1865

741.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Jan. 5. 1865

Dear Sir

I have been too long in acknowledging the receipt of the very interesting things you last sent; but I was working against time on another subject, and had unwillingly to put by your last notes unread until this morning. I thank you most heartily for them. They are a complete Essay on the state and prospects of Ireland, and are so entirely satisfactory that they leave me nothing to think of except how to make the most use of them. For my new edition I must confine myself chiefly to the general results; but if I find it advantageous to transcribe certain paragraphs entire, will you allow me to name their real author? The article is a valuable supplement to the notes. The letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle I was already acquainted with, having read it in I forget what newspaper. I beg you to offer my sincere thanks to Mr Pim for the books he so kindly sent, which I shall immediately read. His letter, inclosed in yours, is full of good sense.

Respecting the rate of profits in the United States, we must hope to learn something through the kind offices of Mr Moran. But it is, I imagine, very difficult to ascertain the real average rate of profit, or expectation of profit, in any country. It would, however, be something to have an answer to the more vague question, whether, in the opinion of Mr Ashworth, or other persons to whom business in both countries is familiar, the profits of capital in the United States are or are not, higher than in England.

Of the two or three points which we differ about, I will only touch upon one—the influence of price on demand. You say, if a tax is taken off beer and laid on tobacco in such a manner that the consumer can still, at the same total cost as before, purchase his usual quantity of both, his tastes being supposed unaltered, he will do so. Does not this assume that his taste for each is a fixed quantity? or at all events that his comparative desire for the two is not affected by their comparative prices. But I apprehend the case to be otherwise. Very often the consumer cannot afford to have as much as he would like of either: and if so, the ratio in which he will share his demand between the two may depend very much on their price. If beer grows cheaper and tobacco dearer, he will be able to increase his beer more, by a smaller sacrifice of his tobacco, than he could have done at the previous prices: and in such circumstances it is surely probable that some will do so. His apportionment of self-denial between his two tastes is likely to be modified, when the obstacle that confined them is in the one case brought nearer, in the other thrown farther off.

Now as to the Reader. I consented to become a shareholder with the full intention of sending occasional contributions (to which I should be quite willing to put my initials) in case I was satisfied with the editorial arrangements, which I should be, in a very high degree, with regard to any part of them which you might undertake. My satisfaction would be much increased if you were willing, as Mr Spencer wished and hoped, to undertake not merely the political economy department, but political philosophy generally. I could be more useful to the Reader on other branches of that subject than on political economy, on which you would seldom need any hand but your own, and could easily obtain other aid if you accidentally required it. I might give some help too in moral and metaphysical philosophy, but that department will probably be under Spencer’s superintendance, and he and I should, I dare say, often differ. I have heard nothing further of their plans since the first communication made to me. Perhaps they may like to try their wings a little before attempting the higher flight which we have advised, but for which they are not strong enough at present, if the number for December 31 (which as it has been sent to me, I suppose came out under the new management) is a sample of what they can do. When you are fixed in London and ready to take an active part, we shall be likely to have more influence on their proceedings.

I take Macmillan, and was much interested by your article, which makes more distinct the idea I already had of the contract system in the mining districts. Laing, in his Prize Essay, brought it forward many years ago as an example of the cooperative principle.

I was glad to see Mr Brace’s letter in the Daily News. I have had a visit here from a rather remarkable American, Mr Hazard, of Peacetown, Rhode Island. Do you know him, or his writings? If not, I shall have a good deal to tell you about him that will interest you.

Ever, Dear Sir, yours truly

J. S. Mill

742.

TO WILLIAM TALLACK

• Avignon

Jan. 18. 1865

Sir

Your letter and its inclosures have been forwarded to me here. I am glad of the appointment of a Commission to enquire into the effects of capital punishment. I confess, however, that I have a very strong opinion against its total abolition, being persuaded that the liability to it (whatever may be the case with the sight of it) has a greater deterring effect, at a less expense of real suffering, than any other penalty which would be adequate to the worst kind of offences. If examined, therefore, I should not be a witness on the “right side.” I am Sir

yours very faithfully

J. S. Mill

William Tallack Esq.

743.

TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Jan. 22. 1865

Dear Sir

I have been so much occupied with pressing work, that I have only quite recently had time to go through the “Double Algebra.” I have found it everything that from what I already knew of your speculations I expected it to be. Either you are the first (not excepting Peacock) who has pointed out the true rationale of algebra as an universal calculus, or I was not capable formerly of understanding the true theory when I had it before me, and have become capable now. Which of these suppositions is the true one, you best know. The fact in regard to myself is, that everything which I had a glimmering of, I now seem to myself to see as clear as day, while you have also led me into regions of which I had not even a glimmering, and have shewn me how I may have an equally clear comprehension of the whole of these by taking sufficient pains to follow you through the details.

Why is what you have done, not known and recognized as the great contribution to philosophy which it is? I suppose because so few mathematicians are psychologists, and so few psychologists are mathematicians. I take blame to myself for not having known your speculations two years ago, as I might have been helping to spread the knowledge of them. I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

A. De Morgan Esq.

744.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath

Jan. 31. [1865]

Dear Chadwick

I have received your note, and the slips of part of your intended address, which I have read with great edification, though I do not think the practical question so completely decided by it as you seem to think. I cannot conveniently manage to be at the meeting this evening, but I shall be at the Club on Friday when I hope to hear the subject fully discussed by yourself and others.

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

745.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath

Feb. 4. 1865

Dear Sir

I have delayed answering your last letter, until I could at the same time inform you of my return here.

The Political Economy has gone to press, considerably improved as I think, and indebted to you for much of the improvement. I have availed myself of your permission to acknowledge this in the preface, and also in the chapter on the Irish question, a good deal of which I have given in inverted commas as a communication from you. I have endeavoured to correct the effect of the passage which has been used by Australian protectionists, not by omitting it, but by giving a fuller expression of my meaning. The subject of an Index I had thought of, but most Indexes of philosophical treatises are so badly and stupidly done, that unless I could have made it myself or got it made by a political economist, I thought it better let alone. An index is less wanted for a systematic treatise than for a book of a miscellaneous character, as the general arrangement of topics, aided by the analytical table of contents, shews where to find the things most likely to be wanted.

I hope that the Reader is not tied to its present editor or sub editor, and that all its arrangements are at present only provisional. He goes out of his way to say the most abominable things about America, and in other respects he seems to me to do his business carelessly and ill.

I look forward to the pleasure of seeing you soon in England, and, as I am glad to think, permanently established there.

Ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

746.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 4. 1865

Dear Sir

I have this morning left at Mr Trubner’s, directed to you, the first article on Comte. I am well advanced with the second, which will, as I expected, be considerably shorter than the first.

I should feel obliged if you would kindly have twenty separate copies made up for me, as there are a considerable number of persons to whom I should like to send the articles.

I thank you much for your pamphlet on Seasickness. You seem to have made a great discovery.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

D^r Chapman

747.

TO THOMAS HARE

• Blackheath

Feb. 4. 1865

Dear Sir

I am glad that my first note to you after our return here is to say that you were, yesterday evening, elected a member of the Political Economy Club.

You will be glad to read the inclosed, which please return, as I have not answered it. When is your new edition likely to be ready?

I have been struck, though not disappointed, by the extreme narrowness of mind shewn by the Radical members of parliament in all their recent addresses. There would be more chance, I think, of being listened to, on such subjects as representation of minorities, by the working classes themselves, than by their well dressed friends, who are afraid to concede anything, or admit any fault or danger on the democratic side. But it is a real disappointment to find the Daily News as bad on these subjects as if the editor were looking out for a seat in parliament.

Lord Amberley’s speech is the only one of any promise. He has brains, and is in earnest, and as he is sure of influence, good is likely to come of him.

With our kind regards to all your family I am

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

748.

TO ROWLAND G. HAZARD

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 7 [1865?]

Dear Sir

As you are still in London I should be glad if we could see each other once more before you leave. Would it suit you to come down and take dinner with us on Friday at six?

I have been so busy with other subjects that I have not yet been able to read your book on the Will. I preferred not to touch it until I could give consecutive attention to it. I have read the greater part of your Essay on Language of which the purely metaphysical part pleased me much. The speculations respecting a future state seemed to me to have an imaginative rather than a philosophic interest.

I hope my publishers have complied with my directions to send to you, through Mess^rs Baring, my two volumes of Dissertations.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Please let me know as soon as convenient if Friday will suit you.

749.

TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN

• Blackheath Park, Kent

Feb. 9. 1865

Dear Sir

The delay in acknowledging your kind and interesting letter of Nov. 10 was occasioned by my absence from England, which had prevented me from receiving the sheets of the Christian Examiner which you so obligingly sent. One of the first things I did after my return here was to read them. The paper on Inspiration interested me as an exposition of a particular line of thought, but, as you would naturally expect from the nature of my psychological opinions, it did not carry me with it. The political articles I was, as I expected to be, much pleased with; and it gave me great pleasure that you should have thought my miscellaneous essays worthy of so highly complimentary a judgment. The article ‘Democracy on Trial’ I am almost certain that I received, and quite certain that if I received it I read it, and thought highly of it, having always done so of everything political which I have read in the “Examiner”. In the third edition of my “Representative Government” just published, I have corrected the omission to notice the democratic municipal system of the New England States.

It is almost superfluous now, to congratulate you on the progress of events. A triumphant end of the war seems not only certain but as near at hand as is perhaps consistent with that complete regeneration of the political feeling and thought of the country, to which I have always looked forward as its result. The present attitude of the Free States with respect to slavery was worth buying at even a greater price than has been paid for it; since it is the removal not only of a stain but of a moral incubus, and is likely to be the starting point of a moral progress not inferior to the prodigious material expansion which will be hereafter dated from the annihilation of negro slavery. I am Dear Sir

very truly yours

J. S. Mill

J. H. Allen Esq.

750.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath

Feb. 9. 1865

Dear Sir

As you supposed, your letter of Jan. 24 had not reached me when I last wrote to you, but it has been sent from Avignon since. I am much obliged to you for the trouble you have taken to get information respecting the rate of profit in the U. States, but I fear it is next to impossible to obtain any conclusive evidence on the subject. There is no more difficult point to ascertain in the whole field of statistics. The scientific question remains as great a puzzle to me as ever. Hitherto I have left the passage of my Pol. Economy exactly as it was; but I shall have to alter it more or less in the proof sheet.

I may perhaps get some light on the subject from Mr Hazard, (himself a New England manufacturer of great experience) whom I shall see tomorrow. I wish you had been already here, that I might have asked you to meet him. He leaves for America on the 25^th.

Respecting the cost of transferring land in France I can speak from my own experience. The mere law expenses are very trifling. The only important expense is the tax, i.e. the duty on reggistration, which is at present somewhere about 7½ per cent, but this includes a décime-de-guerre, and the whole or half of another—which do not profess to be permanent, though there is considerable danger that one of them at least will become so. The second décime is that which Louis Napoleon made a demonstration of taking off on the termination as he thought, or pretended to think, of the Mexican war. The upshot was the taking off of half of it only, but whether immediately or prospectively, and whether the reduction has yet taken effect, I cannot say.

The notary’s charge for the contract is 1 per cent.

I am delighted that you now agree with me on the question of American separation. D^r Brown Séquard’s opinions do not surprise me, both because the scientific class have been very generally on the right side of the American question, and because the actual sight of America generally corrects prejudices which 19 times out of 20 are the effect of pure ignorance. It is such things as this which gauge the depth of British ignorance on all matters whatever outside of this island. What wonder that people are ignorant of America, when they are equally ignorant, & equally ignorant of their ignorance, as to Ireland? I agree with you in thinking Goldwin Smith entirely wrong in the object of his last two letters.

The last number of the Reader is a little better. Since you have begun to write in it, the political writing will improve.

I look forward with great interest to what you are now writing about Ireland.

In haste
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

751.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Blackheath

Feb. 9. 1865

Dear Sir

I return the Lancet with many thanks. This additional instance of the value of your discovery must be highly gratifying to you.

I have put into the first page of the second article on Comte a sentence respecting Mr Bridges’ translation, but without including it in the list at the head of the article, which is confined to original works. I see no reason against its being noticed in the small print at the end of the Review. You will have my second article by that time, and will be able to avoid as far as necessary any inconsistency between that and the notice. The Discours Préliminaire which Mr Bridges has translated, gives the pith of Comte’s later speculations free from some of their grosser absurdities, and in a form better adapted than any other of his later works for the information and edification of English readers.

Many thanks for your kind offer of a greater number of separate copies, but twenty will be ample. I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

752.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Blackheath

Feb. 9. 1865

Dear Sir

I am afraid you have thought me very negligent in not having sooner acknowledged your last two letters, but having at the time nothing important to communicate, I put off writing till I could tell you that we have returned, and shall be happy to see you here at any time when you are in London.

I saw “Charlie in Australia” and thought it extremely good. I always take the greatest interest in all you do, and shall hope to hear more from you, when I see you, about the controversy in the Daily Telegraph of which I heard something but which my absence prevented me from seeing. I am Dear Sir

very truly yours

J. S. Mill

753.

TO HENRY FAWCETT

• Blackheath

Feb. 10. 1865

Dear Mr Fawcett

Mr Hazard, of Rhode Island, with whom I believe you have already corresponded, is very desirous to make your personal acquaintance and from what I have seen of him and read of his writings I feel certain that you will have as much pleasure in conversing with him as I have in giving him this introduction.

very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Henry Fawcett Esq.

754.

TO WILLIAM LONGMAN

• B[lackheath]

Feb. 14. 1865

Dear Sir—

I am quite satisfied with as much of your proposal as relates to the 8000 copies; but when we talked together on the subject I understood that a period was to be fixed after which the plates would revert to me. Nothing was said about destroying them; & were I to agree to that part of your proposal I sh^d be no longer a free agent, unless under the condition of making new plates, the cost & risk of which it would require another 8000 copies to remunerate. I would suggest in preference, that if after the first 8000 are sold the demand should still continue, we should for a further period (to be now fixed) go on at half profit & that on the expiration of this further term (whether determined by years or by number of copies) the plates sh^d be at my disposal.

I thank you for your note just received. I am anxious to get on with the new book.

755.

TO MAX KYLLMANN

• B[lackheath]

Feb. 15. 1865

Dear Sir—

It is pleasant to hear from you again. Your letters, besides being interesting on your own account, almost always contain some valuable piece of intelligence. What you tell me of the progress of Mr Hare’s system among the working classes of Manchester is preeminently so. I know very well to whose indefatigable exertions it is owing. But it confirms me in the opinion that the working classes will see the true character & the importance of Mr Hare’s principle much sooner than their Parliamentary allies. The speeches made by these to their constituents lately have very much disgusted me. The proverb “il vaut mieux avoir affaire à Dieu qu’à ses saints” is true of the demagogues & the Demos. The demagogues never dare admit anything which implies a doubt of the infallibility of the majority. The Demos itself makes no such pretensions & can see the utility of taking precautions against its own mistakes. I shall make use of your letter to convince some of the dress-coated democrats that there is no need to be “plus royalistes que le roi.”

With regard to the other subject of your letter; I quite agree with you that no Reform Bill which we are likely to see for some time to come, will be worth moving hand or foot for. But with respect to the manhood suffrage movement, & the question of my taking part in it, I have long since determined that I would on no account whatever aid any attempt to make the suffrage universal to men, unless the inclusion of women were distinctly & openly proclaimed as a substantive part of the design. There are only two things worth working for—a practical result or a principle: if a practical result it sh^d be one which is attainable; if a principle, not to go the whole length of it is to sacrifice it. I look upon agitation for manhood as distinguished from universal suffrage as decidedly mischievous. The exceptionally enlightened leaders, mentioned in your letter may not intend, in claiming half, to deny the whole; but such is the power of words, that every time the phrase manhood suffrage is publicly pronounced, save in contempt or execration, an additional rivet is added to the chain of half the human species. It is to be remembered, too, that universal suffrage was the expression formerly used by all radicals, & that it was withdrawn & manhood suffrage substituted precisely because the wider expression had been criticised as including women. To adopt a phrase which has no other reason of existence than that it excludes them, would be, in my opinion, to betray the principle & at the same time, to make a retrograde step.

When any portion or body of the working classes chooses as its programme a reading & writing (or rather writing and cyphering) qualification, adult instead of manhood suffrage & Hare’s system, I will gladly give to such a noble scheme all the help I possibly can. Do not suppose that my opinion about plural voting would be any obstacle. I put that in abeyance, first because I would accept universal suffrage, & gladly too, without it (though not without Hare’s system) & next because Buxton has smashed plural voting for years to come by associating it with property, a thing I have always protested against & would on no account consent to. Plural voting by right of education I sh^d not mind defending to any assemblage of working men in the kingdom. But though I would always speak my mind on it, it would be no bar to my cooperating. But on adult suffrage I can make no compromise.

I must therefore defer the pleasure of an introduction to Mrs Kyllmann till she & you happen to be in London when it will increase the pleasure I am sure of having from seeing yourself.

The Baden minister whom I referred to must be well known to you—Prof. Mohl of Heidelberg, who advocated Hare’s plan by articles in the Zeit of Frankfort. Mr Hare has the papers.

The two French authorities whom I mentioned are Louis Blanc (of course) & Laboulaye.

P.S. I have the greatest regard & respect for Louis Blanc but I think it would be fatal to the success of any political movement in this country to put him forward in it, as his name is associated in the vulgar English mind with everything that can be made a bugbear of.

756.

TO WILLIAM LONGMAN

• B[lackheath]

Feb. 18 [1865]

Dear Sir—

I accept your proposal of five years & shall be glad to receive a draft of the agreement.

I saw Mr. Buckle yesterday & he will send me the MSS. immediately.

757.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath

Feb. 22. 1865

Dear Chadwick

I am glad that you were enabled to hear through Mr Hare of the cause of my not having sent you the immediate answer you asked for. It is very honourable to Mr Beal and his friends to have proposed so good a mode of selecting a candidate, and to be willing to take upon themselves in the manner you describe, all the trouble of his election. As regards myself, my only course, for the present, is to do exactly what you intend doing, namely to wait and see if anything further comes of the proposal.

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

758.

TO HARRIET GROTE

• Blackheath

Feb. 22. 1865

Dear Mrs Grote

Our boxes are not to be heard of, either yesterday or today, at London Bridge or Charing Cross. I have therefore sent down our servant in hopes that you will let him know when they were sent, that he may be able to trace their course.

We arrived at home well, and much the better for our three days with you —and Helen sends her love and thanks for the pleasant visit.

With kind regards to Mr Grote

Ever dear Mrs Grote
Yours truly

J. S. Mill

759.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 28. 1865

Dear Sir

I inclose a note which I have received from Lord Amberley. His articles in the North British Review, on Tests, and on the Report of the (Public Schools) Education Commissioners, have shewn real capacity both of thinking and writing, and I am very glad that he wishes to write for the Westminster. He has talent and earnestness, and there is no young man coming forward in public life on whom I build so much hope.

I have returned the proof of the article on Comte, and have asked the printer for a revise. The second article is finished. I am Dear Sir

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

760.

TO HERBERT SPENCER

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

March 2. 1865.

Dear Sir—

I will certainly attend the meeting on Tuesday & will gladly cooperate with you in attempting to effect a radical reform in the conduct of the Reader. It has hitherto been an entire disappointment to me, nothing whatever having been done to fulfil the expectations held out—& had I not supposed that the existing arrangements must be only temporary & that the final ones were not yet installed, I should not have allowed so much time to elapse without a strenuous remonstrance. The idea is ridiculous that such a set of men as had been got together shd have given their money to establish such a wretched thing as, with the exception of the scientific department, this has hitherto been. The only chance evidently is that Mr Pollock shd be induced to resign all concern in the editorship. I shd think there could be no difficulty in finding a successor. I dare say Professor Cairnes would undertake it if asked, though he is very unlikely to put himself forward—if he would, I know no one who would be better qualified & I know him to be most desirous that the Reader shd be made what we thought it was meant to be, a real organ of advanced opinions, political & social as well as philosophical.

761.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath

March 5. 1865

Dear Sir

Your two letters, with their inclosures, arrived in time; the former of them only just in time. Mr Pim’s remarks, as you anticipated, do not change any of my opinions, but they have enabled me to correct one or two inaccuracies, not so much of fact as of expression. On reading the proofs of the new matter I have inserted respecting Ireland for most of which I am indebted to you, and in which consequently your name is mentioned, I feel unwilling that it should see the light without your imprimatur. I have therefore taken the liberty of sending you by this post the two sheets of which it forms a part, and I shall not have them struck off until I hear from you that you do not object to anything they contain. Any addition or improvement you may kindly suggest will be most welcome.

The American information is very valuable, and I can hardly be thankful enough to Mr Ashworth and to his Boston correspondent for the trouble they have taken and the service they have done me. I beg you will convey to Mr Ashworth my grateful acknowledgements. From their statements it is clear that the ordinary notion of the extravagantly high rate of profit in the U. States is an exaggeration, and there seems some doubt whether the rate is at all higher than in England. But that does not resolve the puzzle, as even equality of profits, in the face of the higher cost of labour, indicated by higher money wages, is as paradoxical as superiority. This is the scientific difficulty I mentioned, and I cannot yet see my way through it. I have framed a question for the purpose of bringing it before the P. Ec. Club, which will perhaps be discussed at the April meeting & if not, at the July. I hope you may be present in either case. You were greatly missed on Friday last. Had not I shone in plumes borrowed from you, we should not have made much of it, and I regretted your absence the more, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was present, and spoke.

The American news is better and better. With regard to the chances of a war between the U. S. and this country, the calamity would be so immense that the bare possibility of it is enough to cause anxiety, but that there is any real danger of it I do not believe. This country will give no cause of quarrel which international law recognises, and the deeprooted respect of the Americans for law and judicial tribunals is a very strong ground of reliance in the last resort. I attach no importance at all to any general impression in this country that there will be war. It is, to my thinking, a mere expression of the state of mind of people who, under the teaching of the Times and D^r Mackay, never allowed themselves to imagine that the North could succeed, and consequently let loose their tongues in the certainty, as they thought, of complete impunity, and now having come to perceive that their precious protégés are beaten, and anxious to buy off war with the North by war with Europe, they are frightened, and cry “What is to become of us.” If all they are in the habit of saying of democracy were true, they might be right. But those who hate democracy most do not at all understand its characteristic weaknesses: one of which is that the outward signs of public opinion are at the absolute command of professional excitement-makers, to which category most of the journalists and nearly all the politicians in the U. S. belong. Accordingly all the politicians, even the President’s own cabinet, are in the daily habit of bidding high for the good word of these people, who are lords and masters of their momentary estimation; but when things grow serious, the President with his responsibility, and the Northern and Western farmers with their simple honesty, come forth and trample out the nonsense, which therefore never tells on serious public transactions, though making a very formidable appearance in spoken and written words.

I much regret to hear that you have been obliged to suspend what you were writing on the land question.—The affairs of the Reader seem to have reached a crisis. I am going to a meeting of the proprietors on Tuesday to help Spencer in attempting to upset the present arrangements. I will write to you immediately afterwards.

Ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

762.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath

March 6. 1865

Dear Sir

I have just received notice that the Reader meeting is put off till Tuesday the 21^st, to accommodate “many of the shareholders who are anxious to attend.” This is of good augury.

Many thanks for the Belfast paper. The article is so good that I should have supposed it to be yours but for the words you wrote across the concluding paragraph. Was that paragraph an editorial addition? Or was the article not yours at all?

ever yrs truly

J. S. Mill

763.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Blackheath

March 6, 1865

Dear Sir

I returned on Friday the revise of the article on Comte. I suppose it would be rather more than less convenient to you to let me have the separate copies before the Review is out, and I should like to send it at once to M. Littré, who has promised to get it translated. If you have no objection, I will ask you to do me the additional favour of requesting the publisher to send some of the copies to certain persons whose addresses I will send, postage and all expenses being at my charge. All except the copies to M. Littré can, if you prefer it, be delayed until after publication.

The second article shall be sent to you as soon as you express a wish to have it.

Shall I say anything from you to Lord Amberley?

Yrs. very truly

J. S. Mill

764.

TO HERBERT SPENCER

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

March 6. 1865

Dear Sir—

Many thanks for your note. The desire of “many of the shareholders” to attend is of good augury. I need hardly say I shall be present.

The notice of the first adjournment reached me this morning from Avignon—as will probably the one that followed it. It will be best that all notices be sent here in future, as they are forwarded to me at short intervals whereever I am.

765.

TO JAMES BEAL

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

March 7, 1865

Dear Sir—

Your note, I am sorry to say, did not reach me till yesterday evening owing to a mistake at the postoffice.

To be the representative of West^r is an honour to which no one can be insensible, & to have been selected as worthy of that honour by a body like that in whose name you write not only without solicitation but without my being personally known to them either in a public or private capacity is a very signal one indeed. While it must ever command my sincere gratitude, it is a proceeding which nothing but the truest public spirit could have dictated. And the mode in which you propose to ascertain the sense of the electors cannot be too highly applauded. It is an example deserving to be imitated by all popular constituencies & worthy of the rank which belongs historically to Westminster as the head & front of the Reform party.

In answer, therefore, to your question, I assent to having my name submitted to the electors in the proposed manner, if, after the explanations which it is now my duty to give, the Committee should still adhere to their intention.

I have no personal object to be promoted by a seat in Parl^t. All private considerations are against my accepting it. The only motive that could make me desire it would be the hope of being useful: and being untried in any similar position, it is as yet quite uncertain whether I am as capable of rendering public service in the H[ouse] of C[ommons] as I may be in the more tranquil occupation of a writer. It is, however, certain, that if I can be of any use in Parl^t it could only be by devoting myself there to the same subjects which have employed my habitual thoughts out of Parl^t. I therefore could not undertake the charge of any of your local business: & as this, in so important a constituency, must necessarily be heavy, it is not impossible that my inability to undertake it may in itself amount to a disqualification for being your representative.

Again, my only object in Parliament would be to promote my opinions. What these are, on nearly all the political questions in which the public feel any interest, is before the world: & until I am convinced that they are wrong, these & no others are the opinions that I must act on. I am ready to give any further explanation of them that might be wished for, & sh^d I be elected I would freely state to my constituents whenever desired, the votes I intend to give, & my reasons for them. But I could give no other pledge. If the electors are sufficiently satisfied with my opinions as they are, to be willing to give me a trial, I would do my best to serve those opinions & would in no case disguise my intentions or my motives from those to whom I should be indebted for the opportunity.

Lastly, it is neither suitable to my circumstances nor consistent with my principles to spend money for my election. Without necessarily condemning those who do, when it is not expended in corruption, I am deeply convinced that there can be no Parliamentary Reform worthy of the name, so long as a seat in Parliament is only attainable by rich men, or by those who have rich men at their back. It is the interest of the constituencies to be served by men who are not aiming at personal objects, either pecuniary, official, or social, but consenting to undertake gratuitously an onerous duty to the public. That such persons should be made to pay for permission to do hard & difficult work for the general advantage, is neither worthy of a free people, nor is it the way to induce the best men to come forward. In my own case, I must even decline to offer myself to the electors in any manner; because, proud as I should be of their suffrages, & though I would endeavour to fulfil to the best of my ability the duty to which they might think fit to elect me, yet I have no wish to quit my present occupations for the H. of C. unless called upon to do so by my fellow-citizens. That the electors of West^r have even thought of my name in this conjuncture is a source of deep gratification to me, & if I were to be elected I sh^d wish to owe every step in my election, as I sh^d already owe my nomination, to their spontaneous & flattering judgment of the labours of my life.

Whatever be the result as regards myself, allow me to express the hope that your recommendation to the electors will not be limited to two names. To obtain the best representative & even, if only to ensure success against the powerful local influence which is already in the field, it seems plainly desirable to give the electors the widest possible choice among all persons, willing to serve, who would worthily represent the advanced liberal & reforming party. Several eminent persons have been mentioned, whom it would be highly desirable to give the electors an opportunity of selecting if they please. Sir J. Romilly is in the number of these, & would, in every way, do honour to your choice. Mr Chadwick would be one of the most valuable members who could be chosen by any constituency; & besides the many important public questions on which he is one of the first authorities, he is peculiarly qualified to render those services in connexion with your local business which it would not, in general, be possible for me to perform. The admirable mode of selection which you have adopted will not have fair play unless you bring before the consideration of the electors the whole range of choice, among really good candidates, which lies within their reach. It will not be inferred from your placing any particular person on the list, that you consider him the best. Some will prefer one & some another; & those who are preferred by the greatest number of electors would alone be nominated.

In requesting you to lay this matter before the Com^ee, I beg to assure yourself & them that whatever may be their decision, I shall never cease to feel the proposal they have made to me as one of the greatest compliments I have ever received.

I am Dear Sir very sincerely & respectfully yours

J. S. Mill

James Beal Esq

766.

TO LORD AMBERLEY

• Blackheath Park

March 8, 1865

Dear Lord Amberley

D^r Chapman writes to me that he should be very glad to have you as a contributor, but that he would prefer political to theological articles; not that he thinks your articles “would be less able if theological,” but because he is disposed to lessen the quantity of theological and increase that of scientific matter in the Review. I do not think this need affect you practically in any way. The greatest utility of the Westminster Review is that it is willing to print bolder opinions on all subjects than the other periodicals: and when you feel moved to write anything that is too strong for other Reviews, you will generally be able to get it into the Westminster. The fact is, Chapman is stronger in theological contributors than in political, and would like to be strengthened where he is weakest.

I see no reason against your offering him what you have written on Political Economy, unless you prefer to publish it in a more substantive and permanent form.

With best wishes for your success at Leeds, I am

Dear Lord Amberley
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

767.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Blackheath

March 10, 1865

Dear Sir

Thanks for your note. I have written to Lord Amberley the part of its substance which concerns him.

I inclose the list of persons whom I should like to receive copies of the article on Comte. I have put down four to be sent to M. Littré, being for himself, for the future translator, for M. Taine, and for M. Célestin de Blignières.

The second article on Comte shall be left at Mr Trübner’s as soon as I have had time to read it once more through.

Ever y^rs truly

J. S. Mill

Monsieur Littré, membre de l’Institut, 48, Rue de l’Ouest, Paris (four copies)

Monsieur Auguste Picard, Place Coste Belle, Avignon, France.

Herr Theodor Gomperz, Deutsches Haus, Singerstrasse, Wien (Austria)

George Grote Esq. 12 Savile Row

Professor Bain, Aberdeen

Herbert Spencer Esq. 88 Kensington Gardens Square

Professor De Morgan, 91, Adelaide Road. N.W.

W. T. Thornton Esq. 23 Queen’s Gardens, Hyde Park

Professor Cairnes, 74 Lower Mount Street, Dublin

Max Kyllmann Esq. Greenbank Fallowfield, Manchester

Viscount Amberley, 40 Dover Street

in all 14, leaving 6 copies for the author.

768.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath Park

March 11. 1865

Dear Sir

I thank you sincerely for your further favours in regard to my Political Economy. I have sent your new matter to press, and have profited to the full by your observations on what I had myself written. I am indebted to you for nearly all which will give to that chapter of the book, any present value.

Your solution of the difficulty as to American profits is perfectly scientific, and was the one which had occurred to myself. As far as it goes, I fully admit it; but my difficulty was, and still is, in believing that there can be so great a difference between the cost of obtaining the precious metals in America and in England, as to make the enormous difference which seems to exist in money wages, consistent with a difference the contrary way in the cost of labour. It is impossible to approfondir the subject in time for the present edition. I have contented myself, therefore, with qualifying the opinion I had previously expressed, so as to leave the subject open for further inquiry.

The meetings of the Pol. Ec. Club are on the first Friday in every month of the season, except when Easter interferes, and as it will not interfere this year, the next meeting, I have no doubt, will be on the 7^th. As you thought of being in London on the 8^th, I hope your arrival may admit of being accelerated to that extent. I wish it the more, as we are going away in as few days after the meeting as my printing will allow, which I hope will be very few—and I may perhaps, therefore, lose the opportunity of seeing you before Midsummer, unless I see you then.

I am very glad that there is another writer in Ireland besides yourself, who writes such excellent articles on America as the one you sent me.

I have directed to be sent to you (in Dublin) a separate copy of an article of mine on Comte, which is to be in the forthcoming Westminster. I do not know on what day it will be ready.

I am Dear Sir
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

769.

TO GEORGE GROTE

• Blackheath Park

March 11, 1865

My Dear Grote

I have finished the first volume of the Plato, not so quickly as I expected, having been very much taken off by an unusual press of occupations, especially that of correcting several sets of proofs at once. As far as this volume reaches, the book so completely fulfils my hopes—the things said seem so exactly those which it was good to say, and which required saying—that I see little else for me to do in reviewing it, than to try to condense into a few pages the general results. I look forward with the greatest pleasure to your account of the longer and more important dialogues; more important, I mean, in point of doctrine. The character, scope, and value of the purely dialectic or peirastic dialogues are already as completely brought out as can be done even by yourself in the subsequent volumes. Your general conception of Plato, and your view of the Platonic Canon, seems to me completely inexpugnable.

You will receive in a day or two a separate copy of the first of my articles on Comte, though the Review containing it will not be published till the first of next month. Littré is going to get the article translated and published in France.

With our kind regards to Mrs Grote, believe me

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

770.

TO HERBERT SPENCER

• Blackheath Park

March 11. 1865.

Dear Sir

Dr Chapman will send to you in the course of a day or two a copy of an article of mine on Comte, which is to be published in the forthcoming Westminster. In forming an estimate of him, I have necessarily come into collision with some of your opinions —a thing for which I should never think of apologising to you or any other advanced thinker: but it has so happened that though our points of agreement very greatly exceed in number and importance those of difference, the latter are those respecting which, accidentally, most has been said to the public, on my side at least. What I have now written, however, will give a very false impression of my feelings, if it raises any idea but that of minor differences of opinion between allies and fellow-combatants. In a larger volume which I shall soon have the pleasure of offering to you, there will be little or nothing to qualify the expression of the very high value I attach to your philosophical labours.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Herbert Spencer Esq.

771.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath

March 15. 1865

Dear Sir

From your letter, which came this morning, I am afraid you never received a short note which I wrote to you, to the effect that the “Reader” meeting was postponed to next Tuesday, the 21^st, at the wish of many shareholders who desired to attend. I am very sorry that there is no chance of your being present. The fons malorum appears to be, that after it had been arranged that there should be five departmental editors, the publishers thought it necessary that there should be a general one and this title was consequently given to Mr F. Pollock; who, contrary [to] the intention and understanding of some at least of the shareholders has assumed a control over all the departments. The object ought to be to get Mr Pollock out—but to do this, it will be necessary to put somebody else in. Now, would you allow me (in case the discussion renders it necessary or expedient) to say that you would be willing to accept the position of Editor? I know of no one connected with the Reader who would be equally fit, and I am not aware if any other is inclined, as you have told me that you are, to give a considerable part of his time to the Reader. You may rely on me for not letting it appear as if you had sought the position, knowing as I do that you have not: I will take the whole responsibility of the proposal on myself. But I should like to be able to say that I have reason to think that you would not refuse.

I am sorry to find that I have no chance of seeing you before I go abroad, as I shall go before Easter. The question on the rate of interest is luckily postponed, and will, I suppose, come on in July.

All other subjects must wait until I next write to you.

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

772.

TO THOMAS BAYLEY POTTER

Blackheath Park, March 16, 1865.

Dear Sir,—

Nothing can, to my estimation, be more desirable than that you should take an active part in the projected Reform Conference (the London Conference). It is of vast importance that any great public cause should be taken up by men who are not (in the phraseology of the great English revolution) self-seekers; and you, having been at the head of a valuable popular organisation, would very probably be urged to render a similar office to the new one which it is proposed to form. Of course the desirableness of your doing so depends on the goodness of the object which the organisation is meant to promote; and on this no one can judge for you but yourself. For my own part, I could not presume to advise on what it would be right for you to do, since I do not sufficiently know your opinions on the particular points on which Radical reformers differ. I can only respond to your very flattering confidence by saying what I should think it right to do myself in this or any similar case.

I have long since determined that, for myself, I will never join in any movement for what is called manhood suffrage. Adult suffrage is what I contend for; and when one goes in, not for an object immediately attainable, but for a principle, we ought to go the whole length of it. No reason, either of right or of expediency, can be found to justify giving the suffrage to men, exclusively of women, and the word manhood suffrage, having been substituted for the good old phrase, universal suffrage, for the express purpose of showing that women are not included, to adopt it is to give a direct assent to their exclusion.

On the other hand, I consider an educational qualification, to the extent of reading and writing (I would even add ciphering) indispensable. It is to be hoped that before long, this restriction will no longer exclude anybody; and I could have no adults excluded on any other ground. But adult suffrage is not complete unless minorities have their fair share of representation. If 50,000 electors have to elect five members, it is not fair and equal representation that 30,000 of them should be able, by outvoting the others, to elect all five. The 30,000 are only entitled to three members and the remaining 20,000 to two. This is not, as is sometimes pretended, a proposal made for the purpose of defeating democracy. On the contrary it is positively required by democratic principles. Democracy is not the exclusive rule of the greater number and the virtual disfranchisement of the rest, but the equal representation of all; majorities returning a majority, and minorities a minority. Mr. Hare’s admirable plan is the best that has been proposed for securing the equal representation of minorities, and would incidentally attain many other important objects. It is, as I hear, making some way among the intelligent leaders of the working classes at Manchester. I should not, however, make that particular plan a sine qua non; but the acknowledgement of the principle, that minorities ought to be represented in proportion to their numbers, seems to me indispensable to show that the working classes are willing to allow the same justice to others which they claim for themselves. In the present state of the constituencies, the working-classes would themselves benefit by it. And it is hardly possible to exaggerate the moral effect that would be produced in favour of them and their cause, by such a proof that they do not aim at merely substituting one class ascendency for another, but demand for every class a hearing, and such influence as it is entitled to.

Neither would I support equal electoral districts, because I do not think that any one class, even though the most numerous, should be able to return a decided majority of the whole Legislature. But I would support any readjustment of the constituencies that would enable the working classes to command half the votes in Parliament. The most important questions in practical politics are coming to be those in which the working classes as a body are arrayed on one side, and the employers as a body on the other; as in all questions of wages, hours of labour, and so on. If those whose partialities are on the side of the operatives had half the representation, and those who lean to the side of the employers had the other half, the side which was in the right would be almost sure to prevail, by the aid of an enlightened and disinterested minority of the other. But there would not be the same assurance of this if either the working classes, or a combination of all other classes could command a decided majority in Parliament.

Lastly, I could not support the ballot.

It is extremely probable that these opinions may prevent me from being able to co-operate with any organised movement for reform that we may have any chance of seeing at present. If, as is not unlikely, your opinions are different, you have not the same reason for abstaining. But it would, I think, be a good thing if the movers could be induced to leave some of these points, and particularly the ballot, in the position of open questions. By doing so, they would enable many earnest reformers to join them, who would never consent to support the ballot, but who would not refuse to connect themselves with those who do.

I thank you very sincerely for your kind invitation; but I do not feel called on to attend the conference. I think that I can probably do more good as an isolated thinker, forming and expressing my opinions independently, than by associating myself with any collective movement, which, in my case, would almost always imply putting some of my opinions in abeyance. Your position is different, and you seem to me to be, in a manner, called (if you will allow me the expression) to take part in such movements, and endeavour to direct them to right objects.

I have stated my opinions very imperfectly, but they are all expressed as well as I am able to express them in my volume on Representative Government.

I am, dear Sir, very sincerely and respectfully yours,

J. S. Mill

773.

TO HERBERT SPENCER

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

March 16. 1865.

Dear Sir—

I never doubted that we agreed—feeling as we do—in theory as well as in our practice, as to the free expression of differences of opinion, & my reason for mentioning the subject to you at all was merely to guard against your supposing that I like to bring forward my differences with you rather than my much more numerous & more important agreements.

Mr. Pollock’s refusal of remuneration for editorship deserves respect as well as thankful recognition, but as it does not render him an exponent of the opinions or wishes of the subscribers, or at least of such among them as agree with ourselves, it cannot affect the substance of what they have to do. As for the manner, doubtless no one would wish to make it other than the least unpleasant possible.

774.

TO GEORGE GROTE

• Blackheath

March 17. [1865]

My dear Grote

If you are in town on Sunday, will you come down here for a walk and dine with me. There is a train from Charing Cross at 2.50 P.M. on Sundays and if you will let me know that you are coming, I will meet you at the Blackheath station. In any case I shall like much to come up to talk with you when you are settled in town. Helen and myself beg to be particularly remembered to Mrs Grote.

Ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

775.

TO LORD AMBERLEY

• Blackheath Park

March 18, 1865

Dear Lord Amberley

I have taken the liberty of sending you a copy of the new edition of Mr Hare’s treatise, as, even if you have read the book, I think you will be interested by the excellent new preface, and perhaps also by the documents in the Appendix, shewing the progress of his idea on the Continent, in the United States, and in our colonies.

I congratulate you warmly on your last speech at Leeds (in this morning’s Daily News). It deserved to make, as it seems to have made, a great impression and must be wormwood to those who congratulated themselves on the check which they thought you had received.

With our kind regards to Lady Amberley, I am

Dear Lord Amberley
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

776.

