Front Page Titles (by Subject) Textual Introduction - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVI - Journals and Debating Speeches Part I
Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVI - Journals and Debating Speeches Part I
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
Textual Introduction - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVI - Journals and Debating Speeches Part I 
The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVI - Journals and Debating Speeches Part I, ed. John M. Robson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1988).
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.
these volumes contain manuscript materials not prepared for publication by Mill himself. While some of them have been published in the twentieth century, very few have appeared in scholarly form, and never in a comprehensive edition permitting comparison. There are four categories: (a) the journal and notebook describing Mill’s fourteen months in France, the notebook containing his notes of logic lectures taken during that visit, and the “Traité de logique” based on that course of lectures, all of 1820-21;1 (b) his debating speeches from 1823 to 1829; (c) journals of his walking tours from 1827 to 1832; and (d) his diary for part of 1854.2
(a) The journal, having remained in the Mill family, was presented to the British Museum by Mill’s sister, Clara Digweed. It consists of a daily account, sent in batches with covering letters to his father. Mill first recorded the events of the major part of the trip in a notebook, which Anna J. Mill acquired from a London dealer in 1956 and willed to the St. Andrews University Library. It may be assumed that it was amongst the collection of papers and books that passed from Helen Taylor, Mill’s stepdaughter, to her niece, Mary Taylor, and was in part sold on 29 March, 1922, at the first of two Sotheby’s sales of Mary Taylor’s literary effects, to which the bulk of extant manuscripts of Mill may be traced. The notebook likely was part of lot 727, misdescribed in the catalogue as James Mill’s “Notes of a tour in France, circa 1830, 2 vols. 4to, sewed.”
The second volume in that description probably was the notebook containing lecture notes on logic, which was included in the large portion of papers from that sale bought by the British Library of Political and Economic Science (London School of Economics), and placed in its Mill-Taylor Collection. The notebook consists of Mill’s notes of the 18th through the 32nd lectures by Joseph Diez Gergonne, Dean of the Faculty of Science at the Académie of Montpellier; it is almost certain that Mill filled another notebook with the first part of the course, and also notebooks covering the other lecture courses that he took at Montpellier, but there is no record of these having survived. The rest of lot 727 in the Sotheby’s sale was the “Traité,” also incorrectly ascribed to James Mill in the catalogue, with the title correctly given, and described as “interesting Auto. MS. of 82 pp. 4to, sewed.” It was purchased by H. Bradley Martin and given by him to the Pierpont Morgan Library in 1959; though Mill had apparently begun a treatise under the same title before Gergonne’s lecture series started, this seems to be a revised version of notes from the first part of that series.
(b) The surviving manuscripts of Mill’s early debating speeches derive from lot 719 in the same sale at Sotheby’s, described in the catalogue as “Auto. drafts of Speeches on Lord Byron’s Writings, Wordsworth, Co-operation, Education, Parliamentary Reform, Population, Influence of the Aristocracy, etc., etc. a large parcel.” The lot was bought by Professor Harold J. Laski, who gleefully described his “best find . . . in the last few years” to Oliver Wendell Holmes in a letter worth quoting at length as Laski’s fullest account of the collection:
It was a bundle containing thirty unprinted speeches delivered by John Stuart Mill to the London Debating Society in his own autograph—on which society and its value to him, see the Autobiography. You will find there what a change in him was produced by the reading of Wordsworth. I have the MS of a speech on Wordsworth in which all this is set out. There is an able, if Puritan attack on Byron. You will find in the Autobiography a reference to an impressive debate with Thirlwall the historian. I have Mill’s original speech and his answer to Thirlwall’s reply. All the others are good stuff—on the Church, lawyers, radical reform, the use of history, university education. What exactly I shall do with them I don’t quite know yet. The debate with Thirlwall I expect I shall print in the Economic Journal as it is historically important because of its attack on Robert Owen and its analysis of Malthus. It’s a pity that I haven’t Thirlwall’s own speech to complete the sequence. It’s very amusing to note what a saving disposition Mill had. Some of the speeches are written on the backs of letters from George Grote, Charles Austin et al. I sold two of them for two guineas which was the price I paid for them all. The Oxford Press wanted me to make a little volume of them to be called the early speeches of J.S.M. but I have refused since he could have published them himself and evidently did not care to, and in any case their interest is rather for a person to whom Mill is personally attractive as he is to me than any general widespread importance. But I shall have a jolly afternoon reading them to Morley when I come back from Paris and reminiscing on the Victorian age.3
