
after the passing of the reform bill, the next thing to be thought of is how to make use of it. The steed is at the door, saddled and bridled, and it is time to mount and journey onward. The machine is in the people’s hands, but how to work it skilfully is the question.
The people of England have acquired by their own energies, the faculty of naming those who manage their affairs; they desire to name the fittest men, for what have they to gain by choosing wrong? But how shall they know who is the fittest? This leads to the question of pledges. On that all-important question we desire to state our sentiments; uncertain how far they will be acceptable to those who are most interested in the matter, and certain that we shall offend many of all parties; yet firmly convinced of the concurrence of all who understand and value the true principles of popular representation.
We have read of few things in the annals of insincerity more offensive to any person of the commonest moral perceptions, than the cant which has been canted by the enemies of the popular cause, ever since the last general election, against the exacting of pledges from candidates for seats in Parliament. Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes?1 To see venting a high moral indignation against the “delegates” of the British people, men who were themselves delegates of some single Boroughmonger, as much as his errand-boy, and much more so than his butler or his groom; to hear men who were put into Parliament solely in order that somebody might fatten himself and his family on the produce of their votes, insulting the plundered nation because it also sent men to the same place, commissioned solely to do the one thing which should put an end to all such plunder—was past all human endurance. Ikey Solomons inveighing against public robbers, would be the only suitable comparison.2
On the other hand, we have seen principles avowed, and to a certain extent acted upon, by professed Reformers, which if generally received would put an end to the very existence of a representative government. It is most important for the success of the great experiment upon which we are about to enter, not to forget what a popular government really means. The true idea of popular representation is not that the people govern in their own persons, but that they choose their governors. In a good government public questions are not referred to the suffrages of the people themselves, but to those of the most judicious persons whom the people can find. The sovereignty of the people is essentially a delegated sovereignty. Government must be performed by the few, for the benefit of the many: and the security of the many consists in being governed by those who possess the largest share of their confidence, and no longer than while that confidence lasts.
We deem it of the utmost importance at the present unprecedented epoch in English history, that this principle, together with the restrictions with which it must be taken to be applicable to existing circumstances, should be thoroughly understood and felt. We therefore urgently invite discussion on the subject, and shall begin by stating our own opinion upon it very fully and explicitly. We maintain that when the legislature is properly constituted, no pledges ought in any case whatever to be exacted from representatives: or never but in such rare and peculiar cases, as cannot be anticipated, and probably may never occur:—That, nevertheless, in the actual condition of Great Britain, pledges on some subjects may be, and ought to be, exacted; solely because, notwithstanding the Reform Bill, the Parliament is not yet properly constituted, and will be far from securing to the affairs of the public the best services of the best men in the nation.
The objection to pledges as an interference with the personal independence of the candidate, is good for nothing. If his personal independence stands in the way of his duty, he has no business there. Nobody is obliged to be a Member of Parliament. The electors do not impress a private gentleman as he walks the streets, and drag him obtorto collo3 to St. Stephen’s. If he undertakes the trust, it is quite optional, and if he cannot conscientiously perform it, his honesty is in his own keeping; nobody wishes him to be a scoundrel; he has only to resign. If it were really for the interest of the people that their representatives should go to Parliament not to judge and act for the best, but to execute a mandate already decided upon,—a man who of his own choice seeks an office, which it is no injury to any one not to obtain, has no right to quarrel with the conditions on which it is bestowed.
Our disapprobation of pledges is for the sake of the constituents; the representatives may take care of themselves.
If the House of Commons were constituted in the most perfect manner, whom would it consist of? Surely of the wisest and best men in the nation, or those whom the people believe to be such. Now, if I vote for a person because I think him the wisest man I know, am I afterwards to set myself up as his instructor, as if I were wiser than he? The wisest men are, we suppose, wiser than any one else. If you knew anybody wiser, why did you not choose him? If there is nobody wiser, why set the smaller wisdom to instruct the greater? Can you hope for more than to have your affairs managed according to the best judgment of the best and ablest men? What is the use of hankering after something better than the best?
Let those who, with Mr. Williams of the City of London, require a representative to “act agreeably to the wishes and instructions of a majority of his constituents, or resign his seat,”4 consider whether there is not at the bottom of this a little remnant of aristocratic vanity. Let them ask themselves whether it is not the fact, that they have no real intention of voting for the best and wisest man. They have no proper sense of the inappreciable value of honesty and wisdom; but they would like exceedingly to have a rich man or a man of rank to obey their commands, and they know that such are a kind of wild animals, who are not to be trusted unless you have first drawn their teeth and claws. They would rather choose a man in whom they have no confidence, so he be rich or a lord, than the ablest and most trustworthy person in the nation, who is no better, that is to say no richer, than themselves.
We suspect also, that the people have not yet completely found out how much hard study it requires to make a wise legislator. A people never understands until it has felt. Till now the English have never known what it was to have a government in whose honesty they could confide: and they have not yet learned what enormous mischief is capable of being effected by mere blundering. It has been one of the qualities of our legislature, as of all other selfish men and selfish bodies of men, that even its blunders have almost uniformly been on the selfish side. Being accustomed to so much selfishness, it is natural for the people to take securities chiefly against that: and to think that they cannot tie up the hands of their legislators too strictly. Experience must as usual be the mother of wisdom; we must learn the value of intellect as we have partly learnt that of honesty, by suffering for want of it. There is a period before us, in which, peradventure, we shall have opportunity enough to learn how wretchedly a country may be misgoverned by ignorant good intentions.
“Wisdom cometh by opportunity of leisure.”5 No man is fit to be a legislator whose whole life has been occupied with gaining his daily bread by quite other pursuits. We shall never have wise legislators, until legislation is a profession, and men study for it as any man now studies for the business of his life. Such men, indeed, are seldom now to be met with, and in the meantime we must be satisfied with an approximation. Since those who have their whole time upon their hands, have found no leisure for the systematic study of politics, the man who has spared some one or two hours a day from his countinghouse or his chambers for reading and reflecting on public questions, must meet with joyful acceptance. But when the value of knowledge is adequately felt, a man will choose his legislator as he chooses his physician. No man pretends to instruct his physician. No man exacts a pledge from his physician that he shall prescribe for him a particular treatment. Nobody pretends that it is the duty of a physician to act “according to the wishes and instructions” of his patient, or of a majority of his patients. Why should we have one rule for the body politic, another and an opposite one for the body natural? Politics is an uncertain science; but so is medicine: your representative may be a quack or an ignoramus; so may your physician. But though your physician, or your legislator, may cheat you, it is worth while purchasing his professional acquirements at that risk: and though he may not know every thing, if you have chosen him wisely, he will probably know much more than you: just as you probably know more than he does of your particular calling or profession.
At present men’s notions are quite rational about the choice of a physician. Nobody would endure hereditary medicine; nor would choose to have a physician named for him by the Government, whose advice he should be bound to take whether he would or not. But when you have chosen your medical adviser, you let him take his own way, until you are convinced from his ill success, or from his conversation and demeanour, that he does not understand your case; and then you try another. We wish to see the same rule acted upon in the choice of a Member of Parliament. It is singular, if nobody thinks himself a better tailor than his tailor, or a better shoemaker than his shoemaker, that yet everybody is a better legislator than his legislator, and cannot, do what he will, find any person who knows more about that subject that he himself.
But, how, then, it may be asked, are the people to judge of an untried man? Very easily. Inform yourselves of his previous life—learn in what manner his time has been spent; whether in idle dissipation, or in sober and severe study; learn whether he has been a jobber in vestries or corporations, or on the bench of magistrates; or an enemy of jobs: whether he has ever stopped up a path, or set a spring gun: whether he keeps game preserves, to decoy his poorer neighbours to their ruin. Enquire if he ever professed liberal opinions, before it could be his private interest to do so; if he ever professed any one opinion in favour of anything by which he could be a loser; or if his judgment has been always the humble servant of his interest. Find out whether he pays his tradesmen: if he be a landlord, whether his farmers have leases, or are kept as tenants-at-will for the sake of political power; ask if he ever turned out a tenant for voting against him at an election; if he keeps his farmers at a rack rent; if he has remitted his rents when they could not be paid without encroaching upon the tenant’s capital.—Prefer a man who has made himself known by giving his time or his money for any patriotic object; or whose speeches or writings, while they evince zeal for improvement and personal purity of motive, also show that he has bestowed thought and labour on great public questions. Next to such a person, prefer the man whom such persons recommend. When all other things are equal, give your votes to him who refuses to degrade himself and you by personal solicitation. To entrust a man with a burthensome duty (unless he means to betray it) is a compliment indeed, but no favour. The man who manifests the highest opinion of the electors, is not he who tries to gain them over individually by civil speeches, but he who assumes that their only object is to choose the fittest man, and abstains from all canvassing, except by laying his pretensions before them collectively, on the hustings, at public meetings, or through the press.
By these and a hundred other means, it is not difficult for the people to discern who it is that deserves enough of their confidence to be thought worthy of a trial. We believe that these means of selection, fairly used, would very seldom miscarry; and would generally give us a body of representatives whom we could trust without pledges, and whose opinion would deservedly carry weight with us, even when it was opposed to our own; if the representative system were properly constituted.
But with a representative system so imperfect as ours still is, we stand in need of some further security; chiefly on account of the enormity of the seven years lease of legislation6 —which removes the sense of responsibility to such a distance as to be evanescent; gives the people no opportunity till it is too late, of correcting a first error; and gives time even for highly deserving persons to degenerate and become corrupt, from what has corrupted so many men, the long enjoyment of power.
Till short parliaments are restored, no representatives, however chosen, upon such imperfect knowledge as the electors can possibly have of them before trial, are to be depended upon for fidelity to their trust. If at suitable intervals they had to render an account of their acts after performance, it would be unnecessary to fetter them before. A liberal confidence should be, and naturally will be, given to a faithful trustee, to execute the trust according to his own judgment: but if he has time to ruin you long before it is in your power to get rid of him, you will trust him with nothing that you can by possibility keep in your own hands. A man who is his own physician, generally has a fool for his patient; but it is better that he prescribe for himself, than obey a physician whom he believes to have been bribed by his heir.
A pledge therefore should be exacted from every popular candidate, for shortening the duration of parliaments: and for any other measures, if they be so urgent that they cannot safely wait till after the repeal of the septennial act.
As a general rule, we would lay it down that pledges are allowable where there is a demand for changes in the constitution, or where, from any cause whatever, the people feel themselves obliged to choose an unfit man.
Of the propriety of changes in the constitution, the only proper judges are the people themselves. The trustee is to judge how he can best discharge his trust, but not upon what terms it is to be confided to him. It would be absurd that the members of the legislature should determine the conditions of their own power. The very supposition that a constitutional change can be necessary, implies that the present governors are not the best men, or that the system is not such as to secure their best services. Either way their judgment is not to be relied on, and least of all in what so nearly affects themselves. Whoever, therefore, on mature deliberation, with the proper means of knowledge, has made up his mind that the ballot, or annual parliaments, or any other change in the composition of the legislature, is desirable, cannot be blamed for annexing to the promise of his vote a stipulation for supporting these measures.
So again if the people are unable to find a really qualified candidate: which will doubtless be the case in many instances, and for a long time to come. Reform or no reform, the people must in fact continue to make their selection chiefly from a very narrow class; the class possessed of leisure, that is to say, of considerable property. Even of that class the majority are for the present disqualified by a rooted aversion to popular institutions; and the remainder too often by confirmed indolence; incapacity for mental exertion; a life spent in mere amusement, instead of any manly pursuit; ignorance of the world and of business, and a consequent timidity which makes them shrink from difficulty or responsibility instead of facing it bravely. Yet such will frequently be the persons in whose hands the electoral bodies must be fain to place their affairs, until the working of a free government shall have inspired our opulent classes with the ambition of earning honours by deserving them. For, as long as one of the highest and most arduous services which man can render to man, that of making laws for him to obey, shall be almost the only service which goes unremunerated, except by jobbing or underhand methods; as long as no indemnity is allowed to legislators for the value of their time, and, unless they are already rich, they have only to choose between corrupt gains and painful sacrifices; so long government will not be carried on by the wisest and best men. In France the case is somewhat different: for in France narrow circumstances are only an inconvenience, not a disgrace: a man who has but two rooms to live in, may enjoy as much respect, and may even, in those two rooms, receive as much of the best society of the capital, as if he lived in a palace. But here, while the income which is esteemed necessary to respectability is so great as few can inherit, and as scarcely any one can earn without devoting to that sordid pursuit every moment of his life; and while it requires the heroism of an Andrew Marvel,7 to maintain dignity of character in honourable poverty,—there will certainly be many representatives, in every parliament, whom it would be ridiculous to treat as if they were wiser, or even half so wise, as the general public when its opinion is deliberately formed. To such persons very strict instructions may properly be given. But it should be ever present to the mind both of the candidates and of the electors, that the exaction of pledges is always a testimony of the extreme unfitness of the representative. It is either a proof that no fit person is to be found, or it implies the disgraceful supposition, that the electors, having fit persons at command, prefer such as they themselves believe to be unfit.