TO [HENRY PITMAN]

Blackheath Park, March 18. [1865]

Dear Sir,—

In consequence of what you wrote to me concerning the Wolverhampton Platelock Workers, and of the additional information I have received from that excellent friend of Co-operation, Mr. Kyllmann, respecting the system they have adopted (which seems to be a very thoughtful one, and one of the most favourable to the workers which has yet been started), I am now convinced that they ought to be supported against the attempt to ruin them by unfair competition. . . .

I will communicate on the subject with such of my friends here as take an active interest in Co-operation.

With best wishes, I am, dear Sir, yours very truly,

J. S. Mill

777.

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL

• Blackheath Park, Kent

le 20 mars 1865

Mon cher d’Eichthal

Permettez-moi de vous prier de vouloir bien envoyer la lettre ci-jointe, après l’avoir lue, à Duveyrier dont je ne sais pas l’adresse actuelle.

Aurons-nous bientôt la suite de votre travail sur les Evangiles? Si la seconde partie vaut la première sa valeur sera grande. J’attends avec un vif intérêt votre opinion sur les écrits attribués à Saint-Jean.

Veuillez me rappeler au bon souvenir de votre frère,

votre tout dévoué

J. S. Mill

778.

TO WILLIAM TODD

Blackheath Park, Kent, March 20, 1865.

Sir,—

I have read your papers on Parliamentary Reform, and I certainly think that as long as the electoral franchise is determined by rental, rating to the house tax is a better basis for it than rating to the poor rate; the house tax being, of course, brought down, as you propose, to the lowest rental which it is intended to admit to the suffrage, and being extended to lodgers as well as householders. There is another part of your plan of which I very highly approve; the provision which visits the receiver of a bribe with loss of the franchise, and the giver of one with permanent disqualification for sitting in Parliament.—I am, Sir, your obd. servt.

J. S. Mill.

William Todd, Esq.

779.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath

March 22. 1865

Dear Sir

The Reader meeting took place yesterday afternoon, and after a three hours debate, it was adjourned to Wednesday April 5^th, when the question will be decided, whether to wind up the concern, or to conduct it in a totally different manner. Mr Pollock, who has edited it up to the present time, and some others of the Directors were for selling the paper, since as it had, in their opinion, deserved success, they thought the experiment had been well tried and had failed. But the opinion that it had not been well tried, was that of a large majority, including Spencer, Huxley, Tyndal[l], and the better part of the subscribers generally; and the manifestation of this opinion on their part, induced Mr Pollock to resign the editorship. There is a fortnight in which to determine whether and how the paper can be carried on. Spencer is full of hope and confidence, saying that the obstacle is removed, that we shall now be unanimous, and that it will be carried on in our own way. He and his supporters certainly have the right notion of how to carry it on; that it should have decided opinions, that they should be those of advanced liberalism, political, scientific, and theological, and that one of the objects should be (as Huxley said) to carry the scientific spirit into politics. The financial affairs seem to have been as much mismanaged as everything else, but they are not, in the opinion of those present, irretrievable: when all retrenchments are made, the concern will not be losing more than £6 a week, and the opinion is, that if the eight shares which have not been assigned, are taken up as it is thought that they may be, on the footing of preference shares, this and the £10 still due on the old shares will enable the experiment to be tried long enough to give it a chance of success. A good deal has been lost in money, and I should think, in reputation by what Huxley called our false start; but he and the rest think it is not too late to retrieve it. If they succeed between this and April 5 in organizing the management, both in the business and in the writing department, as well as they think they can, I shall be disposed to give them all the little help which is consistent with my occupations. I need hardly say of how great importance your cooperation would be, even if only as a writer, and much more if you would still be willing to take charge of a department.

I have again gone through your exposition of profits in the papers you so kindly took the trouble of writing for me; and I think, as before, that your mode of putting the doctrine is very good as one among others, and that there is no difference of opinion between us. I still, however, prefer my own mode of statement, for reasons which it would be long to state, and which I have not time at present to reconsider from the foundations. I am inclined to think that the real solution of the difficulty, and the only one it admits of, has been given by myself in a subsequent place, Book III, ch. xix, 2 (vol. ii. p. 156 of the fifth edition.)

Your anxieties about the mischief makers on the subject of America must have been a good deal relieved by the debate in which Disraeli and the other Tories vied with the Liberals in disclaiming all idea of the probability of war, and of any conduct on the part of the United States which could produce or justify it. Both the Times and the Saturday Review have backed out of what they said on the probability of war. I am Dear Sir

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

780.

TO HENRY FAWCETT

• Blackheath

March 22. 1865

Dear Mr Fawcett

I have sent to you through Thornton the Appeal of the Wolverhampton Plate Lock Cooperators, and Pitman’s and Kyllmann’s letters on their case. They appear to me preeminently entitled to support. What is the way in which we can best help them? For myself I mean to write them a letter and send them a subscription, but any pecuniary help will be a mere drop in the bucket unless some portion of the public can be induced to join in it. The best way I can think of is that some one should write a letter to the Spectator (which from its connexion with Ludlow and Maurice, is likely to be favourable) and invite subscriptions; in which case we ought to send in a few names to commence with. If you agree in this, should you be willing to write such a letter with your name to it? And do you think you could get a few subscribers’ names? Thornton will be one. If you are disposed to do this, and will let me know, I will at once endeavour to get a few names. I am

Dear Mr Fawcett
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

781.

TO THOMAS JONES

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

March 22. 1865

Sir—

I beg to inclose a subscription of £10 to aid, as far as such a sum can do it, in the struggle which the Cooperative Plate Lock makers of Wolverhampton are sustaining against unfair competition on the part of the masters in the trade. Against fair competition I have no desire to shield them. Cooperative production carried on by persons whose hearts are in the cause, & who are capable of the energy & self denial always necessary in its early stages ought to be able to hold its ground against private establishments; and persons who have not those qualities had better not attempt it. But to carry on business at a loss in order to ruin competitors is not fair competition. In such a contest, if prolonged, the competitors who have the smallest means, though they may have every other element of success, must necessarily be crushed through no fault of their own. I am now convinced that they ought to be supported against the attempt to ruin them. Having the strongest sympathy with your vigorous attempt to make head against what in such a case may justly be called the tyranny of capital I beg you to send me a dozen copies of your printed appeal to assist me in making the case known to such persons as it may interest in your favour.

782.

TO THOMAS HARE

• Blackheath

March 23. 1865

Dear Sir

I was very glad to see your Appeal in the Daily News. It will, no doubt, have been read by some persons with profit. But the editor has not afforded the opportunity I hoped for, of a “rejoinder” to comments of his own on your paper. Without something like controversy to give interest and attract readers, an attempt to press the subject further by more letters in the paper at the present time would, I think, be lost labour. You no doubt feel with me, that nothing ought to be more avoided than accustoming people to regard the subject as a bore. Our best chance of being able to do anything at present, lies in the proposed Social Science meeting —the way for which ought to be prepared by a previous circulation of your paper, in a separate form, among selected persons. But the time of year is an obstacle to the meeting, unless it could be held at the end of the week after next, immediately after your return; Passion Week, I suppose, would be objected to; and in the fortnight following, many whose attendance might otherwise be hoped for, will be out of town. I myself would willingly put off my departure for days, but to postpone it for weeks would deprive my year of its spring. And I doubt if a meeting in May would have any very material advantage over one in July. This, however, is in the hands of those who are much better judges of the expediences than I can be.

Many thanks for your kindness about Lord Russell’s book. We got it from the Library, on the day on which we received your note. I have read the Introduction, and been much struck with its pompous emptiness, and the mental feebleness which it shews.

Ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

783.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Blackheath

March 24, 1865

Dear Sir

I am very glad to hear that you have made an arrangement which improves your position, as well as gives you easier access to sources of information. It will always give us pleasure to see you, and Mrs Plummer also. I always find time to read what you send me, though I have often to wait some days first.

In haste
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

784.

TO LOUIS BLANC

• Blackheath Park

le 25 mars 1865

Mon cher Monsieur Louis Blanc

Je viens de recevoir la lettre ci-jointe, qui, comme vous verrez, vous regarde. Je crois devoir vous l’envoyer afin que la demande qu’elle contient, un peu présomptueuse à mon sens, ait la chance quelconque que votre bonté pourra lui donner.

Je vois avec plaisir qu’on annonce quelque chose de vous sur l’Angleterre. Que ce soit une réimpression de vos articles du Temps, ou quelque chose de nouveau, sera toujours un plaisir pour vos lecteurs et une chose utile aux deux pays.

Tout à vous

J. S. Mill

785.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Blackheath

March 25. 1865

Dear Sir

Many thanks for the copies, which arrived safely this morning. I regret to hear of your friend’s illness, and hope I may understand from your letter that it is proceeding favourably.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

786.

TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN

• Blackheath Park

March 27. 1865

Dear Sir

Your note, received today, would have reminded me, if I had forgotten, that I have another communication of yours still to acknowledge. I have just read it again for the fourth or fifth time, and find a great deal of meaning in it. To understand it entirely I must wait for your promised paper. But I have little doubt that you will find out, and make intelligible at all events to psychologists, whatever there is to be found out in that direction.

I hope you have good accounts from your son. The Mediterranean, with the exception perhaps of Rome, is certainly ill suited for irritable respiratory organs. It is bad for the bronchitis which usually accompanies consumption. When, as sometimes happens, the pulmonary disorder is unaccompanied with bronchial irritability, then, I believe, the dry sharp air of such places as Nice, Naples, &c. is beneficial, by its bracing effect on the system generally. But that is not the common case.

Your conjecture about the original meaning of the word Compliment reminds me of the way in which it occurs in the English translations of the letters of Indian princes and nobles to the Governor General of India. These translations always begin with the words “After Compliments” which are the equivalent of a long string of high sounding ceremonial phrases in the original, which, as being matters of course in formal Asiatic correspondence, may well be dismissed under the general denomination of “fillings up.”

Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

787.

TO HARRIET ISABELLA MILL

• Blackheath

March 27, 1865

Dear Harriet

I return the legal document, which seems quite unobjectionable so far as I am concerned, and I am quite ready to sign it. If this could be done not later than the 10th of April it would be convenient as I shall probably go abroad on the 11th. The interpretation you put upon the reservation of certain lands is probably the true one.

I enclose stamps for 1s 4d which if I remember right was the amount of surplus postage one of my letters cost you.

J.S.M.

788.

TO LORD AMBERLEY

• Blackheath Park

April 2, 1865

Dear Lord Amberley

I hope that a copy of Mr Hare’s book, as well as of my paper on Comte, has been forwarded to you from Dover Street: They were sent there before I knew exactly where to address you in Gloucestershire.

Helen and I are much obliged to you and Lady Amberley for your kind invitation, but as we leave for Avignon on the 11^th of this month, and I shall be very fully occupied during the whole intermediate time, we are unable to avail ourselves of your kindness. I am

Dear Lord Amberley
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

789.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Blackheath

April 2. 1865

Dear Sir

I have made my arrangements to leave for Avignon on the 11^th, by which time I suppose it is not possible that I should have a proof of the second article on Comte. It should however be sent to Avignon in the course of a few weeks, for after the end of May I shall probably be moving about and the proof might not reach me. It will be necessary to send the copy along with the proof.

I suppose there is some one who makes himself acquainted for you with what the newspapers and periodicals say about the Review. If there should be anything said about the Comte article, either in praise or dispraise, that is worth my seeing, I should feel obliged by your keeping it for me, as it may be useful hereafter in revising the article for separate publication.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

790.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath

April 4. 1865

Dear Chadwick

Your proposed letter is very good as to substance, but I think it would be much improved by some alterations in form, and especially in the order of the topics. It would be made much more effective by going at once in medias res, saying first of all who are the persons addressing the electors, and what they want the electors to do, and then giving the reasons. I have put upon paper, rather hastily and roughly, how I think the letter might run. Of course it is a mere suggestion, to be dealt with in any manner that you, or Mr Beal think fit.

I would not mention subscribers in the letter. A list of them can be appended if desirable. I also think the electors should not be told that their returning the paper will amount to a promise, since many might be willing to express their preference who would be deterred from doing so if they thought they were absolutely binding themselves.

I am very glad to hear that Mr Westerton has declared for you. I am much more desirous that you should be elected than that I should.

My name is quite at your and Mr Beal’s service on Friday.

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

791.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath

April 6. 1865

Dear Sir

The Reader meeting yesterday was satisfactory. Huxley and Tyndall have made all the arrangements; the editor is to be a Mr Rae, a barrister, who wrote the article on Taine in the January number of the Westminster Review, and who, Huxley says, is a strong liberal, and bent upon making the paper a liberal organ. The editorial and all other literary expenses are placed on a very moderate scale, and Mr Rae’s pay is to be credited as payment on two shares in the paper, which he is to take. The other deficient shares (all but three) are either taken, or expected to be taken immediately. All business expenses will be reduced as much as is consistent with efficiency, and so that the present receipts (if not diminished by a further falling off in the advertisements) will cover them. Spencer is elected a Director in the room of Pollock, and he and others mean for the present to write as much as they can in the paper. It is perfectly understood that original articles of any kind will be received as well as reviews, and that signing, either by name or initials, will be rather encouraged than otherwise. The greatest drag is, that no fewer than 32 reviews, actually accepted, are on hand: but though all these must be paid for there are hopes that only the best of them will be used. I therefore think that the prospects of making the paper a useful organ are now as good as they seemed to be at first. Mr Hughes was very particular in his enquiries after you, and desired me to tell you that he hopes to see you as soon as you arrive in London. He thinks your cooperation of the greatest possible value, and hopes that you will be able to write a good deal; the more, as most of the others are so very much occupied. For myself, I think that success will depend more on your cooperation than on anything else. You will now (I think) be well supported, but there is need of some one, capable of writing well on great subjects, who will stick to the thing and write regularly, and I hope it may suit you to do so.

In case this Westminster movement should come to anything, which I cannot bring myself to think at all probable, it will be a great encouragement to me that you express a deliberate and well considered opinion in favour of the desirableness of my being in Parliament. However this may be, there is something very encouraging in the enthusiasm which has been excited, both in Westminster and elsewhere, not simply for me, but for the opinion respecting the proper position of a candidate, which I expressed in my letter. You would be surprised at some of the people who have come forward unasked to offer subscriptions merely from reading the letter. What do you think of Howell and James offering £50, Fortnum and Mason of Piccadilly, I believe the same sum, Debenhams the auctioneers £100, two brothers, wine merchants in Bond Street another £100? The greatest pleasure which public life could give me would be if it enabled me to shew that more can be accomplished by supposing that there is reason and good feeling in the mass of mankind than by proceeding on the ordinary assumption that they are fools and rogues.

My printing is nearly finished, and we start for Avignon on the 11th. To what address should books, or parcels be sent for you before you arrive in London.

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

792.

TO HARRIET ISABELLA MILL

• Blackheath

April 6 [1865]

Dear Harriet

I have signed the document, and sent it to the Solicitors, and will sign whatever else is necessary when I receive it. Meanwhile I return the letters.

J.S.M.

793.

TO RICHARD HOLT HUTTON

• Blackheath Park

April 7. 1865

Dear Sir

I have had great pleasure in hearing from Mr Hughes, this morning, that you are disposed to help the Wolverhampton Plate Lock workers, and that you wish to be able to state that I am among their supporters. I sent them a subscription some days ago, with a letter, a copy of which I inclose, as it will shew on what principle my desire that pecuniary help should be given them, is grounded. I should mention that Mr Pitman intends to publish this letter in the next number of the Cooperator.

Your paper is, so far as I know, the only one which has treated the questions involved in the present struggle in the iron manufacture as they ought to be treated; and it is to you one naturally turns when right principles need to be asserted, or a good cause to be aided, in connexion with those questions.

The subscriptions I have as yet collected are

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

R. H. Hutton Esq.

794.

TO THOMAS BAYLEY POTTER

Blackheath Park, April 7, 1865.

Dear Sir,—

Though I have good reason for sympathising in your personal disinclination to go into Parliament, having the same feeling myself, I cannot help being very glad, on public grounds, that there is a prospect of your being elected for Rochdale. And if this takes place, in spite of your professing opinions in advance of the general state of opinions among reformers, there will be the more reason for satisfaction.

I have no objection whatever to the publication of my letter. Its association with the last thing Mr. Cobden ever wrote will give it a melancholy interest.

I am, dear Sir, yours truly

J. S. Mill

795.

TO HERBERT SPENCER

• Blackheath Park

April 9, 1865

Dear Sir

I have written to Mr Lubbock to express my great satisfaction at his being a candidate, and the pleasure it would give me to be of any use to him. One of whom you express so high an opinion must be a very desirable member of the advanced liberal party in Parliament or anywhere.

I leave for Avignon on Tuesday evening, but will endeavour to send something for the Reader occasionally from thence.

Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Herbert Spencer Esq.

796.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Blackheath

April 10. 1865

Dear Sir

You are in the way of seeing many newspapers and periodicals, and it is probable that during my absence in France articles, connected with the Westminster election or with myself personally, may come under your notice, which I should be glad to see. If such should be the case, would it be very troublesome to you to cut out the articles and send them to me by post? Of course it is a condition that you will allow me to pay all expenses, whether of buying, posting, or anything else. Reviews of my books are not included, as I shall receive them through my publisher.

If you would kindly undertake this for me, I should be greatly obliged.

With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

797.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Blackheath

April 11. 1865

Dear Sir

I thank you very much for having enabled me to correct a proof of the second article on Comte before leaving. I have asked the printers to send a revise to Avignon. I should be much obliged if you would kindly let me have the same number of copies (20) as of the former article, and cause them to be sent to the same persons, with the difference of sending five instead of four to M. Littré, and one to M. Dupont-White, 11 Rue d’Angoulême Saint-Honoré, Paris; leaving only four copies for myself, to be sent here, and not to Avignon. The earlier the separate copies could be got ready, the better I should like it, as some of those who have had copies of the first would be glad to have the second as soon after it as possible. But this, of course, must be entirely subordinate to your arrangements.

M. Littré will take care that the translation is not published till after the second article has appeared in the Westminster.

I leave for Avignon this evening.

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

798.

TO HENRY FAWCETT

• Paris

April 12. 1865

Dear Mr Fawcett

I have sent the few subscriptions I have received to Mr Hughes, whose letter in last Saturday’s Spectator you have perhaps seen. Mr Hughes has also collected a few, and intended handing them over to Mr Hutton, the editor of the Spectator, to be published in next Saturday’s paper. I think the best thing you could do with yours would be to send it in a note to the editor, so that it might appear in the same list.

The Social Science meeting went off well, and was very full. Lord Stanley presided, and brought out Hare’s strength by good questions. The reports which I have seen give no idea at all of what was said, but I was glad to see that the Times reporter stated well and clearly the plan itself. Altogether it will have had a lift upwards by the meeting.

I am

Dear Mr Fawcett
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

799.

TO JAMES BEAL

• [Avignon]

[April 17, 1865]

Dear Sir—

I beg leave to acknowledge your communication of the 12^th inst. informing me that at a meeting of Westminster Electors it has been resolved to adopt me as a candidate on the terms of my letter of March 7^th & to invite subscriptions to defray the expenses of my election.

On the subject of this Resolution it would not become me to say anything, except what might equally be said by one who had no personal interest in the matter: That if the Electors of Westminster return to Parl^t as their representative any one, either myself or another, who has no claim whatever on them except their opinion of his fitness for the trust, & if on that sole ground they elect him without personal solicitation & without expense, they will do what is as eminently honourable to themselves as to the object of their choice, will set an example worthy to be, & likely to be, imitated by other great constituencies—& will signally raise the character of the popular party & advance the cause of Reform.

On this part of the subject, I have only further to express the earnest hope, that in accepting me on the terms of my letter, the Meeting intended to include in their adhesion the principle of an individual appeal by circular to every elector, laying other names before him as well as mine & requesting him to select from among them or from any others the person or persons whom he would wish to be brought forward as candidates.

I am also invited to state, for the more full information of the electors, my opinions on various political questions of general interest. Such a call can only be properly answered by the most complete openness. I hold decided opinions on all the subjects on which my sentiments are asked, & whether those opinions may serve or injure me in the estimation of the electors it is equally incumbent on me to state them plainly.

1. With regard to Reform Bills: I sh^d vote at once both for Mr. Baines’ bill & for Mr. Locke King’s, & for measures going far beyond either of them. I would open the suffrage to all grown persons, both men & women, who can read, write, & perform a sum in the rule of three, & who have not, within some small number of years, received parish relief. At the same time, utterly abominating all class ascendancy, I would not vote for giving the suffrage in such a manner that any class, even though it be the most numerous, could swamp all other classes taken together. In the first place, I think that all considerable minorities in the country or in a locality should be represented in proportion to their numbers. What other adjustments of the electoral system to an universal or nearly universal suffrage might prove practically the best adapted to secure to every portion of the community its just share of influence, while preventing any class from acquiring an unjust degree of preponderance either by means of property or of numbers, is a question which may be answered in many different ways & which will require much sifting & public discussion before the best can be selected. In the meanwhile I sh^d be prepared to support a measure which would give to the labouring classes a clear half of the national representation.

2. I prefer a mixed system of direct & indirect taxation to either alone. If the attempt were made to raise so large a revenue as ours after all due retrenchments would still be exclusively by direct taxation, I do not know of any taxes, in themselves just, which, under such strong pecuniary temptation, would not be successfully evaded. The evasions of the income tax are already a disgrace to the national morality. I would in no case tax any of the necessaries of life; but if even a working man expends in luxuries for himself, & especially in stimulants, what is required by the necessities of his family, I think it perfectly just that he sh^d be taxed on such expenditure.

3. Every civilised country is entitled to settle its internal affairs in its own [way], & no other country ought to interfere with its discretion, because one country, even with the best intentions, has no chance of properly understanding the internal affairs of another: but when this indefeasible liberty of an independent country has already been interfered with; when it is kept in subjection by a foreign power, either directly, or by assistance given to its native tyrants, I hold that any nation whatever may rightfully interfere to protect the country against this wrongful interference. I therefore approve the interposition of France in 1859 to free Italy from the Austrian yoke, but disapprove the intervention of the same country in 1849 to compel the Pope’s subjects to take back the bad government they had cast off. It is not however a necessary consequence that because a thing might rightfully be done, it is always expedient to do it. I would not have voted for a war in behalf either of Poland or of Denmark, because on any probable view of consequences I sh^d have expected more evil than good from our doing what, nevertheless, if done would not have been, in my opinion, any violation of international duty.

4. Respecting the disabilities of Dissenters my answer may be brief. There ought to be no disabilities whatever on account of religion.

5. Voting for a member of parl^t is a public & political act, which concerns not solely the elector’s individual preferences, but the most important interests of the other electors, of the non-electors, and even of posterity: & my conviction is that in a free country all such acts sh^d be done in the face & subject to the comments & criticisms of the entire public. I wish that the elector sh^d feel an honourable shame in voting contrary to his known opinions, & in not being able to give for his vote a reason which he can avow. The publicity which lets in these salutary influences admits also, unfortunately, some noxious ones; & if I believed that these were now the strongest—if I thought that the electors of this country were in such a state of hopeless & slavish dependence on particular landlords, employers, or customers, that the bad influences are more than a match for the good ones, & that there is no other means of removing them, I should be, as I once was, a supporter of the ballot. But the voters are not now in this degraded condition: they need nothing to protect them against electoral intimidation but the spirit & courage to defy it. In an age when the most dependent class of all, the labouring class, is proving itself capable of maintaining by combination an equal struggle with the combined power of the masters, I cannot admit that farmers or shopkeepers, if they stand by one another, need despair of protecting themselves against any abuse now possible of the power of landed or other wealth.

6. As regards retrenchment, it is certain that chiefly through unskilful management great sums of public money are now squandered, for which the country receives no equivalent in the efficiency of its establishments, & that we might have a more useful army & navy than we possess, at a considerably less expense. I expect little improvement in this respect until the increased influence of the smaller taxpayers on the government, through a large extension of the suffrage, shall have produced a stricter control over the details of public expenditure. But I cannot think that it would be right for us to disarm in the presence of the great military despotisms of Europe, which regard our freedom through its influence on the minds of their own subjects, as the greatest danger as well as reproach to themselves, & might be tempted to pick a quarrel with us, even without any prospect of ultimate success, in the mere hope of reviving the national antipathies which so long kept apart the best minds of England & of the Continent.

7. I am decidedly of opinion that landed property sh^d be subject to the Probate Duty, & that property in settlement should pay succession duty on its full value & not, as at present, only on the value of the life interest.

8. Purchase is the very worst way but one, in which Commissions in the army could possibly be appropriated. The one, which is still worse, is jobbing & favoritism. I would support any mode in which the one evil can be got rid of without replacing it by the other. That there is such a mode I am fully satisfied, & that it would put an end to what is justly called in your letter, the monopoly by certain classes of the posts of emolument.

9. I am entirely opposed to flogging, either in the army or out of it, except for crimes of brutality. In some of those it seems to me a very appropriate punishment.

10. The differences between employers & workpeople which give rise to strikes, are, it appears to me, a subject which wholly escapes the control of legislation. I see nothing which law can do in the matter except to protect from violation the equal liberty of all to combine or to refrain from combining. After a sufficient trial of each other’s strength, both sides will probably be willing to refer their disputes to arbitration, but even then I do not think that the arbitrators should have power to enforce their decisions by law; because, in such cases as they would usually have to decide, it is impossible to lay down rules of justice & equity which would suit all cases, or would obtain universal assent: & the adjustments must generally be of the nature of compromises, not acting on fixed principles, but each side giving up something for the sake of peace. I do not presume to say that a better rule may not be arrived at in time, but it would be quite premature to act as if it had already been arrived at.

I am, Dear Sir,
very sincerely yours

J. S. Mill

James Beal Esq.

800.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Saint Véran, Avignon

April 17. 1865

Dear Chadwick

I have received your note dated the 11th. and Mr Beal’s official announcement of the decision of the Meeting. The same post which takes this carries my reply to him, of which I inclose a copy.

When I saw them advertising for subscriptions for my election singly, I was alarmed lest they should have abandoned the intention of proposing any other names. Should this unfortunately happen, and should you, thereupon, go forward independently, I beg that you will at once put down my name for a subscription of £50, for which I will send a cheque as soon as your Committee is constituted.

I have suggested to Longman (as you recommended) that he should advertise in the penny papers, weekly as well as daily, and have now written again to recommend his not omitting the Morning Advertiser —

yrs ever truly,

J. S. Mill

801.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Saint Véran, Avignon

April 20. 1865

Dear Sir

I shall be very glad to see the article in the Saturday Review, as my own copy has been stopped at the French post office; for which reason it will be advisable, if you have not already sent the number, to cut out the article and send it only.

I have always contemplated reprinting the articles on Comte as soon as is consistent with the interest of the Review; and if Mr Trübner wishes to be the publisher, no one has so good a claim. We will therefore consider that as settled.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

802.

TO JOSHUA FAYLE

• Avignon

April 24, 1865

Dear Sir

Owing to my absence from England, I have only this morning received your note, and the same cause makes it impossible for me to comply with the request which the Society has done me the honour of making.

I regret the delay which will take place in your receiving my answer, but I hope that my letter, published in Friday’s papers, may have made you aware of my absence soon enough to prevent any inconvenience. I am

yours very faithfully

J. S. Mill

Jos. Fayle Esq.

803.

TO WILLIAM E. HICKSON

• Saint Véran
  Avignon

April 24, 1865

Dear Hickson

Your letter, as you are probably by this time aware, did not find me in England.

I did not, I believe, reserve the right of translation as regards the book on Liberty. But I have had two applications from intending translators of it. The first was from my friend Professor Villari of Pisa, author of the Life of Savonarola, and of an enlightened and thoughtful Report on Education in England. The second was from Alberto Mario, Garibaldi’s Secretary and fellow-combatant, the husband of Madame White Mario. Him I referred to Professor Villari, and as the latter has his time very fully occupied, it is not improbable that he may have given up his project, in favour of Mario. In what state the matter is, I do not know, and I can only suggest, that the gentleman who does me the honour to make a third proposal, should ascertain what are the present intentions of his two predecessors. If they have abandoned their purpose, or desist from it in his favour, I give him the full consent which his politeness induces him to ask, but which he does not, for any legal purpose, require.

Death has indeed been busy lately, and one is continually reminded, if at our age we needed reminding, of our mortality. Cobden was perhaps the most perfectly honest man among all English politicians of his time and of anything like his celebrity, for he meant every word that he said. Is the Lucas who has just died, the same who wrote so many literary articles in the Times, and who had just started a new Magazine?

I hope you are well, and Mrs. Hickson at least no worse.

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

W. E. Hickson Esq.

804.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Saint Véran. Avignon

April 28. 1865

Dear Chadwick

Dr Lankester and the others whom you mention, fancy, I suppose, that they would diminish their chance of carrying one candidate by attempting two; in which opinion they might be right if they were proceeding in the old beaten track, and bringing forward a candidate in the commonplace, stupid way. But on the plan which was proposed, of going to the electors with a list of names, it would not be they, but the electors, who would determine to have two new candidates, and would decide who they should be. The Committee would be taking nothing upon themselves but to carry out the declared wishes of a body of electors requiring only organization. I fear from the apparent hanging back from executing this plan, that they have grown cold on the subject, and finding that they are getting praised for proposing me, and for the other honourable features of the case, the exemption from canvassing, pledges, and expense, they are content with that, and do not seek for more. If it is so, it is a great mistake, and an opportunity lost, independently of the great value to public objects, and even specially to Westminster of making you one of its members. But I still hope for better things. As to your own conduct in exerting yourself for my election exactly as if you had no claims of your own, I cannot praise it more highly than by saying that it is like everything else I have seen of your public conduct.

As to my last letter, I expected that it would damage my chance. If it does no worse than you seem to think, I shall reckon it wholly a success. I do not see how I could have refused to answer questions about my opinions, put in the very letter which announced the acceptance of me as a candidate. It can only be a small proportion of the electors who have ever looked into my books. But I do not think my answers to questions will admit of being confounded with pledges, especially as several of them are opposed to the general opinion of those who support me. I hope there are many more Tories who will take your Tory friend’s view of women’s votes.

The glorious news from America is dreadfully dashed by the terrible report about Lincoln. The idea of its being true is scarcely endurable—but the cause will not suffer—may even benefit by it, now.

Ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

805.

TO GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE

• Avignon

April 28 1865

Dear Sir—

I have received your two notes & your pamphlet, which I think is one of the best of your writings, & well calculated to stir up the thinking minds among the working classes to larger views of political questions. So far as I am myself concerned, I cannot but be pleased to find you in sympathy with some of the most generally unpopular of my political notions. For my own part, I attach for the present more importance to representation of minorities, and especially to Mr Hare’s plan, combined with opening the suffrage to women, than to the plural voting which, in the form proposed by Mr Buxton, of attaching the plurality of votes directly to property, I have always strongly repudiated. But I think what you say of it likely to be very useful by impressing on the working people that it is no degradation to them to consider some people’s votes of more value than others. I would always (as you do) couple with the plurality the condition of it being accessible to any one, however poor, who proves that he can come up to a certain standard of knowledge.

I am
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

G. J. Holyoake Esq.

806.

TO THEODOR GOMPERZ

Saint Véran, Avignon, April 30 1865

I have delayed thanking you for the first number of your Herculanean series, in hopes that I should have been able to say something about the work itself. I have, however, been so busy, that I have not yet had time to do more than read your Preface and Introduction and merely glance at the Greek text. What you say of it, however, proves it to be, at the very least, a highly important and novel contribution to the history of Greek thought, and I look forward with great pleasure to making a real study of it at some not distant time.—But, interesting as such labours are, you are capable of things much more valuable than such mere editorial work. I can not wish that you should leave unfinished what you have so well begun, but I shall be glad when the time comes to which you seemed to be looking forward in your last letter, now some months ago. . . . I hope, before this, you have received the book on Hamilton, and also the first of two articles which I have written on Comte’s philosophy. The second article is in print and I expect to be able to send it to you before it is published in England. I shall be well content if you are half as well pleased with these as you are sure to be with Mr. Grote’s book on Plato. This is nearly all printed, and I have read most of it; and both in point of learning and of thought it comes up to my highest expectations. It can not, I think, fail to produce a great effect in Germany, where the thoroughness of his knowledge of the subject will be much better appreciated than by an unlearned public, which can only take it on trust . . . .

807.

TO WILLIAM LONGMAN

• S[aint] V[éran]

April 30, 1865

Dear Sir—

I noticed the discrepancy between the price mentioned in the agreement & those advertised, but supposed that it was intentional & that you thought it advantageous to begin at once with the lower price. I would make any sacrifice rather than consent to fixing the price of the Pol. Ec. higher than the one announced, as it would look like breaking faith with the public. But I feel the same objection as before to binding myself by a permanent engagement which would prevent the plates from ever returning to me. I am most willing that you should retain as many copies beyond the 8000 as will indemnify you for what you would otherwise lose by your mistake. The loss being 2/6 on each of 4000 copies, 2000 copies additional at 5/- would compensate you for this, but would leave you losers by the paper & press work of the 2000 & for that I am ready to add as many more copies as you think sufficient to indemnify you, leaving the stipulation about the subsequent sale as it already stands, viz, that you should continue to publish the editions at half profit for five years after the sale of the whole number of copies agreed on.

I am glad to hear so good an account of the sale. I suppose the 400 copies sold of Hamilton are chiefly the trade subscription. The Logic will require an unusual amount of revision for the new edition, & I will take it in hand as soon as I can, but as this can hardly be before my next return to England, I will ask you to send the sheets to Blackheath Park rather than here.

I was not aware that you had been asked to allow your name to appear as one of my supporters for Westminster, and I beg that you will not consent unless, on public grounds, you prefer me to any other candidate likely to be proposed. I should be much honoured by your doing so, but if you do not I hope you do not think that it can have any influence on my personal sentiments towards yourself.

808.

TO WILLIAM GEORGE WARD

[May? 1865]

It is very unlikely that anything you write, however much I may disagree with it, could appear to me either “detestable” or “simply mischievous,” I have never read anything of yours in which I have not found much more to sympathise with than to dislike. . . . [again] the only opposition which I deem injurious to truth is uncandid opposition, and that I have never found yours to be, nor do I believe I ever shall.

809.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Avignon

May 1. 1865

Dear Sir

I am extremely obliged to you for taking the trouble to send me those cuttings, none of which I had seen (except Mr Berkeley’s letter, which was also in the Daily News) and most of which it would have been a loss to miss. I have been particularly pleased with the tone in which several of them speak of women’s voting, and of Mr. Hare’s plan.

Lincoln is a glorious martyr if ever there was one. He is not to be pitied—to be envied rather. One’s feeling is all personal—it is as if a ruffianly assassin had deprived one of a dear personal friend. I do not believe the cause will suffer. It may even gain, by the indignation excited. There was real danger lest the North, and Lincoln himself, should be too soft-hearted to the exslaveholders, and leave them too much power of mischief.

We are glad to hear that you are settled in your new home.

With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer I am

Dear Sir
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

810.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

• Avignon

May 1. 1865

Dear Sir

I shall be happy to join in any mark of sympathy to the Free States of America, both on their success in their arduous struggle, and on the atrocious act which has mingled such deep grief with the very hour of triumph. I should think that the initiative would be taken by friends of the cause who are in a position to act more effectually than I could. I should like an address to the American people to be signed by millions.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

811.

TO HENRY SODEN

• Avignon

May 2. 1865

Dear Sir—

I have just received your letter, dated 25th Feb^y.

It is a great compliment to me that my supposed opinions should have had the influence you ascribe to them in Australia. But there seems to have been a considerable degree of misunderstanding about what they are. The fault probably lies with myself, in not having explained them sufficiently. I have entered rather more fully into the subject in the new editions published this spring. But, not to give you the trouble of referring to them, I can have no difficulty in saying that I never for a moment thought of recommending or countenancing, in a new colony more than elsewhere, a general protective policy, or a system of duties on imported commodities such as that which has recently passed the representative assembly of your colony. What I had in view was this. If there is some particular branch of industry, not hitherto carried on in the country, but which individuals or associations, possessed of the necessary capital, are ready & desirous to naturalize: & if these persons can satisfy the legislature that after their workpeople are fully trained, & the difficulties of the first introduction surmounted they shall probably be able to produce the article as cheap or cheaper than the price at which it can be imported, but that they cannot do so without the temporary aid either of a subsidy from the Gov^t or of a protecting duty: Then it may sometimes be a good calculation for the future interests of the country to make a temporary sacrifice, by granting a moderate protecting duty for a certain limited number of years, say ten, or at the very most twenty, during the latter part of which the duty should be on a gradually diminishing scale, & at the end of which it should expire. You see how far this doctrine is from supporting the fabric of Protectionist doctrine, in behalf of which its aid has been invoked.

Your wish respectg a cheap edition of the little book on Liberty has already been fulfilled. It is now on sale at 1/4 & my Pol. Econ. & Rep. Govt at prices proportionally even lower 5/ & 2/.

You are at full liberty to make any use you please of this letter.

812.

TO WILLIAM E. HICKSON

• Saint Véran, Avignon

May 3, 1865

Dear Hickson

The universality of the feeling occasioned by Lincoln’s catastrophe is a good sign of our common humanity, for it is, in most cases, genuine feeling of the bitterness of losing such a man. He himself may be considered happy in his death—quite otherwise than if he had died before the decisive triumph. There cannot be a more glorious fate than to die so mourned by a whole people—to have become so dear to them through the best part of their character exclusively. I agree with you in having no fear of public mischief from his loss. It will perhaps, on the contrary, prevent a great deal of weak indulgence towards the slaveholding class, whose power it is necessary should be completely and permanently broken at all costs. Meanwhile the effect is admirable in Continental Europe (England does not need that particular lesson) of the example of power passing by course of law, without a dream of opposition in the freest country in the world.

From what you say, the Lucas who is dead must be the younger brother of Frederic Lucas. I was slightly acquainted with him formerly, but had lost sight of him. I suppose he died of heart disease like his brother—more fortunate than he in dying without a long illness.

Pray thank Mrs Hickson and Miss Grant for their kind remembrances.

We shall remain here probably until about May 30, when we leave for a time in Auvergne. We expect to return about June 30, and to leave for England about July 3. If you should be passing while we are here, we shall be very glad to see you.

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

813.

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL

• Avignon

le 5 mai 1865

Je voudrais bien, mon cher d’Eichthal, pouvoir répondre à votre lettre, comme M. Blackie, par une lettre en grec: Πολλου̑ γε καὶ δει̑; ἐπεὶ παντὸς μα̑λλον, ὤ ϕίλε, βουλοίμην ἄν. Assurément la nation grecque vous doit de la reconnaissance, ainsi que, en second lieu, à M. Duruy. Du reste, elle me semble déjà bien avancée dans le chemin de la restauration grammaticale de son ancienne langue. Jugez de ma satisfaction quand j’ai vu, dans la redaction de sa nouvelle Constitution, qu’elle avait repris possession complète du cas datif. Après cela il ne lui reste guère à reprendre que l’infinitif, chose très importante, mais nullement plus difficile à regagner.

Votre nouvelle brochure ne m’est pas encore parvenue, mais un paquet va venir qui la contiendra. Je tâcherai de faire en sorte qu’il soit question de toutes les deux, non seulement dans la Revue de Westminster, mais peut-être ailleurs.

Nous avons un fort bon livre anglais sur la prononciation de la langue grecque, par un nommé Pennington, dans lequel il est à peu près démontré que les anciens Grecs prononçaient leur langue d’une manière peu éloignée de celle des Grecs d’aujourd’hui. Je n’ai pas un exemplaire de ce livre, et je crois qu’il se trouve difficilement, si ce n’est dans les bibliothèques publiques; sans cela je vous l’aurais envoyé. C’est le sécrétaire du gouvernement anglais des îles Ioniennes qui me le fit lire en 1855.

J’essaierai de vous voir en traversant Paris en deux mois d’ici, bien que je n’y compte rester que quelques heures.

Avez-vous vu l’article du dernier numéro de la Revue de Westminster sur l’Evangile de Saint-Jean? Il ne vous offre probablement rien de nouveau, puisqu’il se donne comme résumé des travaux de l’école de Tubingue.

Bien des salutations à votre frère et à Duveyrier,

Tout à vous

J. S. Mill

814.

TO EMILE LITTRÉ

• S[t] V[éran]

May 11. 1865

Cher monsieur—

La seconde partie de mon travail sur M. Comte ne sera publiée que le 1^er juillet mais on a promis de me donner bientôt des exemplaires séparés. Il vous en sera expédié cinq, destinés comme auparavant pour vous même, pour le traducteur, pour M^me Comte, pour M. de Blignières et pour M. Taine. Il est très naturel que vous n’approuviez pas sans réserve tout ce que j’ai dit dans la 1^re partie. Ce que votre livre a montré d’accord entre nos jugements est encore plus que je n’osais espérer. Une critique de ma critique, faite de votre point de vue, m’intéresserait grandement, et ce serait une bonne fortune pour moi si vous pouviez avoir le temps de vous en occuper.

Quant au livre sur Hamilton c’est en grande partie une oeuvre de circonstance, comme le doit être tout livre de polémique—mais avec quelques chapitres de psychologie positive. Ce que ce livre a de mieux c’est qu’il porte la guerre dans le camp ennemi. Aussi je crois que les métaphysiciens de l’école éclectique et allemande ne me le pardonneront pas.