Laski, it should be said immediately, appears never to have made a list of the manuscripts, or to have examined them carefully to see, for example, if the texts overlapped. As a result, a degree of conjecture taints one’s equanimity in editing the speeches, though the quiet delights of successful inference preserve one’s appetite. The puzzles begin with the letter just quoted; since it was written less than three weeks after the sale, the discussion between the Oxford University Press and Laski must have been perfunctory. (Later, as will be seen, some of the manuscripts and typescripts were sent to Oxford in connection with Laski’s edition of Mill’s Autobiography, and remained there for about forty years.) After Justice Holmes approved Laski’s plan (without of course seeing the manuscripts), Laski wrote:
. . . I am glad you agree with me about my Mill mss. I propose to print two small speeches that have a definite historical importance and, for love of Felix [Frankfurter], to give the Law Review a jolly little piece on the influence of lawyers. Otherwise I think they had better be an heirloom. The B. Museum has been after me for them, but vainly.4
At this time also he gave one page of manuscript notes (No. 13) to Trinity College, Cambridge, for unassigned reasons. And soon thereafter he changed his mind about publication, for in the edition of Mill’s Autobiography that he prepared for Oxford University Press in 1924,5 he included six speeches (one of them not a debating speech) in an Appendix,6 and announced in his Introduction that the Fabian Society would publish, “in the autumn of 1924, a large selection of these speeches.”7 To that end, the speeches and fragments still in Laski’s possession (that is, excluding the two he had sold to recover his purchase cost) were typed, with carbon copies, by (or for) the Fabian Society.8
Subsequently, “so many lacunae were discovered in the manuscripts that the Fabian Society decided that it would be inadvisable to publish the speeches.”9 “The Present State of Literature” (No. 24) was published in The Adelphi, I (1923-24), 681-93, without an editor’s name. As there is no Fabian Society typescript, and the manuscript is in the Ogden Collection at University College London, it seems likely that this speech was sold by Laski to C.K. Ogden immediately after the Sotheby’s sale. In 1925 Laski published No. 21 in Economica, and then did nothing further about publication until 1929, when he decided to edit several for a variety of journals: The Realist (No. 5), the Journal of Adult Education (Nos. 8 and 9), the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik (Nos. 12, 14, and 20 [in part]), and The Bermondsey Book (No. 22).10
Presumably Laski decided he had exhausted the public potential of the speeches, and began, evidently without recording the gifts, to give manuscripts to friends.11 In 1935, perhaps having been told of the typescripts by Laski, the late Professor Ney MacMinn of Northwestern University bought, with the aid of James McCrimmon, carbon copies from the Fabian Society.12 There is no indication that Laski told MacMinn where the manuscripts were then. When the Collected Works were initiated, MacMinn kindly donated his set of carbons to me (having formerly allowed Professor Francis E. Mineka to use them). The whereabouts of the original typescripts is not known; the Fabian Society’s archives, now in Nuffield College, Oxford, contain another set of carbon copies.13
The current state of the documents may be tabulated, with N = No, Y = Yes, and p = in part:
It will be seen that we have (counting “Secular Education,” a later public speech) twenty-six separate entries, whereas Laski says he bought thirty (including the non-debating speech), but he is undoubtedly rounding, and the discrepancy can be explained. Of the twenty-six, one (No. 13) is made up only of notes. Laski may not have counted it or the fragments (now lost) that are represented by typescripts. In seven cases, we have combined manuscripts and/or typescripts; if we counted them separately, our total would be over thirty. On the assumption that we have at least some part of every speech Laski bought,14 we do not know the location of five whole manuscripts (Nos. 4, 6, 15, 17, 18), plus four part or fragmentary manuscripts (Nos. 8, 20, 21, and 25).