LEWIN’S THE FISHERMAN OF FLAMBOROUGH HEAD
Charlotte Lewin (1796-1875), a devotee of vocal music who collaborated with Mill’s friend Hickson, was the sister of Harriet Grote (1792-1878), who, with her husband, George, played a large part in Mill’s life from the early 1820s. This review, in the “Literary Examiner,” is headed: “The Fisherman of Flamborough Head, now living at the age of Seventy-four. Collected from personal knowledge, during a visit to the East Riding of Yorkshire. By C— L—. Oliphant, Edinburgh; and Nisbet, London. [1832.]” It is described in Mill’s bibliography as “A short notice of Miss Charlotte Lewin’s account of a Fisherman at Flamborough Head in the Examiner of 8th July 1832” (MacMinn, p. 22). In the Somerville College set of the Examiner, it is listed as “Notice of ‘The Fisherman of Flamborough Head’ ” and enclosed in square brackets.
this is an account of one of those examples of a life of admirable virtue in the very humblest station, which, though not common, are far more so than is usually supposed, being seldom known beyond the circle of a narrow neighbourhood. The fair author of this little publication has the merit not only of an interesting literary composition, but, what is still better, of a good action: it was written and published in the hope of contributing to the relief of the excellent person who is the subject of it, and whose old age and infirmities now almost disable him from earning his livelihood.1 From saving he has been prevented by duties of self-imposed beneficence. In that same hope we now call the attention of our readers to this short history of his life, and would gladly, if we could, induce the whole world to profit by it; for there are none who might not, either in the way of sympathy or of example.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, July 8, 1832,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
the prisoners condemned by the courts martial, for participation in the late insurrection at Paris, have appealed to the supreme law authority of France, the Court of Cassation, which has quashed all the sentences, and declared the trial of non-military persons, before military tribunals, to be illegal.1
This is a noble triumph for the cause of legal government; and goes far to undo the mischief which the late illegal measures had done.
Laws and a Constitution do yet exist in France. Though the executive disregards them, there is a power above the executive, which recals the executive to its duty; and whose admonition the King does not think himself strong enough to disregard.
The next day an ordonnance appeared, by which the “siege” of Paris was raised.2 It is affirmed that the Chambers will be convened for the 25th of the present month. The present ministry remain in office till the meeting of the Chambers. If they remain for a single week afterwards, a government of law is not valued in France as it is here, and should be every where.
MM. Chateaubriand, Hyde de Neuville, and Fitz-James, have been set at liberty; the chambre des mises en accusation (analogous to our grand jury) found that there was no ground for proceeding against them.3 M. Ledieu, one of the journalists who had been arrested, has been dismissed, because there was actually no charge against him.4
Immediately after the authority of the law was restored, the three deputies against whom warrants had been issued (MM. Garnier-Pagès, Cabet, and Laboissière) delivered themselves up to justice.5
Attempts have been made to strengthen the ministry by taking in M. de Talleyrand, M. Dupin, or M. Thiers:6 but the first, and wiliest of the three, is understood to have refused, and with the others it was not found possible to make terms.
For the context, see the first part, No. 174. Mill’s observations had been contested in the Morning Chronicle, 10 July, 1832, pp. 2-3, by John Black, to whom he now replies. Like No. 174, this is a first leader, headed as title. It is described in Mill’s bibliography as “A sec. article headed ‘Pledges,’ in the Exam. of 15th July 1832” (MacMinn, p. 22). In the Somerville College set of the Examiner, it is listed as “Pledges” and enclosed in square brackets.
we have been surprised to find from an article in the Morning Chronicle of Tuesday, that the editor of that journal dissents wholly from the observations on the subject of Pledges in our last paper but one. It is from no deficiency of respect towards our excellent contemporary, or disposition to undervalue the great help he has rendered to the common cause, that we profess our inability to see anything in the arguments which he has brought against us, worthy either of himself or of the gravity of the subject. They have not even, as is usual with him, the appearance of being drawn from a matured and strong conviction, but rather resemble the first crude outpourings of a mind to which Thought, on the great questions of government, is new and unfamiliar. We learn at least one thing from our contemporary’s article; how much need there was and is, that the elementary and fundamental truths of politics should be frequently brought forward and insisted upon; for they have been kept out of view until they seem strange and unfashionable, and, if they remain longer in the background, are in positive danger of being forgotten. And in particular we see that it was high time to speak a few reasonable words on this subject of Pledges; when opinions so remote from all we deem true and useful, are professed even as axioms in politics, not by the unthinking vulgar of any rank, which would be less surprising, but by a public writer who has claims much higher than most men to be placed in the class of philosophic reformers.
We shall put first in order a few explanations, necessary to prevent ourselves from being misunderstood.
We acknowledge, as we did most fully in our preceding article, that the immediate application of the true principle of Representative Government, is complicated with a number of considerations arising from the surviving evil consequences of the vicious system under which we have hitherto lived. The state of society and manners in Great Britain almost compels the electors to make their selection from persons in whom it would not be natural that they should confide; persons to a great degree corrupted by aristocratic institutions. The leisured class, the class which ought to furnish statesmen and philosophers, has been bred in a very different school, and trained to far other occupations. The circumstances of their education were not such as to make them love wisdom or virtue for its own sake; and in the pursuit of power or distinction, both the one and the other were rather obstructions than helps. For a legislator, the sole qualification required was having bought the office, or being born to it; even in a minister, talents for government meant nothing but address in finding a colour for benefiting the few at the cost of the many, and in quieting the exorbitance of those among the few who demanded more than their share. Capacity for government, in any sense implying the good of the governed, was to such a degree unknown and unthought of, that the tradition of its having ever existed, and the opinion of its being required, were gradually dying away, and are all but absolutely extinct.
The evils of centuries are not to be remedied in a day. Great statesmen cannot be called out of the ground by stamping upon it.1 But there are still some men wiser than others. And let us here clearly understand whether this, among other things, is to be contested. Are all men possessed of an equal quantity of political knowledge and political foresight, aye or no? Let us have a categorical answer to this one question. If the Morning Chronicle, or any one else, maintains the affirmative, he shall hear further from us. But, for the present, we take it for granted, that according to the old proverb, “some are wise, and some are otherwise.” Now, all we contend for, all we have ever contended for, is, that the people ought to have the benefit of having their affairs managed by the wise, rather than by those who are otherwise. We will join with any one who pleases in deploring that the wise are not more wise, and shall be happy to unite with all the world in making both it and ourselves as wise as our faculties and opportunities will permit. Still, we return to our original position; there may be a wiser government in the moon, perhaps, than the government of the wisest persons that can be had, but how, in the name of reason, is it to be got at? Shall we mend the matter by setting a less wisdom to dictate to a greater? And, mind, we do not, like the Tories, first inculcate the necessity of wisdom, then quietly assume that a long purse is wisdom, and conclude for the government of the longest purse. There shall be no question between us and the people as to who is wisest; we will have no other arbiter of the matter than themselves: for our present purpose the wisest are whomsoever the people consider such; we own the people, not certainly as infallible judges, but as the only safe ones, and submit to them not from a blind confidence, but from the motive which we ourselves urge, namely, that they are the best that can be had. We only say, let them judge of the workman both before and after, but let them not attempt to teach him the way of his work. They are employing skilled labour; and they cannot as a body be more skilled than the most skilful labourer whom they have it in their power to choose.
In this, however, we are always supposing that a skilful and honest labourer is to be had. We acknowledge that the case is altered, when the people either cannot choose a sufficient person to serve them in Parliament, or will not.
While the office of a member of Parliament is unpaid, and while even those who have something, cannot be content without making it more, there will be a great reluctance among men of abilities to offer themselves for the people’s suffrages, unless they are already in what are called independent, that is, in affluent, circumstances. Now all such persons lie under a prima facie suspicion of sympathizing more strongly with the aristocracy than with the mass of the people. It ought never to be believed without the most positive experience, of any English gentleman, that the interests and feelings of gentlemen do not count with him for more than their just value, and the interests and feelings of all the other members of the community for less. There are different degrees of this caste-spirit, but those who have least of it in reality will not be the most confident and eager in their disclaimer of it. As the feelings proper to a free government gain the strength which time and habit alone can give, these wrongful partialities will wear away. But in the meantime they are to be presumed, and guarded against, in almost every case: and every candidate who cannot effectually rebut the presumption, is so far wanting in one of the most essential ingredients of a just title to that confidence, which, some time hence, all the representatives of the people will habitually deserve.
There is also another very important concession to be made. In general the people are better judges of men than of measures; naturally: since we commonly judge of men from past experience, of measures from what is so much more uncertain, prospective anticipation. But now, in some particulars, the case is reversed; there being various measures which, from long and earnest discussion, and the little difficulty of the subjects, the people have come to a tolerably correct understanding of; while in respect to men, the old bad habits which grew up under the exploded system, still subsist, and the fitness of a man is judged by a wrong criterion. This will partly account for the reluctance which we have seen evinced by some persons whom we greatly respect, to admit the true principle on the subject of pledges, as applicable to the present time. It is felt, justly enough, that any pledges which the people are disposed, just now, to exact, are mostly such as almost any candidate well affected to the popular cause could conscientiously give, while yet the same electors, if called upon to point out the man whom they think properest in the abstract to represent them in Parliament, would probably name the greatest landholder in the neighbourhood, if they are satisfied with his personal manners, and kindness as a landlord or a magistrate; though, perhaps, every act of his Parliamentary life might be hostile to their cause.
These are the considerations which can alone lead us to view with complacency the copious exaction of pledges which is taking place at this period. We regard it as a palliative for the consequences of a vicious state of mind both in the electors and in the candidates. As long as the personal prepossessions of the electors are in favour of the richest rather than of the ablest and most honest candidate, and as long as nine-tenths of the candidates may be suspected of being at heart insincere, or at least but cold, reformers, so long we must tolerate or approve the chaining up of the representative by much tighter bonds than would be allowable, if it were easier finding unexceptionable men, or if the people knew better how to distinguish them. If, therefore, we could think of any pledge to be tendered to a candidate, his acceptance or refusal of which would decide whether he is with us or against us,—whether he is for the Movement or the Resistance,—whether he voted for the Reform Bill as a prop to all our remaining institutions, or as a means of beating down such of them as are bad, and repairing such as are decaying,—we should not be averse to see such a test propounded. But, unhappily, there is no single question, nor small number of questions, which places this point out of doubt. The Ballot, or the Taxes on Knowledge,2 perhaps come nearest to a test, but not near enough. It cannot, however, be pretended that a man’s spontaneous professions, the style of his addresses, his own previous character and that of his leading supporters, commonly leave any doubt as to the main direction of his politics. We may be sure it will seldom be uncertain who is the Conservative, and who the Reforming candidate; or who is the most in earnest of two professed reformers. But if there should be any doubt, this is what justifies us in requiring pledges; this is the point which our pledges should be shaped to ascertain; and we should endeavour to ascertain it with the least possible restraint upon the discretion of the man whom we are employing to judge for us as well as to act.
The exaction of pledges should be felt as a slur upon the candidate; a slur which should never be inflicted except where it is deserved. When the pledge is not a slur upon the candidate, its exaction is a slur upon the electors; to be justified only if the electors are in reality bad judges of the fittest man.
Thus much by way of explanation and enforcement of our own opinion. We must now have a few words with the Morning Chronicle.
Our contemporary has very needlessly confounded two ideas, than which it is difficult to conceive any more perfectly distinct; he has supposed that because we object to tying up the representative from acting upon his own opinions, we must therefore be against asking him any questions about them. So remote is this from our sentiments, that we should regard any candidate, who did not explicitly state his present opinion without reserve or disguise, on any political question on which his constituents desired to know it, as disqualified by that single circumstance from being a good Member of Parliament. Because we feel the superiority of matured wisdom, does it follow that we are enemies to discussion? Because we think another man wiser than ourselves, does it follow that we think ourselves fools, and deem that he can learn nothing by talking over the subject with us? Let him tell us his own opinions and hear ours; but let us as well as him, hold and declare our opinions with becoming modesty; let us not suppose that we know everything and he nothing, because we happen to be the electors and he the candidate. By a free communication we may learn much from him, and he something from us: he will moreover learn the public opinion for the time being, which as a fact it is most important that he should know, howsoever as a rule of conduct it may occasionally be improper that he should be guided by it. “But,” it is said, “if the candidate is to tell all his opinions, this will be tantamount to exacting pledges.” We answer, no doubt it will, with all electors who are so narrow-minded and conceited, as to judge of a man’s intellect and virtue by the single test of his agreeing in opinion with themselves: but this is the very thing which we are contending that they ought not to do: we are maintaining that they ought to choose somebody whose opinion, if sincere, is more likely to be right than their own: and that it is only if they cannot find such a person, that they ought to send somebody as a mere instrument to execute their own decree: just as it is sometimes necessary to send instructions to a General or an Admiral how and when to fight; but only when he deserves to be superseded, and you have no means of immediately supplying his place.
The Chronicle does not well know what to do with our illustration of choosing a physician; he has found out fifty differences between the two cases, every one of which is altogether beside the purpose. He says that the patient cannot always understand the physician’s reasons! And can the citizen always understand the legislator’s reasons? Are all questions of legislation, then, so extremely simple? As is forcibly remarked by the Times, (whose powerful co-operation on this subject gives us much pleasure), what shall we say to the poor-laws, or the currency, or the mode of reforming the law, or the mode of reforming the Courts of Justice, or emigration, or the law of primogeniture, or the best principle of taxation, all subjects on which thinking and honest men are divided in opinion?3 Does it follow that a question is really simple, because the electors may happen to think it so? All questions appear simple while they are looked at only on one side. But though we cannot always judge of either the physician’s reasons, or the legislator’s, it is always advisable to hear them. Though we may not know much about the matter ourselves, we may generally give a shrewd guess from what a man says, whether he is speaking of a subject which he understands, or one which he is ignorant of. A wise man will have nothing to do either with a physician, or a representative, who conceals the principles of his treatment. Concealment is the refuge of quackery; a manly avowal is one of the signs both of true knowledge and of integrity.
The Chronicle also finds out that a physician differs from a legislator, because a physician has only to satisfy his patient, but a legislator the whole nation. One would think our contemporary was speaking of an actor, or a rope-dancer. The physician has not to satisfy his patient, he has to cure him. No doubt, if satisfaction were all, every man knows best what will satisfy him. But medicine, and government, are not a mere affair of taste. The reason why wisdom is required, either in a physician or a legislator, is because what satisfies a man to-day is not always best for his interest to-morrow. And why, because a nation’s good is at stake instead of a single person’s, the nation should not be guided by the same maxim of common sense which the individual members of it follow in every analogous case, our contemporary has not succeeded in shewing us.