Si un journal a dit que je sollicite des électeurs, ce journal se trompe: ce sont des électeurs qui m’ont sollicité. On m’a porté candidat presque malgré moi. J’ai refusé de rien faire de ce que font ordinairement chez nous les candidats. Je n’ai fait que ce qu’ils ne font guère c. à. d. une profession de foi parfaitement sincère. Au reste je pense avec M. Comte que, sauf des circonstances exceptionelles et transitoires, la place des philosophes n’est pas dans le gouvernement, et malgré mes 35 ans des fonctions administratives je ne me regarde pas comme une exception. Vous savez que dans l’idée que je me fais des assemblées délibérantes, elles doivent être un lieu de discussion plutôt que d’action, et si je consentais à y siéger ce serait pour n’y exercer qu’un pouvoir spirituel. P. L. Courier disait que, presque seul parmi les Français, il ne voulait pas être roi: si l’on me nommait à la chambre j’y serais probablement le seul député qui ne voudrait pas être ministre.

815.

TO FREDERICK DENISON MAURICE

• S[t]V[éran]

May 11. 1865

Dear Mr Maurice—

I was already so well aware of your kind feelings towards me that even such a letter as I have just received from you hardly increases my sense of them. I most sincerely feel towards you & your work in life, the full equivalent of all which you so kindly express. I never voluntarily leave unread any of your writings & if I have not more frequently offered you any of mine it was because I seldom felt confident that what you would approve in them, would outweigh what you would disapprove. I knew however that there was much in my new book with which you would fully sympathize, greatly as I know you differ from the metaphysical doctrines contained in it. You were continually in my thoughts when I wrote the chapter against Mansel and your controversy with him contributed much towards stirring me up to write the book.

I sympathize with the feeling of (if I may so call it) mental loneliness which shews itself in your letter & sometimes in your published writings. In our age & country, every person with any mental power at all, who both thinks for himself & has a conscience, must feel himself, to a very great degree, alone. I sh^d think you have decidedly more people who are in real communion of thoughts, feelings & purposes with you than I have. I am in this supremely happy, that I have had, & even now have, that communion in the fullest degree where it is most valuable of all, in my own home. But I have it nowhere else; & if people did but know how much more precious to me is the faintest approach to it, than all the noisy eulogiums in the world! The sole value to me of these is that they dispose a greater number of people to listen to what I am able to say to them; & they are an admonition to me to make as much of that kind of hay as I can before the sun gives over shining. What is happening just now is the coming to the surface of a good deal of influence which I had been insensibly acquiring without knowing it; & there are to me many signs that you are exercising a very considerable influence of the same kind, though you yourself seem to think the contrary.

816.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Saint Véran, Avignon

May 11. 1865

Dear Sir

I have to thank you for a great many more cuttings, which were extremely interesting to me, and on the whole very satisfactory, for those of my opinions which are thought to be most out of the common way seemed to obtain fair consideration, and to be found not so bad as they look. I was amused with your friend’s letter, especially with his idea that the male voters need the ballot to protect them against their wives. I think, myself, that the privilege of the vote gives an advantage not only to a bad husband over the wife, but to the wife over a kind husband, for he thinks he ought to defer more or less to her, on account of his voting as the representative of both. If she had a vote of her own, she would not have so much power of interfering with his.

Your friend should reconsider his opinion on representation of minorities. Cobden’s answer is no answer at all; for in his plan, of having as many constituencies as there are members, a minority of each would still be unrepresented. On Mr Hare’s plan, no one need be unrepresented, since the electoral body would divide of itself into unanimous constituencies.

With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

817.

TO HENRY BOWIE

• Avignon

May 13. 1865

Sir

I have had the honour of receiving your letter dated the 10^th inst. inclosing a Requisition from the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and many distinguished citizens of Edinburgh, who, in the name of the Directors and Members of the Philosophical Institution, invite me to deliver the Inaugural Address at the opening of the Session in November next.

I feel most strongly the high distinction conferred on me by being the object of such a request from such a body. There being, however, many persons who are far better qualified than myself for the honourable function which the Directors and Members of the Institution propose to entrust to me, I beg to be excused from undertaking it, as I could not without great personal inconvenience be at Edinburgh, or anywhere in Great Britain, in November next, in addition to which I have so much occupation on my hands, that I could with difficulty find time for the duty and the necessary preparation for it.

I have the honour to be

Sir
very respectfully yours

J. S. Mill

Henry Bowie Esq
&c &c

818.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Saint Véran, Avignon

May 15. 1865

Dear Chadwick

I have been so very busy, and have had, besides, so many letters to write, that I am very tardy in replying to your interesting letter of April 29. We were greatly amused by the “election humours” which it communicates, and by the comments you report on the injudiciousness of my second letter. I do not wonder that people should think it injudicious if they suppose that my grand object in the whole matter is to get myself elected. But as the only purpose for which I care to be elected is to get my opinions listened to, it would have been very “injudicious” in me to forego so good an opportunity of that, for fear that it should damage my election. I have gained this by it, that what are thought the most out of the way of all my opinions, have been, and are, discussed and canvassed from one end of the country to the other, and some of them (especially women’s voting) are obtaining many unexpected adhesions. I reckon this a good stroke of practicality, whether I am elected for Westminster or not.

As to the election itself, I had much rather you were elected than I, and if I could transfer my supporters in a body to you, I would do so instantly. I suspect, however, that the thing will be taken out of our hands. The appearance in the field of the illustrious man whom the Tories have put forward as the representative of the intelligent classes against popular ignorance, as embodied in me, will probably produce a general demand that one of the professedly liberal candidates should be withdrawn; and perhaps the appeal to the individual electors by circular, which we have contended for, will be made for the inferior purpose of ascertaining who ought to retire. I do not think the Tories expect their man to come in, otherwise some more considerable person would have started in that interest. But they are glad when anybody with money to spend, is willing to venture it on the chance.

I feel for Sir Edw. Lytton, who expected to get some credit from my friends by the expression of his good wishes (which were very likely sincere) but found he had come across a man who had the peculiarity of expecting that people should act up to what they say. I should have thought more highly of him if he had said plainly, “These are my private sentiments, but I must go with my party”, a feeling which, as men go, is very excusable. Lord Amberley, I am glad to see, has a higher standard. It is really a fine thing in him to have withdrawn from Grosvenor’s Committee and come over to me.

It is an agreeable surprise to me that Mr Westerton should have been so favourably impressed by the “Liberty”. I give him very great credit for it. It shews that his view of religion is a much higher and better one than is at all common. Had I listened to commonplace notions of “practicality,” I should never have published that book; yet its publication does not seem to do me any practical harm.

As to the application you have received about having my likeness taken for publication, I have a real difficulty about it, owing to having refused my photograph to friends who much wished for it. If it should be necessary, however, there is a cameo likeness of me, from which a copy could be taken; but it cannot be till we return.

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

P.S. I have just received your packet of printed documents. The list of the Committee is very good: there are some names on it which I am glad to see, but was afraid would be wanting.

819.

TO PARKE GODWIN

• Avignon

May 15. 1865

Dear Sir—

I had scarcely received your note of April 8 so full of calm joy in the splendid prospect now opening to your country & through it to the world; when the news came that an atrocious crime had struck down the great citizen who had afforded so noble an example of the qualities befitting the first magistrate of a free people & who in the most trying circumstances had gradually won not only the admiration but almost the personal affection of all who love freedom & appreciate simplicity & uprightness. But the loss is ours, not his. It was impossible to have wished him a better end than to add the crown of martyrdom to his other honours & to live in the memory of a great nation as those only live who have not only laboured for their country but died for it. And he did live to see the cause triumphant & the contest virtually over. How different would our feelings now be if this fate had overtaken him as it might so easily have done, a month sooner!

In England, horror of the crime & sympathy with your loss seem to be almost universal, even among those who have disgraced their country by wishing success to the slaveholders. I hope the manifestations which were instantaneously made there in almost every quarter may be received in America as some kind of atonement or peace-offering. I have never believed that there was any real danger of a quarrel between the two countries but it is of immense importance that we should be firm friends; & this is our natural state; for though there is a portion of the higher & middle classes of Great Britain who so dread & hate democracy that they cannot wish prosperity or power to a democratic people, I firmly believe that this feeling is not general even in our privileged classes. Most of the dislike & suspicion which have existed towards the U.S. were the effect of pure ignorance; ignorance of your history, & ignorance of your feelings & disposition as a people. It is difficult for you to believe that this ignorance could be as dense as it really was. But the late events have begun to dissipate it, & if your Government & people act as I fully believe they will, in regard to the important questions which now await them there will be no fear of their being ever again so grossly misunderstood, at least in the lives of the present generation.

As to the mode of dealing with these great questions, it does not become a foreigner to advise those who know the exigencies of the case so much better than he does. But as so many of my countrymen are volunteering advice to you at this crisis perhaps I may be forgiven if I offer mine the contrary way. Every one is vaguely inculcating gentleness, and only gentleness, as if you had shown any signs of disposition to take a savage revenge. I have always been afraid of one thing only, that you would be too gentle. I sh^d be very sorry to see any life taken after the war is over (except those of the assassins) or any evil inflicted in mere vengeance; but one thing I hope will be considered absolutely necessary: to break altogether the power of the slaveholding caste. Unless this is done, the abolition of slavery will be merely nominal. If an aristocracy of ex-slaveholders remain masters of the State legislatures they will be able effectually to nullify a great part of the result which has been so dearly bought by the blood of the Free States. They & their dependents must be effectually outnumbered at the polling-places: which can only be effected by the concession of full equality of political rights to negroes & by a large immigration of settlers from the North, both of them being made independent by the ownership of land. With these things in addition to the constitutional amendment (which will enable the Supreme Court to set aside any State legislation tending to bring back slavery in disguise) the cause of freedom is safe & the opening words of the Declaration of Independence will cease to be a reproach to the nation founded by its authors.

I doubt not that you have by this time received from Mr Hare the new edition of his book. I do not know if Mr Fawcett has fulfilled his intention of sending you his pamphlet, but as Mr Hare has adopted the simplifications which Mr Fawcett proposed, you will be under no necessity of learning them from any other source. I am,

dear Sir,
yours very truly,

J. S. Mill

820.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Avignon

May 22. 1865

Dear Sir

I have this morning received three more packets of extracts, for which I cannot sufficiently thank you. They are all of use to me, the unfavourable ones most of all.

You will do me a favour if you will buy the Fortnightly Review for me, and (after reading it yourself) keep it for me till my return to England. I should like to see the article you speak of, but do not think it worth while to have it sent here, and the more, as I have very little time at the present moment to read it.

I have the Saturday Review.

With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer I am

Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

821.

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL

• Avignon

le 23 mai 1865

Mon cher d’Eichthal

Merci de votre brochure sur “l’usage pratique de la langue grecque comme langue internationale” et des deux journaux grecs de Trieste. La première me fait désirer la complétion de l’ouvrage dont elle forme le commencement. Les derniers montrent bien l’enthousiasme que votre proposition excite très naturellement chez les esprits Helléniques. Je lis assez facilement le Grec moderne, à quoi, en effet, il suffit de posséder une certaine connaissance de la langue ancienne, et d’avoir lu une grammaire quelconque de la moderne: car, dans le vocabulaire, toute ce qui n’est pas grec ancien est une imitation assez drôle des mots occidentaux et surtout français. Je n’ai jamais ri de meilleur coeur que lorsqu’à ma première visite à la poste aux lettres d’Athènes, je vis devant moi une affiche commençant par ces mots: Ἡ γενικη διευθυνσις τω̑ Ἑλληνικων ἀτμοσκαϕειων Ἐιδοποιει̑.

Je trouve l’article de Littré fort bon, et votre lettre dans la Clio excellente. Ce serait, sans doute, difficile de faire dans la langue ordinaire la restauration grammaticale que vous proposez. Mais après tout ce que les Grecs ont déjà fait dans ce genre, il ne faut désespérer de rien. D’ailleurs l’instruction que reçoivent à peu près tous les enfants (au moins mâles) dans l’ancienne langue, rend ces changements beaucoup moins difficiles, puisque les formes restaurées seraient tout d’abord comprises.

Je vous renverrai les journaux, qui pourront vous servir encore pour la propagande.

Je ne connais M. Blackie que par son réputation et par quelques-uns de ses écrits. J’ai remarqué avec plaisir les succès parlementaires de Lanjuinais.

Ce serait une bonne fortune pour moi que de vous voir à Avignon: mais, pour le moment, je n’en ai guère l’espoir; car je me propose de partir en cinq jours pour une tournée dans les Cévennes et en Auvergne, après quoi je ne serai ici que pendant deux ou trois jours au commencement de juillet avant de partir pour l’Angleterre, où je passe habituellement la moitié de l’année. L’élection de Westminster n’est pour rien dans mon retour. Cette élection se fait absolument sans moi. Je ne compte pas du tout sur le succès, mais s’il arrive, il en sera d’autant plus honorable pour moi et pour les électeurs.

Je vous serre la main.

J. S. Mill

822.

TO EDWIN L. GODKIN

• Avignon

May 24, 1865

Dear Sir

I thank you very sincerely for your article in the North American Review; not merely for sending it to me, but for writing it. I consider it a very important contribution to the philosophy of the subject; a correction, from one point of view of what was excessive in Tocqueville’s theory of democracy, as my review of him was from another. You have fully made out that the peculiar character of society in the Western States—the mental type formed by the position and habits of the Pioneers—is at least in part accountable for many American phenomena which have been ascribed to democracy. This is a most consoling belief, as it refers the unfavourable side of American social existence (which you set forth with a fulness of candour that ought to shame the detractors of American literature and thought) to causes naturally declining, rather than to one which always tends to increase.

But if any encouragement were required by those who hope the best from American institutions, the New England States as they now are, would be encouragement enough. If Tocqueville had lived to know what those states have become, thirty years after he saw them, he would, I think, have acknowledged that much of the unfavourable part of his anticipations had not been realized. Democracy has been no leveller there, as to intellect and education, or respect for true personal superiority. Nor has it stereotyped a particular cast of thought; as is proved by so many really original writers, yourself being one. Finally, New England has now the immortal glory of having destroyed Slavery; to do which has required an amount of high principle, courage, and energy, which few other communities, either monarchial or republican, have ever displayed. And the great concussion which has taken place in the American mind, must have loosened the foundations of all prejudices, and secured a fair hearing for impartial reason on all subjects, such as it might not otherwise have had for many generations.

It is a happiness to have lived to see such a termination of the greatest and most corrupting of all social iniquities—which, more than all other causes together, lowered the tone of the national and especially the political mind of the United States. It now rests with the intellect and high aspirations of the Eastern States, and the energy and straightforward honesty of the Western, to make the best use of the occasion, and I have no misgiving as to the result.

Do not trouble yourself to send me the North American Review, as I already subscribe to it. But I shall always be glad to be informed of any article in it which is of your writing, and to know your opinion on any American question.

I am Dear Sir
yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

Edwin L. Godkin Esq.

823.

TO WILLIAM WHEWELL

• Avignon

May 24. 1865

Dear Sir—

It gave me great pleasure to receive your note of May 15. It was, in the first place, very agreeable to hear that you go along with my book, so far as it is directed against Sir W. Hamilton; which is fully as much approbation as I could hope for; & it was pleasant to be told that there are other points which could have been made against Sir W. H. but which I had omitted—fearful as I was of being charged, on the contrary, with having pursued him à toute outrance.

But a still greater cause of satisfaction to me from receiving your note, is that it gives me an opportunity on which without impertinent intrusion I may express to you, how strongly I have felt drawn to you by what I have heard of your sentiments respecting the American struggle (now drawing to a close) between freedom & slavery, & between legal got^t & rebellion without justification or excuse. No question of our time has been such a touchstone of men & has so tested their sterling qualities of mind & heart—as this one—& I shall all my life feel united by a sort of special tie with those, whether personally known to me or not, who have been faithful when so many were faithless. I am Dear Sir

very truly & respectfully yours

824.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Saint Véran, Avignon

May 28. 1865

Dear Sir

It seems a very long time since I either heard from you or wrote to you, and you may have thought it strange that I did not write on a subject of such deeply tragical interest to us both as the assassination of Lincoln. But I felt it necessary to express my feelings on that catastrophe to so many persons, Americans and others, who could not otherwise have known them, that I felt less prompted than usual to give vent to them, to those who would know and judge of them by their own. What I now principally feel is that the death of Lincoln, like that of Socrates, is a worthy end to a noble life, and puts the seal of universal remembrance upon his worth. He has now a place among the great names of history, and one could have wished nothing better for him personally than to die almost or quite unconsciously, in perhaps the happiest hour of his life. How one rejoices that he lived to know of Lee’s surrender.

At present I am chiefly anxious that the Americans may not do themselves any damage in the matter of Jefferson Davis. I do not like the trial of the assassins by martial law. If they try Davis in that manner, and convict him, let him be ever so guilty, the world will never believe that he had a fair trial. I have good hopes, however, from the favourable opinion of Johnson expressed by men who have the means of knowing him.

I was happy to see your name in full, attached to your excellent article on Lowe’s speech. There were several very good things in the last number: the leader, by Huxley, particularly so, notwithstanding what I venture to think heretical physiology, which, however, he clearly sees, and as clearly shews, not to affect in the smallest degree the moral, political, or educational questions, either as regards negroes or women. I wish, however, that the Reader did not cultivate a tone of flippant attack, often on very slender grounds which is infinitely more offensive than damaging to the persons attacked. The Saturday Review, with much more real matter, manages these things much better. Do you know the editor? He seems to me to be amenable to good influences, and worth cultivating.

We propose setting out in two or three days for an excursion in the central mountains of France, but letters will from time to time be forwarded to me from here. I shall be in England in time for the July meeting of the Club, at which I am pledged to open my question if required and where I shall hope to see you. If you write, pray tell me your London address.

Ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

825.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Saint Véran, Avignon

May 28, 1865

Dear Chadwick

You have indeed a fine list of occupations for any one to carry on pari passu with his election to Parliament. But your power of work seems unlimited.

The request of the Committee places me in a considerable embarrassment. What they propose is in itself perfectly reasonable; and any one who comes forward and proposes himself as a candidate, ought to be willing to meet the Committee and the Electors in the way they propose, as often as they think desirable. But I have never, from the beginning, been in the position of one who offers himself as a candidate. In my first letter I disclaimed doing so; I said that my personal inclination was against going into Parliament; but that if the electors of Westminster nevertheless did me the great honour of choosing me, I would do my best to serve them, and would answer unreservedly any number of questions respecting my political opinions, which might be put to me by or in behalf of any body of electors. My candidature went forth to the public on this footing; and this declaration seemed to be one of the causes of the feeling so widely expressed in favour of the candidature. If I were now to attend meetings and make speeches to the electors in the usual, and, in most cases, very proper manner, it would seem as if there had been no truth in my declaration that I did not personally seek to be in Parliament; as if I had merely been finessing to get myself elected without trouble and expense, and having found more difficulty than I expected, had at last shewn myself in my true colours, rather than run the risk of losing the election.

If you will kindly represent these things to the Committee, they will, I hope, enter into the difficulty I feel. If they think that any further explanation of my opinions would be desirable, they have only to ask for it. If Mr Beal, or Mr Westerton, or any other member of the Committee, will write to me, asking my opinion on any new points, or the reasons and justification of my opinion on any of those on which it has been already asked and given, I shall have the greatest pleasure in satisfying them.

In the same manner, I shall be happy to reprint any of my articles which the Committee may propose. I cannot, however, remember any that would be much to the purpose, as the political articles are mostly on gone-by politics. I should be very happy to reprint the article on “Enfranchisement of Women,” but it must be as my wife’s, not as mine.

I am glad to hear what you tell me concerning Mr M’Clean. In addition to his very handsome subscription, he has lately sent me two polite invitations in his capacity of President of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and I was desirous to know how I had acquired so much of his good will.

Any writing by Tories, nominally in my favour, is of no consequence. The Tories prefer anybody to a regular government man, as they suppose Grosvenor to be. Any one who is not a pledged member of the ministerial party, they hope may now and then give them a stray vote. But if I were elected I should hope to be a much greater thorn in their side than a member of the old Whig connexion can be.

This letter of course is not for publication, but it may be shewn to any members of the Committee.

I am Dear Chadwick
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

826.

TO THOMAS HARE

• Saint Véran, Avignon

May 29. 1865

Dear Sir

It is a long time since I wrote to you: indeed, from a variety of causes. I have had so many more letters to write to total or comparative strangers than I ever wrote in the same time before, that writing to my real friends has been put off. I have not, however, been inattentive to what you have been doing meanwhile. The Social Science meeting evidently gave a push onward to Personal Representation, and you have followed it up in the Daily News with vigour and effect. The question has for the first time passed into the domain of popular discussion, and is making unexpected proselytes. You must have noted Lubbock’s qualified and Hughes’ distinct adhesion in their electoral addresses. Perhaps you may not have observed a letter from Francis Newman, giving reasons for and against supporting my candidature, in which my adherence to your plan is placed among the foremost of the reasons for supporting me. There are also articles in some of the country papers, shewing that the plan is obtaining favour in proportion as it becomes known. In addition to which, my Westminster supporters are all busy finding what they can say to defend their candidate on the points of representation of minorities and women’s suffrage. Certainly this election affair is a better propaganda for all my political opinions than I might have obtained for many years; and it is selling my cheap editions, and indeed the dear ones too, in a most splendid manner.

My occupation here, except letter-writing, has been of a kind very remote from these interests, being chiefly that of reading Plato, with a view to reviewing Grote’s new book. I do not find that this by any means quickens my zeal in my own cause, as a candidate. It is an infinitely pleasanter mode of spending May to read the Gorgias and Theatetus under the avenue of mulberries which you know of, surrounded by roses and nightingales, than it would be to listen to tiresome speaking for half the night in the House of Commons. The only disagreeable thing here is having to choose between pleasures: thus we are about to tear ourselves away from this most enjoyable place to make a tour in the Cevennes and Auvergne, beginning at Alais, and going round by Le Vigun, the Lozère, the Cantal, and Mont Dore, to Clermont. We expect much pleasure from this, but we give up so much pleasure by not remaining here, that did we not think it useful to health, I do not believe we could either of us make up our minds to it.

I shall be back for the July meeting of the Club, where I shall hope to see you. I am glad to see that Gladstone is to be chosen a member.

With our kind regards to all your family

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

Letters will be sent to us from here.

827.

TO HERBERT SPENCER

• Saint Véran, Avignon

May 29. 1865

Dear Sir

Nothing can be more agreeable to me than to hear that you are going to answer me in the Fortnightly Review. I hope you will not spare me. If you make out so strong a case (and no one is more likely to do so if it can be done) as to make it absolutely necessary for me to defend myself, I shall perhaps do so through the same Review; but not without a positive necessity. I have had enough, for the present, of writing against a friend and ally.

With regard to the Reader, I like the plan of full signatures. I am glad to see that my friend Professor Cairnes has adopted it, & I should be glad if it were the common practice. But, to admit of this, it would be necessary for the Reader to give up the plan it has recently adopted of making slashing attacks to the right and left, with very insufficient production of evidence to justify the vituperation: and in a manner which gives to an indifferent spectator the impression either of personal ill will in the particular case, or of general flippancy and dogmatism. Contributors will not like to identify themselves by name with a publication which would embroil them with an unlimited number of angry and vindictive writers together with their friends and their publishers. I myself should not like to be supposed to be in any way connected, for instance, with the attack on the Edinburgh Review (for which I am at this very time preparing an article)—an attack of which I wholly dislike the tone, and agree only partially with the substance; and it happens that the article singled out from the last number for special contempt, my name too being cited against it, is by a personal friend of my own, a man of very considerable merit, whom I was desirous of securing as a recruit for the Reader—and who is very naturally hurt and indignant at the treatment of him. I am by no means against severity in criticism, but the more it is severe, the more it needs to be well weighed and justly distributed. I have represented a good deal of this to Mr. Rae, with whom I am in correspondence, and of whom in other respects I have formed a very favourable impression. He has very much improved the Reader, and is improving it more and more; and but for that one fault it bids fair to justify our original hopes.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

828.

TO MAX KYLLMANN

• S[aint] V[éran]

May 30, 1865

Dear Sir—

I have not written to you since I came here, having from various causes been so overwhelmed with letter writing that I was obliged to adjourn all of it that admitted of postponement. I now write though I have not anything very particular to say, except that I am going to leave Avignon for a tour in the Cevennes & Auvergne & though letters will be sent to me from here, they will not reach me so soon or so certainly as at present. It seems to me that discussion on the fundamental points of representative government & especially on the points raised in my Westminster letters, is going on very satisfactorily at present. Numbers of country papers are sent to me in which Hare’s system, repr of minorities, in all its shapes, and women’s suffrage are mooted—sometimes with approbation, & often (especially as to women’s suffrage) with much less hostility than was to be expected. You have probably seen Mr. Hughes’ declaration in favour of Hare’s system & Francis Newman’s commendation of me for adhering to it. The cheaper editions also are going off at a wonderful rate & even the dear ones are increasing in sale. These are substantial advantages derived from the West^r contest whether it succeeds or not. I think it hardly possible that it should succeed. Though it has brought to light a most unexpected amount of good feeling by isolated individuals towards me personally, there is no set of political men who really wish to have me in Parl^t: neither Whigs, nor Tories, nor the Bright radicals (though I hear that B. himself speaks in my favour), nor any other set of radicals except perhaps the Cooperative section of the working classes. Look at the list of subscribers for the election expenses: next to none of them are representative men. They are people from here, there, & everywhere who have happened to like my books. Many even who for personal reasons might have subscribed, hold back, evidently because their sets are hostile to me. This is what I always said would be the case. As Comte says, “tout ce qui est aujourd’hui classé” is sure to be hostile to really new ideas—a little shuffling of the cards is all they want.

But enough of this. I am full of joy & spirits for the glorious future of America. The catastrophe of Lincoln though it was a great shock, does not cloud the prospect. How could one have wished him a happier death? He died almost unconsciously, in the fulness of success, & martyrdom in so great a cause consecrates his name through all history. Such a death is the crown of a noble life.

829.

TO WILLIAM FRASER RAE

• Avignon

May 31. 1865

Dear Sir

The author of the paper “Nurses Wanted” offers an article on a very different subject, a notice of the new (and much improved) edition of Mr Hare’s book on Representation. The article is strongly in favour of Mr Hare’s system; which I suppose you do not object to, especially as any other contributor is free to take the opposite side. I think the writer brings out some important points very well, and will give an impression of novelty in the mode of treatment.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

W. F. Rae Esq.

830.

TO CHARLES LORING BRACE

[June, 1865]

Your remark is most just on the unworthiness of the conversions due only to success. Such conversions merely show the fundamental unworthiness of the original error. The disgust they occasion is one of the causes which make those who have fought an up-hill battle up to the hour of victory eager to go forward to something else, in which they will still have the low-minded and selfish part of mankind against them.

831.

TO ROWLAND G. HAZARD

• Bagnols les Bains, Lozère

June 7, 1865

Dear Sir

I am writing to you from a little place in the mountains of Central France, where we are making a short excursion. I have not liked to write until I had read your treatise on Freewill. I have now done so, with great admiration in many respects, but I am unable to say that it has made any alteration in my opinion. It is very clearly thought and expressed, and draws some metaphysical distinctions which though quite correct are often disregarded, for instance, that fundamental one between volition and choice. There is great acuteness too in much of the polemic with Edwards, though I think that he might have found much to say in reply to it, and that you have sometimes refuted rather his expressions than his thoughts. But I do not find that your arguments in any way touch the doctrine of so-called Necessity as I hold it. You allow that volition requires the previous existence of two things, which the mind itself did not make, at least directly, nor, in most cases, at all: a knowledge, and a want. You consider as the peculiarity of a free cause, that its determinations do not depend on the past, but on a preconception of the future. But though the knowledge and the want refer to what is future, the knowledge and the want themselves are not future facts, but present, or rather past, facts, for they must exist previous to the volitional act. You seem to admit not only that the knowledge and want are conditions precedent to the will, but that the character of the will invariably corresponds to that of the knowledge and want, and that any variation in either of these determines, or at least is sure to be followed by, a corresponding variation in the volition. Now this is all that I, as a necessitarian, require. I do not believe in anything real corresponding to the phrases Necessity, Causal Force or the like. I acknowledge no other link between cause and effect, even when both are purely material, than invariability of sequence, from which arises possibility of prediction. And this it seems to me, on your own shewing, exists equally between volitions and the mental antecedents by which you allow that they are and must be preceded.

My own view of the subject you will find in a chapter of my book on Sir William Hamilton, which I hope reached you, and to which I must refer you for the arguments I have not room for here. Let me add, however, that on the subject, practically considered, I am at one with you. Your view of what the mind has power to do, seems to me quite just: but we differ on the question, how the mind is determined to do it.

To turn to another subject, no less interesting to us both; you seem to have now a finance minister who understands currency, and the close of the war will render return to the right path comparatively easy. I look forward to the brightest future for America now, provided the North is not foolishly generous to its conquered enemies. It is quite indispensable to break the power of the Slaveholding oligarchy. Emancipation is not enough, without making the freed negroes electors and landholders, nor without reinforcing them by a large migration of northern people into the southern states. Otherwise the negroes will remain in a state of dependence on their old masters approaching to slavery, and both they and the mean whites will be kept ignorant and brutish as they have been kept hitherto. I would not shrink from extensive confiscation if it were necessary for these purposes, but doubtless the impoverishment of the great landholders, and their disgust with the new state of things, will cause a great number of the large estates to be sold and broken up, a thing eminently desirable. Probably the indignation of your whole people at the atrocious crime which robbed the world of your noble President, added to the known opinions and determined character of his successor, may tend to diminish the risk of any undue indulgence being shown to those who, like dethroned despots, will be always hankering after their lost power. It is only the next generation of them who can possibly become true citizens of a free nation.

I am Dear Sir
very sincerely yours

J. S. Mill

R. G. Hazard Esq.

832.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Mende, Lozère

June 8. 1865

Dear Chadwick

I am extremely sorry that your two letters were not answered immediately, owing to their having arrived a day or two after we had set out on an excursion in the mountains. They have been forwarded to me here, along with a letter from Mr Beal, to whom I have by this post sent a reply, which he will no doubt communicate to you. I have told him that I am decidedly for proceeding in the way first proposed, and submitting your name to the electors with those of all the candidates, and that it would not be just to you to ask you to forgo such claims as you possess, without having laid them before the electors and obtained their decision. The talk about dividing the liberal interest is quite inapplicable to the course proposed, in which it is implied that neither you nor I will be nominated if the result of the appeal to the electors shews that we have fewer supporters than Grosvenor and Smith. I need not repeat what my own wishes are, and that I would much rather you were elected than myself. But that is not the question: it is for the electors to shew their preference, and for us, or rather our supporters, to withdraw our names if any other candidates in the liberal interest are preferred to us.

I have revised your address, not as to matter, but as to style, in which it was very defective, and sometimes even unintelligible, from haste. The contents of it (and it is an understatement of your public services) ought to suffice for your election by any constituency in the country. If the public were not so much inured to seeing any petty consideration prevail over personal fitness they would feel it a national disgrace that you are not in Parliament.

Ever, dear Chadwick,
yours truly

J. S. Mill

833.

TO GEORGE GROTE

• Mont Dore les Bains

June 18. 1865

My dear Grote

Many thanks for the two sheets, which were waiting for me at Mende along with your letter. The chapter on the Leges is less interesting than most of the others, because the subject is less so: its inferiority, in fact, was the main point to bring out. The two concluding chapters, on the other hand, are equal in interest to almost anything in the work; especially the account of the Megarics, Kyrenaics &c. of whom I previously knew very little. I hope to be able to make a useful article on the book: but when I spoke of giving an intellectual outline of Plato from your materials, I meant from your thoughts: not that I had attained any higher point of view than yours, but that I hoped to reproduce yours in a condensed form.

I hope you have seen Mark Pattison’s review of you in the Reader. He contests the question of the Platonic canon with you, or rather, promises to contest it. I fancy he reckons the history of philosophy one of his own strong points; which it certainly is not, since he can speak of Aristotle as a mere pupil of Plato. I was pleased, however, as well as surprised, to find him so eulogistic of the book in every other respect. He had just before written a review of my Hamilton in which he equally surprised me by the extent of his adhesion.

How valuable to me is your approbation of the Hamilton I need not say. The opinion you express of it comes up to my highest hopes. I have been amused by some of the discussions respecting it which have been evoked by the stimulus of the Westminster affair. I learn from the Spectator, that the Morning Advertiser (à propos of the chapter on Mansel’s Bampton Lectures) declares that I am not only an athetist, but have on this occasion put forth my atheism in a form the most revolting which the editor of that paper has ever met with: and the Record says I am the chief of the Satanic School in England at present. The Spectator, on the contrary, says the principal value of the book is the logical; that the passages in question are the true language of prophets and apostles: and in the same number in which it attacks and protests against the philosophy of the book, makes a hearty and vigorous defence of its religion: saying at the same time that it has never been able to find out what my private religious opinions are, and that nobody has any right to pry into them. All this is pretty much as I expected, and wished.

I am writing to you from a beautiful place, in the heart of a valley which is an old crater, surmounted by summits between 6 and 7000 feet above the sea, though only from 3 to 4000 above the plateau of Central France. The interior of the crater is filled up with the loveliest pastures and forests. We have enjoyed our tour very much, and have not been indulged with a single rainy day, or even hour, in which to get on with Plato. I hope to see you in the early part of next month.

With our kind regards to M^rs Grote

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

834.

TO CHARLES WESTERTON

Clermont-Ferrand, June 21 [1865]

Dear Sir—

I very much regret that your letter and telegraphic message were not answered as promptly as I should have wished, they having had to be forwarded to me here. I have no objection whatever to attend meetings of the Committee, or even of the electors, other than those which I stated in my answer to a letter which Mr Chadwick wrote to me on the subject, at the request as I understood, of the Committee. But I confess the reason you now give for desiring me to come over and meet the Committee, operates on my mind the reverse way. I should never, for my own part, think of taking any notice of a charge of irreligion brought by the Record or the M. Advertiser. They are ready to bring such a charge against the most pious man in England if he does not agree in their narrow minded & thoroughly unChristian notions of religion and my attending a meeting just at present would scarcely promote the purpose for which you suggest it, since I should positively and deliberately refuse to allow myself to be interrogated on any subject whatever of purely religious opinion. I do this on principle. I conceive that no one has any right to question another on his religious opinions; that the tree ought to be judged, and only can be judged, by its fruits; and I hold myself bound, not for my own sake, for it is my practice to speak my opinions very plainly, but for the sake of future candidates, not to do any thing that may facilitate raising a religious cry against a person who may be unassailable as a politician, on evidence extorted from his own mouth. The case is different as to my expressed opinions. Whatever I have written and published I stand by, and am ready to defend; and I defy any one to point out in my writing a single passage that conflicts with what the best religious minds of our time accept as Christianity. The passage which, I am informed, the Record and the Advertiser have fastened upon, I maintain to be one of the most religious and Christian expressions of feeling in all recent literature. I am not alone in this opinion. Among many others, one of the most eminent of the Bench of Bishops declares in a letter in the Spectator of June 17, that the sentence in question breathes the purest spirit of Christian morality; and the Spectator itself (a most religious paper) had said a fortnight before, of the same sentence, that it speaks the true language of Prophets and Apostles. Such expressions as these it would not become me to use; but I am not afraid that your judgment, or that of any rational person who reads the passage and the context fairly, would pronounce it other than Christian, in the truest sense. I am not aware that Mr Mansel’s theology is the same thing with religion, or that to say that I will worship no God but a good God is to be an atheist.—You are at full liberty to make any use you please public or private, of this letter.

Any letter to me had better be addressed to Avignon, as I am about to return there, and thence very shortly to England.

Charles Westerton, Esq.

835.

TO CHARLES WESTERTON

[June 21, 1865]

Dear Sir—

When I wrote to you this morning I had not yet received your letter of the 17th inst. written in the name of the Committee and requesting a personal interview. In reply I beg to say that I shall be happy to attend the Committee on any day they may appoint after I arrive in England. In the meantime I beg to say that with regard to the plan of addressing the electors by circular, as on every other matter connected with the election, it rests with the Committee alone to decide; and I regard it simply as an additional mark of courtesy and consideration towards myself, that they should have sought any consultation with me on the subject. Not taking any of the usual burthens of a candidate, I have no claim to the privileges of one. It is but reasonable that those who take all the trouble should freely determine on their own judgment the course to be pursued. I did not volunteer the proposal of submitting various names to the constituency, as a suggestion of my own; I understood it to be included in the original scheme of which my nomination was a part; and thinking the plan an excellent one, both in itself and as an example, I expressed strongly the approbation which I felt. My opinion on the subject is not changed; I still think that it would have been highly desirable to adopt this course in the first instance. The Committee, however, are of opinion that the time has gone by for it, and that it would not be suitable to the present state of affairs. They have a perfect right to act on their own judgment; and were they even to carry courtesy so far as to postpone their judgment to mine, to accept such an act of abnegation would be to take the conduct of the election out of their hands, which I am as little inclined as entitled to do. Any discussion between us, therefore, on this matter, I regard as merely an affair of friendly explanation, and not of a practical character. I shall be at Blackheath Park on the 6^th of July, and I shall hold myself at the disposal of the Committee any day and hour afterwards, except the evening of the 7^th for which I have a positive engagement.

836.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Brioude

June 22. 1865

Dear Chadwick

Your letters of the 15th and 16th followed me to Clermont, and along with them I received an urgent letter from Mr Westerton (with a telegraphic message which had preceded it) urging emphatically the necessity of my coming over at once on account of the accusations of atheism made against me by the Record and the Morning Advertiser. I thought so much sensitiveness to such attacks from such quarters of very bad augury; and not choosing to submit to being catechized on my religious belief, I wrote to Mr Westerton as follows: [Here JSM copies Letter 834].

By the next day’s post I received a further letter from Mr Westerton as Chairman of the Committee requesting on their part a personal interview with me for the purpose of explaining to me how they had endeavoured to adopt my plan (as he called it) of addressing the electors by circular, and why they were now of opinion that altered circumstances render it desirable to abandon the plan. I do not see what answer I could give to this except that it was their affair, not mine; that having been asked my opinion I had given it, and that it is unchanged; but that I am not a candidate, and have no right or wish to take the management of the election into my own hands. I therefore wrote the following letter: [Here JSM copies Letter 835].

My private opinion is, that they made a mess of the matter, and spoiled their chances of great public good and great honour to themselves, by not acting on the plan at first; but that they have let the time go by; that they would stultify themselves by adopting it now, and (especially after Shelley’s retirement) would bring on themselves bitter reproaches for dividing the liberal interest, which they are not the men to be capable of facing. My opinion of them is greatly lowered, and I doubt much if they have it in them to bring in even one candidate. Mr Beal is evidently not a typical, but a much too favourable specimen of them.

If you decide to start independently, I will subscribe, as I said. I do not think either of us will be elected. I would at present lay considerable odds on Grosvenor and Smith.

The details in your letters interest me very much and some of them are really important, for purposes much beyond this election.

I am Dear Chadwick
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

Of course this letter is private, and only for yourself.

837.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Avignon

June 26. 1865

Dear Chadwick

A very urgent letter which I have received this morning from Mr Westerton seems to make it necessary that I should return immediately, as it is due to those who have taken so much trouble about me that I should not give them the impression that for my own convenience I expose them to the probable frustration of all their endeavours. I shall therefore be at Blackheath next Friday morning, and shall probably see Mr Westerton and perhaps the Committee on the same day. I shall apparently be obliged to attend also a meeting of the electors, though by doing so I shall in some degree alter the original character of my candidature, which I had wished to preserve.

As I expect to see you so soon, I need not touch on any other topic.

Ever, dear Chadwick
yours truly

J. S. Mill

838.

TO CHARLES WESTERTON

• Avignon

June 26, 1865.

Dear Sir

Your letter, which I have just received, leaves me no alternative but to comply with the wish which you so strongly express. I will therefore return to England immediately, and shall arrange so as to arrive early on Friday the 30th.

I shall be happy to attend the Committee or to call on you personally on that or any following day, if you will kindly write to Blackheath Park fixing the place and time.

I am Dear Sir
Very truly yours

J. S. Mill.

Charles Westerton Esq.

839.

TO CHARLES WESTERTON

• Blackheath Park

June 30. 1865

Dear Sir

Having been informed by you that a proposal has been received from Capt. Grosvenor’s Committee, for a personal conference between Capt. Grosvenor and five members of his Committe on the one part, and myself and five members of your Committee on the other, to discuss the possibility of cooperation between the two bodies; I beg to say, that I can have no objection whatever to a conference between the two Committees for the proposed purpose, but that I cannot personally take any part in it. I have from the first declared that I am not a candidate, in the ordinary sense of the term; that I do not offer myself to the electors, but that, if thought worthy of the honour of being elected, I will do my best to serve them. To engage personally in a negociation with another candidate, would be not only to assume the character which I have disclaimed but to take into my own hands, in a certain degree, the management of the election. That management must rest, as it has hitherto done, wholly with your Committee; with whose judgment respecting the mode of conduct which most conduces to the furtherance of the liberal interest, I have neither the wish nor the right to interfere.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Charles Westerton Esq.

840.

TO HARRIET ISABELLA MILL

• Blackheath Park

July 2, 1865

Dear Harriet

I duly received your packet, but thought it best to put off signing the document till I got my signature witnessed in London. Having now done so, I dispatch it to Mr. Paterson by the first post.

There is no occasion to send stamps.

I am glad that you have got to the end of your troubles in this matter.

J.S.M.

841.