As indicated above, there are typescripts representing all the items Laski did not publish except Nos. 10, 11, 13, 16, 24, and 27; of these, No. 13 was given away by Laski immediately to Trinity College Cambridge. Ruling out those that Laski is known to have retained, one concludes that the two he sold immediately are Nos. 16 and 24. And we have typescripts of all those he published except for parts of Nos. 8, 12, 21, and 28.
The anomalies are typescripts without corresponding manuscripts;15 of these, Nos. 6 and 8 are the most curious, for they are on different sized paper from that of the others, and the Fabian Society archive does not possess copies of them. That they are Mill’s is fortunately not really in question: No. 6 is clearly a parallel (though superior) text to No. 5, and No. 8 was published by Laski, who had the manuscript.
The regrettable history of the documents from 1922 to the 1960s may then be summarized:
It will be evident from this account that no one during that period examined the collection of manuscripts closely enough to determine the relations of various parts: Sotheby’s description merely highlights what might catch the buyer’s eye at a time when Mill’s reputation was low (as Laski’s contemporary judgments make abundantly clear), and Laski’s attitudes and actions were not such as to endear him to textual editors. Indeed, it is only by a lucky chance (or two) that the materials have survived in even their present incomplete state. Given the lacunae, one cannot pretend to certainty about the texts of those speeches that exist only in typescript (or in typescript and the form edited by Laski), or about the relations of fragments to one another. The physical characteristics of the materials, however, plus internal evidence and the records that remain of the debates (discussed in the Introduction above), make possible the inferences lying behind the texts as here edited.
(c) The first of the manuscripts of Mill’s tours of England, that of his walk in Sussex during July 1827 (No. 29), was in the possession of the family of Mill’s friend and companion on this trip, George John Graham, until it was sold to a dealer, and after passing through the hands of other dealers, was bought by St. Andrews University Library in 1954.16 The other four manuscripts (correctly identified as Mill’s) were sold at the Sotheby’s sale of 22 March, 1922. Lot 712 (our No. 30), “Auto. MS. of a tour in Berkshire, Buckingham and Surrey, July 1828, 44 pp. 4to, sewed,” was obtained by the Yale University Library. Lot 713 (No. 32), “Auto. MS. of a tour through Hampshire, West Sussex and the Isle of Wight, July 1832, 92 pp. 2 vols. 4to, sewed,” was purchased by Bernard Quaritch, and sold to Mt. Holyoke College (at the instigation of Dr. Anna J. Mill, who taught English there). Lot 714 (No. 31), “Auto. MS. of a tour through Yorkshire and the Lake District, circa 1830, 108 pp. 4to,” is in the Bodleian Library. Lot 715 (No. 33), “Auto. MS. of a tour through Western Cornwall in October, 1832, 40 pp. 4to. sewed,” provides a puzzle: there were in fact two notebooks covering this trip; the first was in the possession of Isaac Foot, and a photocopy was deposited in the Mill-Taylor Collection, but the manuscript seems not to have been included in his collection when sold to the University of California. The other notebook, which completes that tour, was bought by the British Library of Political and Economic Science for the Mill-Taylor Collection.
With these was sold yet another manuscript, Lot 716, “Auto. MS. of a tour to the Rhine in July, 1835, 82 pp. 2 vols. 4to, sewed”; there is no record of its subsequent history. Its loss is much to be deplored, as nothing is known of this trip by Mill.