But all this is nothing to what follows. The Chronicle next gives us his notion of a Representative Government. He says it is by the vote of each member, voting as the mere organ of his constituents, that we collect the opinion of the majority, and ensure the conformity of the acts of government to the general will. This is a step beyond Robespierre’s democratic constitution of 1793; for in that, although all laws were referred to the express sanction of the electors after they were passed, the electors were not consulted first, and each legislator gave his provisional vote according to the best of his judgment.4 If even this latitude is not to be allowed to a representative, we cannot see much use in the complex machinery of a representation. If the power of changing your representative every three years, or even every year, does not suffice you, but, in order that you may feel secure, the advantages of knowledge and deliberation must be sacrificed, government by a select body be given up, and government by the people en masse introduced, then it would be cheaper, more certain, and more expeditious for the electors to send their votes to town on every measure, under an official frank, through the post-office. A few clerks would then suffice to do the business of Parliament, and all danger of jobbing or encroachment on the part of the legislature would be effectually provided against. Nothing short of this will do. You will never be quite safe from Scylla till you are whirling round in the midst of Charybdis. You will always be in some danger of striking against the wall of rock on your right, till you have fallen down the precipice on your left.
For our part, we avow, that when the Tory prints accused the Reformers of seeking to set up a government of mere numbers, instead of one of intelligence, our denial of the imputation was sincere. Such never was our object. A government of honesty and intelligence was all we sought, and our quarrel with the old government was, that its character was the very reverse. We know that the will of the people, even of the numerical majority, must in the end be supreme, for as Burke says, it would be monstrous that any power should exist capable of permanently defying it:5 but in spite of that, the test of what is right in politics is not the will of the people, but the good of the people, and our object is, not to compel but to persuade the people to impose, for the sake of their own good, some restraints on the immediate and unlimited exercise of their own will. One of our reasons for desiring a popular government was, that men whom the people themselves had selected for their wisdom and good affections, would have authority enough to withstand the will of the people when it is wrong. And it is surely some presumption that the people are in the wrong, if they cannot find any man of ability who will do as they wish him, without being pledged to it. We ourselves do not think that the public opinion, except where it has adhered to the impressions of early education, has often gone far wrong heretofore; but this is because the people have for the most part acted upon our principle, and have not yet learnt the doctrine that they are to hear appeals on all subjects, from the decision of the most competent judges. We must recollect, however, that the people are now the sovereign: as such, it is they who will now be the objects of flattery; it is to them that the interested, the discontented, and the impatient, will henceforth carry their complaints. Every factious minority, every separate class, every adventurer who seeks to rise by undermining those above him, will endeavour to obtain, not as before from the oligarchy, but from the people, what has been refused by the people’s representatives: and the grand instrument of success will be, persuading the people, that no thought, no study, no labour, give any superiority in judging of public measures, and that the question immediately on the tapis, whatever it be, no matter how complicated, is level to every man’s capacity. Where the popular mind is not kept steady by confidence in superior wisdom, these tactics will frequently succeed. The man who says, Judge for yourself, you are wise enough, has an immense advantage over him who can only say, I speak from study and experience, and I know better than you. An ignoramus in politics may deem lightly of this danger; all things appear easy to him, because he sees little in them, and cannot conceive that anything is to be seen, except what he can see. But a man who has thought and read as much as the Editor of the Chronicle, must know that the correct view of a political question is very often not the superficial one.
We here conclude for the present our answer to the Chronicle. We have heard ourselves assailed by another objection, from which, to his credit, the writer in the Chronicle has abstained; that our doctrine is untimely. Untimely! why? Because this is a good opportunity for extorting by means of pledges a great number of good measures. According to this doctrine, we ought to withhold what we deem the truth, until by the production of it we can serve our immediate ends; to make our profit of error as long as we can, and first turn against it when it turns against ourselves. With what face could we shew ourselves before the public, or what opinion could we expect them to entertain of our sincerity, if we countenanced the practice of unlimited pledges now when it suits our convenience, and found out its impropriety only when it came to be put in force against our own opinions? Let those act upon such principles who relish them; they shall not be ours. We have never been able to discover any better or more universal maxim of expediency, than honesty, nor know we any occasion upon which the truth is untimely, if it is the truth, and not merely a little bit of the truth, worse than no truth at all. But if there be a time which is fittest of all for combatting errors, it is before they have strengthened into prejudices; and the best of occasions for putting forth the truth, is when it must be seen that we propound it because it is the truth, though something else, it might seem, would better serve our immediate turn. We may add too, that there are few persons from whom the objection to pledges can come with a better grace than from ourselves, since perhaps no pledge has yet been called for, by any considerable portion of the people, in favour of any measures but such as we in the main approve.
Not that we shall in reality carry these measures a day sooner, by violating for them the true principles of a representative government. They are all of them such as the people are sure to obtain, if they choose thorough reformers; and we have already allowed the utmost latitude of pledging, if you are obliged to choose men whom you do not know to be thorough reformers. If the pledges now proposed were to be the last ever asked, we should be as strong advocates of them as any one, for they accord with our own opinions: but how is a practice to be kept within due limits? Surely no otherwise than by pointing out, as often as the subject engages public attention, what the due limits are. It is the part of wisdom to look after as well as before; and not to let those doctrines and feelings which are the only permanent securities for good government, be played away for the mere stake of the moment. Once gone, they are not so easily recovered. And when able men have wandered so far from them as we now see, truly it was not too soon to put in our caveat for the established truths.
We did not expect that our view of the subject would find favour with the unreflecting; not because there was anything abstruse, or refined, or paradoxical, in it, for it was the broad common-sense view, which strikes a man of plain understanding as soon as the question is placed before him. But we were exhorting men to two things, either of which is more than a great number of persons are capable of; to doubt their own infallibility, and to forego an exercise of power.
It was for this reason; it was because we knew the formidable array of human weaknesses and passions which would be perpetually at work to make a Representative Democracy (what it has so often been asserted to be in its own essence) a mere mob-government; that we deemed it necessary thus early to call upon the intelligent leaders of the people that they might join in stemming the torrent before it becomes irresistible. And it disappoints and mortifies us that one who ranks so high among those leaders as the Editor of the Morning Chronicle, one who has done more in a few short years to extirpate abuses than any other periodical writer whatever, should have given the sanction of his authority to the most deplorable misapprehension of the nature of representative government, which can possibly prevail; an error of which the Tories have always delighted to accuse the reformers, but which we would gladly have believed that not one of the enlightened reformers really held, and which the Editor of the Chronicle may live to deplore his having ever, even for a moment, countenanced by the weight of his authority.
We wind up by a summary of the conclusions of our former article.
Pledges may be exacted for all organic, in other words, all constitutional, changes; such as the Ballot, and Triennial Parliaments:—
Also for all measures of immediate urgency, which cannot conveniently wait for the repeal of the septennial act:—
And finally, if the electors are obliged to choose a candidate of doubtful judgment, or of doubtful affections, any pledges may be taken, which they in their suspicion may deem necessary.
In all other cases, pledges ought not to be required.
FRENCH NEWS 
For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The item, headed “London, July 15, 1832,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner.
we have great pleasure in calling the attention of our readers to an article on the state of France, which has just appeared in the Westminster Review. It is obviously of French origin, and bears marks of the hand to which it is ascribed, one of the most enlightened and high-minded of patriots.1 We are proud to find in this retrospective view of the history of parties in France, the confirmation (with many additional particulars) of all that was written in this journal on French politics in the few months succeeding the Revolution in July.
We learn from the Paris correspondent of the Chronicle, that a half-penny paper for the people is about to be started at Paris, under the auspices of Laffitte, Odilon-Barrot, and Arago, (the leaders of the moderate Opposition) whose names appear in the prospectus;2 and under the gratuitous editorship of M. Cauchois-Lemaire, one of the ablest and most independent of the political writers of the day. The price will just cover the stamp duty to Government,—all the other expenses will be defrayed by subscription. A noble employment of wealth and talents, from which we augur the happiest consequences. These are the true Penny Magazines3 for this age of politics; all others, though not absolutely useless, are secondary in usefulness, and less than secondary as instruments of power.
The French Ministry has issued a precious circular to the different Procureurs du Roi, ordering a still more strenuous persecution of the newspaper press.4 Censure of the mere acts of the Government is to be permitted; but every body who professes, even as a speculative opinion, that a republic, or the restoration of the exiled family, would be desirable, is to be prosecuted. As the first fruits of this increase of “vigour,” several newspapers have been seized, and the Moniteur has been so obliging as to announce officially what are the exceptionable passages. In one case, that of the Tribune, the crime was publishing a list of subscriptions, in which one of the subscribers signs himself “A Good Republican,” another “An Enemy of Kings,” and a third “An Enemy of all Monarchs since the death of Napoleon.”5 This is the fifty-sixth prosecution of this one journal since the July Revolution. Truly the heroes of the barricades threw their lives away to some purpose.
The chambers are not to be summoned immediately. The King and his miserable Ministry are afraid to meet them.
In the meanwhile, the Government is weeding the public offices of the few remaining patriots, whom it had not hitherto ventured to touch.
[1 ]The July elections had returned 265 members new to the Chamber (rather more than the 200 Mill estimates). Consequently, when it reconvened on 23 July, its political complexion was uncertain. Périer had won the fight over the election of the President of the Chamber by only one vote; therefore, the debate on the Address to the King from 9 to 16 Aug. (Moniteur, 1831, pp. 1328-1405), which concentrated on Périer’s position that France should not go to war for a principle or a doctrine, was crucial. The left lost the vote by 282 to 73.
[2 ]Leading article on French affairs, The Times, 19 Aug., 1831, p. 3.
[1 ]Winthrop Mackworth Praed (1802-39), poet and conservative M.P. from 1830; his speech in the Commons on 24 Aug. was reported in The Times, 25 Aug., 1831, p. 4.
[* ]This includes the Member for Paimboeuf, which is virtually an appendage of Nantes.
[2 ]Casimir Périer.
[3 ]Identified at No. 72, n3.
[4 ]On 9 Aug., Salverte had introduced Proposition relative à la révision de l’article 23 de la charte constitutionnelle (Moniteur, 1831, p. 1327), pushing the government to move on the promise made in Art. 68 of the revised Charter (1830). See No. 115.
[5 ]In the debate on the 12th on the Address (adopted 16 Aug.), an amendment to this effect was moved by Philarète Euphémon Chasles (1798-1873), a literary critic, and adopted after the ministry said it had no objection.
[6 ]For the origin of the phrase, see No. 98, n6.
[7 ]Odilon Barrot’s speeches of 11 and 12 Aug. are in Moniteur, 1831, pp. 1360-2 and 1367-8.
[1 ]Périer introduced on 27 Aug. the proposal to abolish the hereditary peerage and substitute regal appointments for life of men who had served the state or came from the upper ranks of society (Moniteur, 1831, pp. 1477-8). His speech is followed by the text of Projet de loi destiné à remplacer l’article 23 de la charte constitutionnelle. As enacted, the law specified service to the state (Bull. 54, No. 130 [29 Dec., 1831]).
[2 ]For the comment by Solon (ca. 638-559 ), Athenian reformer, see Plutarch, Lives (Greek and English), trans. Bernadotte Perrin, 11 vols. (London: Heinemann, 1914-26), Vol. I, p. 442 (XV, 2).
[3 ]Hugh Percy, 3rd Duke of Northumberland (1785-1847), Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland 1829-30, ambassador extraordinary at his own expense to the coronation of Charles X.
[4 ]“Effet de l’exposé des motifs de M. Périer,” Courrier Français, 29 Aug., pp. 1-2.
[5 ]See Périer, speech of 27 Aug., p. 1478.
[6 ]Mill is probably referring both to André Dupin and his brother, Charles Pierre François, baron Dupin (1784-1873), a liberal deputy from 1827, but not of Mill’s economic opinions. Antoine Gabriel Jars (1774-1857), an opposition deputy from 1822, one of the 221, but now a member of the stationary party and a supporter of an hereditary peerage. Claude Philibert de Barthelot, comte de Rambuteau (1781-1869), administrator, a deputy from 1827, had also voted with the 221.
[1 ]Baron Louis’ speech is in Moniteur, 20 Aug., 1831, pp. 1431-3.
[1 ]For the background, see No. 115.
[2 ]See Letter from Paris Correspondent (6 Sept.), The Times, 9 Sept., 1831, p. 4.
[3 ]Charter (1814), Art. 42, continued in Charter (1830), Art. 36.
[4 ]Maillefer, “Foreign Intelligence. France” (31 Aug., 1831), Examiner, 11 Sept., p. 583.
[1 ]The second version of the Reform Bill (see No. 107, n2) was in fact rejected in the Lords on 8 Oct.
[2 ]See 58 George III, c. 34 (23 May, 1818), which was continued in 1820, 1824, 1825, and 1826.
[3 ]Charles Edward Poulett Thomson (1799-1841), later Baron Sydenham, advocate of free trade and financial reform, M.P. from 1826, Vice-President of the Board of Trade. For the discussion, see PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 6, cols. 1166-8.
[4 ]The Powers at the Congress of Vienna included a clause favouring abolition of the slave trade in the Peace Treaty of 30 Nov., 1815.
[5 ]For the measure, see No. 71, n2.
[6 ]The first settlement of freed slaves was started in Sierra Leone in 1787 but had to be revived in 1791. In 1808 the British government took over the colony, and in the next fifty years about 50,000 Negroes taken from illegal slavers were settled there. Fernando Po, an island off the Guinea Coast, had been settled by the Spanish as a source for slaves. Driven off by yellow fever in 1781, Spain leased bases to Britain after 1807 for the navy in its attempt to police the slave trade. Liberia’s first freed slaves arrived in 1822 after a six-year struggle by the American Colonization Society.