TO EDWIN ARNOLD

• Blackheath Park

July 6, 1865

Dear Sir

I am very much indebted to you for your note, as well as for your most energetic and most valuable support. I did not get the note until I had finished my speaking for the evening except in answer to questions. If any one had come, as I fully expected, primed with questions out of the Morning Advertiser, I was prepared to enter upon the subject you mention. But as no one said anything about it, I thought it best to say nothing either. If I should be troubled on the subject at any of the other meetings I have to attend (which does not now seem likely) I shall be ready to face the assailants. But (thanks partly to you) I have now such a multitude of defenders that they would carry me through almost any attacks—saying and doing much more for me than I should choose to say or do for myself.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Edwin Arnold Esq.

842.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath

July 6. 1865

Dear Chadwick

Though I hope you have gone to Evesham, I write to say that when I went to the meeting yesterday evening, the Committee had already come to an arrangement with Grosvenor’s Committee, in the bona fides of which they seemed to have complete confidence so that there was nothing for me to do but to acquiesce in it. I had copies made of the draft of my speech, but as the reports of the previous meeting were so satisfactory, I made no use of them, and those of this morning give me no reason to regret that I did not. You will have seen in the Daily News, and doubtless in the Telegraph, the onslaught I made on the money power. The Times report, though otherwise good, has cut down, or rather cut out, all that related to that subject. I have to speak at meetings tonight, Saturday, and Monday. Happily Monday’s must be the last. The meeting was very enthusiastic, and every one seemed very confident. Qui vivra verra. I shall only believe in success when I see it; and, success or not, shall always regret that the original plan was not tried. The probable loss of some liberal seats even metropolitan ones, through too many or bad candidates, will make the liberal managers see what they ought to have done when it is too late to retrieve the error. I am

Dear Chadwick
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

843.

TO W. L. HARVEY

Blackheath-park, July 13 [1865]

Dear Sir,—

The suggestion you make of an optional secrecy of voting has been made before, but it has always appeared to me to be liable to all the objections against the ballot without having its advantages; since an elector who asked for the ballot would, by doing so, be considered to declare that he intended to vote in opposition to the influence exerted over him; and the influence which is strong enough to induce him to vote against his convictions would be strong enough to compel him to give his vote openly as long as he had the option of doing so. Electors who are tradesmen may be some times exposed to coercive influence from both sides; but in that case I should expect that both sides, or at all events the one which thought itself strongest, would insist on the elector’s voting openly, in order that they might know whether they could depend on him.

You are at liberty to publish my letter.

I am, dear Sir, very faithfully yours,

J. S. Mill

844.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

Blackheath Park, July 13, 1865

Dear Sir—

. . . In spite of Mr. Hill’s drawing back about the Wolverhampton Plate-Lock Makers, the papers which have been sent to me from both sides, and especially the report of the correspondent of “Aris’s Birmingham Gazette,” confirm me in my opinion that the Co-operators are wholly in the right.

I am, dear Sir, very truly yours,

J. S. Mill

845.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath

July 14 / 65

Dear Sir

Would this day week Friday the 21^st, suit you and M^rs Cairnes for coming here about 12 o’clock and going with us to Chiselhurst returning here to dinner? If Mr Conway would do us the favour of accompanying you, he would see some very pretty country of the English type, and would give me the pleasure I much desire of seeing and conversing with him.

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

846.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Blackheath

July 14, 1865

Dear Sir

To begin with the most pressing—there does not exist any photograph of me; but I have been so urged to have one taken, that I have been obliged to make up my mind to it, and I promise that you shall have one of the very first copies.

I cannot thank you enough for the trouble you have taken in sending me such a number of cuttings from newspapers &c which I should not otherwise have seen, and for which even in a pecuniary sense I must be considerably your debtor. We are hoping to see you and Mrs Plummer very soon but are still so overloaded with occupations we cannot put off, that we have not been able yet to fix a day when we can ask you to give us that pleasure.

In haste
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

847.

TO WILLIAM GEORGE WARD

[After July 17, 1865]

It gives me much pleasure that you sympathise so completely with me on the subject of the Westminster election. That you were sure to feel with me as to the passage of my book for which I have been attacked, I could not doubt after reading your book on Nature and Grace. Let me add that (whatever may be my opinion of Ultramontanism) I know far too much both of your writings and of yourself to be in any danger of mistaking you for a ‘bigot.’ Few people have proved more fully than you not only their endeavour but their ability to do ample justice to an opponent.

[Mill wrote also at considerable length on the Galileo case, and the essay was partially recast in deference to his criticism.]

848.

TO JANE MILL FERRABOSCHI

• Blackheath Park

July 18, 1865

Dear Jane

Though extremely busy, I write these few words to thank you for your congratulations, and to wish you, though it is past the day, many happy returns of your birthday. I am quite well, and am glad to hear a good account of your health and that of all your family. The cause of my not having called on you is that it is many years since I have passed more than a few hours at Paris. I regretted that some time ago when you were in England, my absence prevented me from seeing you. Helen desires her kind regards.

J.S.M.

849.

TO HENRY FRANKS

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

July 21, 1865.

Dear Sir—

I have been prevented by much occupation from sooner acknowledging your letter dated the 14^th.

The difficulty which you feel I understand to be this: how is the opinion that Christianity might have been extinguished by persecution, compatible with the belief that God intended & preordained that Christianity should subsist? I conceive there is no inconsistency between the two opinions. If Xtianity would have perished had it been persecuted in a certain manner, if God had preordained that it sh^d not perish, the reasonable inference is that God preordained that it should not be persecuted in that manner. The preservation of Xtianity thus brought about would be no “accident” but part of the divine plan.

The relation between means & ends is quite compatible with a providential government of human affairs. It is only necessary to suppose that God, when he willed the end, willed the means necessary to its accomplishment. If the Maker of all things intended that a certain thing should come to pass, it is reasonable to suppose that provision was made in the general arrangements of the universe for its coming to pass consistently with these arrangements.

850.

TO THE REV. WILLIAM HENRY LYTTELTON

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

July 21. 1865

Dear Sir—

I thank you most sincerely for your Tract which I have read with very great pleasure & sympathy. Though I had read several papers belonging to the same series & was well acquainted with your name & character I had not happened to see this tract. You had a strong case & you have stated it well & effectively, & above all, like one who feels its importance. I cannot conceive how any other view than that which you take, of the question raised by Mr Mansel, can be deemed religious, or Christian; & I felt sure that in maintaining, from my own point of view, the same conception of religious duty, I sh^d be in complete sympathy with the best part of the religious world—using that phrase in its literal & not in its slang acceptation. Accordingly the manner in which so many of the greatest ornaments of the C[hurch] of E[ngland] lately came forward to share the responsibility of a doctrine which coming from me was called atheistic & satanic, did not cause me half so much pleasure from its connexion with myself as because it so fully justified the perfect confidence I had in their high feelings & principles. It causes me no surprise but additional pleasure that you so fully participate in the same convictions & sentiments.

I return as desired your letter in the Guardian with thanks for the pleasure it has given me.

851.

TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE

• Blackheath Park

July 23. 1865

My dear Sir

Allow me, in thanking you for your kind congratulations on the result of the Westminster election, to congratulate in my turn, not you, but the electors of South Lancashire, on having placed themselves in the honourable position which another constituency has so unwisely relinquished. Though your reelection for the University under the new circumstances would have been, both personally and publicly, a great triumph, the opposite result is not any real loss, it being obvious to everybody that, but for the new mode of voting, you would have been returned by a large majority. If the temporary check to the Liberal party had indicated a retrograde movement at Oxford, it would have been a serious matter. But the country knows that the real University, the resident members of the body, are clear of the discredit of this party move, and that, with them, you are stronger than ever. It is even possible that this disappointment, by stimulating the Liberal party in the University to increased exertions, may ultimately be as great a help to the cause of improvement as even your reelection would have been.

I am My dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

852.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Blackheath

July 25, 1865

Dear Sir

I hope to be able to give you a photograph soon, but I have not yet received a proof from the artist. As soon as I have a likeness in a state to be sent to you I will send it.

Hoping to see you and Mrs Plummer on Sunday I am

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

853.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Blackheath Park

July 28, 1865

Dear Sir

Many thanks for your note.

My usual conditions with my publishers are the ordinary half profit plan for a single edition—the number of copies to be at the discretion of the publisher and the copyright to remain with me. This is what I should propose for the Comte papers, if agreeable to Mr Trübner. I should wish to revise the articles before they are sent to the printer.

I shall be very glad to hear of any further applications of your discovery. If it proves applicable to cholera, it will be still more important than it is already shewn to be. I am

Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

854.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Blackheath

July 28 [1865]

Dear Sir

I wrote last Sunday to ask if you and Mrs Plummer would do us the pleasure of dining with us next Sunday July 30 at six o’clock. I have since received a note from you and not being sure when yours was written, do not know whether you have received mine. I should be glad to know whether we may count on the pleasure of seeing you.

I hope the photograph will soon be ready.

I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

855.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Blackheath Park

July 30. 1865

Dear Sir

I have been long under an engagement to review Mr Grote’s book for the Edinburgh —and shall scarcely have time to do that, much less to write another review also, before the meeting of Parliament. I sympathize much in your difficulty, as it is not easy to find writers who are sufficiently familiar both with Plato and with philosophy, without being full of wrong ideas on the latter, if not on both. I can think of no one who is not likely to have been already thought of by yourself. Have you asked Professor Bain?

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

856.

TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN

• Blackheath

July 31, 1865

Dear Sir—

In revising my Logic for a new edition I have arrived at the places where your son pointed out an error—viz, in my numerical estimation of the probability arising from the addition of two independent improbabilities (Vol. 2. Ch. 23 § 6 of the third book). I find to my very great regret that I have mislaid the paper which contained the discussion of the point, and though I was convinced at the time, I have not been able to reason out for myself the estimation of the compound probability in the case supposed. Though I greatly regret giving you the trouble, I should feel it a great favour if you would kindly put on paper the few sentences which would be sufficient to make me once more understand the matter as it really is.

I ought not to need this additional assistance but though it is my own fault, I think it better to ask for instruction on the subject than to go without it.

857.

TO HELEN TAYLOR

• Penzance
• (Queen’s Hotel)

Wednesday [Aug. 2, 1865]

Thanks dear for taking the trouble to write an abstract of so many letters. None of them need be sent, or need be answered till I come back, except Thornton’s. To him I will write tonight or tomorrow & I quite agree with you about not taking any notice of Smith’s letter. It is very possible that the creature thinks he has not committed any corruption, for that sort of person squares his conscience by the law, entirely.

I rather think I shall not return till Monday, but I will write again to say. Irvine seems rather inclined to stay on, and there is plenty to do botanically for a much longer time. We have been successful thus far—fine though showery weather (I have brought & worn a waterproof) & plenty of plants but I have not been so well as I expected to be having had diarrhoea which is going off but has not quite left me. I cannot write more as I am keeping Irvine from his dinner to save the post.

Yours ever affectionately

J.S.M.

858.

TO RICHARD CONGREVE

• B[lackheath] P[ark].

Aug. 8. 1865

Dear Sir—

It is precisely because I consider M. Comte to have been a great thinker, that I regard it as a duty to balance the strong & deeply felt admiration which I express for what I deem the fundamental parts of his philosophy by an equally emphatic expression of the opposite feeling I entertain towards other parts. It is M. Comte himself who, in my judgment, has thrown ridicule on his own philosophy by the extravagances of his later writings; & since he has done so, I conceive that the mischief can only be corrected if those who desire to separate the first from the last, shew that they are as much alive to the ridiculous side of his character & speculations as those are who are unable to appreciate his greatness. Unless this separation can be effected, either the absurdities will weigh down the merits or the merits will float the absurdities, & since many of those last are, in my estimation, of such a kind that if it were impossible to laugh at them it would be necessary to denounce them seriously & severely, I am glad that the former side of the alternative is possible. Forgive the freedom with which I express what I know must appear to you not only error & prejudice, but want of due modesty & reverence. But any weaker terms would not put you in full possession of what I feel in the matter, on which feeling must rest the justification of the tone of the article. In saying that the offence I feared I might give would be unintentional I did not mean that it would be unforeseen, but only that such a consequence of my free speaking on the subject would be one which I sh^d sincerely regret. I earnestly disclaimed, near the beginning of the second article, any feeling but that of respect towards M. Comte’s persistent disciples, and I am bound to acknowledge the extreme courtesy of your letter, in circumstances which would have excused in my eyes some vehemence of language.

859.

TO GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE

• Blackheath Park

Aug. 8. 1865

Dear Sir

I have to thank you for three or four notes which want of time prevented me from answering when I received them. I congratulate you on the triumphant return of Mr Cowen for Newcastle, and I regret that the attacks on you should have prevented the realization of your hopes in regard to the Secretaryship.

The Affirmation Bill must not be suffered to drop in consequence of Sir John Trelawny’s absence from the House. His non-election is one of the greatest of the few losses which advanced opinions have sustained in this Parliament.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

860.

TO THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY

• Blackheath Park

Aug. 8. 1865

Dear Sir

I suppose that the projected International Education Society is intended to carry out the plan concerning which a good deal has been written by Professor Lorimer of Edinburgh. The idea seems to me a good one, but I should hardly place it in the foremost rank of the improvements which require to be made in education, and in any case I could not afford to give any time to it, or incur any responsibility. I do not know whether being one of the Vice Presidents would imply more than a general good opinion of the undertaking, grounded on confidence in some of the names of the list of Directors.

I should like also to know more precisely what attitude the mode of education will hold towards Theology.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Professor Huxley

861.

TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN

• Blackheath Park

Aug. 9. 1865

Dear Sir

Your letter is clear and conclusive, and, together with my own letter grounded on your previous one, makes the truth perfectly obvious in the case to which they apply, viz. the comparative probabilities of the different causes which may have produced a known effect. But it is not quite so easy to apply the same principle to cases in which there is no known effect to be accounted for, but the antecedent probability of an unknown fact is to be estimated from mere statistics. Take the case in its most general form, as it stands in my book: Two of every three As are Bs, three of every four Cs are Bs, what is the probability that something which is both an A and a C is a B?

The beginning of the argument runs smoothly enough. If the thing is a B, something must be true which is only true twice in every thrice, and something else which is only true thrice in every four times, and this coincidence will only happen six times in twelve. If the thing is not a B, something must be true which is only true once in every thrice, and something else which is only true once in every four times, and this coincidence will only happen once in twelve times; making the comparative probabilities six to one. But what becomes of the other five cases in this statement? In the case of the two witnesses these five cases are put out of count, being cases in which the two witnesses give opposite testimonies, which in the case in question it is known they have not done. But what is the equivalent of this exclusion in the more general theorem? It seems to me that in this, the a posteriori falsity is replaced by an a priori impossibility, since the remaining five cases, implying that the thing is both B and not B, involve a contradiction.

There is something, to my mind, a little louche about this reasoning, which makes me wish for your sanction to it before I make use of it. Is there not something absurd in a theory of 12 possible cases of which 5 turn out impossible? In the case of the witnesses, the five cases are not impossible, but it is merely known that the particular instance is not one of them. But in the general form of the theorem it would seem as if there were twelve cases, in six of which one thing is true; in one, another thing; and in the remaining five, nothing.

I thank you for your kind wishes about my health. No doubt I shall be fully occupied with Parliament during the session, but I hope by keeping out of engagements, to be able to work at other subjects in the vacation. My safeguard is that I have no taste for what is called society; which is the grand consumer of time, energy, and in my case, of animal spirits. As I do not mean to let myself be drawn into that, I hope to have a fair average amount of leisure like other people.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

862.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Blackheath Park

Aug. 11. 1865

Dear Sir

I have now the pleasure of enclosing two carte photographs either of which I give my full consent to your employing, for the purpose of Cassell’s Family Paper.

I also enclose the very droll letter which you received from North Wales. If you are often expected to communicate universal knowledge by return of post, your duty will be an onerous one. The impatience of your correspondent must have been great, since he could not even wait for an answer in the paper. I am Dear Sir

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

863.

TO HERBERT SPENCER

• Blackheath Park

Aug. 12. 1865

Dear Sir

When I received your article in the Fortnightly Review, the reprint of my book on Hamilton was too far advanced to admit of any correcting at the proper place the misconception which you pointed out in p. 536 of the Review. I consequently added a note at the end of the volume, of which, in case you have not seen it, I enclose a transcript.

I do not find that the distinction between the two senses of the word inconceivable, removes or diminishes the difference between us. I was already aware that the inconceivability which you regard as an ultimate test, is the impossibility of uniting two ideas in the same mental representation. But, unless I have still further misunderstood you, you regard this incapacity of the conceptive faculty merely as the strongest proof that can be given of a necessity of belief. Your test of an ultimate truth I still apprehend to be the invariability of the belief of it, tested by an attempt to believe its negative.

I have, in my turn, to correct a partial misunderstanding of my own meaning. I did not assert that a belief is proved not to be necessary by the fact that some persons deny its necessity, but by the fact that some persons do not hold the belief itself; which opinion seems as evident as the other would be absurd.

On the main question between us your chief point seems to be, that the Idealist argument is reduced to nonsense if we accept the idealist conclusions, since it cannot be expressed without assuming an objective reality producing, & a subjective reality receiving, the impression. The experience to which our states of mind are referred, is, ex vi termini, (you think) experience of something other than states of mind. This would be true if all states of mind were referred to something anterior; but the ultimate elements in the analysis I hold to be themselves states of mind, viz—sensations, memories of sensations, and expectations of sensation. I do not pretend to account for these, or to recognize anything in them beyond themselves and the order of their occurrence; but I do profess to analyze our other states of consciousness into them. Now I maintain that these are the only substratum I need postulate; and that when anything else seems to be postulated, it is only because of the erroneous theory on which all our language is constructed, and that if the concrete words used are interpreted as meaning our expectations of sensations the nonsense and unmeaningness which you speak of do not arise.

I quite agree with you, however, that our difference is “superficial rather than substantial”, or at all events, need not and does not affect our general mode of explaining mental phenomena. From the first I have wished to keep the peace with those whose belief in a substratum is simply the belief in an Unknowable. You have said what you deemed necessary to set yourself right on the points which had been in controversy between us. I am glad you have done so, and am now disposed to let the matter rest. There will probably be other and more hostile criticisms, by Mansel and others, and if I should think it desirable to reply to them, I could on the same occasion make some remarks on yours, without the appearance of antagonism which I am anxious to avoid.

I am, Dear Sir,
very truly yours,

J. S. Mill

Since writing this I have seen a clever article in today’s Saturday Review which takes my side of the question against yours. It is pleasant to see these abstract questions really and intelligently discussed in a popular periodical.

864.

TO EDWARD WILSON

• Blackheath Park

Aug. 13. 1865

Sir

I beg to acknowledge your letter of Aug. 2 respecting Parliamentary Reform and representation of minorities, and to say that I shall be happy to read the pamphlet you mention when it reaches me, which it has not yet done.

I am Sir
yours very faithfully

J. S. Mill

Edward Wilson Esq

865.

TO JAMES BEAL

• Blackheath Park

Aug. 14. 1865

Dear Sir

In consequence of the wish expressed by many of my friends in Westminster to have my likeness, I have sat to a photographer, and the result is the inclosed cartes of which allow me to request your acceptance. It will therefore be unnecessary that I should comply with the proposals made by Mr Mayall and by the Stereoscopic Society.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

James Beal Esq.

866.

TO THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY

• Blackheath Park

August 18, 1865

Dear Sir

From what you say of the projected School I feel no doubt that it will be a good thing, and deserving of support; but I do not see how, with my opinions, I could publicly associate myself as a special supporter and recommender, with any school in which theology is part of the course; for assuredly I do not think that theology ought to be taught in any school; and there are, even at present, schools (the Birkbeck schools) in which none is taught; though I am not aware of any schools of that sort for the higher and middle classes, unless it be the London University College School, which, I believe is only a day school. It might be useless, in the present state of the public mind to propose such schools, and it may be quite right to support others; but I do not feel that that justifies me in holding myself forth as approving, and partly founding, schools in which a principle I wholly condemn is even partly recognised and acted on. I must wait, therefore, to know more of the actual plan of the institution in this respect, before I can judge how far and in what way I can join in promoting its establishment.

When I said that our educational system needs other modifications still more than it needs the due introduction of modern languages and physical science, what I had chiefly in view was improvements in the mode of teaching. It is disgraceful to human nature and society that the whole of boyhood should be spent in pretending to learn certain things without learning them. With proper methods and good teachers boys might really learn Greek and Latin, instead of making believe to learn them, and might have ample time besides for science and for as much of modern languages as there is any use in teaching to them while at school. And if science were taught as badly as Greek and Latin are taught, it would not do their minds more good.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

867.

TO JOHN BOYD KINNEAR

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

Aug. 19. 1865

Dear Sir—

Having a strong impression that I sh^d like the book which you did me the favour to send, I delayed writing to thank you for it until I sh^d have had time to read it through.

I have now done so & I not only agree with far the greater part of the opinions expressed but consider the book as of permanent value & shall keep it by me for reference, especially on points connected with our military & naval system, & with law reform.

The chief points on which I differ from you are

1^st. I think you ascribe too great influence to differences of race & too little to historical differences & to accidents as causes of the diversities of character & usage existing among mankind.

2^dly. I cannot join with you (glad as I sh^d be to do so) in thinking that the wages-receiving class, if universally enfranchised would have no class feelings or class opinions as such. The fact that the operative classes are divided on many questions of politics & legislation is equally true of the higher, or the middle class, of landholders, or of capitalists, & is as consistent in the one case as in the other with their holding together as a compact body in cases in which their joint interest is or seems to be involved, or in which any bias arising from their common social position is liable to operate.

I am heartily glad to welcome you as an adherent of a reading & writing qualification. We agree in thinking that this, combined with independence of public charity, should entitle to a vote. I do not find any notice in your book of the principle of representation of minorities or rather, representation of all instead of a number of local majorities. I cannot help wishing that your attention were drawn to a principle which besides its inherent justice and manifold expediency, would be the most important corrective, as I think, of the inconveniences liable to arise from universal suffrage even subject to the condition of reading and writing.

868.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

Aug. 22. 1865

Dear Sir

I have read your letter in the Economist. It is extremely well done, and I sympathize fully in your feelings, but it does not touch any of my difficulties.

I still think that the proper ground to take is to insist on keeping out of the Senate of the Queen’s University any person who is disaffected to the purpose for which that University was instituted, viz. mixed education. The Catholic party have a just claim to be represented in the choice of examiners, but none whatever to have a voice in the curriculum of study for any but their own institutions, or the conditions of a degree even for those. These are things to be decided only by the State. If necessary, the subjects of examination ought to be fixed, not by the body which confers degrees, but by the government, or even by act of parliament.

You are quite right to point out the bad consequences which are likely to follow the present concession, even if it cannot be with propriety refused. But the great point is, to insist that the particular scheme of education which the British nation has instituted because it thinks that (for Ireland) it is the best, shall continue to have fair play; and that the enemies of the scheme shall have no voice in deciding how it shall be carried out. This is also the utmost which there is any chance of obtaining; for the ministry cannot retract after the general election what they promised before it. They must either keep their promise, or resign.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

869.

TO GEORGE GROTE

• Blackheath Park

Aug. 22. 1865

My dear Grote

I am sorry to say that this present day is the first time since I left Avignon on which I have been able to resume Plato. The whole time here, since I got clear of the election, has been occupied in preparing a new edition of the Logic; which I had hoped to be spared until December and January, when the article for the Edinburgh would be finished. But Longman came down on me unexpectedly with a peremptory demand; which I should not be much surprised, after all, to find had been premature. From this pressure, I have been obliged to get through the revision of the Logic in a more summary manner than I had hoped to do, and to content myself with alterations and additions to several chapters which I had once thought of rewriting altogether. I have limited myself to what was indispensable, but have given references to the book on Hamilton on points into which I could not enter at length. I read Professor Grote’s book carefully, but found speculations and criticisms much more vague and less tangible than I expected. Bain seemed to think that the objection to Noumena was important, and merited notice, but, as I understand it, it amounts to little. It is very well to say, why suppose an unknowable entity as the substratum of everything knowable, but the truth seems to be that the Professor merely, with Reid and Hamilton, believes this unknowable entity to be the knowable. Altogether I could make no use of the Exploratio for the improvement of my Logic, and have merely touched upon it briefly in a note.

I have also (but this was a very slight business) revised the two articles on Comte for republication by Trübner as a small volume. I need hardly say how glad I am that you like them. The parallel which struck you between Comte in his old age and Plato in his, had impressed itself forcibly on my own mind.

I was very happy to infer from Mrs Grote’s letter to Helen, that the visit to Baden was benefitting her health. It is hardly to be expected that her recovery should be rapid from the state of prostration she seems to have been in. All will depend upon her being surrounded for a considerable time with the most favourable circumstances attainable. We are not likely either to see you and her before our departure or to encounter you on the Continent, as we go first to North Germany, and shall make a long though very rapid circuit before settling down to Avignon and Plato. There is now no other heavy work hanging over me before the meeting of Parliament, and the worst that can happen is that I may have to ask Reeve for an additional three months, so as to have the whole time up to February available.

Your doubts whether the new employment of so much of my time will on the whole be a good thing, answer to corresponding misgivings of my own. It will depend on what I find myself able to do in Parliament in the way of promulgating useful opinions and adding to improving influences. How much this will be, neither I nor anyone else can know beforehand, but it will be a positive duty for me to try my utmost. On the other point you speak of, the new influences brought to bear on the tone of my writings, I feel quite easy. Those new influences will have no effect at all. I consented to be elected on the footing of not modifying or keeping back a high opinion on account of its being unacceptable to the public or the electors. As much to my own astonishment as to that of others, I actually was elected on that footing, and nothing else that I said or did, had so much success at all the public meetings as that had. As for the social influences which so often corrupt or tame men when they go into Parliament, I shall protect myself against those by keeping out of their way.

An intelligent correspondent of mine in Greece, Mr Leonidas Sgouta, has sent me the inclosed appeal from the Archaeological Society of Athens to those in the Western countries who are interested in Grecian antiquities. You are at the central point of all such, and I cannot better promote the object than by sending the papers to you. I should be very glad to join with others in any subscription for the object.

Ever my dear Grote
Yours most truly

J. S. Mill

870.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath

Sept. 1. 1865

Dear Chadwick

I am obliged to you for drawing my attention to the official correspondence about the Low affair. I should otherwise have overlooked it.

Today, the very day before we leave, I have for the first time been able to look through the pamphlets and documents which you sent to me, and which I now return. Your address to the Social Science Assn is very good, and Lord Ebrington’s pamphlet is full of good things.

I send a few more of the photographs. If you write before the end of September, it will be best to direct here, as letters, (though not parcels) will be forwarded. After that time direct to Saint Véran, Avignon.

ever yrs truly

J. S. Mill

871.

TO WILLIAM MARTIN DICKSON

• Blackheath Park, Kent,

Sept. 1, 1865.

Dear Sir

I am sincerely obliged to you for giving me an opportunity of reading the letter of General Cox, and your excellent paper in reply.

You ask me for an opinion. I should hesitate very long before obtruding upon any American, and still more upon the American public, any mere opinion of mine respecting their internal concerns. But it is the concern of all mankind, almost as much as of the United States, that the conquests achieved by your great and arduous struggle should not be, in the very hour of victory, carelessly flung away: and the opinion which you do me the honor to ask is one which I share with so many of the noblest and wisest Americans, that I need have the less scruple in expressing it.

It is certainly some gain to the negroes, and to the principle of freedom, that they have been made even nominally free. I do not pretend that it is nothing, that they can no longer legally be bought and sold. But this is about the amount of all they will have gained, if the power of legislation over them is handed over once more to their old masters, and to the mean whites by whom they are despised as much, and probably hated more, than even by their masters, and who have been fighting these four years to retain them enslaved. If it were not for your State institutions, the case would not be so pressing, for those who have made them free could keep them so. But, once the war power laid down, and the regular course of State government restored, what is to prevent a State legislature chosen by their enemies from making laws under which, unless they resist by force, they will have as little the control of their own actions, as little protection for life, honor, and property, will in short be, except in a few of the outward incidents of slavery, almost as much slaves as before? To bring this about, it would not even be necessary to enact new laws. It would suffice to leave the old ones unrepealed, by which the testimony of a negro cannot be received against a white. Nay, even were these laws abrogated, nothing more would be needed than partiality and prejudice in the white courts of justice. And would it be consistent with ordinary human nature that such partiality and prejudice should not exist? All this is so evident that even the candidate to whose letter you so ably replied, is quite aware of it; and can suggest no means of averting the evil, except what I agree with you in regarding as the chimerical project, of effecting a local separation between the two races, excluding the negroes from the jurisdiction of the States, and giving them a territorial government apart. It is not to be believed that the President or Congress will entertain such a scheme as this seriously. If, then, they allow the Southern States to reorganize themselves and resume all their constitutional rights without negro suffrage, what is to be done? To abandon the negroes to the tender mercies of those from whom, at so terrible a cost, you have so lately rescued them? No party or set of men in the Free States are so shameless as to propose this combined turpitude and imbecility. But the freedom of the negroes and the self-government of the Southern States as at present constituted, cannot coexist: and if it is determined that, come what will, the former shall be a reality, it must be intended that the latter should be a mere pretence. A censorship will have to be exercised over all the acts, both legislative and administrative, of the State governments; the Federal authorities will by military coercion prevent or set aside all proceedings calculated to interfere with that equality of civil rights which they are bound by every consideration both of duty and of interest to secure to the freed race. And this military dictatorship will have to be continued for a very great length of time; for it is speaking within bounds to say that two generations must elapse before the habits and feelings engendered by slavery give place to new ones; before the stain which the position of slave master burns into the very souls of the privileged population can be expected to fade out.

This is the state of things which the policy now apparently acted on by the Federal Government leads to; but I have too high an opinion of the intentions and feelings of the President, and the practical good sense and determination of the American people, to believe that such a policy will be persevered in. It would be nothing less than electing to rule tyrannically over the whole Southern population, in order to avoid depriving the white half of that population of the power of tyrannizing over the black half.

Instead of restoring to the States lately in rebellion a nominal self-government which, unless you are willing to sacrifice all that has been gained by four years of civil war, can not be suffered to be real, would it not be better to make the self-government real, but to grant it only to a mixed community, in which the population who have been corrupted by vicious institutions will be neutralized by black citizens and white immigrants from the North?

And what is the hindrance to this in the minds of the President and his cabinet? Is it scruples about legality? To be scrupulous about exceeding his lawful powers, well becomes the first magistrate of a free people. But in this case the scruple seems wholly out of place. We are told that the rebel States must be assumed never to have been out of the Union, and therefore to be unconditionally entitled to all their original liberties and powers the moment they condescend to accept them. Reason would say, on the contrary, that by declaring themselves independent of the Union, they could not indeed, divest themselves of its obligations, but certainly forfeited its privileges. A state of civil war suspends all legal rights, and all social compacts, between the combatants. Except under the terms of a capitulation, defeated rebels have no rights but the universal ones of humanity. The Southern people, their lives, bodies, and estates, were by the issue of the war, placed at the discretion of their conquerors; but of conquerors whom both the general law of right, and the special principles of their own social and political institutions, forbid to exercise permanent dominion over any human beings as subjects, or on any other footing than that of equal citizenship. It would, however, be on the part of the Free States a generosity partaking of silliness, were they to give back to their bitter enemies not only power to govern themselves, and the negroes within their limits, but (through representatives in Congress,) to govern the Free States too, without first exacting such changes in the structure of Southern society as will render such a relation between them and the Free States rational and safe. If you have not a right to do this, you had not a right to impose the abolition of Slavery. Consider what an element you are going once more to admit into the supreme government of the Union. Think of this one thing—it is but one of many. Every Southern member of Congress, elected without negro suffrage, is a sure vote for that blackest and most disgraceful breach of faith, which would brand American democracy and popular government itself with a mark that would endure for generations—the repudiation of the war debt. The Southern representatives, in fact, would be the only members of Congress who could honestly vote for this; since to their minds, unless the Confederate debt is recognised too, it would seem only equal justice. This is of itself a sufficient reason why no community, composed exclusively or principally of those who have been engaged in the rebellion, is fit to have a voice in Congress. Of course the States have to be readmitted: to keep them out, and govern them as subjects, would be in contradiction to all the principles of the American or any other free constitution. But the future history of America perhaps for ages to come, depends (I cannot but think) upon your requiring them, before admission, to give guarantees to freedom, by admixture with fellow citizens whose interests and feelings are in unison with justice and with the principles of the Free States. Migration from the North will do this in time and in part, but only negro suffrage can do it sufficiently.

I have no objection to requiring, as a condition of the suffrage, education up to the point of reading and writing; but on condition that this shall be required equally from the whites. The poor whites of the South are understood to need education quite as much as the negroes, and are certainly quite as unfit for the exercise of the suffrage without it.

I am Dear Sir,
yours, very sincerely,

J. S. Mill

Hon. Judge Dickson

872.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath Park

Sept. 2. 1865

Dear Sir

The “middle course” which you seem to think not feasible would, I think, consist in making the Board which confers degrees totally distinct from any of the Colleges, and depriving it of all authority over them. Perhaps the best mode would be to place the whole affair under the University of London, appointing, as you suggest a few persons in the confidence of the Ultramontanes to seats in the Senate. If this is objected to, it seems to me that a similar body, named by the Government, and in which the Ultramontanes should be represented but not to the extent of half, should be created for Ireland. They are not entitled to half. The Catholic religion is entitled to half, but not any particular section of the Catholic body. The Government would merely in appointing Catholics take care to appoint some of the Ultramontane party, instead of taking care to exclude that party.

But I am afraid there is little chance of getting this, or anything like it, assented to by the Government or Parliament. Jacta est alea I fear. But there must be a stir made in the House, in which I hope to help.

We leave this evening (Saturday). It will be best to write to Blackheath Park up to the end of September; after that to Saint Véran, Avignon. In haste

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

872A.

TO GEORGE HOWELL

• Berlin

Sept. 13. 1865

Dear Sir

I thank you sincerely for your letter and its enclosures. Your details are of importance by shewing that a strike, when extending to an entire trade, or even to a great part of it throughout the country, is sometimes remarkably successful. But you seem to argue that the benefit to the operators is not at the expense of the employers, being, I suppose, reimbursed to them by the increased price of the article in which they deal, being, in the present case, houses. Now this might, and often would, happen in a single trade, but you have not, perhaps, considered that it could not happen if the rise of wages extended to all, or the generality, of trades. I could shew that there could not possibly be, in that case, an equivalent rise of general prices. But I content myself with saying that even if there was, it would not compensate the employers, since a rise of price extending to all things is merely nominal. Besides, a rise of wages accompanied by an equivalent rise of all prices would be no benefit to the labouring classes.

I think you will find, on consideration, that though a partial rise of wages may be at the expense of the consumer, a general one is always at that of the employer; which however is far from being, with me, a reason for not desiring it. I am Dear Sir

Yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

M^r George Howell

873.

TO JOHN BOYD KINNEAR

• Munich

Sept. 25. 1865

Dear Sir—

Many thanks for your long & interesting letter. It is well that those who agree as much as we do sh^d occasionally discuss their points of difference, if only for the sake of suggesting to each other matter for further thought. I will therefore add a few words by way of rejoinder confining myself at present to your third point, the extension of the suffrage.

My experience agrees with yours as to the greater mental honesty, & amenability to reason, of the better part of the working classes, compared with the average of either the higher or middle. But may not this reasonably be ascribed to the fact that they have not yet, like the others, been corrupted by power? The English working classes have had no encouragement to think themselves better than, or as good as, those who are more educated than themselves. But once let them become the ascendant power & a class of base adventurers in the character of professional politicians will be constantly addressing them with all possible instigations to think their own crude notions better than the theories & refinements of thinking people, & I do not deem so highly of any numerous portion of the human race as to believe that it is not corruptible by the flattery which is always addressed to power.

The vertical divisions of opinion which you speak of seem to me to belong to the past, & to be almost wholly the effect of bad laws, now mostly removed. Who ever thinks of opposition of interest or feeling between the agricultural & the trading classes now that the corn laws have been repealed? But the division between labourers & employers of labour seems to me to be increasing in importance, & gradually swallowing up all others, & I believe it will be always widening & deepening unless, or until, the growth of Cooperation practically merges both classes into one. And if either of the two powers is strong enough to prevail without the help of an enlightened minority of the opposite class, it seems to me contrary to all experience of human nature to suppose that it will not abuse its power. There is no considerable opposition of apparent interest among the different kinds of manual labourers. Even if there be any kind of them whose wages do not admit of being raised, which I for one do not believe (much less would they), they would still, I apprehend, vote for a law which they thought would raise the wages of others, since the rise would not be at their expense. Neither is it only on the question of wages, or hours of labour, that the poorest & most numerous class would feel a common interest as against the propertied classes; might they not be tempted to throw all taxes on property—or even on realised property—& to make the taxes heavy in order, by their outlay, to benefit as they might think, trade & labour? Does anyone think them sufficiently enlightened to have outgrown these fallacies? I am expressing all this very crudely for want of time & space, but “I speak as to wise men—judge ye what I speak.”

I heartily wish you were in the H. of C. to speak there the whole of your book & many things besides. But perhaps the wish will appear to you like that of the fox who had lost his tail.

874.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Oct. 14, 1865.

Dear Sir

There has lately been forwarded to me from Blackheath a note from Mr Walford, one of the editors of “Once a Week”, saying that he had been asked to suggest a proper person to go out to India to edit a daily paper, with a good salary guaranteed for three years certain, a knowledge of commercial politics being one of the requisites. He wished to know whether I thought you qualified for such a post, as if so he should like to recommend you for it. I was in some difficulty in giving a distinct answer to Mr Walford’s question, from not knowing exactly what he meant by commercial politics, nor knowing completely what commercial questions you had attended to. I stated to him this difficulty, but said that I thought you quite competent to the editing and much of the writing of such a paper as he mentioned. I did not, however, say anything leading him to suppose either that you would, or that you would not, be likely to accept such a position, not knowing whether it would be more agreeable to you than your present one. I have heard nothing further from Mr Walford, but I think it as well to mention to you what has passed on the subject. It is at any rate an additional instance of a favourable impression made by you.

We are now here till the meeting of Parliament. With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer, I am Dear Sir

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

875.

TO WILLIAM FRASER RAE

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Oct. 18. 1865

Dear Sir

I have a strong impression that you are well qualified for the Professorship for which you propose offering yourself, but have some difficulty in specifying the grounds of that impression with the precision and detail desirable in a testimonial. I inclose a few lines, but I should not be surprised if they were quite insufficient to be of use to you.

I am sorry that you have had so serious an illness, but very glad that you have got so much better. Your letter is the first information I have had that you are no longer editor of the Reader. I have heard nothing of its affairs since I saw you beyond being invited to a meeting to ratify the sale to some one whose name I do not remember to have heard you mention. I was in hopes that in changing proprietors the paper would not have lost its Editor. I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

W. F. Rae Esq.

876.

TO MONCURE DANIEL CONWAY

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Oct. 23. 1865

Dear Sir

I cannot thank you enough for M^r Wendell Phillips’ admirable speeches. I was not aware that he was so thorough an adherent of not only representation of minorities, but what is much more, personal representation—the representation of every elector: that great idea of which the credit, though Mr Phillips seems to give it to me, is exclusively due to Mr Hare. It is hardly possible to state the merits of the principle more forcibly, or with a more thorough understanding of all its importance, than Mr Phillips has done. It is indeed at once a direct corollary from the first principles of democracy, and a most powerful corrective of all evils liable to arise from the forms of democratic government hitherto in use. That M^r Phillips should have taken it up, and in the manner he has, is most cheering and auspicious. I was not aware of the publication he mentions, and should like very much to see it.

I beg that you will express my warmest thanks to Mr Phillips for his correction of my unintentional misrepresentation of the Abolitionists—to whom, I hope I need not say that I meant no disparagement, having always regarded them as the élite of their country, not to say of their age. I have been much gratified by receiving so strong a confirmation, from such authority, of my opinion concerning Tocqueville, which I shall now hold with increased confidence.

I have not, however, been convinced by M^r Phillips’ argument against an educational qualification. It is very true that intelligence, and even a high order of it, may be formed by other means than reading, and even (though, I think, rarely) without the aid of reading: but not, I think, intelligence of public affairs, or the power of judging of public men, save perhaps in exceptional cases, too few to affect the practical conclusion. At the present crisis, however, the securing of equal political rights to the negro is paramount to all other considerations respecting the suffrage. I should be glad to think that you are strong enough to reject a compromise admitting negroes on an educational qualification common to them with the whites. As things look now, it seems as if even that would be a thing to be thankful for.

The author of the article “Enfranchisement of Women” would have been well rewarded by the progress which that question is making, had she lived to see it. Nothing would have gratified her more than to hear on such high authority that a cause to which she was so earnestly devoted had been in any degree forwarded in America by what she wrote.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Do you wish the two numbers of Mr Garrison’s paper to be returned?

877.

TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Oct. 25, 1865

Dear Sir

I have to thank you for three letters which have been reproaching me ever since they were forwarded from Blackheath. The one on probability I was obliged to lay by for reperusal. This I have now been able to give to it and I seem to myself to follow the reasoning and agree with it. You have probably observed the correction I made on the point in question in the new edition of my Logic. It will probably now require a supplementary one. If the edition were still unpublished I would have asked you for a short note with leave to insert it as yours.