(d) The final item in this category, Mill’s brief Diary of spring 1854 (No. 34), existed in manuscript at least until 1910, when it was used for the text of Appendix B in Hugh Elliot’s edition of Mill’s Letters. Until then it was undoubtedly in the hands of Mary Taylor, who gave Elliot access to the Mill-Taylor material in her possession, putting an embargo only on the family letters. Many of the draft letters used by Elliot were obtained by the Brotherton Library, Leeds, but this manuscript was evidently not among them, and its location is not now known.
each item consists of a headnote, the text, and notes. The headnote gives the provenance of the copy-text, lists other versions, and provides the immediate context, with other closely relevant information. The notes, at the foot of the page, are substantive and textual. The substantive notes include Mill’s own (in the sequence *, †, etc.) and the editor’s (in numerical sequence, beginning anew in each item or section of an item). The textual notes normally record variant readings, with alphabetic markers in the text signalling the word or words for which the variant reading is a substitute (these too begin anew in each item or section of an item).
The texts themselves have been determined in ways appropriate to their kind and provenance.
1. The Journals and Notebooks. In these cases (Nos. 1-3, 29-33), there is no textual competition: the manuscripts alone have authority, and have been followed exactly apart from the editorial interventions explained below.
2. The Debating Speeches. Here there are three sources, though not for each text and not of equal authority. Where there are manuscripts, they are used; when there are not, the Fabian Society typescripts are used. In only two cases (Nos. 21 and 23) is it necessary to rely in part on a printed source; in a few others, though the typescript provides the copy-text, we have used the results of collation with Laski’s edited texts to make some emendations and to supply some variant readings. No one who has examined the typescripts can feel confident that they correctly reproduce the original manuscripts in all details; however, comparing Laski’s texts with their manuscript sources (and with the typescripts when both exist) produces even more scepticism. So it is compatible not only with standard editing practice but also with informed judgment to choose the typescripts rather than the published versions as copy-text.
3. The Diary. Here again there is no choice, only the printed version being available.
EMENDATIONS TO THE TEXTS
while our attempt has been to give a close approximation to what can be determined about Mill’s intentions, and so to intervene lightly, we are convinced that Mill, like us, would see no point in leaving obscure what can be made plain, and would have been made plain by him in print, especially in revised print. We have not used “[sic],” although some may think the signal appropriate for odd or mistaken accents in the French texts, where we are preserving the record of Mill’s learning, as we are in leaving the accentuation inconsistent.17 The original spelling is retained, even when there are competing forms such as “chuse” and “choose” or “stile” and “style”. Similarly we have not in No. 3 altered “Séance” to the more common “Leçon” in the headings of the notes of the 22nd and 23rd lectures. When what is extant is merely a series of notes (as in No. 13) we have made no attempt to provide continuity, and there are few editorial alterations of punctuation, though (as explained below), we have expanded contractions and abbreviations to conform to what would be spoken.