[7 ]Tobago and St. Lucia in the Caribbean and Mauritius in the Indian Ocean were assigned to Britain by the first Treaty of Paris in May 1814 (PP, 1813-14, XIV, 227-65, Art. 8); Demerara, Berbice, and Essequibo (British Guiana) were ceded by the Dutch in August 1814. Tobago, however, had since the early seventeenth century been in British, Dutch, and French hands, and may be considered an “old” slave island. Trinidad may be considered a “new” one, as it had been ceded by Spain to Britain by the Treaty of Amiens in 1802.
[8 ]The old British slave islands, from the early seventeenth century, were Jamaica, Nevis, St. Christopher, Barbados, Antigua, and Bermuda.
[1 ]Baron Louis Marie J.B. Athalin (1784-1856), who had fought under Napoleon and become aide-de-camp to the Duke of Orleans at the Restoration, continued in that position when the Duke became King Louis Philippe.
[2 ]Introduced on 31 Aug., 1831, the bill was enacted as Bull. 78, No. 178 (28 Apr., 1832).
[1 ]Inspired by the events in France, the Polish insurrection against the Russians had begun on 29 Nov., 1830; it ended with the fall of Warsaw in September.
[2 ]For accounts of the disturbances, see Le National, 18 Sept., p. 1, and Le Globe, 18 Sept., p. 2.
[3 ]Presented on 24 Aug. by Boissy-d’Anglas (Moniteur, 1831, p. 1456), the proposition passed the Deputies on 17 Sept., and was sent to the Peers on the 21st.
[4 ]Justin Laurence (1794-1863), a Deputy of conservative views elected in 1831.
[5 ]For the debates of 19-23 Sept., see Moniteur, 1831, pp. 1624-8, 1630-7, 1640-50, 1655-62, 1663-70.
[6 ]For details, see No. 57, n5.
[7 ]For the law, see No. 57, n10.
[8 ]Mill here seems to be conflating the wording of two clauses in Art. 69 of the Charter of 1830. Clause 5 refers to the “intervention des gardes nationaux dans le choix de leurs officiers,” while clause 7 says that the departmental and municipal institutions should be based “sur un système électif.”
[9 ]Projet de loi sur l’organisation des conseils-généraux de département et des conseils d’arrondissement (15 Sept.), Moniteur, 1831, pp. 1586-7.
[10 ]Projet de loi sur les attributions départementales (16 Sept.), ibid., 1831, pp. 1599-1600.
[11 ]Projet de loi sur les attributions municipales (14 Sept.), ibid., pp. 1577-9. No lawwas enacted until Bull. 521, No. 6946 (18 July, 1837).
[12 ]Moniteur, 1831, pp. 1619-24. For details, see No. 115.
[13 ]The report of 12 Sept. is in Moniteur, 1831, pp. 1561-3; the law as passed (Bull. 68, No. 149 [21 Mar., 1832]) provided for a regular army of 50,000 voluntary soldiers, voluntary in the sense that if called up, an unwilling recruit had the right to a replacement.
[14 ]Moniteur, 1831, pp. 1568-70.
[15 ]Emmanuel Augustin Dieudonné Marin Joseph, comte de Las Cases (1766-1842), served under Napoleon and shared his exile. Henri Gratien, comte Bertrand (1773-1844), Napoleon’s Grand Marshal of the Palace, had also accompanied him to St. Helena. Armand François Bon Claude Briqueville de Bretteville (1785-1844) was a cavalry officer during the Empire and a liberal deputy from 1827. Marie Denis Larabit (1792-1876) had fought under Napoleon and stayed in the army after the Restoration; he supported the July Revolution and became a deputy in 1831.
[16 ]The Censeur was founded by Charles Comte in 1814. Several times censorship prevented the paper’s appearance; in February 1817 it reappeared as the Censeur Européen; after the passing of the censorship law of 31 Mar., 1820, it merged with the Courrier Français. For Comte’s speech (13 Sept.), see Moniteur, 1831, p. 1569.
[17 ]An unheaded leader in the Courrier Français, 11 Sept., p. 1, reports that Comte was planning to make this proposal, and gives its details. It did not come to fruition.
[18 ]For this regulation, see No. 68, n7.
[1 ]See, e.g., Morning Chronicle, 17 Sept., 1831, p. 2; Globe and Traveller, 20 Sept., p. 4. Whately was indeed appointed.
[2 ]Elements of Logic (London: Mawman, 1826); Elements of Rhetoric (London: Murray, 1828); and Introductory Lectures on Political Economy (London: Fellowes, 1831).
[3 ]Reginald Heber (1783-1826) was an active clergyman of High Church views, who made beneficial changes during his years as Bishop of Calcutta, 1822-26.
[1 ]The debate, running from 19 to 23 Sept. (Moniteur, 1831, pp. 1624-70), was terminated by a voice vote to adopt the order of the day (ibid., p. 1670).
[1 ]For the resulting law, see No. 115, n1. The debate is reported in Moniteur, 30 Sept. to 19 Oct., 1831, passim.
[1 ]Mill is reporting the vote of 10 Oct. on an amendment that in effect abolished an hereditary peerage; the law in full (see No. 115, n1) was not enacted until 29 Dec.
[2 ]Early in the morning of 8 Oct., after five days’ debate, the House of Lords rejected the second version of the Reform Bill by a majority of forty-one (PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 8, col. 340). Parliament was prorogued on 20 Oct., and reconvened on 6 Dec. to consider the third version, “A Bill to Amend the Representation of the People in England and Wales,” 2 William IV (12 Dec., 1831), PP, 1831-32, III, 1-54, which passed and was enacted as 2 & 3 William IV, c. 45 (7 June, 1832), the first Reform Act.
[1 ]For identification and discussion, see Nos. 115, n1 and 123, n1.
[2 ]Projet de loi sur les céréales, introduced on 17 Oct. (Moniteur, 1831, pp. 1885-7), was enacted as Bull. 72, No. 155 (15 Apr., 1832).
[1 ]See especially Titre IV, Art. 14 of Projet de loi sur l’instruction primaire (24 Oct.), Moniteur, 1831, pp. 1946-8. The bill was lost at the end of the session. For a later law, see No. 187, n6.
[2 ]Leading article on French primary education, Globe and Traveller, 27 Oct., 1831, p. 2.
[3 ]Jean Baptiste de Lasalle (1651-1719) founded the institution of the Brothers of the Christian Schools at Rheims in 1679.
[4 ]Constitution française (14 Sept., 1791), Titre 1.
[5 ]Decrees were issued on 26 and 30 Oct., 1793, and 22 Feb. and 16 Nov., 1794; see Moniteur, 1793, pp. 150-1 and 167, and 1794, pp. 632 and 245-6.
[6 ]A system of mass instruction based on the use of monitors, named after its developer Joseph Lancaster (1778-1838), favoured by the Philosophic Radicals, and introduced in France by the private Société pour l’Instruction Elémentaire. The system flourished until Charles X’s government took steps to establish Church control (see No. 43, n10).
[7 ]See, e.g., Bull. 73, No. 495 (29 Feb., 1816).
[8 ]For the ordinance, see No. 43, n10.
[9 ]See the Charter of 1830, Art. 69, Clause 8.
[10 ]By Part II, Title xii, Arts. 43 and 44 (5 Feb., 1794) of Allgemeines Landrecht für die Preussischen Staaten.
[11 ]“French Papers,” Globe and Traveller, 27 Oct., 1831, p. 2, translating in summary Montalivet’s speech of 24 Oct. (in Moniteur, 1831, pp. 1946-7).
[12 ]A character in Bartholomew Fayre (London: Allot, 1631), by Ben Jonson (1573?-1637).
[13 ]See Brougham, Motion on the Education of the Poor (28 June, 1820), PD, n.s., Vol. 2, cols. 49-89.
[14 ]Leading article on French primary education, p. 2.
[15 ]John Ward, “Diffusion of Knowledge in France: Necessity of Public Instruction,” Foreign Quarterly Review, VIII (July 1831), 433-4.
[16 ]For Mauguin’s speech on free trade, and the Ministry’s concurrence (20 Oct.), see Moniteur, 1831, pp. 1910-11. The Projet de loi portant modification au tarif général des douanes was brought in on 17 Dec. (ibid., p. 2426).
[1 ]Périer and Soult had brought charges against Ferdinand Bascans (1801-61), manager of La Tribune 1829-35, Armand Marrast (1801-52), author of an article, “Situation grave,” written for La Tribune, of 9 Sept., 1831, and Vincent Ferrare François Antony Thouret (1807-71), manager of the Révolution de 1830, which printed it after the authorities had prevented its appearance in La Tribune. The article asserted that Périer and Soult had each received a gift of wine during the purchase of some English guns. The trial took place at the end of October; only Marrast was found guilty, and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, a 3,000-franc fine, and expenses. The affair is described in Le National, 31 Oct., pp. 2-4.
[2 ]For background, see No. 115, n1.
[1 ]For the Act, see No. 120, n13.
[2 ]Enacted as Bull. 72, No. 154 (14 Apr., 1832), it provided among other things safeguards against unearned promotion.
[3 ]For background, see No. 115, n1.
[1 ]The Périer ministry brought the bill (see No. 115, n1) to the Peers on 19 Dec. (Moniteur, 1831, pp. 2429-32) where, after prolonged debate on the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 26th, and 27th, its approval was completed on the 28th (ibid., pp. 2534-6).
[2 ]Georges Léopold Nicolas Frédéric Dagobert, baron Cuvier (1769-1832), naturalist. Perhaps Mill had in mind Cuvier’s uninterruptedly successful career at the University under Napoleon and the Restoration.
[* ]Our friend of the Globe says, “the persons selected have, without exception, been taken from those whose political principles alone excluded them (before the late revolution) from all participation in the favour and honours of the court.” [Leading article, Globe and Traveller, 24 Nov., 1831, p. 2.] Surely this was written in a moment of inadvertency. What amusement it will excite in Paris! Political principles and M. le Conseiller-d’état baron Cuvier. It is a specimen of the average degree of knowledge possessed by our newspapers on French affairs, that they have all of them (with scarcely an exception, save the Morning Chronicle) eulogized this list of peers as most admirably selected. [See the article by “O.P.Q.” (Caleb Charles Colton), in Morning Chronicle, 24 Nov., 1831, p. 2, which begins: “Unhappy France! Unfortunate King!”]
[3 ]Philippe Paul, comte de Ségur (1780-1873), who, when his highly successful military career ended with Napoleon’s defeat, turned to the writing of history.
[4 ]Joseph Napoléon Ney, prince de la Moskowa (1803-57), general, who had married Laffitte’s daughter in 1828 and was already a captain in the hussars, was the son of Napoleon’s Marshal Michel Ney, prince de la Moskowa (1769-1815) who, having been executed in 1815, was considered by many as a martyr to the Restoration. (For more on the father, see No. 132, n9.) Maximilien Sébastien Auguste Arthur Louis Fernand (not Bernard), comte Foy (1815-71), still a minor, was the son of Sébastien Maximilien Foy (1775-1825), who had been a very popular general and orator.
[5 ]For that vote and Mill’s comments, see No. 124.
[6 ]Art. 33 (the provision), and Art. 68 (the promise of enactment in 1831).
[7 ]I.e., by the Charter of 1814.
[8 ]For the origin of this impasse, see No. 120, n3. Louis Philippe’s refusal would appear to have been motivated by a concern to defend the royal prerogative against the infringement of the King’s right to confer military rank. On 21 Nov., the Ministry reported the King’s unwillingness, and presented an alternative bill (Moniteur, 1831, pp. 2193-4), enacted as Bull. 61, No. 142 (15 Feb., 1832), confirming the pensions such ranks would obtain.
[9 ]In Bull. 30, No. 680 (27 Apr., 1825).
[1 ]The silk weavers of Lyons had complained of low wages. After negotiations, the Prefect proclaimed a higher scale, but on 10 Nov., the manufacturers repudiated it. Trouble began on 20 Nov., and by the 22nd the insurrectionists were in control; there was little bloodshed or looting.
[2 ]The Times, 2 Dec., 1831, p. 2.
[3 ]“Intérieur: Paris, 26 novembre,” Courrier Français, 27 Nov., p. 1.
[4 ]A mob demonstrated against Charles Wetherell, the Recorder of Bristol and an extreme opponent of the Reform Bill, when he went there to open the assizes on 29 Oct.; the disturbance grew to a riot and next day the bishop’s palace was burnt, among other outrages.
[* ]It is curious, that the very newspaper which gave to the English public the first intelligence that English competition had starved the silk weavers of Lyons into rebellion, contained an account of a meeting of English silk-manufacturers at Coventry, to represent to the Board of Trade their inability to maintain the competition with French silks; and to urge the revival of the old prohibitory laws, which had rendered our silk manufacture (we use the expression of an extensive silk dealer) a disgrace to the country. [Prohibited by 48 George III, c. 22 (1808), the importation of silks was permitted again (after July 1826) by 5 George IV, c. 21 (1824); the meeting is reported in “The Riband Trade of Coventry,” Morning Herald, 28 Nov., 1831, p. 4.]
[5 ]Louis Bouvier-Dumolart (1780-1855), who had held several administrative and financial posts under Napoleon, was appointed Prefect of Lyons by Périer; for his proclamation sanctioning the increase, see Moniteur, 1831, p. 1998.
[6 ]Bull. 462, No. 10886 (4 July, 1821), esp. Art. 3.
[7 ]For the introduction of the Bill, see No. 125, n2. The committee was appointed on 20 Oct. (Moniteur, 1831, p. 1916).
[1 ]By 5 Dec. the insurrection was over, and the National Guard and a garrison of 20,000 soldiers had been established in the city. For Mill’s earlier account, see No. 130.