I agree with you about the misuse of prepositions, but is “averse to” a case of it? Undoubtedly we ought to have said averse from; but did writers in any [era?] of English literature, say so?

When I refer to a former “book,” I always mean liber not opus. The confusion is only pardonable in conversation where the context usually clears it up.

I have sometimes thought I ought to have some mark for alterations and additions. But one could scarcely give distinctive marks to all the successive strata of new matter, and a mere note of distinction from the edition immediately previous would not answer the [purposes of] those readers who only possess a still earlier one.

I well remember our meeting long ago, on the occasion you refer to, and I have retained ever since a vivid impression of your personal appearance. By the way, the phrenological indications in your letter do not by any means tally with what knowledge I possess of my own character; but I refrain from saying in what they differ from it, as I am not [—?] to shew up my weak points.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

878.

TO MAURICE WAKEMAN

• Avignon

Oct. 25. 1865

Dear Sir—

Your letter dated Sept. 29 has been forwarded to me here. For the good opinion & good will which it expresses as regards myself I am duly thankful. You will scarcely be surprised that the bitter hostility it declares against my country & (with a few individual exceptions) against the whole of my countrymen, produces in me a very different sentiment.

No one disapproves more, or is in the habit of expressing his disapprobation more strongly than I do of the narrow, exclusive patriotism of former ages which made the good of the whole human race a subordinate consideration to the good, or worse still, to the mere power & external importance, of the country of one’s birth. I believe that the good of no country can be obtained by any means but such as tend to that of all countries, nor ought to be sought otherwise, even if obtainable. If my country were peopled, as you seem to think, by the scum of the earth, & if its existence were a standing nuisance to all other nations, I for one would shake the dust from my feet & seek a better country elsewhere. But, speaking as one who has never kept any terms with national vanity nor ever hesitated to tell his countrymen of their faults & who has especially censured the feelings & conduct of an influential portion of them on the occasion of your late glorious contest, I do not admit the charges brought against them in your letter. England is to the populations of Europe the representative, by no means perfect but still the representative, of the same principles of social & political freedom which Americans so justly cherish. Any weakening of her influence would be simply so much additional discouragement to popular institutions & to liberty of thought, speech, & action throughout the old continents, & strengthening of the hands of despotism, temporal & spiritual, all over the world.

A war between Great Britain & the United States, were such a calamity possible, would give a new lease to tyranny & bigotry wherever they exist, & would throw back the progress of mankind for generations. Let me remind you that what you say about the grasping disposition & aggressive spirit of the English Government & people, is exactly & literally what the ignorant and prejudiced part of the higher & middle classes of Great Britain sincerely think & say concerning America. In neither of the two cases is the accusation true: but the profound ignorance of each other which it exhibits in both countries, is a most serious danger & evil to the world, which all who wish well to mankind must earnestly desire to cure, & which can only be exagerated by the indulgence of such feelings as you express.

879.

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL

• Saint Véran, Avignon

le 26 octobre 1865

Mon cher d’Eichthal

Je vous remercie très sincèrement de l’envoi de votre travail sur la question des origines américaines, bien que je ne l’aie point encore vu. Votre lettre m’a été envoyée ici, mais l’Etude se trouve confondue dans la foule d’imprimés de tout genre dont on m’accable, et pour la faire venir ici il faudrait qu’on fît un paquet de plusieurs kilogrammes de fadaises. Ce sera pour moi une lecture bien intéressante lorsque je pourrai la faire. Je ne puis vous recommander d’autre nom pour recevoir un exemplaire, si ce n’est peut-être celui de la Société Ethnologique, presidée par M. Crawfurd.

Vous m’avez écrit de Vienne une bien aimable lettre, à laquelle je n’ai pas répondu alors, à cause de l’incertitude de votre adresse, et encore plus par la multitude de mes occupations. Cette dernière raison m’a également empêché de remercier votre frère du bon et amical billet qu’il m’écrivit lors de mon élection. Je vous prie tous deux d’agréer mes excuses, et de croire que je n’en suis pas moins sensible à ces marques d’amitié. Plus on s’avance dans la vie et plus on tient aux vieilles amitiés, même lorsque l’éloignement physique en fait une jouissance surtout de pensée et de conscience.

Je me réjouis que vous vous occupez fortement de votre St Jean. Si cette partie est relativement à la hauteur de la première, vous aurez fait un des plus importants ouvrages sur un des plus grands sujets.

Tout à vous

J. S. Mill

880.

TO HERBERT SPENCER

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Oct. 29, 1865

Dear Sir:—

I have kept your letter by me unanswered, partly for want of time, and partly in hopes that the delay might enable something to occur to me which would throw light on the rather subtle matter of difference between us which you bring to my notice. It is evident that I have again a misapprehension of your opinion to confess and correct, since you do not acknowledge it as yours in the mode in which it is stated by me. We seem to differ on two questions, one a question of fact, viz. whether it is possible, while looking at the sun, to imagine darkness. You, and your three friends, think it is not, while my consciousness seems to tell me that it is quite as possible to imagine darkness in its absence, as anything else in its absence. Of course the stronger present impression of an actual sensation makes the simultaneous consciousness of a mere recollection seem feeble by comparison. But it appears to me perfectly real, and as like the impression of sense which it corresponds to, as most reminiscences are to their originals.

But, you say, even if I could, under such conditions, imagine darkness, it would not follow that I could imagine that I am actually at the moment looking into darkness. To me it seems, that to imagine an object of sight, is always to imagine myself actually at the moment seeing it. I think one never imagines anything otherwise than as an immediate and present impression of one’s own. Indeed, when the object to be conceived is darkness, there is absolutely nothing else to imagine, than oneself trying to see and not seeing; for darkness is not a positive thing. It seems to me, then, that I can, in broad daylight, conceive myself then & there looking into darkness. Is this the same thing, or not the same thing, as what you mean by the words “conceive that I am then and there looking into darkness”? It strikes me that this change of the expression to the form I am, just marks the transition from conception to belief—from an imagination of something thought as absent from the senses, to an apprehension of something which is thought to be present to the senses; of which two states of mind I hold the former to be, in the assumed circumstances, possible, the latter impossible. It was in this way I was led to think that you were here using the word conception in the sense of belief. Even now, I cannot see how the phrase, to conceive that I am, or that anything is, can be consistent with using the word conceive in its rigorous sense.

I am, Dear Sir,
Yours very sincerely,

J. S. Mill

881.

TO CHARLES GAVAN DUFFY

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Oct. 30. 1865

Dear Sir

The place from which this note is dated will sufficiently account to you for my not having written to you sooner. Had I been in England, I should have endeavoured to find you out before this. As it is, I can only say that I shall be at Avignon for the next three months and that if your Continental excursion should lead you this way, I shall be most happy to see you. My address here can be learnt at the Hotel d’Europe.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

C. Gavan Duffy Esq.

882.

TO MACRAE MOIR

October 30, 1865

My absence from England prevented me from receiving your circular . . . but I beg to express my satisfaction at Mr. Masson’s appointment to the Edinburgh Professorship.

883.

TO LOUIS BLANC

• Saint Véran, Avignon

le 4 Novembre 1865

Mon cher Monsieur Louis Blanc

J’avais déjà vu dans un journal la nouvelle de votre mariage, et j’ai reçu depuis de Blackheath la carte qui m’en faisait part. Je vous félicite de tout mon coeur, et vous souhaite tout le bonheur que puisse offrir un pareil événement.

J’espère que l’adresse n’indique pas que vous avez définitivement quitté Londres pour demeurer à Brighton. Quoiqu’ il en soit, je n’ai pas besoin de vous dire que lorsque vous et Madame Louis Blanc serez à Londres et que nous serons à Blackheath nous aurons le plus grand plaisir à vous y voir.

Votre affectionné

J. S. Mill

884.

TO JOHN MORLEY

Nov. 4, 1865

Wherever I might have seen that article, I should have felt a strong wish to know who was its author, as it shows an unusual amount of qualities which go towards making the most valuable kind of writer for the general public.

885.

TO ADAM GUROWSKI

[Before Nov. 5, 1865]

I have read your three volumes . . . and the result is that on their own account as well as on yours, I am desirous that they should be published. You have fully established the claim of your view of the last years of American history, to be heard and considered. Your Diary will be an important part of the evidence which future historians of these great events will have to study. It will be very instructive even in this country.

886.

TO JOHN NICOLAUS TRÜBNER

• Avignon

Nov. 5. 1865

Dear Sir

Though I should like very much to be of service to Count Gurowski, and really think his book well worthy of republication, I should not be willing to write an introduction to it, or attach my name to it as Editor. I have abstained hitherto, and prefer still to abstain, from making myself responsible for other people’s writings; and in this book there are so many severe things said of individual politicians, that it would be wrong in me, with no more information than I possess, to make myself a party to them, and hardly possible to put my name to the book without seeming to do so.

Your report respecting the work on Comte is very satisfactory. A translation of it into French is in course of being made, with my concurrence, to be published by Germer Baillière. With regard to a German translation, I have no wish except that it should not be done by an incompetent person. I do not look for any gain from it, and I doubt if it would be worth the while of a publisher to give anything worth taking for the privilege: but if it should so happen, I propose that we should divide equally whatever is obtained.

I do not wish any copies to be sent here; but I should like a copy sent to Professor Fawcett, M.P. Trinity Hall, Cambridge, if he was not on the list I sent you; also to J. S. Storr Esq. 26 King Street Covent Garden, and Dr Brewer, 21 George Street Hanover Square.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

887.

TO GEORGE GROTE

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Nov. 10. 1865

My dear Grote

I find myself, from my want of knowledge of the Platonic critics, ignorant of the merits of a question of some importance and difficulty, viz. whether the Platonic Apologia is in substance the real defence of Sokrates. I learn from your book that Schleiermacher and Ueberweg think so, and that you are of the same opinion. But on the other hand, the Platonic Apologia is almost wholly different from the Xenophontic, which latter professes to be the defence actually made by Sokrates and told to Xenophon by Hermogenes, who is also mentioned in the Phaedon as one of the friends who were with Sokrates at his death. Xenophon says, indeed, that many more things were said by Sokrates than are included in his report; and the things which Xenophon was likely to omit, would be just those which Plato would relate. But Plato’s report does not profess to omit anything. If both are genuine, we must suppose that each reporter left out exactly what the other took, for there is hardly anything in common to them both, except the allusion to Palamedes. Now, in every other case, you seem to regard the Xenophontic, and not the Platonic, as the historical Sokrates. Could you, without much trouble, give me some notion of the reasons for holding the opposite opinion in this particular case?

If the Apologia is not the real speech of Sokrates I do not know why we should consider it as authoritative evidence of the point of view of Sokrates as distinct from Plato. For it seems almost equally unlikely that Plato would have put anything unSokratic into the mouth of Sokrates in the affecting narrative of the last day of his life: yet he does, without scruple, put into his mouth on that day the whole of his own two doctrines of Ideas and Reminiscence, which, as far as I know, neither you nor any one supposes to have been held by Sokrates. These things are a real puzzle to me: an ἀπορια for which I greatly need τον καταλυσοντα.

Reeve has very courteously consented to wait for the article till the April number, which gives me the whole time up to the meeting of Parliament for completing it. I have not yet written anything, but have read Plato all through, and am now going through your book carefully again, not only referring to Plato frequently, but reading once more quite through some of the most important of the dialogues which I read last spring: Phaedon, Parmenides, Theoctetus, Sophistes, Politikos, &c.

The article in the Westminster on your book seems to me very good. I am curious to know who wrote it.

If you have time to answer this, please tell us also how Mrs Grote is, for it is long since we heard.

Ever yours affectionately

J. S. Mill

888.

TO W. O. ADAMS

• Avignon

Nov. 13. 1865

Sir—

To give a proper answer to your question would be to write the essay which you are intending to write. But if you wish for a mere opinion, expressed in few words, I would say,

1. Severe punishments of some kind are often necessary for boys, but only when they have been negligently or ill brought up & allowed to acquire bad habits.

2. Assuming severe punishments to be necessary, any other mode of punishment that would be effectual is preferable to flogging. In the case however of certain grave moral delinquencies chiefly those which are either of a cowardly or of a brutal character, corporal punishment in that or some equivalent form may be admissible.

889.

TO ROWLAND G. HAZARD

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Nov. 15. 1865

Dear Sir

I have been a long time without acknowledging your very interesting letter of July 1. My excuse must be the great quantity of temporary business (including a vast amount of letter-writing) which has come upon me lately, and the necessity of finishing off old engagements before the new and engrossing ones commence.

I hope you at length received the book on Hamilton. I gave a fresh order for sending it to you, having reason to think that the first had not been executed. You will have found less than you probably expected on the Freewill controversy, the object having been, not to give a complete view of the metaphysics of the question, but merely to reply to some objections and resolve certain difficulties. I am glad you were interested by the review of Comte. The remarks on his philosophy in your letter are just and reasonable from your own point of view. Above all, they are clear; a merit which your writings possess in a degree not common with the a priori or spiritualist metaphysicians.

I was happy to find, though it was no more than I expected, that we think exactly alike on the necessity of giving equality of political rights to the negroes. What has just taken place in Jamaica might be used as a very strong argument against leaving the freedmen to be legislated for by their former masters. The legislation appears to have been just such as might have been expected, and the consequence is what we see. It seems not at all unlikely that England will have to make a clean sweep of the institutions of Jamaica, and suspend the power of local legislation altogether, until the necessary internal reforms have been effected by the authority of the mother country. How much more needful, then, is it that America should refrain from giving back to the rebel states the rights already forfeited by them, except on such conditions as will secure equal laws and an impartial administration of justice between colour and colour; which will not and cannot be the case unless the Negroes can serve on juries, and, through the electoral suffrage, have an equal voice in choosing or controlling the judges, or those who appoint them. I felt greatly discouraged a short time ago by the turn which events seemed to be taking; but the published conversation between the President and Mr Stearns has revived my hopes; for it seems to shew that Mr Johnson does not differ fundamentally from us; that he only hesitates on the question of time, and is ready even at once to enfranchise the negroes subject to certain conditions, which he would make applicable also to the uneducated whites. If he adheres to this, and also to his declared opinion that non-electors ought not to be counted, even in a fractional proportion, as part of the population that determines the number of Federal representatives; the Republican majority in Congress will be able to act with him, and to prevent any serious mischief.

You must be greatly edified, if you read the English newspapers and periodicals, by their change of tone on American affairs. Those who, at the time of the colonization of New England, used to be called “waiters on Providence,” have changed sides, and are now profuse of panegyrics on the people of the United States. Their praise is of no more intrinsic value than their attacks were before; but it is an additional proof what a great benefit your people have conferred on mankind by shewing what democracy and universal education together can do—how they make a whole people heroes when heroism is required, and peaceful citizens again as soon as the necessity is ended. Most English observers are also much struck by the total absence of vindictive spirit, even under the provocation of Mr Lincoln’s murder. I do not share their surprise, my only fear having been that your people would forgive too easily. But if they only take care not to be forgiving at the Negroes’ expense, I am ready to join in the universal chorus.

We often think and talk of you, both at Blackheath and here, where we first saw you. I hope to hear from you now and then. It is of no consequence whether you direct here or to Blackheath, as letters are promptly forwarded.

Ever, dear Sir, yours truly,

J. S. Mill

890.

TO CHARLES ELIOT NORTON

• Avignon

Nov. 24, 1865

Dear Sir

I have had the pleasure of receiving your letter of the 30th ult^o. It is needless to send me the North American Review, as I am already a subscriber to it; but I am always glad to hear from any of the writers and to be enabled to identify an article with its author. The essay on American Political Ideas I had read the day before I received your letter. There is a good cause why the Americans are more attached than the people of other countries to the principles of their Constitution; it is because their Constitution has principles. The British Constitution has no principles: it is the unpremeditated and unplanned result of a secular conflict of opposing forces. There are however, principles, not laid down in words, but involved both in the English and in the American institutions, viz. personal freedom; liberty of thought and publication; and, in America, perfect civil equality between one person and another. To these principles the people of each country are strongly attached, but in neither are they thoroughly carried out, though by you far more nearly so than by us. I hope you are going to carry the last of them into effect as between white people and black; after which it will still remain to bring it into operation between men and women.

I have great pleasure in subscribing to every word of the practical exhortations in your concluding paragraphs. Society in the Southern States has to be democratized in law and in fact, on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, otherwise the sufferings and sacrifices of these glorious years will be more than half lost. And this will be easily done if the people of the Northern States do but will it. The opinions, feelings, and entire civilization of the North have made a wonderful stride since the war began. If they are not yet quite up to the final mark, who can blame them? May they reach it before anything irrevocable has been done in restoring the rebel States to their constitutional rights. I am Dear Sir

Yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

My address is Blackheath Park, Kent, from whence, in my absence, letters are forwarded.

891.

TO GEORGE GROTE

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Nov. 26. 1865

My dear Grote

I am very much indebted to you for taking the trouble to give me such full explanations in answer to my question respecting the Apologia. The points you mention in Xenophon and Plato are all familiar to me, but I wanted your appreciation of them, and that you have given me. I had been much struck with the fact that the two authorities are not agreed even as to what the oracle was, though unquestionably they must both have known it. There is also a prima facie objection to the statement of Sokrates in the Apology, that he first commenced his cross-examining Elenchus after he had already been declared by the oracle to be the wisest of men. If the oracle declared this of Sokrates before he set out on the career which has given him all his fame with posterity, the oracle must have had remarkable sagacity and wonderfully good information. However this may be, I understand you to think that Sokrates spoke the substance of what Xenophon ascribes to him, and also matters which, idealized by Plato, became the Platonic Apology; and this seems much the most probable supposition which can be made.

I now feel assured how far I can safely build upon the character of Sokrates which the Apology indicates; and that is what I wanted. I do not think it possible, without abridging more important matter, to discuss in the article Plato’s precise relation to Sokrates. His relation to the Sokratic dialectic is the important thing: and, by the aid of your book and of the familiarity I have now acquired with Plato himself, this is not difficult to bring out.

I have written a great part of the article, and see my way clearly to the end of it. There will never, I think, have been as much said about Plato in the same space; but there will not be anything both important and new in it, for you have left nothing to do: except that every fresh turning over of the ground makes some of the things that are turned up look new by some new light which falls on them.

We are very happy to hear your favourable account of Mrs. Grote. Pray give her our kindest regards. I am equally pleased and honoured by your reviewing me for Chapman, and I am glad that you take the opportunity of doing justice to my father. My own contribution to his memory is already written in a MS designed for posthumous publication; though if I live more than a few years longer, I shall very likely publish it while I am alive.

I am fully and greatly enjoying my last weeks of freedom. The chief occupation of this year has been with Plato, Sokrates, and you: and there could not have been, to me, a pleasanter one.

Ever, my dear Grote
yours most truly

J. S. Mill

892.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Nov. 27. 1865

Dear Sir

I have received your note, but not the prospectus of the new paper, which if sent to Blackheath, would in ordinary course wait there for my return, as though letters are forwarded to me here, printed matter is not. I however expect a parcel from Blackheath in a week or thereabouts, which will probably contain it. I dare say I shall be able to write some sort of letter to you when I have seen the Prospectus, or at any rate after the first number. An article, I am sorry to say, would be quite out of the question with my present occupations.

I have never yet had time to acknowledge your letter of Nov. 11. I am very much obliged to you for all you write, and no less so for not writing solely to forward applications which you are quite right in thinking I should be unable to comply with. I am not surprised at your not accepting the offer of the Indian Editorship, and were I in your place I would not accept it either. Your present position, like all others, may have its disagreeables, but they are probably much less than those of the Indian situation, and the connexion is a better one for opening other opportunities both of improving your own condition and of serving your opinions.

I am always glad to be told what people say about public affairs; but the remarks mentioned in your letter as made by the Moderate Liberals must come from very moderate Liberals indeed. If (which I am not aware of) the Liberal party is “rapidly approaching a state of complete disorganisation”, the conclusion I should draw would be that it is time for it to dissolve, and organise itself anew on some better basis. I am sure no party can deserve to be kept together which is in danger of being broken up by the accession of two or three persons who are thought likely to speak opinions freely which are in advance of the rest. But the Moderate Liberals are always anxious to stop the mouths of the immoderate ones, and these things are said and printed for the effect it is hoped they may produce on the supposed marplots themselves. I am Dear Sir

with our kind regards to Mrs Plummer
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

893.

TO CHARLES KINNEAR WATT

• Avignon

Nov. 27. 1865

Dear Sir

I have this morning had the honour of receiving your letter of the 23^rd instant.

At almost any other time than the present I should have felt it a duty to shew my sense of the distinguished honour conferred on me, by accepting the office of Rector and endeavouring to the best of my power to discharge its duties. But it is hardly possible that such a function could have devolved on me more inopportunely than in the circumstances in which I am placed at the present moment, when my whole time is devoted to clearing off longstanding literary engagements which I cannot hope to have completed sooner than the commencement of the Session of Parliament. Even, therefore, if it were possible for you to wait a considerable time for the visit which it would be my duty to pay you, I do not know at what time it would be in my power to pay it. An address fit to be delivered on such an occasion and to such an audience, is a thing which I certainly could not produce off-hand, or with a mind occupied with other engrossing thoughts. Under these difficulties I see no course which I can take but that of respectfully declining the office which has been so flatteringly bestowed on me by the students of the University. With sincere thanks for their good will and favourable opinion, I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Charles K. Watt Esq.

894.

TO LOUIS BLANC

• Saint Véran, Avignon

le 2 Décembre 1865

Mon cher Monsieur Louis Blanc

Je ne puis m’abstenir de vous féliciter des admirables lettres que vous écrivez au Temps sur les déplorables événements qui se sont passés en Jamaïque, et surtout de celle qui a paru le 30 Novembre. Rien ne saurait être mieux pensé ni mieux senti que cette lettre. Souhaitons qu’il se trouvera dans le parti libéral de la chambre assez d’hommes de coeur, non seulement pour flétrir dignement les iniquités de la répression, mais pour exiger la punition exemplaire de leurs auteurs. Le ministère et la chambre, voire même la nation, veut donner leur mesure. S’ils laissent faire de pareilles énormités au nom de l’Angleterre, ils n’auront rien à reprocher ni aux Russes en Pologne—qui n’ont jamais fait autant—ni aux Carrier et Collot de la Révolution française.

Vos observations au le Times sont excellentes; mais on pourrait dire de plus, que dans ce qui regarde les West Indies, ce journal ne représente pas l’opinion publique de l’Angleterre, bien qu’il entraîne trop souvent cette opinion. Vous avez pu remarquer qu’en tout ce qui regarde les nègres, le Times est depuis vingt ans l’organe de l’oligarchie blanche des West Indies. Je ne sais pas quel est l’intérêt, pécuniaire ou social, qui le décide à se ranger sous cette bannière, mais le fait n’est pas douteux. Le Times n’a-t-il pas fait, pendant de longues années, tout son possible pour forcer ou persuader le gouvernement à retirer l’escadre anglaise des côtes de l’Afrique? tentative qu’il n’a abandonnée que lorsque l’impossibilité de réussir a été pleinement constatée. On sait toujours d’avance ce que dira le Times dans tout cet ordre de questions: on est sûr qu’il sera du parti le plus brutalement contraire aux noirs. Il ne serait pas sans utilité que cette liaison du Times avec les intérêts esclavagistes fût connue en France, où généralement on voit dans ce journal un organe de l’opinion anglaise, sans tenir compte des impulsions spéciales et privées qui agissent souvent sur les écrivains du Times comme sur ceux de tout autre journal, et modifient sa mauvaise direction générale par de mauvais caprices particuliers.

tout à vous

J. S. Mill

895.

TO DR. HENRY MacCORMAC

• Avignon

Dec. 4. 1865

Dear Sir—

In answer to your letter of Nov. 29, I would say, that restrictions on marriage, or on any other human action when so conducted as to be directly injurious to others than the agents themselves, do not appear to me objectionable on the principle of Liberty. For all our actions which affect the interests of other people I hold that we are morally, & may without violation of principle be made legally, responsible. I have however expressly guarded myself against being understood to mean that legal restrictions on marriage are expedient. That is an altogether different question, to which I conceive no universal & peremptory answer can be given, & in deciding which for any particular case due weight ought to be given to the probability of consequences of the kind you mention as well as of any other kinds.

I am glad that you agree with me on the subject (much more urgent in this country) of compulsory education.

896.

TO JAMES BEAL

• [Avignon]

Dec. 13, 1865

Dear Sir—

I have seen with great pleasure, in the newspapers, the movement which the St. James’s Vestry has originated at your suggestion for the union of all London into one body for municipal purposes, with smaller bodies of the same sort for purposes special to each of the parliamentary divisions. I have long wished that an effort in this direction should be made. All the more important town-interests are common to the whole town, and can only be properly attended to by a body representative of the whole; and I quite agree with you that there should be but one such body, and that the functions (for instance) of the Board of Trade should merge into those of the united municipality. I also go entirely along with the proposal to abolish the jurisdiction of the Middlesex magistrates in the metropolis, and to have none but stipendiary magistrates. The only point on which I do not agree with the scheme as reported is the choice of magistrates by the citizens or the municipal body. The proposed corporation ought, of course, to have powers equal to those of other municipal corporations; but it seems to me that the choice of judicial officers is best placed, not with any corporation, but with a minister or great public functionary, who can be held responsible for making a proper choice. As a general rule, skilled professional officers are hardly ever well chosen by numbers; some one person must make it his business to find them and judge of their qualifications. I do not know if this view of the question has been under your consideration, or that of the vestry; but as I hope to aid in bringing your plan before Parliament, I am glad to begin already an interchange of sentiment with you on the subject.

I am, dear Sir,
very truly yours,

J. S. Mill

James Beal, Esq.

897.

TO WILLIAM FRASER RAE

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Dec. 14. 1865

Dear Sir

I imagine that none of the candidates for the Professorship had any chance against Mr Henry Morley. I am sorry to hear such an indifferent account of your health, and I regret much that you have been prevented from finishing the article you mention. If you pass through Avignon before we leave for England, we shall be very glad to see you.

I fully intend to read Livingstone’s new book when I have time, but I do not know when that will be. There seems likely to be enough doing in Parliament, this session, to occupy all one’s thoughts. There is no part of it all, not even the Reform Bill, more important than the duty of dealing justly with the abominations committed in Jamaica. If England lets off the perpetrators with an inadequate punishment, no Englishman hereafter will be entitled to reproach Russia or the French Revolutionists with any massacres, without at the same time confessing that his own country has done worse.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

898.

TO HORACE WHITE

• Avignon

Dec. 15. 1865

Dear Sir—

Your letter dated Nov 3 has been forwarded to me here. It would be a great satisfaction to me to be able to give any assistance in the struggle which the enlightened friends of Free Trade have to maintain against, I am sorry to say, many Americans whose opinions & feelings on other matters command my warmest sympathies. I do not despair of being able, some time hence, to write something for the Chicago Tribune of the kind you wish, & if so I shall esteem it a privilege to have it accepted without any payment. At present however my time & thoughts are so fully occupied by engagements which must be completed before the commencement of the session of Parl^t now near at hand, that I really am not able to undertake any fresh work. What you ask me to do is not easy; I hardly know any point in Pol. Economy which it is more difficult to treat popularly, & so as to carry persuasion to those who have not studied the subject, than that one, of the influence of high & low wages on foreign trade. To understand the matter it is necessary to realize the fact that all trade is in reality barter—that the question is not whether the home capitalist shall produce or not, but whether he shall produce one thing or another—cotton fabrics, for instance, or wheat; & that high wages which must equally be paid in either case, cannot place one of these two modes of employing his capital at any disadvantage by the side of the other. If it was only in cottonspinning that American wages were higher than English, while in agriculture they were equal, then indeed the high wages being peculiar to one employment would really make it more difficult, & perhaps impossible to carry it on without a protecting duty. But in that case it would clearly be an employment unsuited to the country, since labour employed in it would require to be remunerated more highly than the general rate of wages in the country.

It is very difficult to make this argument popular. What one ought to do is, to ask, If high wages are sufficient to make the American cotton manufacturer unable to compete with the English, how is it that the same high wages do not prevent the American farmer from underselling the English, unless because farming is an industry suited to the circumstances of the country & cottonspinning not?

899.

TO JOHN TULLOCH

Avignon Dec. 20. 1865

Dear Sir,

You are probably aware of the causes which have so long delayed my answer to your communication dated the 24 in ult^o. Being so situated as to have no chance of being able to visit Saint Andrews’ for the purpose of delivering an address, at any time when the University will be sitting, earlier than the end of January 1867, I thought it best to make this circumstance known to the students who had done me the honour of electing me, and to be guided by their wishes in accepting or declining the Rectorship. Being informed that, notwithstanding this inevitable delay, it is still the wish of the Students that I should fill the office of Rector, I beg, accordingly, to communicate to you my acceptance of that office. I understand that this intimation should properly be made to the Vice Chancellor. I am not able, where I am, to ascertain who is the present holder of that dignity, nor the proper form in which to make the announcement; but I take the liberty of inclosing a communication addressed to him, and of begging that if it be informal, or in any other way insufficient, you will kindly furnish me with the means of rectifying it.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Rev. Principal Tulloch

900.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Dec. 29. 1865

Dear Chadwick

I received your letter only this morning, so that if you are at Paris tomorrow as you expected, you will not receive this answer. But as in that case I shall probably see you at Avignon, it will not matter.

I am doubtful of any good from an inquiry moved for by Lord Elcho. The sole object of its promoters will probably be to obtain such statistics as may frighten Parliament and the electoral body into restricting the extension of the suffrage to the narrowest limits possible. They do not want to have your, or my, or Mr Hare’s plans of reform taken into consideration, and they will prevent all such consideration if they can. Any locus standi for “crochets” and “fancy franchises” before the Commission will have to be fought for, and fought for against Tories, Whigs, and such Radicals as Bright. It would therefore be in my opinion a false policy for any reformer to say to Government or the public, Do not propose a Reform Bill, but wait for the result of an enquiry by such men as Lord Elcho. But even if it were competent to any other reformer to take this position, it is not so for me. It is for those to call for an enquiry who need an enquiry, before being willing to take action. I know what reform I want, and am ready now to do my utmost to get it. An enquiry should be supplementary to, and not instead of, any measure of reform that the present ministry are likely to propose.

I am very sorry that you have had so much unpleasantness about the Newsman, and sorry that Beal had any share in it. I was hoping that you and he would be able to work together at the local government of London. It is one of the many questions which incessantly make me regret that you are not member for Westminster. I shall want to consult with you about it, and shall miss you if you are in Algeria. But if you can really help the sanitary improvement of the army, it is a thing worth going there for.

The idea of making the rate book the register, is a good one if the only qualification is to be one of rating, because it makes the registration seek the elector instead of the elector the registration. But it will not be carried, because it would take away the qualifications by property—freehold, copyhold, and leasehold. If those qualifications are allowed to remain, there will still be need of lawyers, and registration associations. The whole of our laws of election from top to bottom require to be reconstructed on new principles: but to get those principles into people’s heads is work for many years, and they will not wait that time for the next step in reform. If they would, all they would get is to be told that the public is content with the thing as it is. And perhaps some measure of reform is as likely to promote as to delay other improvements in the representative system. I am Dear Chadwick

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1866

901.

TO HENRY FAWCETT

• Saint Véran

Jan. 1. 1866.

Dear Mr Fawcett

I have delayed long to thank you for your book, having been very busy writing, and unable to read it with proper attention until within these few days.

I think the essays must have been very interesting as lectures, and will be very useful as a book. The subject of the land laws, and laws of inheritance, is very well treated, and is one of which few feel the importance. You have broken ground very usefully on it. The considerations you have brought forward will be much needed in the discussions we shall soon have on Irish affairs, and the whole subject will become much more practical after any considerable parliamentary reform. One of the most important consequences of giving a share in the government to the working classes, is that there will then be some members of the House with whom it will no longer be an axiom that human society exists for the sake of property in land—a grovelling superstition which is still in full force among the higher classes.

I need hardly say how highly I approve your chapter on cooperation, and the restatement of the ideas of your Westminster Review article respecting Strikes. On all these subjects you have strengthened yourself by new thoughts and illustrations; and the speculations in the concluding chapter, on the possibilities of the future, open a class of considerations both new and very necessary to be thought of.

The chapter which on the whole I least like is the one on wages, though it will probably be more praised than any of the rest: but I think I could shew that an increase of wages at the expense of profits would not be an impracticability on the true principles of political economy. It might doubtless send capital to other countries; but we must recollect that the movement for higher wages and shorter working hours is now common to all the industrious nations.

There is one mistake in a matter of fact which I saw with regret in the book, and which I hope a new edition may soon give you an opportunity of correcting. You have entirely misunderstood the ateliers nationaux. They were not advances to cooperative societies, but direct payment of wages, for work mostly nominal, from the public purse; and so far were they from having any connexion with Louis Blanc or his opinions, that he has always bitterly complained of them, as having been set up, not for, but against him and his plans. The member of the Provincial Government principally responsible for them was, he says, M. Marie. The advances to associations of workmen were quite another matter, and did none of the harm which the ateliers nationaux did—probably even some good: at all events the Government could not have refused such experimental aid when the associations thought that they could not get on without it. I am not certain that such advances (resembling those the Crédit Mobilier makes to a richer class) would not sometimes be useful even now: though it is one of the lessons of the experience of that time that in most cases the associations which did without subsidies prospered the most.

There are some misprints in the volume, especially ‘married men’ for ‘monied men’ at p.209, and Arsène Haussage for Houssaye (p.103).

We shall now soon meet on our common field of battle. The two great topics of the year will be Jamaica and Reform, and there will be an immensity to be said and done on both subjects. I have just seen with great pleasure that Lord Hobart has come out decidedly in M^cMillan’s for Hare’s system. It is gradually taking hold of one after another of the thinking men; of whom Lord Hobart is decidedly one. I shall perhaps invoke your aid on the Metropolitan government question, of the burthen of which I shall probably have to take a considerable share.

I am Dear Mr Fawcett
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

902.

TO THOMAS HARE

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Jan. 4. 1866

Dear Sir

It is a favourable sign of the impression which the idea of Personal Representation is making not only on the best thinkers but on thinking persons of all degrees that I should have received such a letter as the one I inclose. The objections to the plan proposed by the writer, you will not need me to point out; but he shews that his mind has worked on the subject, and many minds like his are probably by this time doing the same.

I was delighted to read Lord Hobart’s complete and most intelligent adhesion in the new number of M^cMillan. His is about the best theoretical head in the whole nobility. What a pity that he holds an office which excludes him from the House of Commons.

In a letter I have just received from M. Morin, he tells me that through the impression made by Naville, and in consequence of the victory of the Independent Party in the late elections, there is some chance of an actual trial of Personal Representation in the choice of the four deputies whom Geneva elects to the National Council of Switzerland. This, it seems, can be done by the authority of the ordinary legislature: while the mode of election of the cantonal authorities can only be changed by a Constituent Assembly, or by a general assembly of the citizens. But if the trial is made in the one case, and succeeds, its application to the other will probably soon follow. And if made at all, the trial is pretty sure to be a true and fair one, with Naville to direct it.

I begin to think that you or I may live to see the plan in actual operation in England, or at all events in America.

There are at least Hughes and Fawcett who I hope will help me to bring it before the House of Commons in the approaching discussions on reform.

I am Dear Sir
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

903.

TO JOHN NICOLAUS TRÜBNER

• Avignon

Jan. 4. 1866

Dear Sir—

With regard to the question of stereotyping the book on Comte, if I revise the book well before it is reprinted, it is hardly likely that any further alterations will be urgently required. It may, however, be desirable after a time to publish a cheap edition; but stereotyping need not I suppose prevent this as it could be done by merely lowering the price. If therefore you decidedly prefer stereotyping I have no objection. In that case I sh^d be obliged by your telling me what you would be disposed to give, either in the form of so much a year, or so much for every 1000 copies sold, or a sum down for a fixed number of years or of copies. It would be well also to fix some number of years, or of copies sold, after which the copyright & the stereotype plates should revert to me or my representatives.

I thank you for your offer of a payment on account, but I should prefer to wait for any payment till the accounts of the first edition are made out & the pecuniary result ascertained.

904.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Jan. 6. 1866

Dear Sir

It seems a long time since I either heard from you or wrote to you. As the time approaches when I shall be taking part in the discussion of pending questions, I feel an increasing desire to take counsel with you concerning some of them.

One is the question of the Irish Colleges. I have been drawing nearer and nearer to your view of that subject, practically considered, though I am not sure that we quite agree yet about the amount of concession required by equal justice. I shall take my stand against the denominational system in any form for Ireland—regarding it as a mere concession to practical difficulties even in England, and in Ireland inadmissible altogether. I am prepared to maintain that no public assistance ought to be given in Ireland to any education involving more or other religious teaching than exists in the mixed, or national system. I also think that in Ireland it is so great a point to bring youths of different religions to live together in colleges, as will justify almost any encouragement to the system of the Queen’s University, except that of actually refusing degrees to those who have studied elsewhere. From what I see in newspapers and hear, I am in hopes that the Catholic prelacy is shewing itself so impracticable as to give the Government a fair ground for withdrawing any offers they may have made, if only they can be induced to think such a retraction desirable: and it must be the business of members of Parliament to try to make them think so. Do you know of any member likely to lead the opposition on your side? What do you think of M’Cullagh Torrens? He, most likely, agrees with you, and he is one of the few Irishmen in Parliament who are not incumbered with an Irish constituency. Do you know what views Neate takes of the question? Any tolerable stand made in the House will have powerful support outside, from the mass of feeling in the country always ready to be called forth against any new concession to Catholics.

Then comes the Land Question. I have read several of your letters in the Economist, and admired them greatly. The generalities of the question have perhaps never before been so well stated as in your first letter. But your conclusion seems to me to fall far short of your premises. It may be that this is unavoidable. But the remedy of permitting the tenant to carry away or destroy his improvements, will surely do very little for him. It is monstrous that the law, at present, should not permit him to do this. But supposing that abominable state of the law to be altered, how inconsiderable would be the advantage to the tenant. 1^st. If, as is generally the case, the landlord’s object is to clear the estate and consolidate the holdings, the tenant by pulling down his buildings is merely doing the landlord’s work gratis. 2^dly. The cases most of all deserving compensation, are those in which the tenant has actually reclaimed the land: and how can he put it back into the state of heath or bog in which it was before? 3^dly. Even when the improvement consisted in putting something on the farm which can be carried away such as buildings or fences—to remove them would make no return to the farmer for the labour or cost of putting them up, but would merely give him the value of the materials; and what are they? earth or rough stones: seldom worth even the trouble of carrying away. It would be his interest to accept the most trifling offer from the landlord, rather than exercise his right: unless indeed his motive was a vindictive one; and he would have but little even of that kind of satisfaction, for he could in general do the landlord as little harm as he could do himself good.

I am disposed to make a much greater claim for the tenant—to demand for him, not compensation for his outlay, but a full equivalent for the additional value which either by his labour or his expenditure he has given to the land: to be assessed either by a special tribunal or by arbitration. Justice requires no less than this, and its impracticability is not, to my mind, made out. But, as I am afraid you are of a different opinion, I should like very much to compare notes with you on the subject.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

905.

TO HENRY SAMUEL CHAPMAN

Avignon, Jan. 7, 1866

Dear Chapman

Your letter of June 18 reached me just before leaving England for Avignon, where I have been during the whole time, which, as you mentioned, M^rs Chapman and your younger children were to pass in London. I consequently have not seen them; but I shall hope to see your son who is to remain in England, as well as his brother who was already there. I have had less intercourse with your eldest son than I had hoped and intended to have, owing to the great engrossment of my time when in England by occupations which you can well appreciate: and now there is more on my hands than ever, and I have so many calls upon every moment of time that I am obliged to seem negligent of old friends, and almost to avoid making new ones. But I am not the less desirous to be of use to any one connected with you, and if I seem inattentive, it is not owing to indifference.

It must be very interesting to you to renew your knowledge of British New Zealand after an interval which bears so considerable a proportion to its short history. England has heard much of New Zealand these few years, and in a manner far from agreeable. Thoughtful people have found it hard to make up their minds on the New Zealand aspect of the universal colonial question—what to do with the aborigines. It was hoped that this would be a less desperate difficulty in New Zealand than elsewhere, on account of the higher qualities and more civilisable character of the Maoris. But the eternal source of quarrel, the demand of the colonists for land, has defeated these hopes; and it seems as if, unless or until the progressive decline of the Maori population ends in their extinction, the country would be divided between two races always hostile in mind, if not always in actual warfare. Here, then, is the burthen on the conscience of legislators at home. Can they give up the Maoris to the mercy of the more powerful, & constantly increasing, section of the population? Knowing what the English are, when they are left alone with what they think an inferior race, I cannot reconcile myself to this. But again—is it possible for England to maintain an authority there for the purpose of preventing unjust treatment of the Maoris, and at the same time allow self government to the British colonists in every other respect? How is that one subject to be kept separate, and how is the Governor to be in other things a mere ornamental frontispiece to a government of the colony by a colonial Cabinet and Legislature, and to assume a will and responsibility of his own, overruling his cabinet and legislature wherever the Maoris are concerned? If the condition of colonial government is, to keep well with the colonial population and its representatives, there is no hindering the colonists from making their cooperation depend on compliance with their wishes as to the Maoris. I do not see my way through these difficulties. Nor do I feel able to judge what would be the consequence of leaving the colonists, without the aid of Queen’s troops, to settle the Maori difficulty in their own way. Perhaps the proofs which the Maoris have given that they can be formidable enemies may have produced towards them in the colonists a different state of mind from the overbearing and insolent disregard of the rights and feelings of inferiors which is the common characteristic of John Bull when he thinks he cannot be resisted. On all these questions I am now under a special public obligation to make up my mind, and I hope to be helped to do so by your knowledge and experience. The information your letters are always full of, will be often valuable to me now.