Particular changes are listed in Appendix C, with explanations except when the change has been made for obvious reasons of sense (including easily identified typographical errors or slips of the pen). To save the reader trouble and the buyer expense, certain general rules have been adopted, and silent changes made. These include: In manuscript texts where there are gaps resulting from rips, square brackets enclose the conjectural reading. In the few places where a manuscript is torn, square brackets are put around conjectural readings, and “[?]” is inserted following dubious readings; where Mill has left a gap, we have filled in what seems the likely reading, signalling that it is an addition in a footnote. When the sense is implied by the context, punctuation is supplied at line-ends, at the end of paragraphs, and where interlineations occur. Superscripts are lowered to the line. To regularize, “and” has been substituted for “&” and “etc.” for “&c.”; a stop has been added after “Mr”, and “St”; and such ordinals as “2d” have been expanded to “2nd”, while those such as “Charles the First” are given as “Charles I” throughout. In No. 1 “sous préfet” has been regularized to “sous-préfet”, and in No. 32, “sea mark” to “sea-mark” and “weald clay” to “Weald Clay”. Abbreviations have been expanded (mainly with a view to regularization); these include: “Rest.” to “Restinclière”; “Hon.” and “hon.” with “Gent.” and “gent.” (or other combination) to “H[h]onourable G[g]entleman”; “[al]tho’ ” to “[al]though”; “shd” to “should”; “govt” to “government”; “parlty” to “parliamentary”; “Parlt” to “Parliament”; “arist” to “aristocracy”; “boro’ ” to “borough”; “Co:” to “County”; “circs” to “circumstances”; “accn” to “accusation”; “Obj.” to “Objected”; “Ans.” to “Answer”; initials to names (such as “C.” to “Catiline”, “W.” to “Wordsworth”, “R.” to “Roebuck”, and “B.” to “Byron” or “Bentham”—the latter also signalled by “Be”—as the context determines); “H. of C.” to “House of Commons”; “C. of E.” to “Church of England”; “U. of L.” to “University of London”; “C.H.” to “Childe Harold”; “V.S.” to “Vice Society”; “5 & 6 Vict.” to “5 & 6 Victoria”; and (for centuries) “18th” to “eighteenth”. Initial capitals and enclosing commas have been supplied when necessary to “Sir” (as a nod to the Chair) in speeches, and such words as “Constitution”, “[debating] Society”, “Cooperation”, and “Parliament” have been capitalized.
To conform to modern practice, italic type is used for the titles of works published separately, while quotation marks are placed around titles of parts of separate publications. Foreign words and phrases are normalized to italic, except in item No. 1, where Mill often intersperses French terms (sometimes himself underlining them for emphasis, in which cases we have used italics). The abbreviations for currency are also regularized to italics, as are words “mentioned” rather than “used” (these cases, being rather different in kind, are listed in App. C).
In the journal, walking tours, and diary, the dates that begin entries are styled uniformly; unusual or mistaken place names are retained, but the correct (or normal) versions are given in notes. Also in the French Journal the form of the datelines has been standarized. In the French Notebook Mill commonly in the margin repeated the date of the entry and gave place names; these have been omitted.
the system of recording variant readings used throughout this edition is based on superscript letters in the text; these appear in pairs around words or phrases, or singly centred between words or between a word and punctuation. In these volumes, the variant notes at the bottom of the page record different kinds of substantive readings. In the French Journal and Notebook (No. 1), they indicate passages corrected by George Bentham, and give Mill’s original reading: for example, at 67 appears “aon fait paître le bétaila”, while the note reads “a-aGB] JSM le bétail trouve sa vie”; the interpretation is that the words following “JSM” are Mill’s, and that for these were substituted those in the text. When Bentham proposed an additional word or words, the variant note, as at 69, reads simply “+GB”. In a few places Bentham made a suggestion that was not adopted, as at 70; here the note reads “JSM] [GB proposed in margin:”, followed by the words of Bentham’s suggestion and a closing square bracket. Any further information is given in italics within square brackets. In the Traité de logique (No. 2), we preserve in the text Mill’s wording, but give in the variant notes the corrections (signalled by “CH” for “correcting hand”) made in an unknown French hand, all of which were accepted by Mill, except that at 153d-d. The same procedure is used in the Lecture Notes on Logic (No. 3), except that here (a) additions are signalled, as at 191h, by a single superscript letter in the text between “nier” and “de”, and the note reads “hCH soit”, indicating that Mill’s tutor proposed that addition; and (b) deletions are indicated in notes, as at 192k-k by “k-k-CH”.