[2 ]The reports on the insurrection can be followed from the announcement on 24 Nov. of its outbreak (Moniteur, 1831, p. 2217) to that of the re-establishment of order on 7 Dec. (ibid., p. 2327).
[3 ]When a group of students and members of radical clubs announced their intention of holding a meeting at the Place de la Bastille on 14 July, 1831, the Prefect issued a proclamation on the 13th calling them enemies of the people and troublemakers, and promising that justice would be done to them. The next day the meeting was disrupted by hirelings. Articles implying that Périer and Alexandre François Vivien (1799-1854), Prefect of the Paris police, were privy to the incident had appeared in Le National on 15, 16, 17, and 18 July, and in La Tribune on 16 and 17 July, for which the managing editors of Le National, J.B. Alexandre Paulin (1793-1859), and of La Tribune, Ferdinand Bascans, were prosecuted under the provisions of Art. 8 of Bull. 241, No. 8754 (18 July, 1828).
[4 ]Moniteur, 15 July, 1831, p. 1215, uses the word “agitateurs,” but no original for “eternal enemies of order” has been found.
[5 ]Enacted as Bull. 78, No. 178 (28 Apr., 1832); see No. 119. Mill is presumably referring to Art. 1, the simplicity of which must have appeared wonderful to someone who lived without codified laws and had edited Bentham; it reads: “Les art. 206, 339, 340, 341, 345, 347, 368, 372, 399 et 619 du Code d’instruction criminelle sont abrogés; ils seront remplacés par les articles suivans.”
[6 ]For Mill’s first mention of the attempts to save the ex-Ministers, see No. 52.
[1 ]For the background, see Nos. 130 and 131.
[2 ]Louis Henri Joseph, duc de Bourbon, prince de Condé (1756-1830), as husband of Louise d’Orléans, sister of Philippe-Egalité, was uncle of Louis Philippe. Separated from his wife, he was dominated by his mistress, Mme de Feuchères (née Sophie Dawes, 1795-1841). To protect her position in his will, she sought the friendship of the Orléans family, and persuaded the duc to appoint as his heir Louis Philippe’s son, Henri Eugène Philippe Louis d’Orléans, duc d’Aumale (1822-97). The duc de Bourbon had apparently planned to leave Mme de Feuchères, but before he could accomplish his escape, he was found on the morning of 27 Aug., 1830, hanging by two handkerchiefs from the fastening of a window. It was pronounced a suicide. The heir-at-law—actually “heirs-at-law”—who disputed the will were the princes of Rohan (q.v. in App. J).
[3 ]For the introduction of the measure, see No. 119.
[4 ]Projet de loi sur le transit et les entrepôts (20 Aug.), Moniteur, 1831, pp. 1438-40; enacted as Bull. 59, No. 137 (9 Feb., 1832).
[5 ]Moniteur, 1831, pp. 2337-44 and 2345-6.
[6 ]See ibid., pp. 2339 and 2341; Mill somewhat distorts Dupin’s views.
[7 ]Auguste, baron Portalis (1801-55), lawyer, a deputy elected in 1831, introduced on 6 Dec., 1831, Proposition ayant pour but d’abroger la loi du 18 novembre 1814, relative au travail des dimanches et des fêtes (Moniteur, 1831, p. 2319). It went no farther at that time, and after being reintroduced on 11 Feb., 1832 (ibid., 1832, p. 425), it died on the order paper.
[8 ]On the same day that he brought in the proposition cited in n7, Portalis introduced Proposition tendant à abroger la loi du 19 janvier 1816, relative au deuil public du 21 janvier (Moniteur, 1831, p. 2319), with reference to Bull. 63, No. 401 (19 Jan., 1816). Approved by the Deputies on 23 Dec., it was rejected by the Peers on 3 Mar., 1832 (ibid., 1831, pp. 2472-3; 1832, pp. 642-3).
[9 ]Thomas Arthur, comte de Lally (1702-66), Governor of the French possessions in India, was captured in 1761 at Pondicherry and taken to England. When he returned to Versailles (his British captors having released him on his word to return) to face his French detractors, he was imprisoned by a lettre de cachet for nineteen months in the Bastille, and after a disgracefully unfair trial, beheaded for treason on 9 May, 1766. Marshal Michel Ney, having been one of Napoleon’s best loved and most loyal generals, negotiated the peace in 1814, and welcomed Louis XVIII back to Paris; he then fought for Napoleon during the Hundred Days, and was proscribed in 1815. Though he believed himself protected by Art. 12 of the terms of capitulation (see “Convention” [3 July, 1815], Moniteur, 1815, p. 765), he was tried as a traitor and executed before a firing squad on 7 Dec., 1815.
[10 ]Salverte introduced, on 7 Dec., Proposition pour la reprise à une autre session des travaux législatifs non terminés dans la session précédente (Moniteur, 1831, p. 2327).
[1 ]On 17 Dec. (Moniteur, 1831, pp. 2422-4).
[2 ]The debate lasted four days, 19-22 Dec. (ibid., pp. 2438-40, 2442-50, 2451-8, 2462-6).
[3 ]For the Bill and its enactment, see No. 125, n2.
[4 ]Jean Georges Humann (1780-1842), a liberal deputy since 1820, supported the 221 and the July Revolution. He was a protectionist.
[5 ]Jules Frédéric Auguste Amédée, baron Laguette-Mornay (1780-1845), a moderate deputy since 1827, supported the July Revolution and free trade. For the speech on 12 Dec. referred to, see Moniteur, 1831, p. 2371.
[6 ]Louis Pierre Edouard, baron Bignon (1771-1841), a deputy since 1817; after the July Revolution he was for two months Minister of Education.
[7 ]Enacted in Art. 4 of Bull. 52, No. 122 (16 Dec., 1831).
[8 ]For the measure, see No. 132, n4.
[9 ]Projet de loi concernant les entrepôts dans l’intérieur et aux frontières (11 Nov.), Moniteur, 1831, pp. 2110-11; enacted as Bull. 63, No. 144 (27 Feb., 1832).
[10 ]The Proposition relative à la loi dudivorce was introduced by Auguste Jean Marie, baron de Schonen (1782-1849), on 11 Aug., 1831; it passed the Deputies on 15 Dec., but was rejected by the Peers on 28 Mar., 1832. (See Moniteur, 1831, pp. 1352, 2390-6 [the debate Mill is referring to], and 1832, pp. 897-900.) Divorce had been abolished by Bull. 84, No. 645 (8 May, 1816), which had revoked the provision of the Code Napoléon (Bull. 154 bis, No. 2653 bis [3 Sept., 1807]) in Livre I, Titre VI, Chaps. i-v. Divorce was not reintroduced in France until 1884.
[11 ]For the measure see No. 115, n1. The report is in Moniteur, 1831, pp. 2429-32.
[12 ]For details, see No. 50, n17.
[13 ]For the ordinances, see No. 61, n11.
[14 ]Introduced on 24 Aug. (Moniteur, 1831, pp. 1455-6) by Hippolyte François, comte Jaubert (1798-1874).
[15 ]For Mill’s comment on their elevation, see No. 129.
[16 ]By Art. 28 of the Charter of 1814, continued by Art. 24 of the Charter of 1830.
[17 ]Examiner, 25 Dec., 1831, pp. 824-5; for the background, see No. 132.
[1 ]See No. 115, n1. The majority for the Bill was thirty-four; the number of new peers created was thirty-six but, as Mill pointed out (No. 133), two of them could not vote.
[2 ]For earlier reports on the revolt, see Nos. 130, 131, and 132; for reference to Périer’s speech and the debate, see No. 133, nn1 and 2.
[3 ]Bouvier-Dumolart attended the debate on 20 Dec., and accosted Périer as he was leaving the Chamber, calling him a liar (Moniteur, 1831, p. 2446).
[4 ]The reason for Bouvier-Dumolart’s resignation is given in his letter to the editor (20 Dec.), Constitutionnel, 21 Dec., p. 4. Five of his letters on the events in Lyons, dated 22-26 Dec., are ibid., 23-27 Dec. Extracts from letters by Bouvier-Dumolart to Périer and d’Argout, dated 11, 22, 25, 27, 28 Oct., and 6, 12, 19 Nov., were read in the Chamber of Deputies in their speeches on the disturbances in Lyons (Moniteur, 1831, pp. 2444-8). Mill calls Bouvier-Dumolart Prefect of the Rhône.
[5 ]Letter of 22 Dec., Constitutionnel, 23 Dec., p. 1; cf. Moniteur, 1831, p. 2446.
[6 ]Fiévée, Correspondance, Vol. I, Pt. 3, p. 16.
[7 ]For the measure, see No. 125, n2.
[8 ]See No. 126 for the original scheme; the commission’s report was received and debated on 22 Dec. (Moniteur, 1831, pp. 2459-62), but the Bill was abandoned.
[9 ]The founding of the Institut National was provided for in Art. 298 of Constitution de la république française of 1795. Subsequently, Daunou presented the Report of the Education Committee to the National Convention on 19 Oct. (Moniteur, 1795, pp. 128, 130-1), on the basis of which was enacted Bull. 203, No. 1216 (25 Oct., 1795); Titre IV established the Institut National des Sciences et des Arts.
[10 ]For the measure, see No. 57, n10.
[11 ]For background, see No. 57, n5.
[12 ]For the proposition, see No. 132, n10.
[13 ]Charter of 1830, Art. 16, continued from Charter of 1814, Art. 18.
[14 ]See No. 135, n15.
[15 ]Charter of 1830, Art. 19, continued from Charter of 1814, Art. 23.
[16 ]For the measure, see No. 71, n3.
[17 ]The duc d’Aumale.
[18 ]See No. 132.
[19 ]See, e.g., the articles in The Times, 21, 27, and 28 Dec., 1831, pp. 1-2, 3, and 3, respectively (the series ran until 24 Feb., 1832); and Spectator, 24 Dec., pp. 1233-4, and 31 Dec., pp. 1255-6.
[20 ]For the episode, see No. 131, n3; the debate was on 19-22 Dec., Moniteur, 1831, pp. 2432-66.
[1 ]For details, see No. 134, n4.
[2 ]Moniteur, 1831, p. 1269; the telegram was communicated by Troneller.
[3 ]Bull. 37, No. 105 (19 Apr., 1831), Titre IV, Art. 40.
[4 ]Speech of 26 July, Moniteur, 1831, p. 1270.
[5 ]For Mill’s earlier comment, see No. 131.
[6 ]Moniteur, 1831, p. 1215.
[7 ]Pierre Charles Joseph Carlier (1794-1858) was appointed commissioner of police in 1830 and director of the municipal police in 1831; François Bouvattier (ca. 1772-1856), mayor of the 8th (now the 11th) arrondissement, 1830-34. For the trial, see the reports from the Cour d’Assises de la Seine in La Tribune, 30 Nov., 1831, pp. 3-4, 1 Dec., pp. 3-6, and 2 Dec., pp. 5-8.
[8 ]For Mauguin’s speech on 19 Dec., 1831, see Moniteur, 1831, p. 2440.
[9 ]Le National was founded by Messrs. Thiers, Mignet, Sautelet, and Carrel in January 1830 to work for the overthrow of the Polignac ministry. After the July Revolution, it was under the direction of Carrel, who supported Louis Philippe until Périer took office in the spring of 1831. Growing progressively more exasperated with the regime, Le National declared itself republican in 1832. See also No. 131, n3.
[10 ]Speech of 21 Dec. (Moniteur, 1831, pp. 2451-4). Périer’s defence, although self-exculpatory, gives considerable detail about the event. He included the letter of 25 July from Souchet to the prefect (ibid., p. 2453).
[11 ]For details, see No. 115, n1.
[12 ]Not in fact the last, but the second last; see No. 133.
[13 ]Enacted as Bull. 73, No. 158 (17 Apr., 1832).
[14 ]For the measure, see No. 132, n10.
[15 ]The report was brought in by de Schonen on 29 Dec. (Moniteur, 1831, pp. 2542-7; text on p. 2545); it resulted in Bull. 65, No. 146 (2 Mar., 1832).
[16 ]For the introduction of the budget, see No. 116. As amended by a Commisson, it was printed in a special appendix to the Moniteur, Supplement to No. 365, 31 Dec., 1831, pp. i-xlii. For the report on the “ways and means,” see No. 143, n12.
[17 ]For the introduction of the measure, see No. 125, n2. For the next stage, see No. 172.
[18 ]Titre I, Art. 16, of Projet de loi amendé par la commission de la liste civile, reports the division of opinion (Moniteur, 1831, p. 2545).
[19 ]Cormenin’s letters on the civil list are in Le National, 24 Dec., 1831, pp. 3-4; 29 Dec., pp. 1-3; 31 Dec., pp. 1-2; and 4 Jan., 1832, p. 1.
[20 ]For details, see No. 132, n2.
[21 ]“The Duke of Bourbon’s Will,” Spectator, 31 Dec., 1831, p. 1256, with reference to No. 132.
[22 ]The letters (all of 20 Aug., 1829) exchanged between the duc de Bourbon and Louis Philippe are in Le National, 10 Dec., 1831, p. 4, and (in translation) in The Times, 21 Dec., 1831, p. 2.
[1 ]For background, see No. 135, n18.
[2 ]In his Speech on the Civil List (4 Jan.), Moniteur, 1832, p. 42.
[3 ]Cf. Hamlet, III, iv, 145; in The Riverside Shakespeare, p. 1169.
[4 ]For notorious uses of the phrase, see Blackstone, Commentaries, Vol. I, p. 238; and William Howley (1766-1848; then Bishop of London, later Archbishop of Canterbury), Speech on the Bill of Pains and Penalties against Her Majesty (7 Nov., 1820), PD, n.s., Vol. 3, col. 1711.
[5 ]Darius was a common name amongst Persian kings from the time of Darius the Great (522-486 ); the Sun King, Louis XIV of France (1638-1715).