Your account of the Middle Island and its impassable range of high Alps, is very attractive to me, and if New Zealand were an island in the Northern Atlantic, would speedily send me on a visit there. The very idea of anything impassable and impenetrable is almost too charming, now when every nook and corner of our planet has got or is getting opened to the full light of day. One of the many causes which make the age we are living in so very important in the life of the human race—almost, indeed, the turning point of it—is that so many things combine to make it the era of a great change in the conceptions and feelings of mankind as to the world of which they form a part. There is now almost no place left on our own planet that is mysterious to us, and we are brought within sight of the practical questions which will have to be faced when the multiplied human race shall have taken full possession of the earth (and exhausted its principal fuel). Meanwhile we are also acquiring scientific convictions as to the future destination of suns and stars, and the whole visible universe. These things must have ultimately a very great effect on human character. You have read Buckle’s remarks on the effect of the aspects of nature in different parts of the earth, upon the mental characteristics, and thence on the social development of the different nations. One begins to see a long vista of effects, of analogous origin but very different, on the future generations of mankind. Even without looking to anything so distant, or going beyond the proximate effects of social and economical causes already in operation, some thinkers are beginning to speculate on what will happen when the agricultural labourers of England shall have followed those of Ireland to America; and are asking themselves whether we shall have to import Chinese to supply the vacancy. The most certain result that I foresee from all this, is that English statesmanship will have to assume a new character, and to look in a more direct way than before to the interests of posterity. We are now, I think, standing on the very boundary line between this new statesmanship and the old; and the next generation will be accustomed to a very different set of political arguments and topics from those of the present and past.

I am Dear Chapman
yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

906.

TO JOHN NICOLAUS TRÜBNER

• Avignon

Jan. 9. 1866

Dear Sir—

When I have disposed of the second edition of any of my books for a fixed sum, I have always hitherto had more for it than the amount of the half profit I had derived from the first. I think I might reasonably look for £70 for the second ed. of the Comte—the half profit on the first ed. to be paid when it is all sold & the £70 on the publication of the second. If you agree to this I accept your proposal regarding the remainder of the 5000 copies, on the understanding that the reduced price commences after the sale of the second thousand.

I have to thank you for sending me a number of the Contemporary Review.

Will you be so kind as to send Count Gurowski’s book to my house, Blackheath Park, at any convenient time in the course of the month.

907.

TO THOMAS HARE

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Jan. 11. 1866

Dear Sir

It is not so clear to me as it is to you, that we ought to desire that the Government measure of reform should include nothing but an extension of the suffrage. No doubt there might be advantage in obtaining that first, if there were a reasonable prospect of getting anything else afterwards; but is there such a prospect? I can see none. If Bright’s doctrine is accepted by public opinion and acted on by the Government, it may be assumed as certain that no other point of parliamentary reform will be allowed to be discussed this year. No party in the House would tolerate it: whoever attempted it would speak to empty benches—would probably be counted out. And it is to my mind equally indubitable that when any reform has been passed the whole subject of changes in the representation will be tabooed for years to come. Most of the liberal members are not real reformers, and only vote for any reform because they are obliged, and in the hope of getting rid of the question. You seem to think that while the House is passing a bill confined to the one point, it might be induced to appoint a Committee to enquire into the best means of “liberating and stimulating individual thought and action.” But what is to be the inducement? Are there six persons in the House of Commons who think it any business of theirs to liberate and stimulate individual thought and action, or who would desire to do so even if they knew what it meant? How many are there even outside the House, who would support a motion for such a Committee? The small number who are already converts to your plan; not a man beside. To nobody else would such a proposal carry any distinct meaning; still less represent anything that to their minds would appear sensible or practical. I admit that our prospects are nearly as bad if Lord Russell does include something else in his bill, as if he does not. Little as the chance is of an early reopening of parliamentary reform after the bill has passed, it will probably be sooner reopened for a readjustment of seats than merely for personal representation. This I cannot deny; but in the meanwhile we lose the opportunity of discussing personal representation in the present session—an opportunity which could not be refused to us if the whole subject of representation were on the tapis, but which we certainly shall not have if the question at issue is, by a previous understanding between the two great parties, confined to the extension of the franchise. I have given you my impression on the subject; but I cannot feel complete confidence in its correctness when I see yours to be different.

I shall be delighted to read your paper in the Fortnightly Review when I return to Blackheath. Were it sent here I probably should not receive it. The Pall Mall Gazette you kindly sent, never arrived. The Daily News was stopped four times in the six days of last week; and for about two months past, we have never received both the Spectator and the Saturday Review—very often neither. What has happened to increase the rigour of the French Government to the foreign press, I do not know; but there is certainly something. You doubtless noticed the interdiction of the Indépendance Belge, and of the principal liberal German papers, and the principle on which it was rested. If that principle means anything, it means the exclusion of all my English papers, except the Times which, for reasons best known to itself, is never seized.

I agree with you about Lorimer’s book. It is merely a weaker repetition of his former one.

I shall be very desirous to discuss with you all the points of London municipal reform, in which I shall have to take an active part. Beal told me that you had sent him “a little work” of your own “full of good matter on the question.”

Helen sends her kind regards to the Miss Hares. I am Dear Sir

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

908.

TO JOHN NICOLAUS TRÜBNER

• Avignon

Jan. 15. 1866

Dear Sir—

I have received your letter of Jan. 12 for which I thank you & I accept all the conditions as mentioned in it.

It would have been more convenient to me to have made my corrections in the sheets of the first edition than in the proofs of the new, as I have more leisure now than I shall have a fortnight or three weeks hence; but I am willing to do whichever you prefer. If it is done from the proofs they had better be sent to Blackheath Park.

909.

TO ARTHUR LANKESTER

• Avignon

Jan. 22, 1866

Dear Sir—

I regret that the extreme proximity of the date at which the meeting of the Commons Preservation Society is to be held makes it impossible for me to be present. I have all my life been strongly impressed with the importance of preserving as much as possible of such free space for healthful exercise, & for the enjoyment of natural beauty as the growth of population and cultivation has still left to us. The desire to engross the whole surface of the earth in the mere production of the greatest possible quantity of food & the materials of manufacture, I consider to be founded on a mischievously narrow conception of the requirements of human nature. I therefore highly applaud the formation of the Commons Preservation Society & am prepared to cooperate in the promotion of its objects in any manner which lies in my power.

910.

TO THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE HOSPICES D’AVIGNON

• St Véran

le 23 janvier 1866

Messieurs—

J’ai eu l’honneur de recevoir votre lettre du 20 janvier.

Comme il est reconnu que la coupe fréquente des arbres affaiblit et épuise leur force de végétation ce dont j’ai moi-même, dans ce pays-ci, pu faire l’épreuve, j’avais sollicité la location des arbres attenant à ma propriété dans l’espoir de les préserver d’une coupe qui est sans doute, d’usage dans le pays, mais par des motifs purement économiques par rapport au bois. J’ose encore, messieurs, vous demander la permission de conserver ces arbres, sans en faire la coupe; mais dans le cas où pour des raisons quelconques la Commission ne voudrait pas les en dispenser je lui serais très obligé si elle voulait bien permettre que je fasse tailler la moitié seulement cette année et l’autre moitié l’année prochaine.

911.

TO THOMAS BEGGS

• Blackheath Park

Jan. 30. 1866

Dear Sir

I am much obliged to you for sending me your Social Science paper, and the article on Cobden —the former I had read, Mr. Storr having kindly given me a copy, but I am glad to have one from yourself. The subject of it is one of the most interesting and important of the practical matters now before the public. Many things are pointing to a strong, and I hope a combined movement for the improvement of the dwellings of the working classes which will need all our exertions to forward it. I agree with you as to the necessity of some legislative measure to facilitate the procurement of sites; and I attach the same importance as you do to enabling working classes to be proprietors of their own dwellings. I hope you are on the Committee appointed by the Social Science Association, and are in communication with Mr Hare who has, as you know, given great attention to the subject, and who [has] a particularly strong opinion on this point.

My constituents have hitherto been very forbearing with me, but those who have exerted themselves in the manner you and others have done for my election because they thought me capable of promoting practical improvements, have the best possible claim on my time and attention when they have any improvements to propose. I beg that you will never scruple to communicate with me on any matter of public interest in which you think I can be of use; and I will always either do my best to help your object, or explain and discuss with you why I am unable to do so.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Thomas Beggs Esq

912.

TO HENRY REEVE

• Blackheath Park

Jan. 30. 1866

Dear Sir

I regret that Mrs Austin should have had any annoyance or anxiety on the subject of the missing Notes of Lectures. They never were in her possession, having unfortunately been lent by me and lost by the borrower within a year or two after the Lectures were delivered.

The Notes were written next day from memoranda made by myself in the Lecture Room; and Mr Austin’s slow delivery and splendid articulation made it easy to report all the important passages nearly in his exact words. By these means I had the good fortune to preserve many valuable oral elucidations. There was only one lecture (I forget which one) at which I was unable to be present, and in that case Mr Austin kindly lent me his manuscript to enable me to fill up the vacancy. I never saw the MS of any of the others, nor did he see any of the Notes.

I am happy that the unusual length of my article is not an insuperable obstacle to its insertion.

The proofs should be sent to Blackheath.

I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

913.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath Park

Jan. 31. [1866]

Dear Sir

Your letter reached me late, owing to my having left Avignon before it arrived. I am most desirous to confer with you on the critical state of things respecting the education question, but I suppose I shall scarcely now be able to see you until we meet at the Political Economy Club on Friday. We can then fix a time and place for further talk.

If the ministers do not take care, they will commence the breaking up of their party by this measure.

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

914.

TO [MONCURE DANIEL CONWAY?]

Jan. 31. 1866

Dear Sir

The inclosed passage is the one which M^r Wendell Phillips seems to have had particularly in view. The remainder not only of the Preface, but of the book, may be regarded as a commentary on it.

I had already read the article in Harper’s Magazine —I need hardly say with how much pleasure and had guessed, though not with full assurance, its authorship.

I am Dear Sir
y^rs very truly

J. S. Mill

915.

TO GEORGE GROTE

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 4. 1866

My dear Grote

Unless I write now to thank you for your admirable article in the Westminster Review, I do not know when I shall be able to do so, as my time is already taken up, to a degree which you can very well understand both from theory and experience, though my constituents have hitherto given me very little trouble of any kind, and that little only for important objects. I write, then, while I can, to express some part of the pleasure it gives me that one whose good opinion and good feeling I value more than that of any other living man, should be able to write about me in the way you have done. I thank you, too, most heartily, for the justice you have done to my father. When your Kleine Schriften come to be collected, that passage will remain as one of the weightiest testimonies to his worth, and to the place he filled in his generation.

As to the points of difference between us on some minor matters of opinion, which occur in the course of the article, it will be a pleasure to talk them over with you some day. There is only one of them on which I yet see myself to have been wrong, viz. when I spoke of a beginning without a cause as being inconceivable by us. Of course, however, I did not mean inconceivable by a law of the mind, but only by an acquired association.

Have you seen Mansel’s critique (for I am told it is his) in Nos 1 and 2 of a new publication called the Contemporary Review? I should like much to know what you think of it, if you have read it.

My article on the Plato is in Reeve’s hands and accepted by him; which is a relief to me, as its length so much exceeds the usual Edinburgh Review dimensions, that I feared he might be unwilling to insert it without an impossible curtailment. I have seldom given so much time and pains to a review article, but it has been well employed if I have done any tolerable justice to the subject.

With our kind regards to Mrs Grote I am my dear Grote

yours ever truly

J. S. Mill

916.

TO HERBERT SPENCER

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 4. 1866.

Dear Sir:—

On arriving here last week, I found the December livraison of your Biology, and I need hardly say how much I regretted the announcement in the paper annexed to it. What the case calls for, however, is not only regret, but remedy; and I think it is right you should be indemnified by the readers and purchasers of the series for the loss you have incurred by it. I should be glad to contribute my part, and should like to know at how much you estimate the loss, and whether you will allow me to speak to friends and obtain subscriptions for the remainder. My own impression is that the sum ought to be raised among the original subscribers.

In the next place, I cannot doubt that the publication in numbers, though it may have been the best means that presented itself at the time, has had an unfavourable effect on the sale, and that a complete treatise with your name to it would attract more attention, obtain more buyers, and would be pretty sure to sell an edition in a few years. What I propose is that you should write the next of your treatises, and that I should guarantee the publisher against loss, i.e., should engage, after such length of time as may be agreed on, to make good any deficiency that may occur, not exceeding a given sum, that sum being such as the publisher may think sufficient to insure him. With this guarantee you could have your choice of publishers, and I do not think it likely that there would be any loss, while I am sure that it could in no case be considerable. I beg that you will not consider this proposal in the light of a personal favour, though even if it were I should still hope to be permitted to offer it. But it is nothing of the kind—it is a simple proposal of cooperation for an important public purpose, for which you give your labour and have given your health.

917.

TO EDWARD WELMISLEY

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 4. 1866

Sir

In reply to your letter of Jan. 31, I beg to express my willingness to take charge of the Bill for carrying into effect the arrangement which appears to have been made between the Government and the other parties interested.

I am Sir
very faithfully yours

J. S. Mill

Edward Welmisley Esq.

918.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Blackheath

Feb. 7. 1866

Dear Sir

To take your last subject first. I have of late avoided giving my name to any of the Working Classes’ Exhibitions, as it seems to me that the thing is rather overdone; so many of these Exhibitions are now attempted that they stand in each other’s way, are apt to be unsuccessful in a pecuniary sense, and excite but little of the interest which was felt about the first things of the kind. If it would oblige you that I should give my name to the North London Exhibition I will very willingly do so on that account; but there is very little chance that my daughter and I can be present at the opening, or at any time during the exhibition, as we are almost sure to be abroad at the time.

Allow me to congratulate you on being Editor of the Family Paper, both as a rise in your position, and a great increase in the comfort of your daily work. I thank you for the pleasant things you have written about me in the Sydney Morning Herald, and for the letter on reform which you purpose addressing to me: Would it not be worth while to write it so that it might be published either in the Family Paper, the Working Man, or somewhere else? as a statement of the ideas of the best part of the working classes on reform would be important and interesting to many persons besides me.

Many thanks for the cuttings. I have seen Mr Conway’s article and the one in the Contemporary Review. The Blackwood I have not seen but expect to see.

With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

919.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath

Feb. 10. 1866

Dear Chadwick

I shall be happy to see you at the House at three on Monday, or at any time after four—as the debate being on the Cattle Plague, I shall not feel bound to pay any special attention to it.

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

920.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath

Feb. 13. 1866

Dear Sir

Your news is very important, and the move of the Presbyterian body promises well, if the Government is not yet irrevocably committed. I, on my side, have talked with Mr Grant Duff, who said he could hardly believe that the Government can meditate such a step as the one we apprehend. Not a single Scotch member (he said) would vote with them, and (he added) as their enemies are keenly watching to take the first opportunity of putting them in a minority they would probably be obliged to resign. The result of this and of much other information that reaches me, is to make me apprehensive that we may be more successful than we desire, and may perhaps break up the Ministry and lose the Reform Bill. This is not a sufficient reason against fighting the question of the Colleges to the utmost; but I attach great importance to not being supposed to have the smallest approach to an understanding or concert with those who will merely use our question as a means of effecting purposes which we should greatly lament. Nothing can be more proper than that you should apply to any and every influential politician whom you can get access to; but I am very anxious not to be held out to any one, even to sincere liberals, and much less to false liberals or Tories, as desiring to communicate with them on the subject. I have no objection to its being said to any person whatever, that I have a very strong opinion against the proposed changes. If any M.P. (even a Tory) chooses to open the subject to me, I will tell him my mind. One or two members have already done so; Mr Lowe did so the very day I saw you, and I thought he seemed disposed to take the initial step (by putting a question to the Government) without any further parley or consultation with us and our liberal friends. It is most clear to me that we, meaning myself and the other liberal members you mention, should endeavour to act directly on the members of the Government, and should avoid even the appearance of concert with any of those who would like to do them an ill turn. With regard to Sir Hugh Cairns, or any one on that side of the house, whatever they may choose to do should be quite apart from us. The same political instinct which influenced Lord Stanley, would probably make them feel that they had better appear as seconders than as originators of a move on this subject.

Many thanks for the pamphlet, which will be very useful to me.

I need scarcely say that this letter is confidential to yourself.

I am Dear Sir
yrs very truly

J. S. Mill

921.

TO THE SPEAKER’S SECRETARY

Feb. 22, 1866

Sir,

I have had the honour of receiving an invitation to dine with the Right Hon^ble the Speaker on Wednesday next Feb 28 but beg that I may be allowed to excuse myself from accepting it as I think it desirable that those members of the H. of C. who do not approve of the regulations in respect to dress at present in force should make their objection known to the Speaker, who I do not doubt will give to it whatever weight is justly due. I sincerely hope that in taking this mode of expressing the objection which I entertain to the practice hitherto followed I shall not be considered to be wanting in that respect and deference to the Rt Hon the Speaker which it is as much my wish as my duty invariably to observe.

922.

TO FREDERICK MILNES EDGE

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

Feb. 26, 1866

Dear Sir—

I have to acknowledge a letter from you dated Feb. 15 asking me to explain a passage of my Principles of Pol. Economy in which I express the opinion that a protecting duty, for a limited space of time, may be defensible in a new country, as a means of naturalizing a branch of industry in itself suited to the country but which would be unable to establish itself there without some form of temporary assistance from the state. This passage you say has been made use of by American protectionists as the testimony of an English writer on Pol. Economy to the inapplicability to America of the general principle of free trade. The passage has been used for a similar purpose in the Australian colonies, erroneously in my opinion but certainly with more plausibility than can be the case in the U. States; for Australia really is a new country whose capabilities for carrying on manufactures cannot yet be said to have been tested: but the manufacturing parts of the U.S., New England & Pennsylvania, are no longer new countries; they have carried on manufacturing on a large scale, & with the benefit of high protecting duties for at least two generations; their operatives have had full time to acquire the manufacturing skill in which those of England had preceded them; & there has been ample experience to prove that the inability of their manufactures to compete in the American market with those of Great Britain does not arise merely from the more recent date of their establishment, but from the fact that American labour & capital can in the present circumstances of America be employed with greater return & greater advantage to the national wealth, in the production of other articles. I have never for a moment recommended or countenanced any protecting duty except for the purpose of enabling the protected branch of industry, in a very moderate time, to become independent of protection. That moderate time in the U. States has been exceeded, & if the cotton or iron of America still need protection against those of the other hemisphere it is in my eyes a complete proof that they ought not to have it, & that the longer it is continued the greater the injustice & the waste of national resources will be.

I confine myself on the present occasion to the one special point which you have referred to me & do not enter into the fallacies of Protectionism generally or of American Protectionists in particular. But since you pay me the compliment of thinking that what is said on the subject in my Pr. of P.E. is read & listened to by some Americans, I beg to recommend to your notice the further explanations which I have added to the passage quoted by you in the last published (the People’s) edition of that work. I have directed the publisher to send you a copy & if the important journal with which you are connected, is pleased to attach any value to my opinion on the subject, that opinion will be found much more completely stated, with additional replies to Protectionist arguments in pp. 556 to 558 of the People’s edition.

F. Milnes Edge.

923.

TO MONTAGUE RICHARD LEVERSON

• Blackheath Park

Feb 26 1866

Dear Sir,

I have gone through the Draft of a Bill, and I think it does you very great credit, containing some very valuable provisions respecting the mechanism of representative institutions. I also highly applaud the stand you have made for universal instead of manhood suffrage. As, however, several of the general principles on which the plan is founded, particularly ballot and electoral districts, are opposed to my opinions, I think it best not to connect myself in any way with the movement, and do not wish to have any letter of mine read at the Conference. The authors of the plan may be fully assured of my zealous cooperation on all the points on which their opinions and my own coincide.

I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly,

J. S. Mill

Montague Leverson Esq.

924.

TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE

• Blackheath Park

March 6. 1866

My dear Sir

I have just had the pleasure of receiving from you and M^rs Gladstone a card of invitation for Wednesday the 21^st. There are few things I more value than the opportunity of cultivating the degree of personal acquaintance to which you have done me the honour of admitting me; but I find it absolutely necessary, just at present, to avoid all engagements on the evenings which attendance in the House leaves me for other indispensable purposes. I hope to be allowed to indemnify myself on Thursday mornings after Easter for my present abstinence. I am

My dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

The Right Hon.

W. E. Gladstone M.P.

925.

TO WILLIAM LONGMAN

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

March 17. 1866

Dear Sir—

Your idea of a collected edition of my writings has much to recommend it, & I have sometimes thought of such a thing myself, but was inclined to think that the most suitable time would be after my death, as I am likely, so long as I live, to make material improvements in every new edition of my larger works. This objection however might be got over. But do you not think that the publication of such a series—each volume of which would of course be obtainable separate from the others—would almost entirely stop the sale of the current library editions of which, in the case of the Logic & Pol. Econ. the greater number of the copies are still on hand. Would it not, therefore, be best to adjourn the project of a collected edition until these editions are nearly sold?

It is satisfactory to find that the People’s Editions have not so much damaged as might have been expected the sale of the library editions. But the edition you propose would probably compete with the library editions much more successfully.

926.

TO J. GEORGE MAWBY

Blackheath-park, March 17, 1866

Sir—

I have to acknowledge your note of the 11th instant. I have received many communications on the same subject from working men, and it gives me much satisfaction to find that so great a number of them are in the habit of giving intelligent attention to the foreign policy of the country. The question, which is the subject of your communication, is encumbered with great difficulties; and though if Mr. Gregory had divided the House I should have voted against him, I am not satisfied that the immunity of private property from capture would not on the whole be for the advantage if the Declaration of Paris must be maintained.

I agree with you in thinking this last the really important question, and I am decidedly of opinion that the relinquishment by the naval Powers of their most powerful weapon of defence against the great military Powers, can only be defended if it be true that the change of circumstances has made that weapon one which could no longer safely be used.

I am, Sir, yours faithfully,

J. S. Mill

Mr. Mawby

927.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

• Blackheath Park

March 23. 1866

Dear Sir

I start for Avignon tonight, but if it should be the opinion of my friends in Westminster that a public meeting should be held during the recess for the purpose of making a demonstration in support of the Reform Bill I shall hold myself ready to return at a day’s notice in order to take part in it.

Probably however it may be thought that the first day after the recess, Monday 9^th April, will be as good or even a better day for a political meeting in a Metropolitan district, than any day during the recess. Whatever may be determined on this point, I am in the hands of my friends.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Alderman Salomons has asked me for a copy of the Bill, which I suppose you will give him as a matter of course. If it suited your plans to send one also to Mr P. A. Taylor, who has asked me for a copy, it would give me pleasure.

928.

TO THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY

• Blackheath Park

March 24, 1866

Dear Sir

I return the paper with my signature added, and am happy to join in the plan proposed for enabling Mr Spencer to continue the publication of his philosophical writings.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

929.

TO JOHN CAMPBELL

• Avignon

April 4, 1866

Dear Sir—

The supposition that I approve of the bill empowering Govt to make loans for the improvement of the dwellings of the working classes is quite correct. If I thought that such a measure would injure the independence of the working classes or encourage their improvidence I sh^d strenuously oppose it. But the case seems to me to be one of a class of cases in which people require artificial help, to enable them afterwards to help themselves. The taste for better house accommodation has still to be created: & until it is created, private speculation will not find its account in supplying that improved accommodation. The aid of Gov^t is often useful, & sometimes necessary, to start improved systems which once started are able to keep themselves going without further help. I support loans from the public for the purpose in question (which is still more important morally than even physically) as I would support similar loans for the purpose of creating peasant proprietors, or (if necessary for the purpose) in aid of colonization. I think however that the loans ought not to be accessible only to Town Councils, but also to building companies or private capitalists under strict conditions & on proper security; and the Bill introduced by the Gov^t gives, I believe, the power of making such advances.

930.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath Park

April 9. 1866

Dear Sir

Your note of the 29th reached me at Avignon, but I could not answer it until my return here enabled me to tell you if Mr Sullivan’s pamphlet had been sent to me or not. I find that it has, and I have lost no time in reading it. After doing so, my opinion decidedly is that it requires an answer. It is written with some ability, and knowledge of detail; it does not manifestly exhibit want of candour, and as it makes some points on matters of fact, with apparent success (though none which are essential to the question) it will be largely used in the discussions, and will be represented as a complete answer to you and Whittle. There should, I think, be a reply to it in print if only to supply those who fight the battle in Parliament with answers to what will be brought against them. The fight will be a more arduous one than we thought; for several of the leading Tories, in the debate on Tests, shewed a disposition to adopt denominational instead of mixed education, and exhibited a decided sympathy with the movement of the Catholic bishops. If you reply, I have not the least objection to its being, as you propose, in the form of a letter to me.

I am obliged to stop short, being very busy, as you may suppose at such a time as this.

Ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

931.

TO THOMAS CARLYLE

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

April 11, 1866

Dear Carlyle—

My answer to your note respecting Dr Löwe has been delayed by the necessity of finding time to rummage old papers in order to ascertain whether an impression I had of having already consented to a similar proposal from some other quarter, was well founded or not. I now find that in December 1861 I gave my assent to a translation of my book on Repr. Govt by a Dr F. A. Wille, who like Dr Löwe, had been engaged in the political events of 1848 & had for ten years afterwards been living in Switzerland. Dr Wille then informed me that his translation was partly printed & I am almost sure that it was published in the course of the following years. If a copy was sent to me I have it not at hand, but Dr Löwe could probably inform himself on the subject without difficulty. Dr Wille’s address at that time was Mariafeld (sic), Meilen, Zürich.

Please thank Mrs Carlyle for her remembrance of me. I have been sorry to hear a rather poor account of her health & to see by your Edinburgh address that your own is not quite satisfactory.

932.

TO THE EARL OF CLARENDON

• Blackheath Park

April 15, 1866.

My Lord,

I have had the honour of receiving your communication of the 9th inst. and am much gratified that the small offering which I had the opportunity of making to the London Library should have appeared to the Committee deserving of such an acknowledgment. It is probable that I may continue to receive from private friends or public authorities in the United States books and documents of a similar character to those which I had the pleasure of presenting, and since they are considered to be of value to the Library, I shall have great satisfaction in forwarding them as they arrive. A few have been discovered which were overlooked when the parcel was sent, and these I will at once despatch to the Librarian.

I have the honour to be your Lordship’s most obedient Servant,

J. S. Mill

933.

TO SAMUEL SULLIVAN COX

• Blackheath Park, Kent

April 15, 1866.

Dear Sir

On my return to England I did not forget the promise in my letter of Dec. 21, but addressed myself to one of the highest statistical authorities in this country, Mr Newmarch, the associate of Mr Tooke in the later volumes of his admirable History of Prices, and a man of mark among our economists; that he is a warm freetrader I need not say. Mr Newmarch has furnished me with some publications in which you will find a great deal of the information you want respecting the operation of free trade in this country, and with a full review of the commercial history of the last year, forming a Supplement to the Economist newspaper of March 10, and written by himself. These I will immediately send (probably through Mr Trübner) to the New York address you gave me. I fear the unsatisfactory state of the reconstruction question, and the differences between Congress and the President, may delay for some time the progress which might otherwise have taken place more rapidly on the freetrade question. But every awakening of the national mind is sure to be favourable to the removal of prejudice; and I have no doubt that, if not a complete, yet a very considerable reform of the legislation on this subject, will before many years reward the exertions of yourself and the other enlightened men who have taken up the cause.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Hon. S. S. Cox

934.

TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE

• Blackheath Park

April 21. 1866

My dear Sir

I thank you very much for your kind invitation for Wednesday May 2, but I still find so much need of repose on the evenings on which the House does not sit (when those evenings are not absorbed by other necessary occupations) that I do not yet venture to accept an invitation for any evening. But if your Thursday mornings have commenced, I should have great pleasure in soon availing myself of one of them.

I venture to ask your acceptance of the inclosed paper (printed in the current number of the Edinburgh Review) the subject of which I know to be interesting to you, whatever may be the case with the execution. I offer it, not forgetting how long it must wait before you are likely to be able to give it even a cursory glance. I am

My dear Sir
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

935.

TO GEORGE GROTE

• Blackheath

April 22. 1866

My dear Grote

You may well conceive what a gratification it is to me to find that you are so well satisfied with my attempt to condense into an article the principal ideas of your book. You had left so little to be done that the greatest success I could hope for was to throw in a sufficient number of fresh citations and illustrations and to put sufficient originality into the mode of turning the expression of your thoughts, to enable my repetition of them to have in some small degree the value of a confirmation by an independent inquirer.

Was I not lucky in being able to quote so capital a Platonic passage from Max Müller?

I suppose you have read the review of your book in Fraser which was unfortunately the last production of D^r Whewell. So far as he differed from you he always seemed to me to be wrong; but it was very pleasant to see that, having some real knowledge of the subject, he gave so complete and so intelligent an adhesion to your novelties of opinion respecting the Sophists.

With our kind regards to Mrs Grote I am

My dear Grote
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

936.

TO HENRY PITMAN

Blackheath Park, April 27, 1866

Dear Sir,—

A Liberal county member, to whom I have been speaking about the Suffolk experiment in Agricultural Co-operation, is very desirous to know more about it. I could not remember to what numbers of “The Co-operator” to refer him; but if you would kindly inform me of that, or of any other source of information which it would be well for him to consult, you would do, I think, a useful service to the cause.

I should be very glad if you would, at the same time, tell me how matters go on with yourself and “The Co-operator.”

As I know the great expense you are put to for postage, I take the liberty of enclosing a stamped envelope.—I am, dear Sir, very truly yours,

J. S. Mill

937.

TO WILLIAM LONGMAN

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

April 28. 1866

Dear Sir—

Your report of the sale of the books is extremely satisfactory—in the case of the book on Hamilton even embarrassingly so —for several elaborate criticisms & replies to it having appeared since the publication of the 2^d edit. there will be a great deal to do by way of preparation for a third, whether this is published separately or as part of the collected edition you propose.

In regard to the collected edition the difficulty occurs to me, that it cannot at present be complete in consequence of the interest which Mr. Trübner has in the reprint of the essays on Comte. This seems to be a reason (in addition to others) for at least postponing the project until the sale of the book on Comte has considerably slackened, which it is sure before long to do; I am at present inclined to put off the subject & to take it into consideration a year hence with a view to Jan. 1st 1868 instead of 1867.

938.

TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE

• Blackheath Park

May 1 [1866]

My dear Sir

As I mentioned to you my intention of availing myself of your kind invitation next Thursday morning, I think it best to tell you that I have a severe attack of influenza, to get rid of which I am told that I must confine myself to bed. I am afraid therefore I shall not only lose the pleasure of seeing you on Thursday morning, but what I regret still more, that of hearing your financial statement. I am Dear Sir

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

939.

TO THOMAS HARE

• Blackheath

May 4. 1866

Dear Sir

I return Mr. Rathbone’s sensible letter. He certainly had every reason to presume that you would have influence with me or with any one else who knows you. But I have been obliged to answer Mr. Crosfield’s letter by a refusal, being compelled to refuse all engagements, and to put off even St. Andrews till next winter.

I am better, and hope to be at the House on Monday and at the Committee if summoned; but as I am practically examiner in chief in the present passing stage of the business, it is not unlikely that Ayrton will not summon the Committee until he has assured himself that I can be present.

I am ever yrs truly

J. S. Mill

940.

TO HENRY PITMAN

Blackheath Park, May 4, 1866.

Dear Sir,—

Many thanks for the pamphlets, which will be of the greatest use to Mr. Acland (the county member I mentioned), and perhaps to others.

The news of the Wolverhampton Plate-Locksmiths is most gratifying, and a fine example of what Co-operation can do.

Though I do not agree, so far as compulsory measures are concerned, with the U. K. Alliance, yet, since you do, I congratulate you on having obtained a sure income, compatible with the continuance of your most valuable services to Co-operation.—I am, dear Sir, yours very truly,

J. S. Mill

H. Pitman, Esq.

941.

TO CAROLINE E. LIDDELL

6th May 1866

Madam,—

I am happy to hear that you and other ladies are disposed to assert your just claim to be represented in the body that taxes you, and I recommend to you to lose no opportunity of doing so. When men who wish to remove the invidious distinctions under which you labour offer arguments founded on the evident justice of your cause, we are constantly met by the reply that ladies themselves see no hardship in it, and do not care enough for the franchise to ask for it. I am glad to be able to say that I know several members of Parliament who wish to grant the franchise without distinction of sex, but I know many more who would be ashamed to refuse it if it were quietly and steadily demanded by women themselves. I am sorry to find that you disclaim being strong-minded, because I believe strength of mind to be one of the noblest gifts that any rational creature, male or female, can possess, and the best measure of our degree of efficiency for working in the cause of truth. But such mental powers and energies as we any of us do possess, ought to be employed in striving to remove the evils with which circumstances have made us acquainted; and a woman who is a taxpayer is the most natural and most suitable advocate of the political enfranchisement of women. I hope, therefore, that you will endeavour to strengthen the hands of those (and I know more than one) who have devoted their lives to working in your cause, by protesting against the injustice you suffer, whenever and wherever you can, both in society, and when occasion offers in public. If you could yourself write a petition (almost in the terms of your letter to me), and procure as many signatures to it as you can, I should be happy to present it to Parliament.

942.

TO JOHN LOTHROP MOTLEY

• Blackheath Park,

May 6th, 1866.

Dear Sir,

I am afraid you must have thought hard things of me for being so slow in answering your very friendly and most interesting letter of February 1st. Had your introduction to Mr. Holmes not already been sent, but depended on my answer, I should have written at once, if even only a line, to say how glad I should be both to see and know him, both as his father’s son, as your friend, and as one whose personal history has already been such as your letter intimates. Among the countless and inexhaustible blessings which you, from your national struggle, will in the end bring forth for the human race, it is one of the greatest that they have behind them so many who, being what your friend was, have done what he has done. Such men are the natural leaders of the democracy of the world from this time forward; and such a series of events, coming upon minds prepared by previous high culture, may well have ripened their intellects, as it cannot but have fitted their characters, for stepping into that vacant post and filling it with benefit to the world.

The new struggle, in which you are now engaged, that of reconstruction, is well fitted to carry on the work of educating the political mind of the country. I have learnt to have great trust in the capability of the American people at large (outside the region of slavery) to see the practical leanings of a political question truly and rapidly when the critical moment comes. It seems to me that things are going on as well and as fast as could be hoped for under the untoward accident of getting an obstinate Southern man, a pro-slavery man almost to the last, in the position of President. But the passing of the Civil Rights Bill over his head seems almost to ensure the right issue to the contest. If you only keep the Southern States out of Congress till they one by one either grant negro suffrage or consent to come in on the basis of their electoral population alone, they may probably then be let in in safety. But the real desideratum (in addition to colonization from the North) is the Homestead law which you propose for the negroes. I cannot express too strongly the completeness of my agreement with all you say on that point. Compared with these great questions, free trade is but a secondary matter; but it is a good sign that this also has benefited by the general impulse given to the national mind, and that the free traders are raising themselves for vigorous efforts. I am not anxious that this question should be forced on while the others are pending; for anything which might detach the Western from the Eastern States, and place them in even partial sympathy with the South, would at present be a great calamity.

I have often during the years since we met in Vienna wished that I could talk with you, but always found something more urgent to do than to resort to the unsatisfactory mode of communication by letter, and this is still more the case now that I have allowed new and onerous duties to be placed upon me. They are not nearly so agreeable to myself, and it remains to be seen whether they will be as useful as that of writing out my best thoughts and putting them into print. I have a taller pulpit now, but one in which it is impossible to use my best materials. But jacta est alea, I must make the best I can of it; and I have had thus far much more of what is called success than I could have hoped for beforehand.

I am, dear Sir,
Ever sincerely yours

J. S. Mill

943.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath Park

May 11 [1866]

Dear Sir

I am much better, and am now attending the House, but as I do not go there every day, and on Mondays and Thursdays have to attend a Committee from 12 to 4, it is difficult to make an appointment at the hour you mention. At present Tuesday is the first day I can mention, and that is uncertain, but if you do not hear from me previously, you will find me at the House on Tuesday at three. I am

Dear Sir
yrs very truly

J. S. Mill

944.

TO MONCURE DANIEL CONWAY

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

May 15. 1866

Dear Sir

Will you and M^rs Conway do us the pleasure of coming down and dining with us on Sunday week (May 24^th)? We dine at five, and there is a train from Charing Cross at 4.5 P.M.

I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

945.

TO EDWARD OWEN GREENING

• Blackheath Park

May 18th 1866

I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 10th inst. inviting me to a Soirée to be held tomorrow, in celebration of the 1st. year’s successful working of the new limited liability company, “Greening & Co.” I regret my inability to attend on this interesting occasion; but beg to be allowed to express my warm approbation of the principle of associating all the persons employed by the Company, in the profits of the undertaking, and my congratulations on the success which has already attended your application of that principle.

946.

TO JOHN A. LEATHERLAND

• Blackheath Park

May 19. 1866

Dear Sir

I beg to apologize for the delay in answering your note. I am greatly honoured by the opinion you express of my writings, and had I the necessary leisure, should be happy to read your volume of poems, as you wish me to do so.

My time however is so much occupied that I am obliged to defer looking at much that is sent me in those departments of literature to which I give most attention and I fear therefore it will be impossible for me to give the attention to your poems which you wish.

I am Dear Sir
y^rs faithfully

J. S. Mill

Mr. J. A. Leatherland

947.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

• Blackheath

May 19 [1866]

Dear Sir,—

I entirely approve and applaud the object of the meeting to be held on Monday next on Primrose-hill —that of encouraging and strengthening the Government in resisting all compromise in the leading provisions of the Reform Bill. I am greatly obliged by your very cordial invitation to attend the meeting, but my absence from town will prevent my being present at it.

I am, &c.,

J. S. Mill

948.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Crowcome, Somerset

May 21. 1866

Dear Chadwick

I am much obliged to you for the documents you forwarded and I hope to make good use of them.

I had no opportunity before leaving town of making the inquiries about Carlisle and Bristol, but I will do so as soon as I can.

The Commission respecting Middle Class Schools seems to be much in need of information and suggestions that you could give them. I have been talking with Acland, one of the members of the Commission, and found that he knew absolutely nothing of what had been done at Faversham. He promised that he would look up the case, which must have been reported on by one of their Assistant Commissioners. I could not remember where your account of it was, which I read with such extreme interest when it came out. Could you not write them a short letter, or send them papers about it, or, as the next best thing, cram me on the subject, for I am threatened with having a set of questions sent to me from them, which would be much better sent to you.

I am
Yrs very truly

J. S. Mill

Write to Blackheath as usual.

949.

TO EARL GREY

• Crowcombe, Somerset

May 21. 1866

My dear Lord

The Reform Bill of the Government is no doubt a kind of makeshift which it would be difficult for persons of my opinions to defend as being the best thing in itself, and in the detail of which many improvements might be suggested, if it could be done without damaging the chance which the Bill has of getting through Parliament. Among other things, representation of minorities would be an immense improvement in this, as it would in any other scheme of representation. But supposing it desirable that such a proposal should be made in the House of Commons, I am not the right person to make it, in the shape to which you give the preference. If I were to originate any move for representation of minorities, it could only be in the form which alone, as I conceive, carries out the principle, that of Mr Hare’s system; which I believe to be practicable, though I am aware that you are of a different opinion. My inability to originate a proposal for the cumulative vote plan (which I regard as the next best) would be no hindrance to my supporting it if proposed by others. But I could only do so in the cases in which the constituency returns three members. There is, no doubt, much truth in your remark that where the two parties are of nearly equal strength, there is less injustice in giving one member to each than two members to the one which is slightly the most numerous, and none at all to the other. But it seems to me indispensable in the future interest of the principle of representation of minorities (which is particularly liable to be misunderstood and misrepresented) that a broad line should be drawn between it and any plan which makes a minority politically equal to a majority; and that this last should be absolutely disclaimed, as going beyond and in opposition to the principle. Unless this is done, the democrats of the old one-sided school will succeed in making the principle unpopular as an aristocratic contrivance to neutralise the extension of the franchise: though in truth it is exactly as much democratic as aristocratic, its effect being to limit the tyranny of the strongest power, whatever this happens to be.

I do not see, therefore, how I can in any direct way promote the object you have in view. I am

my dear Lord
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

The Earl Grey.

950.

TO THOMAS BEGGS

• Porlock, Somerset

May 25. 1866

Dear Sir

Your note of May 22 followed me into Somersetshire. Having ascertained that I should not be wanted in the House on Thursday or Friday, I gave myself a whole week’s holiday in the only form in which a holiday does me any good, by long walks through beautiful scenery. I am sorry that you and your friends will have had the trouble of going to the House on Thursday to no purpose; but I shall be there on Monday, and every subsequent day for some time.