In the debating speeches, variant notes are used when there is a Fabian Society transcript and a version edited by H.J. Laski, but no manuscript, to record differences between the typescripts and Laski’s version. In such cases the typescripts serve as copy-text, and substantive differences are recorded only when the wording of the latter has been preferred. See, e.g., 257a-a, where the text reads “aunderstandinga” and the note, “a-aL] TS understandings”; the interpretation is that L[aski] has the accepted “understanding” while the T[ype]S[cript] has “understandings”. Some anomalies are also indicated, as at 257b, where the note, beginning “bTS (not)”, concludes with the explanation that that reading, not here accepted, was added in ink to the typescript. (Cf. the instances at 296f-f andg.) In one case, part of a speech was later used by Mill in a published essay in 1835; here the variant notes give the later readings, as at 376c-c, d-d, andh: in the first, the text reads “by cjust andc equal laws”, while the note reads “c-c-35”, indicating that “just and” was removed from the version of 1835, leaving “by equal laws”; in the second, the text reads “dthesed”, the note “d-d35 those”, indicating that “those” replaced “these” in the later version; and in the third, the note, which reads “h35 Would you, because you are the majority, allow no class to be represented except yourselves?”, indicates that in 1835 that sentence appeared in the text ath. In No. 23, exceptionally, variant 400a-a explains why the reading of a printed text is needed, and 400b-b andc-c give passages that may be cancelled. (Cf. 410a-a andb-b, 421a-a and 423c-c, and 441a-a, where readings are problematic.) Finally, in this category, the variants in No. 28 give readings from a partial draft of the speech.
The walking tours (Nos. 29-33) and the diary (No. 34) have no variant readings.
in the appendices materials ancillary, illustrative, and locative are gathered. Appendix A gives the physical details about the manuscripts. Appendix B supplies enclosures from and letters pertaining to the French journal and notebook. Appendix C lists and explains the textual emendations, while Appendix D is an index of persons and works cited in the text. Finally, there is an analytic Index, prepared by Dr. Jean O’Grady with what would be in many others unusual, but is in her case merely normal diligence and understanding.
the following short forms are used, mainly in the variant notes, the headnotes, and in Appendix C.
Bull. = Bulletin
CH = correcting hand in manuscripts
CW = Collected Works of J.S. Mill
GB = George Bentham
JSM = John Stuart Mill
L = a debating speech edited by Harold J. Laski
RV = rejected version in manuscript
SC = Mill’s library in Somerville College, Oxford
TS = Fabian Society typescript of a debating speech
for permission to publish manuscript materials, we are indebted to the National Provincial Bank, residual legatees of Mary Taylor, Mill’s step-granddaughter, and (for specific manuscripts) to the Bodleian Library Oxford, the British Library, the British Library of Political and Economic Science, the Shain Library of Connecticut College, the University of Hull Library, the Mount Holyoke College Library, the Pierpont Morgan Library, the Library of Nuffield College Oxford, the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, the St. Andrews University Library, the University of Toronto Library, The Master and Fellows of Trinity College Cambridge, the library of University College London, the Victoria and Albert Museum (to whom we also are indebted for the sketches by Henry Cole), and the Yale University Library. In addition to these, the librarians and staff of other institutions have been more than generous and gracious: my blessings on our benefactors at the Archives Départementales de l’Hérault, the Archives Départementales des Pyrénées-Atlantiques, the Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, the Central Library of the City of Manchester, the Fabian Society, the Fawcett Library of the City of London Polytechnic, the Guildhall Library of the City of London, the Institute of Historical Research (University of London), the Newspaper Library and the India Office Library and Records of the British Library, Somerville College Oxford, the University of London Library, and the Victoria University Library.
I particularly wish to thank the Department of Geography of the University of Toronto for preparing the maps.