[6 ]Gaius Julius Caesar (100-44 ), who centralized power in his own hands while retaining the republican constitution, and was said to desire the title of “rex.” See Plutarch, Life of Caesar, in Lives, Vol. VII, pp. 580-6 (sects. lx-lxi).
[7 ]All great stylists of the seventeenth century; James Harrington (1611-77), political theorist, was author of The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656).
[8 ]In 1774.
[9 ]Leading article on French language, Morning Chronicle, 9 Jan., 1832, pp. 2-3; and “O.P.Q.” (Caleb Charles Colton), letter on French language, ibid., 10 Jan., 1832, p. 2.
[10 ]The letter, dated Paris, Tuesday, 3 Jan., 1832, appeared in The Times, 6 Jan., p. 3.
[1 ]For background, see No. 135, n18. The vote on 12 Jan. is in Moniteur, 1832, p. 122.
[2 ]Lafayette reported that when he made a comment to this effect on 31 July, 1830, Louis Philippe agreed with him. See his Letter to the Electors of Meaux (13 June, 1831), in Mémoires, correspondance et manuscrits du général Lafayette (Brussels: Hauman, 1839), p. 525.
[3 ]For the Society, see No. 57, n3. The accused were Louis Auguste Blanqui (1805-81), who had joined the staff of Le Globe in 1829 and, after fighting in the July Revolution, had become bitterly disappointed by its outcome; Henri Bonnias (b. 1800), publicist and dramatist; François Guillaume Gervais de Caen (1803-67), doctor and administrator; François Vincent Raspail (1794-1878), chemist, who, after participating in the July Revolution became President of the Society; and Vincent Thouret, also active in and then disappointed by the July Revolution. Tried for their collection entitled Au peuple, they were sentenced by the judge Simon Edme Paul Jacquinot-Godard (1779-1858), Bonnias and Raspail to fifteen months’ imprisonment and 500 francs fine, Blanqui to one year and 200 francs, and Gervais and Thouret to six months and 100 francs. See “Cour d’Assises de la Seine: Affaire de la Société des Amis du Peuple,” La Tribune, 13 Jan., 1832, pp. 1-4, which gives the defendants’ speeches.
[4 ]Leading article, The Times, 17 Jan., 1832, p. 2.
[5 ]Mill is probably referring to the account in La Tribune, but would have seen Paul Rochette, “Procès des quinze,” Le Globe, 14 Jan., 1832, pp. 1-2, which includes Blanqui’s speech.
[1 ]The reference is to No. 135, where, however, Mill is concerned with Bouvier-Dumolart’s rather than Cormenin’s quarrel with Périer.
[1 ]No copy of this paper has been located. John Cam Hobhouse, Baron Broughton de Gyfford (1786-1869), reforming M.P. for Westminster since 1820, initiated 1 & 2 William IV, c. 39 (1831), which applied only to cotton mills; it limited the hours of work for young people to sixty-nine per week, and made illegal the employment of children under nine years of age.
[1 ]For the measure, see No. 135, n16.
[2 ]François Marie Charles, comte de Rémusat (1797-1875), lawyer, a liberal journalist in the 1820s, married a niece of Casimir Périer and supported the government. His speech on the budget (20 Jan.) is in Moniteur, 1832, p. 209.
[3 ]The “Sinking Fund” (i.e., revenues periodically set aside to accumulate at interest, designed to reduce governmental debts) was established under Titre X, “De la caisse d’amortissement et de la caisse des dépôts,” of Bull. 81, No. 623 (28 Apr., 1816).
[4 ]See his speech on the budget (23 Jan.), Moniteur, 1832, p. 244.
[5 ]Joseph Allier (1794-?), a lawyer, was sentenced on 20 Jan., for publishing a letter praising Robespierre and St. Just (Moniteur, 1832, p. 219).
[6 ]As well as Ferdinand Bascans and Armand Marrast, Germain Marie Sarrut (1800-83), a teacher who became editor-in-chief of La Tribune, was frequently arrested, and was condemned to prison four times for publishing opinions distasteful to the regime.
[7 ]The followers of Claude Henri, comte de Saint-Simon (1760-1825), had formed, on quasi-religious, quasi-economic theories, communes wherein they could put into practice their views on co-operative living. They were accused of teaching anti-social doctrines subversive of the established order (see the Saint-Simonian organ, Le Globe, 23 Jan., 1832, p. 2). Those prosecuted were Barthélemy Prosper Enfantin (1796-1864), sociologist, who met and was converted by Saint-Simon in 1825, becoming head of the sect; Pierre Ange Casimir Emile Barrault (1799-1896), one of the principal editors of Le Globe; Michel Chevalier (1806-79), another of the editors of Le Globe; Charles Duveyrier (1803-66), another of the editors, who was then visiting London with d’Eichthal and spent some time in Mill’s company; and Benjamin Olinde Rodrigues (1794-1851), economist and reformer.
[1 ]Quoted widely in the newspapers; see, e.g., “L.B.,” “De la lettre de M. de Cormenin à M. Périer,” La Tribune, 30 Jan., 1832, pp. 1-4.
[2 ]See Nos. 116 and 135, n16, for the Budget. Pagès’s speech of 24 Jan. is in Moniteur, 1832, pp. 249-50; Jollivet’s speeches of the 24th are ibid., pp. 244, 247-8; Tracy’s speeches of the 25th and 27th are ibid., pp. 260 and 279; and Mauguin’s speeches of the 26th and 27th are ibid., pp. 268-70 and 281-2.
[3 ]William Pitt (1759-1806), Prime Minister 1783-1801 and 1804-06; he instituted the Sinking Fund by 26 George III, c. 31, to pay off the national debt in 1786.
[4 ]See Statement of a Plan of Finance, Proposed to Parliament in the Year 1807 (London: printed Harrison, 1807), by Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice (1780-1863), 3rd Marquis of Lansdowne.
[1 ]See No. 136 for the explanation of Mill’s irony about The Times.
[2 ]Details of this plot, apprehended in the early hours of 2 Feb., are given in Moniteur, 1832, p. 332. Louis Poncelet (b. ca. 1803) wounded Houel, the sergent de ville.
[3 ]See Nos. 100 and 101, and (for Mill’s translation of part of Cavaignac’s speech) App. A. The prosecutor was Jean Charles Persil.
[4 ]The Long Parliament, summoned in 1640 by Charles I, ended practically though not legally with Cromwell’s dismissive “take away this bauble” in March 1653; it legally ended at the Restoration in 1660.
[5 ]The Reign of Terror began in the summer of 1793 and ended with the downfall of Robespierre in July 1794.
[6 ]Leading article, The Times, 6 Feb., 1832, p. 4.
[7 ]Bull. 9, No. 68 (8 Oct., 1830); this reform had been promised in Art. 69 of the Charter of 1830.
[8 ]On 3 Feb. (Moniteur, 1832, pp. 344-6). For its introduction, see No. 132. The commission of the Chamber of Peers had recommended against it on 28 Jan. (ibid., pp. 282-3).
[9 ]Ibid., p. 345.
[10 ]On 30 Jan. (ibid., pp. 297-304).
[11 ]Charles Jean Rodolphe Kesner (b. 1778), employed at the Treasury since 1800, had become Caissier Général du Trésor in 1821. He disappeared early in January 1832, after the embezzlement was discovered.
[12 ]On 3 Feb. (Moniteur, 1832, pp. 346-51). For the introduction of the budget, see No. 116.
[13 ]Bentham’s idea is found in “Principes du code civil,” in Traités de législation civile et pénale, ed. Etienne Dumont, 3 vols. (Paris: Bossange, et al., 1802), Vol. II, p. 146, which Mill read in the early 1820s; the English version, Principles of the Civil Code, did not appear until 1838 (see Works, Vol. I, p. 336).
[14 ]Decourdemanche, Aux industriels: Lettres sur la législation dans ses rapports avec l’industrie et la propriété, dans lesquelles on fait connaître les causes de la crise actuelle et les moyens de la faire cesser (extrait du Globe) (Paris: au bureau du Globe, 1831); Péreire, “Examen du budget de 1832,” Revue Encyclopédique, LII (Oct. 1831), 40-90. Alphonse Decourdemanche (1797-1871), a lawyer who adopted Saint-Simonian ideas in his youth, became an advocate of reform in many areas including finance; Jacob Emile Péreire (1800-75), a financier, had also been a Saint-Simonian journalist, writing for Le Globe 1830-31 and then for Le National.
[1 ]Todd’s Chapter i is headed, “Of a New Method of Induction, Performed by TabulaeInveniendi.” The term is taken from Bacon’s Novum Organum (1620), in The Works of Francis Bacon, ed. James Spedding, et al., 14 vols. (London: Longman, et al., 1857-74), Vol. I, p. 199 (Bk. I, Axiom cxii).
[2 ]The observations of Johann Kepler (1571-1630) were crucial to the development of Newton’s system.
[3 ]Meteorological Essays and Observations (London: Underwood, 1823), by John Frederick Daniell (1790-1845), reflects his concern for accurate records.
[1 ]The retrenchments included cuts in the budgets of the Ministry of Justice and the Council of State as well as reductions in the pensions of peers and civil servants, but no changes were achieved in the state of the Sinking Fund or the public debt.
[2 ]For details, see No. 140, n7. The Saint-Simonian meeting-place had been closed, and their paper, Le Globe, had been forced to stop publishing by a malicious prosecution for back stamp duties (see CW, EL, Vol. XII, p. 106).
[3 ]Comte Lennox (1795-1836), born in Philadelphia, who had served in Napoleon’s guard of honour, supported the July Revolution and then resigned from the army after trying to start a general association. He bought the Révolution de 1830, which collapsed under heavy fines and seizures.
[4 ]Jacques François, baron de Roger (1787-1849), introduced, on 3 Sept., Projet de loi sur la liberté individuelle (Moniteur, 1831, pp. 1504-5), with similar intent to the British Habeas Corpus Act (31 Charles II, c. 2 ). The Bill was reported to the Deputies on 11 Jan., 1832, but it was dropped, and a similar proposal by Roger in the next session (29 Dec., 1832) was not considered by the Deputies.
[5 ]See, e.g., Périer’s speech (18 Mar.) on being elected President of the Council of Ministers (Moniteur, 1831, p. 566).
[6 ]Speech on the events in Lyons (17 Dec.), ibid., p. 2423.
[7 ]Article 291 of the Code pénal (Bull. 277 bis, Nos. 1-7 ) can be traced back to the Decree on Public Safety (Moniteur, 1792, pp. 635 and 958), the responsibility of Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre (1758-94), the most prominent of the Jacobin leaders of the French Revolution.
[8 ]See the untitled decree of 31 July, 1793, taking away the émigrés’ property (Moniteur, 1793, p. 914), and the subsequent related decrees of 1795 (ibid., 1795, pp. 929-30, and 1065-6).
[9 ]St. Cloud was Napoleon’s favourite place of residence.
[10 ]Psalms, 146:3.
[11 ]Leading article, The Times, 15 Feb., 1832, p. 2, with reference to Portalis’s Proposition relative au travail des fêtes et dimanches (Moniteur, 1832, p. 425); for earlier comment, see No. 132, n7.
[12 ]In the leading article cited in n11; for Salverte’s motion, see Moniteur, 1831, pp. 2441-2, and 1832, p. 423.
[13 ]There was only one Howe commemorated (Richard, Earl Howe [1726-99], Admiral of the Fleet and commander in the Channel during the French Revolutionary Wars) and one Howard (John Howard [1726-90], the philanthropist and prison reformer); however, military and naval heroes outnumbered others by about five to one.
[1 ]“Todmorden, Feb. 2, 1832. / Sir,—Living, as we do, in the densely populated manufacturing districts of Lancashire, and most of us belonging to that class of females who earn their bread either directly or indirectly by manufactories, we have looked with no little anxiety for your opinion on the Factory Bill, because we consider that you have not only the real welfare of the working classes at heart, but we are so impressed with the idea of your profound knowledge in these matters, that to dispute the soundness of any opinion seriously put forth by the editor of the Examiner, is considered by us a great work of presumption. Your notice, this week, of the address of the Dundee Operatives, has supplied us with the knowledge we sought. You are for doing away with our services in manufactories altogether. So much the better, if you had pointed out any other more eligible and practical employment for the surplus female labour, that will want other channels for a subsistence. If our competition were withdrawn, and short hours substituted, we have no doubt but the effects would be as you have stated, not to lower wages, as the male branch of the family would be enabled to earn as much as the whole had done; but for the thousands of females who are employed in manufactories, who have no legitimate claim on any male relative for employment or support, and who have, through a variety of circumstances, been early thrown on their own resources for a livelihood, what is to become of them? In this neighbourhood, handloom has almost been totally superseded by power loom weaving, and no inconsiderable number of females, who must depend on their own exertions, or their parishes for support, have been forced of necessity into the manufactories, from their total inability to earn a livelihood at home. It is a lamentable fact, that in these parts of the country there is scarcely any other mode of employment for female industry (if we except servitude and dress-making.) Of the former of these, there is no chance of employment for one-twentieth of the candidates that would rush into the field, to say nothing of lowering the wages of our sisters of the same craft, and of the latter, galling as some of the hardships of manufactories are (of which the indelicacy of mixing indiscriminately with the men is not the least), yet there are few women who have been so employed that would change conditions with the ill-used genteel little slaves, who have to lose sleep and health in catering to the whims and frivolities of the butterflies of fashion. We see no way of escape from starvation, but to accept of the very tempting offers of the newspapers, held out as baits for us, fairly to ship ourselves off to Van-dieman’s Land, on the very delicate errand of husband-hunting, and having safely arrived at the ‘Land of Goshen,’ jump ashore, with a ‘who wants me?’ Now then, as we are a class of society who will be materially affected by any alteration of the present laws, we put it seriously to you, whether, as you have deprived us of our means of earning our bread, you are not bound to point out a more eligible and suitable employment for us? Waiting, with all humility, for your answer to our request, we have the honour to subscribe ourselves the constant readers of the Examiner, / The Female Operatives of Todmorden.”