I should have been much surprised if you, having attended to Irish affairs, had come to any other conclusion about them than the one you express in your letter. I am very happy that you think my speech calculated to do good. The writer of the article you inclosed (for which I thank you) has well seized the leading points. But he is mistaken in saying that the speech was a surprise to the Irish members. The leaders of the National Party knew my opinions and offered, more than ten years ago to bring me into Parliament for an Irish County on purpose to advocate them. He is also mistaken in thinking that the Tory leaders went away to show disrespect to me. They went away because it was long past dinner time.

I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Thomas Beggs Esq.

951.

TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE

• Porlock, Somerset

May 25. 1866

My dear Sir

Your letter found me yesterday at the further extremity of Somersetshire where I was wandering about the woody and heathy hills, to the great benefit of my health, and had arranged to continue doing so the whole week; not without having ascertained from Mr Brand that in his opinion a vote more or less would be of no consequence on Thursday or Friday.

I go entirely along with nearly the whole of your paper: on a point or two I need some further explanation which you could probably give in five minutes conversation at any convenient opportunity. It is quite clear that the objection made to the plan has no application, so long as we do not require to borrow a sum greater than the whole surplus on our Banking Account: since the extra million of charge occasioned by the plan, will not absorb any part of our surplus either on the Exchequer or on the Banking account, but will be provided for like the other expenses of the year, by the ways and means voted by Parliament.

On the other hand, if we at any time require to borrow a larger amount than our banking surplus, or in other words, than we can borrow from ourselves, it does seem to me, as at present informed, that the plan is pro tanto liable to the same objection as the old Sinking Fund. But this contingency, if we keep out of wars (or even if we have wars, but only short ones, at considerable intervals) will be altogether exceptional, and will, I think, be greatly outweighed by the advantage of tying down the nation to keeping up an extra revenue of a million for the express purpose of paying off debt.

In time of war, Operation B might, and probably ought to be suspended.

I am My dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Rt Hon. W. E. Gladstone &c &c

952.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

• Blackheath Park

May 29 [1866]

Dear Sir

If you are not engaged on Wednesday, June 6^th, will you dine with us on that day at 7? If you will meet me at the House of Commons at ¼ before 6, we can go down to Blackheath together.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

953.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath

May 31. 1866

Dear Chadwick

I have received the invitation I expected from Lord Taunton’s Commission —and shall be much obliged by any references you can give me to sources of information, or by any intimation of views of your own. When your proposal came about visiting the Limehouse schools, we were in Somersetshire; and at present it is extremely difficult for either of us to find time for it. I think I should learn more about the schools from any good account of them (if there be one) which you could refer me to, than I should pick up from a flying visit.

I read both the articles you sent with great interest, especially the conclusive and highly effective one from the Examiner.

I should be very glad of a walk and talk with you as you propose, but it is difficult to fix a time for it just now.

ever yrs truly

J. S. Mill

954.

TO CHARLES ROSS

• [Embossed] House of Commons

[June, 1866]

Dear Sir

I thank you very much for your note. The report of my speech in the Times, so far as I have been able to examine it, was so good, that I have lost nothing by not being able to substitute my own report for it. If I understand your note correctly it would not be open to you, if you took a speech from myself, to give slips to the other papers. I am afraid, if this is so, that it will generally prevent me from availing myself of your obliging offer to receive such communications from me. It is of much more importance to be well reported in the Times than anywhere else, but one is so much more certain of being so, that if one has to choose between sending one’s notes to the Times or to the other papers one would rather do it to the others. I am

yours faithfully

J. S. Mill

955.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Blackheath

June 1. [1866]

Dear Sir

Be sure that I shall persist in opposing the Gas Bill, whatever the Committee may report —and I hope the Government will do so too, as one of them (I believe, Mr. Cowper), on the former discussion, expressed the opinion that Gas works ought to be kept out of towns and their immediate vicinity altogether.

I expect to be at the House every day next week and if you like to come at any time when the House is sitting and send in your name to me, I shall be happy to come to you.

ever yrs truly

J. S. Mill

956.

TO WILLIAM FRASER RAE

• Blackheath Park

June 2. 1866

Dear Sir

I shall be happy to propose you as a member of the Political Economy Club. You may however have to wait some time before being elected, as there are several good candidates standing before you.

The reason I do not give my speeches to the Times, is that the Times would keep them to itself, while the other papers give slips to one another. It would be a great piece of servility to give anything that depends on me to the Times alone; denying it to the papers with whose politics I agree, and which have acted in the most friendly manner to me throughout.

Will you do us the pleasure of dining with us on Wednesday next (June 6) at half past seven? I am Dear Sir

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

957.

TO LADY AMBERLEY

• Blackheath Park

June 3. [1866]

Dear Lady Amberley

I should much like to accept your kind proposal, if it were not that I have given a general invitation to two persons to dine with me at the House any day this week, and one or both of them may possibly choose Monday, the more so as they may be there on Monday to hear the debate. I therefore feel tied up until my engagement with them is fulfilled, or till the end of this week.

I am
Dear Lady Amberley
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

958.

TO CHRISTOPHER DARBY GRIFFITH

Blackheath Park, 9th June 1866

Dear Sir,—

I am happy that, as I infer from your note of yesterday’s date, you are not indisposed towards the extension of the electoral franchise to women within the limits expressed in the petition.

The notice which I gave in the House yesterday goes as far as I think it prudent to go, on this subject, in the present session. As there is no chance that we can succeed in getting a clause for admitting women to the suffrage introduced with the present Reform Bill, it seems to me and to other friends of such a proposal desirable merely to open the subject this year, without taking up the time of the House and increasing the accusation of obstructiveness by forcing on a discussion which cannot lead to a practical result. What we are now doing will lay the foundation of a further movement when advisable, and will prepare for that movement a much greater amount of support in the country than we should have if we attempted it at present.

959.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath

June 13 [1866]

Dear Sir

If you are disengaged on Wednesday the 20th, will you dine with us at half past seven to meet some Americans, whom I think you will like to know if you do not already know them. Miss Hamilton, a granddaughter of the famous Hamilton—her two nieces, and Mr Schuyler, who is married to one of them—I am

Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

960.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• House of Commons Library

Wednesday
[June 13, 1866]

Dear Mr Plummer

It is most mortifying that we were beaten last night on the Gas Bill. I thought when the Government took our side we should be successful, but the influence of the Gas Companies, and the unwillingness of many members to set aside the decision of the Select Committee, were too much for us.

I found your letter at the House, but not your own petition, and I could learn nothing about it. But it would have made no difference.

I obtained several votes for the right side. But some who would otherwise have voted with us [said?] that the manufacturers are a still worse nuisance, and that the ground now given to the Gas Company would have been sure to be occupied by manufacturers.

I am Dear Mr Plummer
ever yrs truly

J. S. Mill

The papers are all wrong about my motion last night. I did not bring it in, but postponed it to Tuesday [next?]

J.S.M.

961.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Blackheath

Thursday night
[June 14, 1866]

Dear Mr Plummer

The House will be very impatient of an attempt to renew the contest on a subject of this sort after a decision, and will probably defeat us, in consequence, by a greatly increased majority. Nevertheless, if Mr Tite and the others who led the opposition to the Bill the other night are willing to oppose it again, I will join with them. Without their concurrence it would be a mere waste of time attempting it. I think our best hope now is the House of Lords, where the private pecuniary interests are not so powerful. In that House the demonstration you intend to make may have a considerable effect. I recommend a direct application to Lord Derby for his support.

I am very sorry that I shall not be able to see you next Sunday, as I am engaged through the whole day and evening, but if you can come to the House pretty early tomorrow (Friday) evening I will see you.

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

962.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath Park

July 3. 1866

Dear Sir

Immediately on receiving your letter I wrote to Mr Gladstone, and I inclose his answer, which I have only this morning received. I wrote also to Mr Fortescue giving him notice that I should ask him a question publicly in the House yesterday; but did not do so, since the private explanation which he gave me in the House shewed me, as his memorandum sent by Gladstone will shew to you, that all the mischief which could be done by the Government without passing a Bill through Parliament has been consummated. The supplemental charter received the Queen’s signature weeks ago. It empowers the Senate to give degrees to all comers. In order to enable these graduates to have any voice in the Government of the University, and to enable the Gov^t to enlarge the Senate, a Bill is required which Fortescue was on the point of introducing when the resignation took place.

You are better able than I am to judge whether any breach of faith has been committed. Fortescue maintains that the expression of intention given in their speeches was the notice promised, and a sufficient warning. We, who were holding back on account of the Reform Bill, certainly were led to expect a further notice: otherwise we should have brought the matter before the House at once, which would have been very disagreeable to the Gov^t. Whether treachery or misunderstanding, the fact is most unfortunate both in its direct and its indirect consequences. When you have made up your mind what is the best thing that can now be done, please let me know. I suppose the next step will be to put a question to the incoming Ministry.

The conclusion of your pamphlet which you sent to me in proof, is excellent. It adds new and good arguments to the old ones. But I suppose you will have to add a supplement to it now. In haste

yours ever

J. S. Mill

963.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath Park

July 3 [1866]

Dear Chadwick

I only received your note yesterday (Monday) on returning from the country. The Evidence is with Hickson, who wanted it for the same reason as yourself. I have written to him to send it to you as soon as he can spare it.

I am quite unable to propose any time for a talk on the subject unless you are able to come here early on Wednesday forenoon (for I expect a visitor later) or unless you can come to the House on Thursday before the hour of the Committee (twelve) or after the rising of the House—which will probably be between four and five. In haste

yrs ever

J. S. Mill

964.

TO LADY AMBERLEY

• Blackheath Park.

July 4. [1866]

Dear Lady Amberley

Thursday will not be convenient, and perhaps you will kindly allow me to leave Tuesday week dependent on what is doing in the House that evening—especially as it is the day on which I hope to bring in the motion I have given notice of. I am

Dear Lady Amberley
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

965.

TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE

• Blackheath Park

July 4. 1866

My dear Sir

Many thanks for your note and its inclosure. I saw Mr Fortescue in the House on Monday, and he gave me substantially the same explanations, differing however in one point from what seems to be your impression, for according to his statement the authority to the University to grant degrees to all comers is a completed fact. The admission of the new class of graduates to Convocation, and the increase of the numbers of the Senate, require the previous authority of Parliament; but these are, in the eyes of opponents, only secondary points, since the Government for the time being can, though more gradually, infuse any element into the Senate by the process of filling up vacancies. There has been an unfortunate misunderstanding in this matter, on one or on both sides. Whose fault it was I am unable to say; very probably ours. But the fact is that many Liberals who were opposed to the changes fully believed that the speeches to which Mr Fortescue refers were not the promised notice, and that in some shape (such as a notice of the introduction of the intended Bill) they should be otherwise warned before the last moment arrived; being anxious not to stir until the last moment, on account of the Reform Bill. I am afraid that the consciousness of having, or being thought to have, partly themselves to blame, will not tend to soften their feelings, or disincline them to blame others. I am

My dear Sir
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

The Right Hon.

W. E. Gladstone M.P.

966.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath

Friday [6? July, 1866]

Dear Chadwick

I send you by this post some of the most important parts of the Evidence, of which I have been able to obtain duplicate copies. Hickson will send the rest when he can spare it.

yrs very truly

J. S. Mill

967.

TO JAMES MARTINEAU

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

July 6. 1866

Dear Sir—

It would be very discreditable to any Englishman who watches the progress of opinion, & is capable of understanding the vast importance of speculative philosophy, to have remained ignorant of your contributions to it or of the influence you have exercised over the mode of thought of a considerable proportion of the few & scattered metaphysical students in this country. It would always give me much pleasure to bear testimony to your knowledge both special & general, your abilities, & your candid appreciation of opponents, of which I have had a striking instance in my own case. Unfortunately, however, if I were to volunteer that testimony on the occasion of the vacancy in University College, & if when given it were of any value to you, it could only be so by being prejudicial to another candidate who, though I have no reason to think his claims superior to yours in any other respect, would certainly teach doctrines much nearer than yours to those which I myself hold on the great philosophical questions. Now though this in itself is far from being a paramount consideration with me, the opportunities are so few & unfrequent of obtaining for opinions similar to my own their fair share of influence in the public teaching of this country that if I myself had a vote in the disposal of the professorship, I sh^d think myself bound, in the general interest of philosophical thought no less than of my own form of it, to give the preference to a candidate (otherwise sufficiently qualified) who would teach my own opinions, in one of the very few chairs from which those opinions would not be a peremptory exclusion. You are perfectly capable of entering into this feeling even if you do not approve of it, & I can only add that I do not think I have ever in any instance regretted so much my inability to support a similar candidature.

968.

TO J. GEORGE MAWBY

Blackheath Park, July 6, 1866

Dear Sir—

I have read attentively your letter, and the printed correspondence which you sent, and which contains many things having an important bearing on the question to which it relates; but it seems to me to avoid a point which cannot be excluded from consideration, viz., how far a nation is bound by the unauthorized act of its representative when it has not disavowed that act at the proper time. You say, “the way to recal the undue words of a plenipotentiary would be to punish him for exceeding his powers.” But whether we ought or ought not to have done this, we did not do it; on the contrary, the few words of modified disapprobation which were uttered by a few public men, only brought into stronger relief the general assent, or at least acquiescence, which the Declaration of Paris received from our all constituted authorities. Surely if there ever was such a thing as a tacit recognition and confirmation of the act of an ambassador, we have it in this case. I am far from giving this consideration as conclusive; for, indeed, I hold the right of a nation to bind itself and its posterity permanently, even by an express treaty, to be much more limited than I believe it is generally deemed to be by those who share your opinions. But there is surely a difficulty here which I do not perceive that you have in any degree taken into account.

I am, dear Sir, yours very sincerely,

J. S. Mill

Mr. J. G. Mawby

969.

TO FRANCIS BOWEN

July 10, 1866

Dear Sir

Your visit to London has occurred at a time at which I am unluckily unable to profit by it as much as I might have hoped to do, my time being almost entirely preoccupied for every day this week. But if it is not inconvenient to you, I could arrange to call on you at your Hotel some time on Saturday afternoon, say two o’clock. Should this not suit you, the only other thing I can at present propose is that we should meet on Monday evening at the House of Commons. I am

Dear Sir
yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

970.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath Park

July 10. 1866

Dear Sir

I perceive that Sir R. Peel has given a notice, virtually for Monday next, about the proceedings on the subject of the Queen’s University, expressly including the hurried convocation of the Senate. This is probably done in concert with Mr Lowe and I think the subject is best in their hands. I do not think there would be the smallest use in my speaking or writing further to Mr Gladstone. The letter I wrote to him in answer to the one you saw, would make him fully aware of the damage which I consider to be done to the reputation of his Government by the disregard of what was, at least, supposed by the persons most concerned to be a pledge.

The subject is altogether a most unhappy one, and, in any event, full of mischief to the liberal cause. I am Dear Sir

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

971.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath Park

July 15. 1866

Dear Sir

The success of the motion in the Senate for postponement is very important. Is the postponement to a given day, or, as I find stated in a newspaper sine die? It is also important that it was moved by Sir R. Peel, as it shews him to be in earnest: and he has been backed by an article in the Times, no doubt written or prompted by Lowe.

As they seem determined to go on with the subject, I think it is best in their hands. I will certainly support them in what I think a good cause, but I would rather not be the prominent person in a move which is very likely to break up the alliance between the Irish Catholics and the English Liberals, and perhaps keep the Tories in office for years. I am

ever yrs truly

J. S. Mill

972.

TO THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY

• [House of Commons]

July 16 [1866?]

Dear Sir

Monsieur Barrère, the bearer of this note, and a highly esteemed and valued friend of mine, is a candidate for headship of the new International School to be established in France by your Association. I should think M. Barrère eminently qualified for such a post, both by his acquirements, his general character and disposition, and his great experience as a teacher both in England and in France. But he will himself more fully explain his qualifications. He is, I understand, very well known to D^r Leonard Schmitz.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Professor Huxley.

973.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath

July 19 [1866]

Dear Sir

I shall be at the Cobden Club dinner, but it will hardly be possible for us to talk of such matters there. I shall be at the House on Friday, and able to see you either while the House is sitting, or, if it suits you better, in the Library at any time between three and four.

ever yrs truly

J. S. Mill

974.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath

Saturday [July 21, 1866]

Dear Chadwick

This is to remind you that I hope to see you at the Committee on Monday, and to say that the Committee has appointed to meet at one instead of twelve.

yours ever truly

J. S. Mill

975.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Blackheath

July 22 [1866]

Dear Mr Plummer

Could you and Mrs Plummer do us the pleasure of dining with us next Sunday at five? We should like to see you again before we leave England. I am

Dear Mr Plummer
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

976.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Blackheath

July 25 [1866]

Dear Mr Plummer

I wrote to you on Sunday to ask if you and Mrs Plummer can give us the pleasure of dining with us on Sunday next at five, but as I directed the note to Belle Sauvage Yard and have not heard from you in answer, I am afraid it did not reach you. Will you kindly give me a line to say if you can come?

Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

977.

TO EDMOND BEALES

• Blackheath Park

July 26, 1866.

Dear Sir,

I congratulate you and all our friends on the yielding of the government. They deserve credit, especially Mr. Walpole, for having given way before it was too late.

I enclose £5 for the Defence Fund.

I am,
Dear Sir,
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Edmond Beales Esq.

978.

TO EDMOND BEALES

• Blackheath Park

July 28. 1866

Dear Sir

Some American friends of mine, chiefly ladies, are very desirous of being present at the meeting on Monday. Would you kindly interest yourself in getting them places on the platform? The party consists of Miss Hamilton, grandaughter of the celebrated statesman, her two nieces, and her brother in law, Mr Schuyler. An admission directed to G. S. [sic] Schuyler Esq., United Hotel, Charles Street, Haymarket, would find them. I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Edmond Beales Esq.

979.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath

Aug. 1. [1866]

Dear Chadwick

I found your Clause on returning late at night from the House on the day on which the Public Health Bill completed its passage through Committee. It was thus too late to do anything.

I will take care that your Evidence is sent to you for revisal.

yrs ever truly

J. S. Mill

980.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath

Aug. 5. 1866.

Dear Chadwick

I should be obliged if you could soon return my paper on Schools with any remarks and suggestions, as I wish to send it in before I leave England, which will be as speedily as possible after the prorogation.

I regretted, the other day, not having kept a copy of your Clause, as there was an unforeseen opportunity of rediscussing the subject on the bringing up of the Report. You will however, in all probability, do better with it than I could on that occasion have done.

yrs very truly

J. S. Mill

981.

TO H. CHOLMONDELEY PENNELL

• Blackheath Park

Aug. 5. 1866

Mr Mill presents his compliments to Mr Cholmondeley Pennell, and approves the principle of uniting the greatest possible number of capable writers in the same publication, each under his individual responsibility: but Mr Mill’s engagements, both public and private, are so numerous and pressing, that he is unable to hold out any prospect of its being in his power to contribute to the intended publication.

982.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

Aug. 5. 1866

Dear Mr Plummer

I have read the essays which you sent, and I am glad that I was able (though not without some inconvenience) to find time for doing so, as they were very interesting and encouraging reading. All the seven essays deserve honourable mention, and if they were printed together in a volume, it would be a really valuable one, both for sound views and for arguments well worth considering in support of what I think unsound ones. But the only one to which, if I were the judge, I could conscientiously award a prize would be the one numbered 160, with the motto, “Knowledge is Power.” This, I think, is very decidedly the best, both in matter and style.

The one numbered 137, with the motto “Free Competition,” though by no means equal to 160, shews a remarkable degree of mastery over some not very obvious principles of political economy proving that the Sheffield artisan by whom it professes to be written, has studied that subject diligently and intelligently. If the writers were pupils in a school or students in an University, this one would perhaps deserve the second prize for his personal merits: but as an essay on the subject, and as a composition generally, I do not think it [superior?] if even equal, to several of the others. If the second prize is divisible, I should suggest divid[ing] it among the six: if not, I cannot venture to recommend any one of them as preferable to the rest. But if it is necessary to select one, you can hardly go far wrong.

I am Dear Mr Plummer
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

983.

TO J. ARTHUR PARTRIDGE

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

Aug. 8. 1866

Dear Sir—

I am sincerely obliged to you for sending me your book on Democracy which I will read as soon as I can find time for any reading not required by an immediate exigency.

The other subject of your letter, the possibility of an organization of the middle class reformers, is very important but I am afraid very difficult, as it is hardly possible for the advanced reformers to agree on a common creed & it would not be desirable that each sh^d put in abeyance the special points of his own. This observation applies to myself even more than to most reformers since my particular scheme has probably very few adherents as a whole, though almost every separate point of it has many. I can only say for myself that I sh^d always be eager to cooperate with all other reformers when I agree with them, & to go forward if necessary alone on those convictions of my own with which others may not agree, or to which they may not attach so much practical importance as I do.

984.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath Park

Aug. 9. 1866.

Dear Chadwick

I am greatly obliged to you for your notes. I have made use of them in improving my answers by various alterations and insertions. The main substance of the answers I am very glad to find that you approve.

I have sent in your name as a candidate for the Cobden Club. The Committee will meet in February for the purpose of filling up the list of members.

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

985.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

• Blackheath Park

Aug. 10. 1866

Dear Sir

I am very deeply impressed with the absolute necessity of maintaining intact the convertibility of all bank notes; but whether payment in gold at ten days sight might not be a sufficient protection against the evils involved in inconvertibility, is a question fairly open to discussion, and on which I do not profess to have finally made up my mind. I am not, however, inclined to rate highly the positive advantages of such a relaxation of the existing law. But I shall be glad to read what may be said in its favour, either by the Chamber of Commerce of Birmingham or by any other mercantile authority. I am

Dear Sir
very faithfully yours

J. S. Mill

986.

TO CHARLES GAVAN DUFFY

• Blackheath Park

Aug 11. 1866

Dear Sir

I had been hoping for some further communication from you, and now it has unluckily come on the very day on which I am leaving England for the Continent. I very much regret that circumstances have prevented us from meeting more frequently during your stay in this country; but, so far as regards Australian politics, I regret it chiefly on my own account, for on that subject I should have been almost solely a learner from you. If you have time to write to me at my address in France, Saint Véran, près Avignon, it would give me great pleasure to correspond with you.

I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

987.

TO HERBERT SPENCER

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Aug. 15. 1866

Dear Sir

The Jamaica Committee have decided that a short letter asking the public for subscriptions to form a Guarantee Fund of £10,000 shall be published with the signatures of some of those members of the Committee whose names would have a favourable influence on any part of the public. You are, in virtue of your subscriptions, a member of the General Committee, and your name, as one of those appended to the letter, would be of very great value, as it would add, to a great intellectual and moral weight, that of a position aloof from all the personal part of politics, and a character which no one would think of calling intemperate or fanatical. Merely in the list of subscribers your name is of great value, but if you would not object to allowing the use of it for the other purpose, please communicate with Mr. Chesson, the Secretary, 65 Fleet Street. He will send you the letter and the list of those who have given, or hereafter give, their names: the officers of the Committee of course, together with Bright, Goldwin Smith, Samuel Morley (probably) and several other members of parliament and liberal notabilities in the North of England.

I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

988.

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL

• Saint Véran, Avignon

le 20 août 1866

Mon cher d’Eichthal

Votre lettre n’est parvenue à Londres qu’après mon départ. Depuis bientôt huit jours, je suis ici, et bien content, je vous jure, de pouvoir revenir à des occupations tranquilles. La vie parlementaire fatigue et dissipe l’esprit toujours pour l’exercer quelquefois.

C’eût été un vrai plaisir pour moi que de causer avec vous et de comparer nos impressions.

Je suis très indifférent aux pensées de ceux pour qui les événements du moment ne sont que des événements d’un moment; quand même ce moment s’appellerait un siècle. Mais ceux chez qui tout ce qui arrive se lie à une conception générale du développement humain—et c’est notre cas à tous deux—ceux-là ont toujours quelque chose à dire l’un à l’autre. Espérons que l’occasion nous en viendra.—Bien des amitiés à votre frère, et à Duveyrier, dont la santé altérée me fait de la peine.

Votre bien dévoué

J. S. Mill

989.

TO WILLIAM SCHOLEFIELD

• Avignon

Aug. 20. 1866

Dear Sir

The Reform Meeting to which the Committee and yourself have done me the honour to invite me, seems likely to be a very important demonstration, but it is out of my power to take part in it in any other way than by the expression of my best wishes. Begging the favour of your communicating this reply to the Committee I am

Dear Sir
yours very faithfully

J. S. Mill

William Scholefield Esq. M. P.

990.

TO THOMAS DAVIDSON

• Avignon

Aug. 21, 1866

Sir

You have probably thought me unfeeling, since your letter of July 17th seemed to me to deserve an answer, in having so long delayed it. The delay was not solely owing to the manner in which all my time was engrossed during the latter part of the session, for if I could have seen my way to any mode of helping your struggles, though only by advice, I would not have omitted to do so. But I felt as if any time would be soon enough to say no, while by waiting there might always be a faint chance of being able to say something better. There is but little, however, that I can say, and hardly anything that I can do. I have no power of obtaining government appointments, and little or no influence with those who can give literary employment. I am afraid, in the circumstances of the case, your chance of obtaining employment as a teacher is small. Translating is one of the most wretchedly paid of all kinds of literary work, and the market is so overstocked with translators (very bad ones, but few publishers know the difference) that it is almost impossible to get employment even at that wretched pay. I see only two things of much promise, in a literary capacity, open to those who are situated as you are, and in neither of these would your opinions be much of an obstacle. You might be able to form a connexion with some newspaper as subeditor, correspondent, or writer, ultimately perhaps leading to editorship; or you might be able to earn a subsistence by writing in periodicals. In the former I have no power of helping you, unless you had already done something which could be adduced as proof of your capabilities. In the second it is barely possible that I might be of use to you; that is, if you write an article and send it to me, then may be some review or magazine which if I think well of it, would take it on my recommendation, whereby the foundation might be laid for your becoming a habitual contributor. After a good deal of thinking, I can find nothing else to propose to you. Manuscripts can be sent here (Avignon, Vaucluse, France) by book post, or if sent to my house (Blackheath Park, Kent) they are sure to be forwarded, but possibly not in less than three or four weeks.

You mention having been favourably recommended to Professor Key. From a former slight acquaintance with him, I should not think him likely to be prejudiced against you on account of your opinions; though what his power of being of use to you might be, I do not know. I am

Yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

Thomas Davidson Esq.

991.

TO ROBERT PHARAZYN

• S[aint] V[éran]

Aug. 21. 1866

Sir—

The great occupation of my time in the latter part of the session has prevented me from more promptly acknowledging your letter of April 14. I am glad to find that a student & thinker, such as you evidently are, finds so much in common between me & himself. The author of the article in the W. R. from which you quote (who is not, as you suppose, Mr Lewes ) is quite right in saying that I have thrown no light on the difficulty of reconciling the belief in a perfectly good God with the actual constitution of Nature. It was not my business to do so, but if I had given any opinion on the point it would have been that there is no mode of reconciling them except the hypothesis that the Creator is a Being of limited power. Either he is not all powerful or he is not good, & what I said was, that unless he is good I will not call him so nor worship him. The appearances however of contrivance in the universe, whatever amount of weight we attach to them, seem to point rather to a benevolent design limited by obstacles than to a malevolent or tyrannical character in the designer & I therefore think that the mind which cherishes devotion to a Principle of Good in the universe, leans in the direction in which the evidence, though I cannot think it conclusive, nevertheless points. I therefore do not discourage this leaning, though I think it important that people sh^d know that the foundation it rests on is an hypothesis, not an ascertained fact. This is the principal limitation which I would apply to your position, that we sh^d encourage ourselves to believe as to the unknowable what it is best for mankind that we sh^d believe. I do not think it can ever be best for mankind to believe what there is not evidence of, but I think that, as mankind improve they will much more recognise two independent mental provinces, the province of belief & the province of imaginative conjecture, that they will become capable of keeping them distinct, & while they limit their belief to the evidence, will think it allowable to let their imaginative anticipations go forth, not carrying belief in their train, in the direction which experience & the study of human nature shews to be the most improving to the character & most exalting or consoling to the individual feelings.

I do not know enough of N. Zealand politics to enter on that subject with you. I think most people in England are now of opinion that the colony sh^d have perfect freedom to manage its own affairs, paying the expenses of its own wars. There is some fear that you will not be just to the aborigines, but a still stronger belief that if you are not we cannot effectually protect them. I hope you are not wrong in saying that there is no disposition to be unjust to them. But if so the New Zealand colonists are I believe the only “Englishmen under new conditions” who do not think any injustice or tyranny whatever, legitimate against what they call inferior races, at least if those races do not implicitly submit to their will. I will hope better things for New Zealand, but in this as in the other & greater matter my belief will depend on the evidence.

P.S. I have not forgotten Mr. Revans, to whom pray make my remembrances.

992.

TO THEODOR GOMPERZ

• S[aint] V[éran]

August 22, 1866

Dear Sir—

Ever since the functions of a member of parliament have been added I may say almost in spite of myself, to my other avocations, my time has been so completely engrossed that I was obliged to postpone even the duty & pleasure of thanking you for the second volume of your most interesting & valuable Herculanean series. You will not be surprised that I have not yet been able to give to the new volume more than a cursory inspection. I am indeed reduced to wondering whether I shall ever be able to resume those quiet studies which are so prodigiously better for the mind itself than the tiresome labour of chipping off little bits of one’s thoughts, of a size to be swallowed by a set of diminutive practical politicians incapable of digesting them. One ought to be very sure of being able to do something in politics that cannot be as well done by others, to justify one for the sacrifice of time and energies that might be employed on higher work. Time will show whether it was worth while to make this sacrifice for the sake of anything I am capable of doing towards forming a really advanced liberal party which, I have long been convinced, cannot be done except in the House of Commons.

Meanwhile what a change in Germany! &, it may be said, in Europe: a change of which it is hardly possible for any foreigner or perhaps for any German, to divine the consequences. I am amazed at the confident omniscience of English journalists, periodical writers, & members of parliament, every one of whom thinks he perfectly sees all the consequences that are to issue from what has happened, forgetful that they themselves were mostly, when the war began, indignant denouncers of Prussia & sympathizers with Austria while they have now quite passed over to the other side. Rien ne réussit comme le succès. All the faults of Austria are now seen & people have ceased to care for the flagrant immorality of the contest on the Prussian side. They do not see, or they do not care, that the struggle was between an expiring feudality & a powerful Caesarism & that to wish success to the last even against the first is to cast out devils by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

I am very anxious to know what you think of all this. Few Germans are so impartial both by position & by character as you are. What is now likely to become of your country? It might be a greater country yet than it ever has been, but there seems to me a want of practical good sense, & comprehension of the situation in the counsels of the Court of Vienna which give little ground of hope. Are the Hapsburgs capable of learning from experience or of really fitting themselves into the circumstances of a new age? The abolition of the Reichsrath which many European liberals foolishly praised because it seemed a concession to Hungary, has proved to be the most fatal step that could have been taken, because, as might have been foreseen, it destroyed all faith in the durability of a concession once made. It shewed that the Imperial family did not deem itself bound by a Constitution once granted. The hopes I had begun to form for Austria sunk to a very low ebb from that day.

I expect to be at Avignon till the end of this year & shall be very happy if you have time & inclination to write to me.

993.

TO JOHN BAXTER LANGLEY

Avignon, Sept. 10th, 1866

Dear Sir,—

Your letter of Aug. 30th, did not reach me until too late to send a letter which could be read at the meeting in favour of a Testimonial to Mr. Beales. I think it quite right that reformers should make compensation to Mr. Beales for the pecuniary loss to which he has been subjected in consequence of the prominent part he has taken in urging the claims of the working classes to representation in Parliament. I see no force in the reasons assigned as a justification of this treatment of Mr. Beales. Strong political convictions are not considered a disqualification in much higher judicial offices than that of Revising Barrister, nor are ever likely to be so considered except when the opinions are on the side opposed to the ruling powers. To exclude from the seat of justice all who are decided politicians would be to keep out all the fittest men, for who in the present state of the world is without strong political opinions of some sort, except because he is wanting either in the mental cultivation or in the public spirit requisite for taking due interest in the subject. And to say that the opinions shall be an exclusion because they are known and avowed would be still more absurd, since it is precisely when they are known to the world that there is least danger of their exercising an improper bias on the judgment. Besides, even if the reason were good against appointing an active politician for the first time, it cannot hold against retaining him who having been appointed has, by the acknowledgement of even adversaries, proved his impartiality by his conduct.—I am, dear sir,

Yours very faithfully,

J. S. Mill

994.

TO J. GEORGE MAWBY

Avignon, Sept. 10, 1866

Dear Sir,—

I thank you for your interesting and valuable letter of the 23rd ult. The considerations brought forward in the latter part of it are much to the purpose, and will materially assist me in making up my mind on the question to which you justly attach such high importance.

If, as you seem to have shown, Russia has, in the matter of Circassia, violated the provisions of the Declaration of Paris, it remains to be seen whether France, the only other great naval Power which was a party with us to the Declaration, is willing to join with us in getting rid of it. You and your friends seem to anticipate no difficulty on this point; and I certainly think that the Right of Search may, under many circumstances, be valuable to France as well as to England. But I cannot share your confidence in this matter, remembering how French Governments, and especially the first Napoleon, have inveighed against England for exercising this right, and have prided themselves on vindicating against us what they called the liberty of the seas.

Mr. Disraeli’s statement, referred to in your postscript, seems to me, as it does to you, to give ground for hope that this great question is not closed.

I am, dear Sir, yours very truly,

J. S. Mill

J. G. Mawby, Esq.

995.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Sept. 10. 1866.

Dear Mr Plummer

Many thanks for your note of Aug. 14 and the article from the Working Man inclosed in it. The writing is that of one whose praise is worth having, but he rather overstates the share I had in getting the Industrial Societies Act passed. Mr Hughes, in his generosity, had already given me too much of the credit which justly belonged to himself and his friends. My evidence certainly helped them, but I was not examined for “a whole week”: my examination only lasted a day, and the transaction is altogether too highly coloured.

If you thought the parliamentary papers so bulky, what would you have said if you had had the whole? A much greater bulk than what I sent to you had unluckily been otherwise disposed of before you spoke to me on the subject. But you will probably find some of them useful.

Will you kindly send me by post the biographical notice of me which you wrote for Mess^rs Cassell? I have been asked by a Geneva editor for biographical particulars, and I do not know of anything so suitable for sending to him as your paper, but I have no copy of it here.

With our kind remembrances to Mrs. Plummer, I am

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

996.

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL

• Saint Véran, Avignon

le 20 septembre 1866

Mon cher d’Eichthal

Je suis à Saint Véran, et je compte y rester jusqu’à la fin de l’année et au delà. Vous serez le bienvenu si vous voulez bien y venir. Il serait bon de m’avertir quelques jours d’avance, afin que je ne sois pas exposé à choisir, sans le savoir, le moment de votre arrivée pour une de ces excursions que j’ai l’habitude de faire. A l’hotel d’Europe on vous indiquera ma demeure.

Vous êtes maintenant un des plus anciens amis qui me restent. Nous avons non seulement beaucoup d’idées mais encore beaucoup de souvenirs en commun, à partir de celui de notre jeune ami Eyton Tooke, que nous perdîmes d’une manière si tragique il y a 36 ans. J’ai toujours mieux aimé les vieux amis que les nouveaux, et vous ne faites pas exception à la règle.

Votre affectionné

J. S. Mill

997.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Sept. 20. 1866

Dear Mr Plummer

Many thanks for the copy of the biographical notice. I am very sorry to hear of the backslidings of the firm in Belle Sauvage Yard, and of the probable failure of the Working Man, which is both unfortunate in itself and a special disappointment to you. I hope that, even on the worst supposition the personal inconvenience will only be temporary, but you will feel very much the loss of a position which at one time seemed to promise so much usefulness.

I am obliged to you for sending your Ode. It was really worth writing, for there is both sense and spirit in it, and a degree of energy as well as of melody which justify writing in verse.

I am Dear Mr Plummer
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

998.

TO JOHN MORLEY

Sept. 26. 1866

Dear Sir—

I am much obliged to you for your article though I do not altogether agree with it. I presented the petition, not because I concurred in its sentiments, but because it came from people who were entitled to be heard, & on the last day of the session they could not find any other member whom they thought suitable. I approved of all Lord Dalhousie’s annexations, except that of Kerouli which never took effect, having been at once disallowed from home & indeed Lord D. himself gave it up before he knew of its having been negatived. My principle was this. Wherever there are really native states, with a nationality, & historical traditions & feelings, which is emphatically the case (for example) with the Rajpoot states, there I would on no account take advantage of any failure of heirs to put an end to them. But all the Mahomedan (Rampore excepted which descends from Fyzoola Khan the Rohilla chief) & most of the Mahratta kingdoms are not of home growth, but created by conquest not a century ago & the military chiefs & office holders who carry on the government & form the ruling class are almost as much foreigners to the mass of the people as we ourselves are. The Scindia & Holkar families in Central India are foreign dynasties, & of low caste too, Mahrattas who have usurped provinces from their native dynasties of Jats, Goojars, Boondelas &c. The home of the Mahrattas is in the South, & there is no really native Mahratta kingdom now standing except Kolapore. In these modern states created by conquest I would make the continuance of the dynasty by adoption not a right nor a general rule, but a reward to be earned by good government & as such I would grant it freely.

All this however was changed by Lord Canning’s promise, which I thought at the time, & still think most ill advised. And even if right otherwise I think it ought to have excepted states actually created by our gift, as Mysore was. In such cases we are by right the sole interpreters of our own deed of gift. All arguments grounded on vague phrases of that most plausible and successful of political humbugs Lord Wellesley, count with me for nothing. He would have taken the whole country outright had he dared, but Parl^t had then very recently made a solemn declaration against territorial acquisitions in India & his object was to throw dust in the eyes of Parl^t & take the country as far as it could be done while pretending not to do it. The only practical question with me is, does Lord Canning’s promise to the native princes which waived our right of escheat, fairly & reasonably include this particular case? Opinions among experienced Indians are divided on this point & I have not yet thoroughly examined the documents. I therefore have not made up my mind though I much fear our faith is committed beyond recal[l].

In one thing I fully agree with you: that whenever we sanction an adoption we ought to undertake the education of the young successor & train him to public business under a judicious and experienced Resident. This has been done in a good many instances & often with very considerable success. Travancore which you mention is only one of a number of cases in point (if we did educate the chief himself, which I forget) & though the princes so trained usually degenerate more or less in the lapse of years, they almost always remain much better than the miserable creatures brought up in the zenana. One native chief within a recent period before succeeding to his inheritance filled responsible offices in our territories & he immediately commenced introducing the best parts of our system into his own.

999.

TO CHARLES GAVAN DUFFY

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Oct. 2. 1866

Dear Sir

I feel it a very high compliment that you should wish to know my opinion on a point of conscience, and still more so that you should think that opinion likely to be of any assistance to you in the guidance of your own political conduct.

The point mentioned in your letter is one which I have often and carefully considered, for though my own course in public matters has been one which did not often call on me to cooperate with anybody, I have reflected much on the conditions of cooperation, among the other requisites of practical public life. The conclusion which I have long come to is one which seems rather obvious when one has got at it, but it is so seldom acted on, that apparently most people find it difficult to practise. It seems to me, in the first place, that a conscientious person whose turn of mind and outward circumstances combine to make practical political life his line of greatest usefulness, may, and often ought to, be willing to put his opinion in abeyance on a political question which he deems to be, in the circumstances of the time and place, of secondary importance: which may be the case with any question that does not, in one’s own judgment, involve any fundamental principle of morality. But, in consenting to waive one’s opinion, it seems to me an indispensable condition that he should not disguise it. He should say to his constituents and to the world exactly what he really thinks about the matter. Insincere professions are the one cardinal sin in a representative government. If an Australian politician wishes to be in the Assembly for the sake of questions which he thinks much more important, for the time being, than that of protection, I should hold him justified in saying to a constituency “I think protection altogether a mistake, but since it is a sine qua non with you, and the opposite is not a sine qua non with me, if you elect me I will not oppose it”. If he conscientiously thought that the strong feeling of the public in its favour gave them a right, or made it expedient, to have its practice tried, I should not think him wrong in promising to support it; though it is not a thing I should lightly, or willingly, do. He might even, for adequate public reasons, consent to join a Protectionist ministry, but only on condition that protection should be an open question—that he should be at liberty to speak his mind publicly on the subject.—The question of expediency in these matters, each must decide for himself. The expediencies vary with all sorts of personal considerations. For instance, if he has considerable popular influence, and is, in all other respects than this, the favourite candidate, it will often be his most virtuous course to insist on entire freedom of action, and make the electors feel that they cannot have a representative of his quality without acquiescing in his voting against some of their opinions. The only absolute rule I would lay down, is not to consent to the smallest hypocrisy. The rest is matter of practical judgment, on which all that can be said is, Weigh all the considerations and act for the best.

I am Dear Sir
very sincerely and respectfully yours

J. S. Mill

Hon. C. Gavan Duffy.

1000.

TO DAVID URQUHART

• S[t] V[éran]

Oct. 4. 1866

My dear Urquhart—

I am really obliged to you for the sight of Mrs Urquhart’s letter. I wish it were read by every person in the British Isles. Let me also beg you to thank your two friends if they are still with you, both for their subscriptions & for their letters. I feel a real respect for men who not only have a conscience, but whose conscience makes them feel that they are personally responsible for their actions & cannot shift off that responsibility upon the shoulders of superiors.