As ever my work has been gladdened and lessened by the warming and unstinted aid of individuals; among the host, D.E. Allen, Peter Allen, Robin Alston, Karl Britton, P.M. Conlon, Stephen R. Conway, Eileen M. Curran, Lawrence Dewan, H.L. Douch, Louis Dulieu, Sue Grace, Stephen Green, Christopher Grounds, Joseph Hamburger, J.R. de J. Jackson, Bruce L. Kinzer, Janis Langins, John McClelland, the late Ney MacMinn, the late Francis E. Mineka, Penny Nettlefold, Pamela G. Nunn, Eric W. Nye, Walter O’Grady, Helene E. Roberts, Ann Christine Robson, S. Solecki, the late Leonard Woodbury, and R.S. Woof. As is their wont, members of the Editorial Committee have enriched and corrected me: for these volumes I am especially indebted to R.F. McRae and Ann P. Robson; indeed to the latter, I owe an incalculable debt for her uncalculated sharing of journals, debates, and walks. We are fully aware that these volumes would not have reached maturity without the strong financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, which has brought the immeasurable benefits and joys of collaboration with the members of the Mill Project. Chief among these are the Senior Research Assistant, Marion Filipiuk, whose enthusiasm for the French materials is exceeded only by her knowledge, and who drafted parts of the Introduction; the Post-doctoral Fellow, Jean O’Grady, whose taste for reason is matched by her eye for nonsense; and the Editorial Assistant, Rea Wilmshurst, without whom consistency would be but a dream. The junior members, Jonathan Cutmore, Michele Green, Margaret Paternek, Jannifer Smith-Rubenzahl, Elizabeth King, Marion Halmos, John Huxley, and John Sipos, all contributed materially and cheerfully to the work.
My greatest scholarly debt is to a great editor who is no longer with us, Anna J. Mill: she collaborated with me for many long years, demonstrating the extraordinary care, wisdom, and correcting wit that made her reputation as a mediaeval scholar and as an always informative and stimulating student of Mill (only, she would say, a colitteral relative). I have used extensively and unblushingly her editorial work on the Journal and Notebook (the latter of which she herself purchased, and willed to the St. Andrews University Library), and her preliminary work on both text and notes of the walking-tour journals (two of which she was instrumental in finding homes for in Mt. Holyoke College, where she pursued her academic career, and in St. Andrews, her alma mater), and on the Lecture Notes on Logic. She was to have been a co-editor of these volumes, and to her warm and vibrant memory they are dedicated.
[1 ]The journal and notebook, with parts of both summarized, the nineteenth logic lecture, and some related materials, were edited by Anna J. Mill as John Mill’s Boyhood Visit to France (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1960).
[2 ]Appendix A gives a physical description of the manuscripts.
[3 ]Holmes-Laski Letters: The Correspondence of Mr. Justice Holmes and Harold J. Laski, 1916-1935, ed. Mark DeWolfe Howe, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1953), I, 420-1 (17 Apr., 1922). The various speeches here referred to are identified below (Nos. and titles are listed in the table on lx-lxi), including the one (actually two) proposed for the Economic Journal, which in fact appeared seven years later in the Journal of Adult Education.
[4 ]Ibid., 429 (15 May, 1922); for Holmes’s agreement, see 422 (3 May, 1922). Justice Frankfurter, it may be noted, wrote the Foreword to the Holmes-Laski Letters.
[5 ]Autobiography by John Stuart Mill with an Appendix of Hitherto Unpublished Speeches and a Preface by Harold J. Laski, World’s Classics (London: Oxford University Press, 1924). Although Laski had seen at least one of the three manuscripts of the Autobiography bought by Maggs for five guineas in the same Sotheby’s sale, and knew there were significant differences, he reprinted—with further errors—the faulty 1st edition of 1873.
[6 ]He included No. 4, pp. 267-74, part of No. 20, pp. 275-87, No. 25, pp. 310-25, No. 26, pp. 288-99, and part of No. 28 (our “Montesquieu,” entitled by him “Notes of My Speech against Sterling, 1829,” 300-9). The non-debating speech, “Secular Education,” will be found in Public and Parliamentary Speeches, Vols. XXVIII and XXIX of CW; it appears on 326-30 of Laski’s edition.
[7 ]Ibid., xii n, deleted in later reprints.