[1 ]The operating budgets and the salaries of the Minister had been cut for the three Ministries of Education, Interior, and Commerce.
[2 ]On 21 Feb., the Peers confirmed Bull. 63, No. 401 (19 Jan., 1816), that the anniversary should not be a legal court day (Moniteur, 1832, p. 526). For the origin of the dispute, see No. 132, n8.
[3 ]Five men, not four; see No. 137, n3.
[4 ]For details, see No. 132, n2.
[1 ]For earlier comment, see No. 137. The decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal, presided over by M. de Bastard d’Estang (1783-1844), in the cases of Blanqui, Bonnias, Gervais, Raspail, and Thouret, is in Moniteur, 1832, pp. 576 and 579.
[2 ]“Private Correspondence” (27 Feb.), The Times, 1 Mar., 1832, p. 4.
[3 ]For the reference, see No. 137, n3.
[4 ]“Private Correspondence” (28 Feb.), The Times, 2 Mar., 1832, p. 1; not on “Thursday last,” but Friday.
[5 ]See the concluding paragraph of No. 147.
[1 ]See, e.g., the leading article in The Times, 6 Mar., 1832, p. 5. In July 1831, the Austrian troops had been withdrawn from Italy (for background, see Nos. 96 and 98), and the Great Powers, including France and England, drew up memoranda outlining some reforms for the appalling government of the Papal States, but all was confusion, and in January 1832 Austria was again asked to send troops. Périer now intervened and offered encouragement to the rebellious inhabitants of the small seaport of Ancona, where French troops arrived on 23 Feb. to resist Austrian encroachment.
[1 ]For the Corn Bill, see No. 125, n2. The report was printed in a special supplement to the Moniteur, 6 Mar., 1832, pp. i-x.
[2 ]For the budget of 1832, see No. 135, n16. That of 1833 is in Bull. 93, No. 213 (23 Apr., 1833), expenditures, and Bull. 94, No. 214 (24 Apr.), receipts.
[3 ]For earlier comment, see No. 115, n1.
[1 ]Trouble broke out in Grenoble during the city’s masquerades, and troops were used on 11, 12, and 13 Mar. to put down the riots, with some loss of life; see Moniteur, 1832, p. 785.
[2 ]Louis François Auguste Cauchois-Lemaire (1789-1861), a political writer, who, after returning from an exile imposed for his vehement opposition to the Bourbons, was prosecuted and imprisoned for his writings.
[3 ]Armand Carrel (1800-36), radical journalist and historian, who won Mill’s admiration (see his “Armand Carrel,” CW, Vol. XX, pp. 167-215). Carrel’s signed article was “Du flagrant délit en matière d’impression et publication d’écrits,” Le National, 24 Jan., 1832, pp. 1-2.
[4 ]Achille Roche (1801-34) and P. Lionne (or Lyonne), editor and managing editor of the Mouvement, were tried with Carrel and Paulin under the provisions of Art. 8 of Bull. 241, No. 8754 (18 July, 1828).
[5 ]Speech on the Budget (13 Mar.), Moniteur, 1832, p. 741.
[6 ]Ibid., p. 742. Soult was accused under the provisions of Art. 78 of Bull. 81, No. 623 (28 Apr., 1816).
[7 ]For Ancona, see No. 149. The officer was Captain Thomas Alexandre Gallois (1783-1840).
[8 ]For English notice of the protests of Pope Gregory XVI, see Morning Chronicle, 10 Mar., p. 1, and 24 Mar., p. 4.
[9 ]Ciro Menotti (1798-1831), Italian patriot, led the insurrection at Modena with, he thought, the co-operation of the Duke of Modena, but the Duke took Menotti prisoner, and hanged him on 26 May, 1831.
[1 ]Horace, Ars poetica, in Satires, Epistles, and Ars poetica (Latin and English), trans. H. Rushton Fairclough (London: Heinemann, 1926), p. 482 (388).
[* ]The imperative of the Saxon verb withan, to join. [Smart’s note.]
[† ]The imperative of the Saxon verb ananad, to add. [Smart’s note.]
[2 ]James Mill, Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind, 2 vols. (London: Baldwin and Cradock, 1829), Vol. I, pp. 83-168 (Chap. iv), esp. pp. 148-68 (Sects. vii-viii).
[3 ]John Horne Tooke, Ἐπεα πτεροεντα; or, The Diversions of Purley (1786), 2nd ed., 2 vols. (London: Tooke, 1798-1805), esp. Vol. II, pp. 15-426.
[4 ]Richard Whately, On the Errors of Romanism Traced to Their Origin in Human Nature (London: Fellowes, 1830).
[1 ]For details, see No. 152, n1. Further news was given in the Moniteur, 24 Mar., 1832, pp. 839-40.
[2 ]In his speech of 20 Mar. (ibid., pp. 813-14), Périer supported the conduct of the prefect, Jean Maurice, baron Duval (1778-1861), who had called out the troops. Périer’s embarrassment over Duval’s mistake is fully covered in “Affaires de Grenoble,” Courrier Français, 26 Mar., p. 2.
[3 ]For the Corn Bill, see No. 125, n2. Saint-Cricq, Speech on the Corn Bill (23 Mar.), Moniteur, 1832, p. 852.
[1 ]These, like “Madge Wildfire,” are in Flower’s Musical Illustrations; see No. 112.
[2 ]Sarah Flower Adams, like her sister, lived in W.J. Fox’s house as his ward from the death of her father in 1827 until her marriage to William Bridges Adams (“Junius Redivivus”) in 1834.
[3 ]Milton, The Reason of Church Government (1641), in Works, Vol. I, p. 119.
[* ]Among the good qualities of the present publication, is to be ranked one as rare in our times as much higher merits, that of cheapness. It consists of twenty-four pages of the ordinary size, and is sold for only six shillings.
[1 ]For example, Mill’s bête noire, The Times, 5 Apr., 1832, p. 2, reported that three groups promoted the riots: the financial speculators, the republicans, and the Carlists, the last group being accused of putting arsenic in the wine butts to convince the lowest classes that the government wanted to poison them.
[2 ]The Bill (see No. 125, n2), as amended, was approved by the Deputies on 31 Mar. (Moniteur, 1832, pp. 942-6).
[3 ]By Art. 32 of Règlement pour la chambre des députés (25 June, 1814), ibid., 1814, p. 711.
[4 ]The Bill (see No. 133, n10), having passed the Deputies, was recommended against by the Commission of the Peers (ibid., 14 Mar., 1832, Supplement, pp. i-vi), and it was defeated on 31 Mar. (ibid., pp. 897-900).
[1 ]The paragraph reads: “The number of cases of cholera which have occurred within the walls of Paris is 5,908; of these 2,235 have died. But the official reports of cases, we are assured, are greatly below the truth. A private correspondent assures us, that one street has actually been depopulated by the malady. The great majority of the physicians in Paris do not believe the malady to be contagious. Many attendants at the hospitals have died from the disease, as it is believed, in consequence of fatigue having produced a predisposition to the epidemic.”
[2 ]Henri Joseph Gisquet (1792-1866), Prefect of Paris, Proclamation to the inhabitants of Paris (2 Apr.), Moniteur, 1832, p. 953; see also ibid., p. 973.
[3 ]Enacted as Bull. 79, Nos. 179 and 180 (22 Apr., 1832).
[4 ]On 4 Apr. (Moniteur, 1832, pp. 975-82).
[5 ]Passed after hurried debate on 11 and 12 Apr. (ibid., pp. 1049-54, 1058-62).
[6 ]For details, see Nos. 152, n1, and 154. Mill may be referring to the account in the Constitutionnel, 3 Apr., pp. 2-3, and 4 Apr., pp. 1-2, containing the report of Vincent Rivier (1771-1838), the mayor of Grenoble.
[7 ]Joseph Désiré Félix Faure (1780-1859), a deputy 1828-30 (one of the 221), when he accepted the Presidency of the Cour Royale at Grenoble.
[8 ]This promise was not fulfilled by Mill, except in a reference to the Prefect Duval, in No. 182.
[1 ]See, e.g., Chevalier, “Direction nouvelle à donner à la politique extérieure,” Le Globe, 3 June, 1831, p. 1; cf. other articles by Chevalier, ibid., 20 May, 1831, p. 1, 5 Feb., 1832, pp. 1-2, and 12 Feb., 1832, pp. 1-2.
[c-c]32 pratique. Si
[1 ]Karl Otfried Mueller (1797-1840), The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race (1820-24), trans. Henry Tufnell and George Cornewall Lewis, 2 vols. in 1 (Oxford: Murray, 1830); and August Boeckh (1785-1867), The Public Economy of Athens (1817), trans. Henry Tufnell and George Cornewall Lewis, 2 vols. (London: Murray, 1828).
[2 ]An Examination of Some Passages in Dr. Whately’s Elements of Logic (Oxford: Parker, 1829).
[3 ]Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803), philosopher and theologian; and Johannes von Mueller (1752-1809), author of Vierundzwanzig Bücher allgemeiner Geschichten, 3 vols. (Tübingen: Cotta’schen Buchhandlung, 1810).
[a-a][quoted in L, CW, VII, 153n-4n]
[4 ]Quintilian (ca. 35-95), II, iv, 4-7, in The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian (English and Latin), trans. H.E. Butler, 4 vols. (London: Heinemann, 1920), Vol. I, pp. 224-6.
[1 ]The vote of 12 Apr. on the Budget (see No. 150, n2) is in Moniteur, 1832, p. 1062. The haste was due to the cholera, which was wreaking havoc in Paris; the official total of deaths had reached between 12,000 and 13,000.
[2 ]Charter of 1830, Art. 16; continuing Charter of 1814, Art. 18.
[1 ]I.e., the Charter of 1830, of which Louis Philippe said on 31 July, 1830, “La Charte sera désormais une vérité” (“Proclamation du duc d’Orléans,” Moniteur, 1830, p. 833).
[1 ]Joseph Pierre Lafontaine (1792-1858), a chevalier of the Legion of Honour (1813), a capitaine d’état major at Dijon, was notified in 1822 by the general commanding his division that he should vote for the ministry; he refused, voted for the opposition, and was imprisoned for sedition.
[2 ]A term applied to the clique of royal courtiers and flatterers who influenced policy.
[3 ]For details, see No. 115, n1.
[4 ]See No. 172.
[1 ]Périer had been Minister of the Interior as well as President of the Council.
[2 ]Unheaded leader, Courrier Français, 1 Mar., 1832, p. 2.
[1 ]Standard, 3 May, 1832, p. 3.
[2 ]For background, see No. 87, n1. On 29 Apr., 1832, the Duchess landed at Marseilles, hoping to lead the royalist South in the overthrow of the Orléans dynasty. No general uprising in her favour materialized; the immediate insurrection was easily defeated, but there were sporadic uprisings of varying degrees of seriousness in her favour for the next few months, particularly during June in the traditionally royalist Vendée.
[1 ]Macbeth, V, v, 17-18; in The Riverside Shakespeare, p. 1337.
[2 ]Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556), Archbishop of Canterbury, died at the stake for refusing to abet the return of England to Catholicism under Mary; Hugh Latimer (1485?-1555), Bishop of Worcester, having suffered for his puritan religious convictions all his life, was finally burnt at the stake after Mary’s accession; Nicholas Ridley (1500-55), Bishop of Rochester, then London, was burnt at the stake with Latimer for his reformed opinions.
[1 ]For earlier details, see Nos. 87 and 165. For five months, the Duchess eluded the Government.
[1 ]See Nos. 104 and 106.
[2 ]Wilhelmine Schröder-Devrient (1804-60), born in Hamburg and trained from a very early age as a dancer and actor, made her great reputation in opera. Her most famous role, when she came to London for the months of May and June 1832, was as Leonore in the first London performance of Beethoven’s Fidelio at the King’s Theatre, Haymarket, on 18 May. For Mill’s praise, see CW, Vol. I, p. 351.
[1 ]See “Compte rendu par 41 membres de la chambre des députés à leurs commettans,” Le National, 28 May, 1832, pp. 1-2. The manifesto, finally signed by 134 deputies of the left, and sent to their electors, deplored the prospect that France and the Revolution of July would be handed over to their enemies because the hoped-for political changes were not occurring.
[2 ]Leading article, The Times, 1 June, 1832, p. 2.
[3 ]See “Banquet allemand à Paris,” Le National, 28 May, 1832, p. 3.
[4 ]Courier, Simple discours de Paul-Louis, vigneron de la Chavonnière, aux membres du conseil de la commune de Véretz, département d’Indre-et-Loire, à l’occasion d’une souscription proposée par S.E. le ministre de l’intérieur, pour l’acquisition de Chambord (1821), in Oeuvres complètes, Vol. I, pp. 149-74. The ancient château of Chambord, a superb example of Renaissance architecture situated near Blois, had been given by Napoleon to Marshal Berthier, but after the Restoration, his widow, finding it too expensive to maintain, abandoned it. It was suggested in 1820 that a public subscription be organized to present the château to the newly-born heir to the monarchy, the son of the duchesse de Berry. In spite of Courier’s famous attack, which brought the author two months in prison and a 500-franc fine, the subscription succeeded, and the duc de Bordeaux became the comte de Chambord.
[5 ]The success of the Foy subscription, which amounted to nearly a million francs, was noted in The Times in 1826 on 19 and 31 Jan., both p. 2.
[1 ]For the phrase, see No. 19, n2.
[2 ]In 1776; in Works, Vol. I, pp. 221-95.
[3 ]Bentham’s ideas found their widest audience (and, incidentally, made their first great impression on Mill) in the earliest of the French redactions by Pierre Etienne Louis Dumont (1759-1829), Genevan political writer, friend of Mirabeau’s, who spent much time in England. He edited (in order of publication), under Bentham’s name, Traités de législation civile et pénale, 3 vols. (Paris: Bossange, et al., 1802); Théorie des peines et des récompenses, 2 vols. (London: Dulau, 1811); Tactique des assemblées législatives, 2 vols. (Geneva: Paschoud, 1816); and Traité des preuves judiciaires, 2 vols. (Paris: Bossange, 1823).
[* ]We mean the old technical terms and distinctions; for the substantive provisions of that or any other system of law, must of course consist, in the far greater proportion, of things useful or unobjectionable.
[4 ]Both dealt with in the Rationale of Judicial Evidence (see n11 below).
[5 ]See Draught of a New Plan (1790), in Works, Vol. IV, pp. 285-406.
[6 ]See Rationale of Punishment (1830), ibid., Vol. I, pp. 390-532.
[7 ]See Principles of the Civil Code (1838), ibid., pp. 297-364; and Papers Relative to Codification and Public Instruction (1817), ibid., Vol. IV, pp. 451-533.
[8 ]In A Fragment on Government, ibid., Vol. I, p. 268n, Bentham attributes the doctrine of utility to David Hume, with reference to “Of Morals,” Pt. III, Sect. 1, of Hume’s Treatise on Human Nature, 3 vols. (London: Noon, 1739-40), Vol. III, pp. 1-26.
[9 ]Mill later, in his Autobiography (see CW, Vol. I, p. 171), attributed the notion of “many-sidedness” to Goethe, probably referring to the translation, Characteristics of Goethe. From the German of Falk, Müller, etc., 3 vols. (London: Wilson, 1833), Vol. I, pp. 12-13, by Sarah Austin. This reference predates the publication of those volumes, but Mill, who was in close touch with the Austins, knew of her work earlier (see CW, Vol. XII, p. 117).
[10 ]A treatise much referred to by Mill in his other writings; in Works, Vol. I, pp. 1-154.
[11 ]A work well known to Mill, who, before he was twenty, collated the three manuscripts and contributed notes and parts of chapters to the first edition, which appeared in five volumes with his name as editor (London: Hunt and Clarke, 1827); ibid., Vols. VI and VII.
[12 ]Defence of Usury (1787), ibid., Vol. III; and Panopticon (1791), ibid., Vol. IV, pp. 37-172.
[1 ]For the government’s proclamation of 5 June, see Moniteur, 1832, p. 1291. See also “Telegraphic Despatch from Paris of the 6th of June, Half-Past 7 A.M.” (the Minister of the Interior to the Prefect of the North and the Mayor of Calais), and “Despatch of the Same Day at 12 o’clock,” both in The Times, 8 June, p. 1.
[2 ]For reports of these events, see Nos. 165 and 167.
[3 ]To the 1,500,000 francs granted under the budget (Bull. 76, No. 168 [21 Apr., 1832]) was added another 1,500,000 francs by Bull. 77, No. 172 (21 Apr., 1832).
[4 ]Anne Louis Antoine, baron Clouet (1781-1862), fought for Napoleon, but went over to the enemy with Bourmont two days before Waterloo. He returned to France at the Restoration, continuing his army career and frequently serving under Bourmont, whom he followed in supporting the duchesse de Berry’s attempt to raise the South.
[5 ]Jacques Joseph Cathelineau (1787-1832), who had served in the garde royale until 1830, took part in the royalist insurrection and was treacherously killed. He was the only surviving son of Jacques Cathelineau (1759-93), a leader of the Vendean counter-revolutionaries in 1793.
[1 ]For details, see No. 171.
[2 ]For the introduction of these measures, see, respectively, Nos. 116, 134, and 115.
[3 ]For details, see No. 126.
[4 ]For the introduction of these measures, see No. 120.
[5 ]For this measure, see No. 57, n10.
[6 ]For the measure, see No. 126, n16.
[7 ]Projet de loi relatif aux expropriations pour cause d’utilité publique (3 Nov.), ibid., p. 2041.
[8 ]Projet de loi relatif au régime législatif des colonies (16 Dec.), ibid., p. 2410.
[9 ]Charter of 1814, Art. 73.
[10 ]Actually two bills with these purposes came before the Peers on 19 Jan.: Projet de loi relatif à l’état des officiers de l’armée, and Projet de loi sur l’avancement dans l’armée navale (Moniteur, 1832, pp. 192-3, 194).
[11 ]For its introduction, see No. 125, n2.
[12 ]For the introduction of these measures, see No. 157, n3.
[13 ]For details, see Nos. 125, n2, 130, n7, 134, and 150, nn1, 2.
[14 ]That of 1821; see No. 130, n6.
[15 ]For their introduction, see Nos. 132, n4, and 133, n9.
[16 ]For the measure, see No. 119, n2.
[17 ]For the measure, see No. 135, n13.
[18 ]For the measure on recruitment, see No. 120, n13; for that on promotion in the army, see No. 128, n2; that on promotion in the navy (not previously mentioned by Mill) is Bull. 77, No. 170 (20 Apr., 1832).
[19 ]Bull. 71, No. 153 (10 Apr., 1832).
[20 ]By Art. 1 of Décret sur les fêtes décadaires (7 May), Moniteur, 1794, p. 932. Robespierre’s extraordinarily long speech introducing the decree is given ibid., pp. 928-32.
[21 ]For details, see Nos. 133, n10, and 156, n4.
[22 ]For details, see Nos. 132, n8, and 147, n2.
[23 ]For details, see Nos. 132, n10, and 143, n8.
[24 ]The gist of the quarrel in February can be found in Moniteur, 1832, pp. 438-9. Should Charles X be referred to as “ex-roi,” “roi,” “Charles X,” or “Charles X, déchu de la royauté”? (The last phrase finally appeared.) Should he and his descendants be named in the same clause as Napoleon or in separate ones? (Napoleon got a clause to himself.) Should there be a forced sale of their possessions or should the State expropriate them at a fair price? (A sale within a year was decreed.) The Peers lost on most of the issues.
[25 ]For the beginning of the squabble in January, see Moniteur, 1832, pp. 79-80; the Peers wanted to restrict the budget for 1829 to financial accounts and rejected clauses that introduced regulations for the future, the focus settling on two clauses relating to financial transactions being public and to expenses incurred by a new minister. The question of prerogatives added ginger to the conflict, which was not resolved until the passing of Bull. 83, No. 190 (31 Jan., 1833).
[26 ]The justification of this provision of the budget, which took off the tax provided by Art. 1 of Bull. 38, No. 106 (18 Apr., 1831), was given by baron Louis, the Minister of Finance, on 19 Aug., 1831 (Moniteur, 1831, pp. 1432-3); the earlier reduction was provided by Bull. 101, No. 3371 (6 July, 1826).
[27 ]Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville (1742-1811), friend of Pitt, who was President of the Board of Control when the Sinking Fund was established.
[28 ]Louis Philippe declared Paris in a state of siege on 6 June, 1832, by ordinance (Bull. 161, No. 4204), having declared other areas in that state on 1 and 3 June (ibid., Nos. 4202, 4203). For the background to the declarations, see No. 171.
[29 ]Not identified.
[30 ]For the phrase, see No. 145, n5.
[31 ]Bull. 411, No. 7543 (24 Dec., 1811), esp. Arts. 52, 53.
[32 ]See Le bannissement perpétuel des émigrés (22 Aug.), Art. 373 of Constitution de la république française, Moniteur, 27 Aug., 1795, Supplement, p. vi.
[33 ]Charter of 1830, Arts. 53 and 54, the first continuing Art. 62 of the Charter of 1814; the exception of cours prévôtales was made by Art. 63 in 1814, not continued in 1830.
[34 ]Art. 13 (1830).
[35 ]See Chap. iv, Sect. 2, Art. 27 of Bull. 282, No. 5351 (20 Apr., 1810).
[36 ]The duc de Reichstadt, Napoleon’s son, was declared Emperor Napoleon II in Déclaration au peuple français (22 June, 1815), Moniteur, 1815, p. 715.
[37 ]Etienne Joseph Louis Garnier-Pagès (1801-41) was a liberal turned republican who took part in the July Revolution and afterwards took over the Société Aide-toi, le ciel t’aidera, and made it republican against the wishes of the majority. Embittered by the results of the July Revolution, he sat on the far left, fighting against Louis Philippe’s governments. Paul Joseph Xavier Tramier de Laboissière (1799-1860), another deputy of the extreme left, had organized the funeral of General Lamarque and was involved in the riots. He fled Paris when the warrant for his arrest was issued. Etienne Cabet (1788-1856), a deputy of the extreme left, was a member of many republican associations, including the Société Aide-toi, and had been a “commissaire” at Lamarque’s funeral.
[38 ]The Times, 9 June, 1832, p. 4.
[39 ]“The Labourer and the Snake,” in Aesop’s Fables, trans. V.S.V. Jones (London: Heinemann, 1912), p. 149.
[40 ]The word is used in a dispatch from Paris, The Times, 7 June, 1832, p. 2.
[1 ]Effected by 10 George IV, c. 7 (1829).
[2 ]La Tribune.
[3 ]Not located.
[4 ]In No. 162 (6 May, 1832).
[5 ]For Mill’s account of the death of Benjamin Constant, see No. 68.
[6 ]See “Premier conseil de guerre séant à Paris,” Le National, 17 June, 1832, pp. 3-4; ibid., 18 June, pp. 3-4; “Deuxième conseil de guerre séant à Paris,” ibid., 19 June, pp. 3-4; ibid., 20 June, pp. 3-4. Those acquitted were Pierre Théodore Florentin Pépin (1806-?) and Charles Boromée Wachez (1782-?); François Margot (1796-?) was sentenced to fifteen years; and Michel Auguste Geoffroy (1805-?) was condemned to death. Cf. Moniteur, 1832, pp. 1343-5, 1352-4, and 1563-4.
[7 ]Edouard, duc de Fitzjames (1776-1838), was a staunch royalist and, although he took the oath to Louis Philippe after 1830, was thought to be a supporter of the Duchess of Berry.
[1 ]Juvenal, Satire II, 24; in Juvenal and Persius, p. 18.
[2 ]Isaac Solomons (b. 1787?) was notorious as a fence and a swindler.
[3 ]Cicero, “Pro A. Cluentio habito oratio,” lix, 5; in Cicero: The Speeches. Pro lege Manilia, Pro Caecina, Pro Cluentio, Pro Rabiro, Perduellionis (Latin and English), trans. H. Grose Hodge (London: Heinemann, 1966), p. 282.
[4 ]William Williams (1789-1865), Radical London merchant, Letter to the Editor (26 June, 1832), The Times, 28 June, p. 6.
[5 ]Ecclesiasticus, 38:24.
[6 ]The “Septennial Act” of 1716, 1 George I, Stat. 2, c. 38, giving parliaments a seven-year term, had repealed 6 & 7 William and Mary, c. 2 (1694), which provided a three-year term.
[7 ]Andrew Marvell (1621-78), the poet, satirist, and Commonwealth politician, was reported to have preferred to live humbly rather than accept the patronage of Charles II.
[1 ]The title page says the work is “published with a view, first, to his relief; and secondly, that the light of such an example may shine afar before men, so that they may ‘go and do likewise.’ ”
[1 ]On 29 and 30 June (Moniteur, 1832, pp. 1401-3 and 1407-8). See Nos. 171 and 173.
[2 ]Bull. 168, No. 4261 (29 June, 1832).
[3 ]On 1 July (Moniteur, 1832, p. 1409).
[4 ]Louis François Joseph Ledieu (b. 1791), a contributor to La Tribune, had been supposedly involved in a seditious plot at the time of Lamarque’s funeral.
[5 ]Moniteur, 1832, p. 1409. For the background, see No. 172, n37.
[6 ]Louis Adolphe Thiers (1797-1877), journalist, historian, and politician, founder with Mignet, Carrel, and Sautelet of Le National and author of the journalists’ protest against the ordinances of Charles X, was elected to the Deputies in 1830 where, as a Moderate, he supported Louis Philippe.
[1 ]See Plutarch, Life of Pompey, lvii, 5; in Lives, Vol. V, p. 266.
[2 ]The term “taxes on knowledge” was used with reference to a variety of statutes that imposed duties on newspaper sheets, on advertisements, and on paper, and put various other impediments in the way of inexpensive journals. The statutes included 10 Anne, c. 19 (1711), 11 George I, c. 8 (1724), 55 George III, c. 185 (1815), and 60 George III & 1 George IV, c. 9 (1819).
[3 ]Leading article on pledges, The Times, 11 July, 1832, p. 2.
[4 ]Acte constitutionnel de la république (24 June, 1793), Art. 53 (and see also Art. 19), Moniteur, 1793, pp. 765-6.
[5 ]Burke, Letter to the Chairman of the Buckinghamshire Meeting (1780), in Works, Vol. V, p. 229.
[1 ]“Present State of France,” Westminster Review, XVII (July 1832), 211-41. The author has not been identified.
[2 ]“O.P.Q.” (Caleb Charles Colton) announced the prospectus for Le Bon Sens in the Morning Chronicle, 13 July, 1832, pp. 3-4. Dominique François Jean Arago (1786-1853), a prominent scientist, became a deputy in 1831.
[3 ]The Penny Magazine (1832-45) was edited and published by Charles Knight for the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge.
[4 ]Moniteur, 1832, p. 1414.
[5 ]Given ibid., p. 1413, as “Un vrai républicain, 50 cent.; un ennemi des souverains depuis que Napoléon n’est plus, 1 fr.; une bonne patriote, un ennemi des rois, 1 fr.; C. orléaniste devenu républicain, 5 fr., etc., etc.”