[8 ]The scheme preceded the editing of the Autobiography, for the six speeches there printed exist in Fabian Society transcripts. Oxford University Press retained four manuscripts (No. 7, the first part of No. 9, the first part of No. 20, and No. 26; of these the last two were included in Laski’s edition of the Autobiography), and typescripts of No. 12 (in part) and No. 14 (neither of which appeared in that edition). In the mid-1960s these materials were donated (with Mrs. Laski’s approval) to the British Library of Political and Economic Science.
[9 ]James McNab McCrimmon, “Studies towards a Biography of John Stuart Mill” (unpublished Ph.D. disseration, Northwestern University, 1937), 48n. Professor McCrimmon, who later did much of the editing work on Mill’s list of his writings (ed. Ney MacMinn, J.M. McCrimmon, and J.R. Hainds [Northwestern University Press, 1945]), listed eighteen speeches as contained in that collection (two of them being combinations of typescripts, and the non-debating speech, “Secular Education”), identified those published by Laski, and included five others (Nos. 5, 9, 14, 20 [with 6], and 22), in an Appendix. Comparison with the manuscripts and internal evidence have led to a readjustment and recounting of the typescripts, but it appears that copies of all those then in the collection are now in our hands.
[10 ]Full bibliographical information is given in the headnote to each item.
[11 ]He gave the main part of the manuscript of No. 19 to Hull University in 1928. A manuscript (not identified) was given to Oliver M.W. Sprague of Harvard (Holmes-Laski Letters, II, 1221 [25 Jan., 1930]). No. 22 was given to Richard S. Lambert of the Listener; subsequently it remained in his family’s possession (in Ottawa) until 1987, when I purchased it, and consequently was able to correct the order of the folios. Laski gave No. 11 and part of No. 12 to Connecticut College in 1938, in honour of a former student, Professor Marjorie Dilley. (These two were published as “Intended Speech at the Cooperative Society,” Connecticut Library Bulletin, No. 2 [Fall, 1975], 15-28, by Minor Myers, Jr., who did not realize that two manuscripts were involved.) The late Lord Robbins told me that he had been surprised to find several manuscripts left on his desk at the London School of Economics, a gift from Laski: Nos. 5, 10 (a fragment), 12 (in part), 21 (a fragment), 23, and 27; these Robbins gave to the Mill-Taylor Collection. He was sure that others had been similarly surprised, one of whom may have been Moritz J. Brown, who donated No. 25 in 1951. Presumably the others now in the Mill-Taylor Collection were given by Laski himself.
[12 ]He paid five guineas for the set, enabling the Fabian Society to recover half the typing costs. (Private correspondence.) The inked headings and corrections on these typescripts have no obvious authority, but have been considered as subsidiary evidence.
[13 ]This collection now includes Nos. 4, 5, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21 (minus a fragment and notes), 22, 23, 26, 28 (minus a fragment), and 35; missing from that set are copies of No. 6 and the partial texts of Nos. 8, 12, 19, 20, and 25. Formerly the Fabian Society also had the partial typescripts of Nos. 12, 20, and 25, of which copies are in our possession.
[14 ]We do not know what Laski gave to Sprague, and there is some speculation that there may have been a speech on Byron distinct from that in which he is contrasted with Wordsworth (see Karl Britton, “J.S. Mill and the Cambridge Union Society,” Cambridge Review, 29 Oct., 1955, 92-5).
[15 ]Nos. 4, 6, 8 (in part), 15, 17, 18, 20 (second part and fragment), 21 (most), 25 (fragment), 28 (in part), and “Secular Education” (not a debating speech).
[16 ]Published as “Account of a Tour in Sussex in July 1827,” The Worthing Parade Number One (Worthing: Aldridge Bros. for the Worthing Art Development Scheme, 1951), 165-91.
[17 ]Where the benefit of the doubt is available, it has been awarded; Mill, like the rest of humankind, may have intentionally left the question open by using vertical strokes for both acute and grave accents. Many will be troubled by ”ést” (and similar forms) but we have followed the correcting hands in making no recorded complaint.