It is a real pleasure to me to find you & myself in thorough & hearty cooperation, even were it only on one subject. But the principle which actuates both of us on that subject is progressively important, & extends far beyond the particular case. You approve of my speech because you see that I am not on this occasion standing up for the negroes, or for liberty, deeply as both are interested in the subject—but for the first necessity of human society, law. One would have thought that when this was the matter in question, all political parties might be expected to be unanimous. But my eyes were first opened to the moral condition of the English nation (I except in these matters the working classes) by the atrocities perpetrated in the Indian Mutiny & the feelings which supported them at home. Then came the sympathy with the lawless rebellion of the Southern Americans in defence of an institution which is the sum of all lawlessness, as Wesley said it was of all villainy —& finally came this Jamaica business the authors of which from the first day I knew of it I determined that I would do all in my power to bring to justice if there was not another man in Parlt to stand by me. You rightly judge that there is no danger of my sacrificing such a purpose to any personal advancement. I hope I sh^d not be so base even if I cared for personal advancement, but as it happens, I do not.

When I last heard from the Cm they had raised £3200 though no appeal had yet been made to the general public. It must be considerably more now; & I have good hopes that we shall be near enough to getting the £10000 we ask for, to bring the Jamaica question within the reach of those of us who are most in earnest. The paper which I enclose contains only the first subscriptions. I am glad that our manifesto has raised your opinion of Goldwin Smith. I do not by any means agree in his practical conclusions as to the colonies, though many of his premises are too true. But he is a man of strong moral convictions which he is not afraid to act upon & has a decided power of leading others—provided they do not require to be conciliated first.

The Preston Cm did send me the placard which is excellent.

1001.

TO THOMAS PERRONET THOMPSON

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Oct. 10. 1866

Dear Sir

I agree with you as to the importance of consulting the case of Governor Wall, and I doubt not that our law advisers have made themselves well acquainted with it. I presume, and think I remember, that it is in the State Trials. If so, that is by far the most convenient place in which to study it.

The expensiveness of the attempt to get justice done in the Jamaica matter, arises from the necessity of bringing a number of witnesses from Jamaica to London, and maintaining them there until no longer required. Our lawyers’ bills will doubtless be heavy, but will, for aught I know, not exceed as many hundreds as we are obliged to ask for thousands. We may possibly not require the whole £10000, but we thought, after consideration, that it would not be safe to ask for less.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

General Thompson

Your old constituents at Bradford are doing nobly in this matter—they surpass everybody else.

1002.

TO [DANIEL O’DONOGHUE?]

Avignon, Oct. 20 [1866]

Dear Sir—

I could hardly have received any invitation of a public kind which I should have had so much pleasure in complying with as that in your letter of the 4th instant, which has only just reached me. I feel as grateful as if I were myself an Irishman to whoever does any service to the cause of Ireland, and there is no one who has better earned the gratitude of Irishmen than Mr. Bright, were it only by his noble speech on the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill. I regard the honor which you are paying him as an important step towards establishing that sympathetic co-operation between the English and the Irish liberals, a beginning of which was happily made in the last session, and which is not only essential to the early attainment of the legislative improvements, required by both countries, but is in itself of the most auspicious promise for the permanent well-being of the whole empire. Ireland does not, however, stand in need of such a voice as mine to assist her in doing honor to her eminent friend; and I am prevented from availing myself of your invitation, not merely by distance, but by the much more serious obstacle of pressing occupations, which require the devotion of all my time up to the reassembling of Parliament.—I am very sincerely and respectfully yours,

J. S. Mill

1003.

TO DAVID URQUHART

• S[t] V[éran]

Oct. 26. 1866

My dear Urquhart—

I thank you sincerely for your letter. The actual experience of one who has had so much of it, & of so unusual a sort, is sure to be worth having & worth meditating on.

Your letter makes me wish to give you an equally explicit statement of my own way of thinking, so far as it is different from yours. And I think I can trust myself sufficiently not to be afraid that my having done so will raise any obstacle of amour propre in my own mind to prevent me from changing any part of that way of thinking which can be shown to be wrong. I feel as strongly as you the absence of control over the executive in matters of foreign policy, & the absolute inutility & nullity, as far as that is concerned of any change of Ministers. I sh^d never dream of telling the working or any unrepresented classes that they have no power unless they can get the suffrage, & I do not ascribe the prodigious superiority of their moral sentiments on such matters as Eyre, the Indian Mutiny, &c. over the classes socially above them, to any intrinsic superiority of moral excellence. But I do not believe that the bad feelings, or absence of good feelings, in the others, arises from their having votes. I ascribe it to the sympathy of officials with officials & of the classes from whom officials are selected with officials of all sorts. I ascribe it also to the sympathy with authority & power, generated in our higher & upper middle classes by the feeling of being specially privileged to exercise them, & by living in a constant dread of the encroachment of the class beneath which makes it one of their strongest feelings that resistance to authority must be put down per fas et nefas. I do not believe that feelings of these kinds would exist where there was no privileged class, & where no one had more political influence of a direct kind than his mere vote gave him. There is much in American politics that is regrettable enough, but I do not observe that there is a particle of the English upper class feeling that authority (meaning the persons in authority) must be supported at all costs; & American foreign policy is all above board & in broad daylight. So, I believe would that of England be, if the working classes had votes. I am no worshipper of those classes & they know it. I have written & published harsh truths of them, which were brought up against me in meetings of the working classes during my election & I never was so much applauded by them as when I stood to what I had written & defended it. They are not yet politically corrupted by power. I doubt not that they would be corrupted like other classes by becoming the paramount power in the country, though probably in a less degree because in a multitude the general feelings of human nature are usually more powerful & class feelings proportionately less so than in a small body. But I do not want to make them predominant. I see the country under the leadership of a higher & a middle class who, by long disuse of attempting or wishing to do their duty as managers of the national affairs have become incapable of doing it, & I am hopeless of any improvement but by letting in a powerful influence from those who are the great sufferers by whatever evil is done or is left uncorrected at home & who have no personal or class interests or feelings concerned either in oppressing dependencies, or in doing or conniving at wrong to foreign countries. I could write at great length on all this, but it is not my object to defend my view of existing English politics, my object is to enable you whom I respect, to understand the source from which that view proceeds in my own mind. As for those whom I do not respect, a category which includes the great majority of public men & public writers, I should never take the trouble to give any other explanation of myself to them, than that which I hope my conduct will give.

I return, with thanks, the answer to Mrs Urquhart’s letter on Jamaica.

1004.

TO GEORGE GROTE

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Nov. 12. 1866

My dear Grote

Were I to be appointed to the Council of the University of London, the chief advantage which I should anticipate would be that there would be an additional vote and voice to support you on critical occasions. That I could, in case I survived you, be to any effectual purpose your successor, is very improbable. Such an influence as yours is, can only be acquired by many years of assiduous devotion, such as you have given, to the business of the institution. Moreover, influence over such people as your colleagues in the Senate can, by any one who has no claims to it but personal ones, only be acquired by keeping constantly working at them, and wearing away by perseverance the obstacles in their minds. He must not only accustom them to look on him as a main prop, and the chief working mind of the institution but must keep himself in frequent personal communication with them, and bring social influences to bear on them. All these things would be not only in the highest degree distasteful, but practically impossible to me; and I do not see any reasonable prospect of doing as much for our objects as would make it good economy in me to give the time and trouble that would be necessary for effecting even such good as might be practicable.

The help, however, which I might give to good objects as an auxiliary to you, would be a strong inducement to me to accept your proposal; and were I not in Parliament I would do so without hesitation. As it is, however, my attending the Senate, even if limited to the two important days which you mention, would have the effect of exactly depriving me of the Easter vacation. It is hardly possible for any one who does not share my life here, to estimate the greatness of the sacrifice that being detained in England at that time would be to me, or to know in how great a degree that break in the dreary six or seven months of London, helps to keep up my health, spirits, and working power for what I have to do there. I am willing, for any object which would make it my duty, to add this sacrifice to the great one I have already made. But it is not clear to me that it is my duty to do so for the amount of good which I can see my way to effecting by means of it. As long as you are able to continue your active exertions in the Senate, there is not much danger that the ground already gained will be lost. And without you I see little prospect that any influence I could ever have would supply your place. It is, however, very desirable that there should be some one in the Senate who would give you a more effective backing than you have at present. But there are others besides me who could do this. Bain being unattainable, have you ever thought of Herbert Spencer? He is as anti-clergymanish as possible; he goes as far as the farthest of us in explaining psychological phenomena by association, and the “experience hypothesis”; he has a considerable and growing reputation, much zeal and public spirit, and is not, I should think, more suspect on the subject of religion than I am. I think he would be of great use in the Senate on the subjects on which you most need to be supported, and a very valuable acquisition otherwise. I do not know whether the duty would be agreeable to him, but from the little I know of his tastes and habits, I should expect that, rather than the contrary.

I am very glad that a majority of the Council of University College have established the principle of confining the Moral Philosophy professorship to laymen. I wish you had been able to get in Robertson, but you may still succeed in this, if the advertisements fail, as they probably will, to attract any candidate of greater prestige.

When Martineau determined to become a candidate, he wrote to me, asking for a testimonial. I wrote him a letter in reply, saying such complimentary things as I could say with truth, but declining to give him a testimonial, on the ground that I did not think it right to aid a person of his philosophical opinions in getting appointed to one of the few professorships in Europe that are open to a person of mine. Soon after, I received a letter from Hutton, saying that Martineau, having gone ahead, had charged him (Hutton) with sending in his testimonials and asking leave to send in my letter to Martineau as one of them. To which I answered that this would really be doing what I had declared myself unable conscientiously to do, and I therefore refused; to his considerable displeasure.

I hope the Aberdeen students will do themselves the honour of electing you. I am in more need of a model for my own Rectorial Discourse than capable of affording one to others, for though I have put into it a good deal that may be useful, I think it is very likely to disappoint expectation.

I am glad to see the announcement of a second edition of the Plato. I see, every now and then, traces of its influence both in English and in French writings.

With our kind regards to Mrs Grote, I am my dear Grote

Ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1005.

TO ROWLAND G. HAZARD

Saint Véran, Avignon Nov. 16. 1866

Dear Sir

I am greatly obliged to you for your letter of Oct. 22, and still more so for the printed one which I subsequently received. It is a real pleasure to have you for an antagonist, for you see the true gist of a question, do not trifle on the mere surface of the subject, and your arguments are real arguments addressing themselves to the real points in dispute and not to imaginary ones. If I had more time I might perhaps go into the subject fully, and answer you at as much length as you have answered me. But being obliged to economize my working power, I will not go down to the foundations of our difference, on which we are not likely to convince one another; if we ever change it will rather be in consequence of the progress of our own minds. I will merely touch on a few points which drew my attention in reading your essay.

1. As to your argument, that our knowledge of our own power to move our muscles cannot be derived from experience, because to obtain that experience, we must already have voluntarily moved them. My way of meeting that difficulty is this. I believe, with Hartley and Professor Bain, that all voluntary motions were originally automatic, produced by the stimulus of sensation, without what we call volition. For the process by which an idea, or reminiscence in the mind, gains that power over our muscles which was at first possessed only by sensations, I must refer you to the authors I have named, especially M^r Bain “The Emotions and the Will”, who is by far the fullest. If you have time to read him, you will see that experience of the sequence between a thought or desire and a motion may very well be (and, as we think, must be) complete before the thought or desire grows into a will.

2. You say that there are only two things to which we attribute power: viz. intelligence, and matter in motion. But there are many cases in which we regard as a cause of motion, matter which is not in motion, or (if there be no matter not in motion) which does not produce other motion by its own motion, but independently of it. For instance, the sun causes the motion of the earth: but, though the sun is now known to have a proper motion, it is not by virtue of that motion that it attracts the earth: if it were immoveable it would do so equally. Just so a magnet makes iron move towards it by its mere proximity. True the magnet moves round with the earth’s rotation and revolves with it about the sun, but it would attract the iron just the same if those movements were suspended. So, again, heat and light are causes, and active forces: the modern opinion indeed is that heat and light are matter in motion, but they were just as much conceived and known as active forces before that opinion grew up. I think this consideration materially affects your theory, for the natural agencies which have always been conceived as powers, agree in nothing but in being the observed antecedents of motion or change.

Most of your arguments against my chapter on causation I have anticipated in the chapter itself: but

3. You misunderstand my expression “as long as the present constitution of things lasts.” You do not appear to see that the extinction of the sun’s light would not be, in my sense, a change in the present constitution of things. As long as all the properties of matter remain the same, and are governed by the same laws, no modification which those laws may produce in the concrete bodies surrounding us is a change in the constitution of things. Consequently I do not admit that we believe that “while the present constitution of things lasts night will invariably precede day”. It will only do so if the sun continues to give light, and if no other body of a similar nature comes into our region, or we into its region, of the universe. Night, though an invariable, is not an unconditional antecedent of day.

4. You say “As soon as we find that night can for a time exist without producing day, we perceive that it cannot be the cause of day.” Then sunrise is not the cause of day either; for the actual sunrise has taken place for some time without producing day, viz. the time necessary for a ray of light to travel over the intervening distance.

5. You say “if the whole aggregate antecedents are the cause of any effect, then, as at each instant the whole antecedents are the same at every point of space, the effects should be everywhere the same.” This, I think, you will see, is an oversight. The whole antecedents are not the same at every point of space; for, the antecedent condition of an effect is not the mere happening of an event somewhere, but its happening in a certain degree of proximity to the scene of the effect; and antecedents of this sort cannot be the same for any two points of space.

I throw out these remarks merely as matter for your own mind to work on. If they do nothing else, they will suggest answers from your point of view, and will help to render your side of the argument more complete.

It is unlucky that your visit to England should have occurred while we are away; for we shall not have returned by the time you mention, and I fear you are not likely to visit this side of the Channel before you recross the Atlantic: otherwise you would be warmly welcomed at our little place. Does the notice prefixed to your printed letter include me? if so, I will return it through Messrs Baring.

I am Dear Sir
ever yours sincerely

J. S. Mill

R. G. Hazard Esq.

1006.

TO JOHN MILLS

• Avignon

November 16, 1866.

Dear Sir,—

I have only just received your letter of the 15th in reply of mine. Your pamphlet reached me by the same post, my answer is therefore too late for the purpose for which you requested it. I am the more sorry for this, as you have thought it right to mention in a note that you had been told I had changed the opinion which you quoted from the last edition of my “Political Economy”, and I should have been glad if you had mentioned such a statement, you should have been able to contradict it. I hold to the passage you quoted in every respect; it still expresses my opinion as correctly as it did when I first wrote it.

I am faithfully

J. S. Mill

1007.

TO THOMAS HARE

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Nov. 18. 1866

Dear Mr Hare

I have been in debt to you for two letters, I am ashamed to think how long: but when one is as busy as I am, and has also so many letters to write, the friends one values most are apt to be last served, if there is nothing in their letters requiring to be answered immediately. You, also, have been working hard, and with great efficiency, for and at the Social Science meeting. The ignorance of the very A B C of the subject which was shewn by the speakers on the other side, struck me even in the newspaper reports, and your letter shews that this ignorance is accompanied by a false opinion of knowledge. Lord Robert Montagu’s confounding your plans with the mode of election which is of all others most different from it, and most opposed to its principle, is very illustrative of the manner in which English politicians, especially of his class, make themselves acquainted with new ideas. They just snatch up some one feature—in this case, the voting for many candidates instead of only two—and then fancy they are masters of the whole thing. What I most want to say to you is this: There will, in all probability, be a Tory Reform Bill, and whatever may be its quality, no moving of amendments or raising of new points will in the case of a Tory bill be regarded by Liberals as obstructiveness, or as damaging the cause. Then will be the very time to bring forward and get discussed, everything which we think ought to be put into a good Reform Bill. I am anxious, therefore, to hear what, in your opinion, would be the best way of bringing your plan before the House in the approaching session. Perhaps the mode you mention, that of moving for a Committee, would do best; for as Disraeli will be glad to curry a little favour with the independent liberals, and not sorry to gain a little time, we have more chance of getting our Committee, than perhaps we should at a future time. If a Committee is granted, we will get Fawcett and any other friends put on it, and I will devote myself as much as I am able to working it, and extorting a real discussion of the plan from the witnesses. If you think this the best way, should the motion be for a Committee on your plan alone, or on representation of minorities generally?

I suppose you saw in how excellent a way Lord Hobart returned to the subject in his article on Bribery in the November M^cMillan. Mr Schuyler says in a letter I have just received from him, “I have been carefully reading Mr Hare’s book, and yours on Representative Government. For our country, I think Mr Hare’s plan would have to be modified so far as to confine the choice of members to districts of the country, like our present congressional districts—perhaps to States—and this because of the great extent of our country and the sparse population of most parts of it—” (He probably means that the people do not know the notabilities of any State not their own)—“Otherwise I can see no drawback to all the advantages it undoubtedly would give. I shall do what I can to bring it into public notice at home.”

With our kind regards

I am Dear Mr Hare
Ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1008.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Nov. 21. 1866

Dear Sir

My daughter, from whom you have already more than once accepted articles, has written one on the claim of women in independent circumstances to the suffrage, which she sends by this post and places at the service of the Westminster Review if you are disposed to insert it. It is written, as you will see, with a practical object, to aid the parliamentary movement which will probably be made in the next session, and it takes, therefore, mainly the constitutional ground and that of analogy to English institutions, taking only incidental notice of the broader and higher principles on which the claim may be rested. It is desirable that the article, if accepted, should be in the January number, as the number following may perhaps be too late for the immediate occasion. I am

Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Dr Chapman

1009.

TO ROBERT WERE FOX

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Nov. 23, 1866

Dear Sir

On returning home the other day, I regretted to find that you and your ladies, after taking the trouble to come, and staying some time for the purpose of seeing me, had gone away disappointed: I should certainly have made an attempt to find you before you left Avignon, if it had not been already too late. The recollections left by my former intercourse with your family are too pleasant for me not to have pleasure in reviving them. I was sorry to hear that your visit to the South was for the sake of Miss Caroline’s health—I hope only by way of precaution. The winter climate of the South East of France is, I think, excellent for chronic weakness or delicacy, but inferior to many other of the resorts of invalids in case of actual disease, either pulmonary or bronchial: and whenever there is any facility in taking cold, great care is required. But Hyères, in the opinion of medical men, has in a less degree than Nice the defects which are common to both. At all events it will have, in your case, the advantage of being a very complete change; for the type of its climate is the very opposite of that of Cornwall.

I am afraid we shall have left this place for England before you turn your faces homeward; but either in England or here I should always be happy to see you, or to serve you in any way in my power. I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1010.

TO HERBERT SPENCER

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Dec. 1. 1866.

Dear Sir

Dr Cazelles, a very intelligent medical man, residing at St. Giles, near the mouth of the Rhone, who has translated (excellently well, as far I am competent to judge) one of the principal writings of Moleschott, and has just finished translating my book on Hamilton, proposes, if you will give him permission, to translate your First Principles, and your Psychology. His ultimate scheme is rather an extensive one—to publish in French the whole series of the Association Psychologists, from Hartley downwards, beginning with you and Bain: and he has the consent of Germer Baillière, the publisher of the series of Philosophie Contemporaine, to publish translations of Bain and you by Dr Cazelles. I have formed a very favourable idea of his capacity; his philosophical opinions are completely of the Experience school, and I know by my own case that he does not linger over what he undertakes, but sets about it with a will, and gets through it. Dr Cazelles means to write to you himself, and will most likely send you his translation of Moleschott. Unless you have already some competent person in view, I do not think you would be likely to regret having accepted Dr Cazelles’ proposal.

I am Dear Sir
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

Herbert Spencer, Esq.

1011.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Dec.2.1866

Dear Sir

Many thanks for your letter. My daughter intended all along to insert a heading in the proof. She had some thought of heading the article with the Report of the General Committee of Petitions in which the Ladies’ Petition was printed: but we have not the series of those Reports by us, and we do not know which of them is the one that contains it.

I am sorry to hear that you are in any difficulty about the Review, and should be very glad to hear further about it. Knowing how little support there is for a Review of advanced opinions, I have always thought it eminently honourable to you that you should have been able to carry it on for so many years, and to make it as good as it has been through all that time. I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Dr Chapman

1012.

TO GEORGE GROTE

• S[aint] V[éran]

Dec. 2, 1866

My dear Grote—

I am very happy that you think my objection to being proposed for the Senate fair & reasonable. With regard to Spencer, Bain’s judgment will be a great help to you in the matter. I have not seen very much of Spencer, but what I have seen adds to the favourable side of the impression his writings make on me. I am not inclined, from anything I know, to consider him as on the whole disposed to magnify his differences from others whose philosophical opinions are allied to his own. He did so in the case of Comte, whom he knew very imperfectly. But in his controversies with me it is rather I who have magnified the differences, & he who has extenuated them. With regard to his reputation, no doubt it has not yet reached its height, but it is constantly growing. His is the rising philosophical name at the present & will probably stand very high ten years hence—& it is rather with a view to the future than to the present that additional thought is wanted in the Senate.

I have read several of the attacks on the Council about Martineau with much disgust at their extreme unfairness. There was, however, in the Morning Star of Nov 28^th a leading article on the subject, as good & as much to the point as if it had been written by one of ourselves. In case you have not seen it, I inclose the article. Though the writer has evidently seen my letter to Martineau, I have no idea who he is. It may be the editor, Mr. Justin M^cCarthy, who, judging from two articles which he wrote [long?] ago in the W.R., on Voltaire & on Buckle, is a man of very considerable ability & very good opinions.

1013.

TO ALEXANDER VANCE

• Avignon

Dec. 2, 1866

Sir

I am obliged to you for your book. I have not had time to read more than the Introduction, but that is enough to convince me that your idea is a good one, and that you have done a useful thing.

I am Sir
Yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

Alex. Vance Esq.

1014.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Dec. 6. 1866

Dear Sir

My daughter has put a heading to the article, and returns the corrected proof to your address by this post. She would be much obliged to you if you would allow twelve separate copies to be made up (at her expense) and sent to her here, as early as convenient.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Dr. Chapman

1015.

TO THOMAS HUGHES

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Dec. 18. 1866

Dear Mr Hughes

The idea of exhibiting in detail the practical need of reform, and answering the objections to it, in a volume of short essays, seems to me a very good one. If as well executed throughout, as from the persons engaged in it, some parts of it are sure to be, there is reason to hope that it will not only help Parliamentary Reform in the coming session, but will also hoist the flag of a future party of practical reformers, in anticipation of the time for following Parliamentary Reform to its consequences. It is impossible, however, that I should write anything for the collection, as I have work in hand that will require all my time up to the opening of Parliament.

With regard to the two departments for which I am asked to recommend writers, No 4 of the A series will, I think require to be divided. For Poor Law and Sanitary Reform, Mr Chadwick is the right person, if he can be prevailed on: if not, he is the person most competent to recommend some one else. For Municipal Reform, I should propose my constituent M^r James Beal, who has paid great attention to the subject, and understands it well: or, failing him, perhaps M^r Horton. 9 C, “the House of Commons and Taxation”, I think I would omit altogether. There is no longer much to complain of in the conduct of the House of Commons, under the guidance of Mr Gladstone, on this subject; and any one who took it up with that idea, would probably do so on the wrong principles of the Liverpool Financial Association. The worst things the House of Commons is now chargeable with on the subject of taxation, are the non-extension of the Probate Duty to real property, and the levying of the Succession Duty, in case of settled property, on the life interest only: and these points, I think, would come in better, à propos of something else.

No 1 of the B series, which was destined for me, would be an excellent subject for Mr Goldwin Smith.

I think you would find Professor Cliffe Leslie a valuable coadjutor. He is an excellent popular expositor of scientific thought, one of our best political economists, and has thought much and well on several of the proposed subjects, the land laws being one.

If I think of anything else worth writing, I will write again. I am

Dear Mr Hughes
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1016.

TO GEORGE GROTE

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Dec. 25. 1866

My dear Grote

I am much obliged to you for giving me the history of the struggle which ended in the appointment of Robertson. “Those who exerted themselves to get the professorship suppressed because their candidate was rejected, have certainly given their measure by it, and a very wretched one it is.” As Helen said when she read your letter, it is like the Judgment of Solomon: we see on which side the real case for the institution and for the subject is; for there is probably not one of us who would not have voted for Martineau rather than lose the professorship altogether. I am truly happy that you were sufficiently well supported to avert either result.

I do not know whether the younger men are, as you think, inferior to those who were formed between 1820 and 1832; it is hardly possible to judge until they shew what they are when they reach the same age, for the more various culture of more recent times causes people to ripen slowly. We must not forget either, that your experience and mine of the older set includes the very best of them—those who were formed under the Benthamic influence. There was, in general, Kimmerean darkness then, beyond the region to which that influence, directly or indirectly, extended.

I have got through fully three fourths of the revision of the Hamilton for the new edition. I have corrected some minor matters; but the wish you expressed, on Hamilton’s account, that some one might be able to clear him from a part of the inconsistencies and other errors laid to his charge, has not been realized to the extent that might reasonably have been expected. Mansel, in particular, is perpetually crying out that I have misunderstood Hamilton, but the points on which he makes out even a plausible case of misunderstanding are extremely few and small. Some of the new matter I have inserted will, I think, add to the intrinsic value of the book, independently of repelling objections.

Among the books I have had occasion to read in connexion with the subject is one lately published by Chapman and Hall, called “Inquisitio Philosophica, an Examination of the Principles of Kant and Hamilton by M.P.W. Bolton,” which is on our side, and attacks Mansel, and which I think you would like very much. The writer is a scholar, well read in the history of philosophy as well as in philosophy itself, is particularly good at stating correctly and clearly both sides of a case, and though he does not always profess to decide between them, shews plainly enough that he holds with the inductive school, both in their philosophy and in its consequences. I have mentioned his book to Bain.

In referring to the article in the Westminster, on Hamilton and me, am I at liberty to speak of it, either directly or by a circumlocution, as yours, or, as attributed to you? Unless you would rather I did not, I should like to be allowed to do so, not only on account of the value of your expressed approval of the book, but for the sake of the opportunity of expressing my sense of that value.

I hope Aristotle is profiting by the termination of your troublesome and anxious contest.

With our kind regards to Mrs Grote, who I hope is now quite recovered, I am

my dear Grote
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1017.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• S[aint] V[éran]

Dec. 29. 1866

Dear Chadwick—

Let me begin by requesting you to thank Miss Chadwick very heartily from me for the trouble she took in writing to me as your representative. I am extremely sorry for the cause which rendered her aid necessary; most of all on your own account. The loss of what you would have written & done during the interval is also much to be regretted, but on the whole you, like myself, have had less than the average share of interruption in your work from ill health.

I have, as you know, always agreed with you as to the importance of introducing military drill into schools, though I should be a little frightened at it if I thought it would do what in your present paper you say it sometimes does—make the majority of the boys wish to be soldiers. There can be no doubt also that by this means the purposes of an efficient reserve would be attained without either the expense, the loss of productive power, or any other of the evil consequences of increased armaments. But for that very reason it will not be listened to by any of the Continental governments except possibly Italy. Those governments do not want a real defensive force; they want an aggressive force; they want to have the very largest body of adult soldiers ready for service anywhere, whom they can afford to pay, & your arguments will be of no avail except to the French & Prussian liberals to use, against their governments. In that respect they may be very useful & I think copies might usefully be sent to the Temps newspaper, to Jules Favre, Jules Simon, Carnot, Garnier Pagès, Lanjuinais, &c. and to Twesten, Schultze-Delitsch, Jacobi, & any other of the best liberals in the French & Prussian chambers. It was a good idea sending a proof to M. Wolowski for the Institute & if you were to give him a copy for M. Rouher there might be a chance of Rouher’s reading it. The idea of employing soldiers in civil work is not new in France, & it has been much discussed. You will find many minds prepared for it. I do not at present see any service that I can be of in the matter, at least by writing. I do not understand military subjects & can carry no authority upon them. But I will most willingly move for your paper & may take that opportunity of speaking my mind on the matter as a question of education. Hoping for a better account of you before long I am

1867

1018.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Jan.1. 1867

Dear Sir

I am most desirous to find out what can be done to relieve you and the Review from your present difficulties. Besides the importance of the Review to the friends of progress, you have a very strong personal claim on them, not only by what you are likely to do, but by what you have already done. Any help in my own power to give, would go but a little way: and unfortunately my personal connexion does not lie among monied people. Most of my radical allies in the House of Commons who are men of wealth, and who are chiefly Yorkshire and Lancashire manufacturers, care for little except practical matters and politics: the most characteristic feature of the Westminster Review, its freedom of speculation in religion and philosophy, would rather be distasteful than a recommendation to most of them; while many who like this, do not like its radicalism. I do not know whether there is any other M.P. except Mr Stansfeld, whom there would be any use in taking into our councils. Him you probably know. The only other persons I can think of to consult with are Mr Grote and Mr Herbert Spencer. With both of these, however, it is likely that you are already in communication. If you give me permission to consult with them and with Mr Stansfeld, I will write to these three, and will inclose to Mr Grote your letter to me, with a request to pass it on. In the meanwhile, if I think of anything else, I will write to you again; and I hope you will mention to me anything that occurs to yourself.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Dr Chapman

1019.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Jan. 8. 1867.

Dear Sir

I have received your second letter, and require a little more time to consider what is best to be done. In the meantime there are two questions I should like to ask. The first is—Is it in your opinion undesirable, or would it be disagreeable to you, that I should consult on the subject with Mr Herbert Spencer? or do you merely think that it would be of no use? The other point is this. There is one essential element of the question about which I should certainly be asked by every person to whom I might speak on the subject; the present pecuniary position of the Review. What is now its sale? and do the proceeds suffice to pay the actual expenses, or is there a fresh deficit every quarter, to be added to the debt against which you and the Review are now struggling? If you will do me the favour to answer these questions, I will then write to you again without delay. I am

Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Dr Chapman

1020.

TO JOHN TULLOCH

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Jan. 9. 1867

Dear Sir

I duly received your kind note, as well as the Essays, about which I hope in two or three days to be able to write to you.

I propose leaving London by a night train on the 30^th which will bring me to S^t Andrews some time in the forenoon of the 31^st; and leaving again on Saturday afternoon or evening; and I shall have great pleasure in accepting your kind invitation. I am

Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Rev. Principal Tulloch

1021.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Saint Véran, Avignon

Jan. 13. 1867

Dear Sir

As you kindly leave the question of consulting with Mr Spencer to my judgment, I will do so or not as it may seem to me, from future circumstances, advisable. Mr Octavius Smith I am not acquainted with, and have no direct access to. Indeed I am acquainted with very few monied people, well affected to the principles of the Review. Do you know Mr P.A. Taylor? and what should you think about my consulting with him?

In any case, I think it advisable not to attempt doing anything by letter but to wait for personal communication. And I am not hopeful about doing much, depending, as I must, on only one or two people for not only subscribing themselves, but getting subscriptions from others. What occurs to me in the meantime is this. One of your ideas was to raise £600 on a mortgage of the Review for five years, on condition that repayment should commence then, at £100 a year. If you are inclined to try this as an immediate answer, I would propose to take the mortgage myself, without interest. This would enable you to get rid of the pressing demands; to save something (I suppose) in interest; and we should have two years before us in which to look out for the remaining £500, besides the chances of an increase of your practice in that time.

That is glorious news about diabetes. If you can even occasionally cure such an intractable and fatal disease by your remedy, you will surely end by having a great practice. That you will leave a great name behind you as an alleviator of suffering and an improver of the medical art, is now, I think, almost certain.

I shall remain here till the 24^th of January, and therefore letters can safely be addressed to me here until the 22^nd

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Is it any secret who wrote the article “Social Reform in England”?

1022.

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL

• Saint Véran, Avignon

le 17 janvier 1867

Mon cher d’Eichthal

Je vous remercie bien de l’envoi du journal contenant la prédication du P. Hyacinthe. Je suis bien aise d’avoir eu un échantillon de ce prédicateur, quoique cet échantillon ne m’ait pas donné de lui une haute idée. Quant à la question de la population, je suis heureux de voir que vous et moi sommes si parfaitement d’accord là-dessus.

Le règlement du nombre d’enfants dans les familles me paraît, comme à vous, aussi important au point de vue de la moralité qu’au point de vue économique, et même, dans les circonstances actuelles de l’humanité bien davantage; car d’un côté le grand accroissement de la richesse, et de l’autre côté l’habitude croissante de l’émigration ont fort atténué l’importance de la question de la population économiquement parlant.

Je compte être à Paris pendant quelques heures le 26 janvier, et j’irai bien certainement vous trouver chez vous dans le courant de la journée probablement vers midi ou une heure. Je vous prie de la part de ma fille de remercier Madame et Mademoiselle d’Eichthal de leur aimable offre, dont elle serait très heureuse de profiter si notre séjour à Paris devait être un peu plus prolongé: mais ce séjour n’étant habituellement que d’une seule journée entre deux voyages, ma fille l’emploie le plus souvent au repos.

Croyez, mon cher d’Eichthal, toujours votre bien dévoué

J. S. Mill

1023.

TO W. L. (JOHNS?)

• Avignon

Jan. 22. 1867

Dear Sir

I have had the honour of receiving your communication of Oct. 21 on the subject of your plan for promoting a large emigration from Great Britain to New South Wales. I have, as you are aware, strongly advocated a national scheme of self-supporting emigration, based on the fund derived from the sale of waste lands in the Australian colonies: but, in the plan I proposed, no expense, beyond a temporary advance, would have been incurred by the mother country. In the present altered state of the labour market in Great Britain and Ireland, occasioned by the great increase of spontaneous emigration, our politicians have grown more afraid of under than of over population; and I am convinced that no scheme for aiding emigration at the public expense would now be listened to. Whatever is done to promote emigration to Australia, must now be done from the Australian side: and your plan might very properly engage the consideration of the Colonial Governments. Of the particular machinery which you propose, I cannot be so capable of judging, as those on your side of the water.

I am Dear Sir
Yours very faithfully

J. S. Mill

W. L. (Johns?) Esq.

1024.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Blackheath Park

Jan. 29. 1867

Dear Sir

I inclose a Draft of a mortgage deed, prepared by my Solicitor. It was drawn up without any reference to the former deed, and he has made it longer and (it seems to me) somewhat less clear than the former one, which I return herewith. Perhaps you will kindly look at the Draft, and return it to me with any remarks or suggestions which occur to you, between this and the 5^th of February, on which day I shall return here from St Andrews. Please fill up in the manner most convenient to yourself the dates which are left in blank.

I am sorry that I have not the smallest or most indirect knowledge of any one of the Directors of the Mutual Life Assurance Society. I could perhaps (if it would be of any use) get at their medical officer, Dr Brinton, who I hope is not the one whose death makes the vacancy. With your professional claims, and such testimonials, you ought to have a good chance. I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1025.

TO SPENCER H. WALPOLE

• Blackheath Park

Jan. 29. 1867

My dear Sir

On arriving from abroad I found the communication which you have done me the great honour of addressing to me on the subject of the intended Royal Commission of Inquiry into the questions connected with Trades Unions. The importance of such an inquiry cannot be overrated; and that you should wish to include me in the number of those to whom it is to be entrusted, would be of itself a proof of your desire that it should be so conducted as to do complete justice to the artisans’ side of the question, equally with that of the employers.

Were the inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons (though a much less efficient mode of investigation) or were its operations likely to be terminated within the Parliamentary season, I should feel bound in duty to accept the honourable office of taking a share in them. It is, however, next to certain that the proceedings of the Commission not only cannot be concluded before the end of the session, but will be carried on with much greater activity during the recess. And it is extremely important to me to preserve the smaller half of the year for occupations, other than political, which I do not think it right to abandon; while I have a strong conviction that to pass some months of every year in the South is essential to the preservation of my health.

It seems to me, also, that the greater part (at least in discussions) of the investigations of the Commission will be of a quasi-judicial character, for which I am not aware that I have any special aptitude. If I could be of use, it would rather be in drawing conclusions from the evidence when taken, than in helping to take it. There are others whose presence in the Commission would be, as much as mine, a guarantee to the working classes that justice would be done to their opinions and objects: for instance, Mr Fawcett, who has made the subject one of his chief studies, who knows the workmen’s side of the question (we all know the other side) and who is much trusted by them.

You are very fortunate in the President you have obtained for the Commission. It is sure to do much good; and though I am not able to accept a place in it, no one will more heartily rejoice if its inquiries lead to more correct opinions or improved legislation on so vital a subject, and no one will join more cordially in applauding and thanking the present Government for every step they take in that direction. I am

my dear Sir
very sincerely and respectfully yours

J. S. Mill

The Right Honourable

S. H. Walpole, M.P.

&c &c

1026.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 6. 1867

Dear Sir

I will direct my solicitor to make the alterations you suggest, and to prepare the deed for signature without loss of time. My solicitor says the mortgage should be registered at Stationer’s Hall, which he undertakes to see done.

In your note to my daughter concerning the reprint of her article you were kind enough to say that you had made an arrangement with Mr Trübner. My daughter thanks you very much for the trouble you have taken, and would be glad to know more exactly what the arrangement was, and also whether the printing, paper, &c. are to be paid for to Mr Trübner, or to whom else, as she wishes to pay for them at once. She would like to have twenty copies sent to her here.

I met with an interesting coincidence with your pathological speculations the other day on the part of an intelligent and philosophic medical man in the South of France. He has not had any cholera patients, but had made up his mind, if he had to treat them on the same principle as you, that of drawing away the congested blood from the spinal region—only he had not thought of the ice plan, but meant to do it by introducing atropine in the subcutaneous region, which he has found in other cases to be a means of producing that particular effect on the bodily economy. I am Dear Sir

very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Dr Chapman

1027.

TO ARNOLD RUGE

Febr. 7, 1867

Dear Sir,

The historical fragments left by Mr. Buckle, and which my daughter (not myself) is engaged in editing, have been in part published in Fraser’s Magazine for this month. More will probably be printed hereafter in a small octavo volume. I need hardly say that my daughter would most gladly do what she could to promote any wishes of yours with regard to them. And if you have Mrs. Allat’s consent, without which of course we should not be justified in doing anything, she will forward the proofs to you when they are ready for publication.

I am very thankful for your kind expression of approbation and sympathy in regard to my public conduct. You will easily understand that I look upon the House of Commons not as a place where important practical improvements can be effected by anything I can do there, but as an elevated Tribune or Chair from which to preach larger ideas than can at present be realised.

I am
Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1028.

TO HENRY S. BRANDRETH

B[lackheath] P[ark]. Feb. 9. 1867.

Dear Sir,

Your question respecting the obligation of veracity on the utilitarian view of ethics seems, if I understand it rightly, to proceed on a misapprehension of the utilitarian standard. The test of right on the happiness principle is not the pleasure of doing the act which is declared to be right, but the pleasurable or painful consequences to mankind which would follow if such acts were done; & these, in the case you put, could not be enunciated in any general rule, because they depend on varying circumstances. There are cases in which martyrdom is a useless self sacrifice, & a sacrifice of other means of doing real good. There are other cases in which the importance of it to the good of mankind is so great as to make it a positive duty, like the act of a soldier who gives his life in the performance of what is assigned to him. There are cases again where without being so necessary as to be, on the utilitarian ground, an absolute duty, it is yet so useful as to constitute an act of virtue, which then ought to receive the praise & honours of heroism. The duty of truth as a positive duty is also to be considered on the ground of whether more good or harm would follow to mankind in general if it were generally disregarded and not merely whether good or harm would follow in a particular case.

1029.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 9. 1867

Dear Mr Cairnes

We are truly grieved to hear of your suffering so much. You do not mention to what place in the South of France you are going. If to Pau, you must not be disappointed if you do not find your health greatly improved by it. The climate of Pau is damp, and dampness is, I am afraid, bad for rheumatism.

My daughter is very much pleased that you think favourably of what she has been doing. We have been made very happy by the adhesion of the Daily News, in an admirable article for which the cause is evidently indebted directly to Mr Hill, and indirectly to you.

I need not say how glad I am that you like my Address. Nor, I hope, need I say how earnestly I desire your speedy restoration to health. You can ill be spared from among us even for a short time.

With our best regards to Mrs Cairnes I am

Dear Mr Cairnes
ever truly yours

J. S. Mill

1030.

TO THE REV. THOMAS W. FOWLE

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

Feb. 9. 1867

Dear Sir—

I agree entirely with the general principles & spirit of your letter received yesterday. I think it highly desirable that the New Testament, & those parts of the Old which are either poetical or properly historical, should be taught as history in places of education; & so far my only difference with you would be that nearly all teachers, both churchmen & dissenters, being as yet far short of the enlightened views which you entertain on the subject, would at present be sure to teach & inculcate all that is contained in those books not as matter of history but of positive religious belief. There are, however other parts of the Old Testament viz. those which scientific knowledge or historical criticism have shewn not to be, in any proper sense of the word, historical, the book of Genesis for example; & I do not think it right to teach these in schools even as history, unless it were avowedly as merely what the Hebrews believed respecting their own origin & the early history of the world.

1031.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

Feb. 9. 1867

Dear Mr Plummer

I have to congratulate you on the birth of your daughter, and at the same time to condole with you on the failure of the Working Man and on the termination of your engagement with Mess^rs Cassell. What have you in view for your next employment? I wish it were in my power to help you to a position of profit and usefulness.

I am glad to hear of a local Jamaica Committee, and of your being a member of it. I think you should decidedly offer yourself as a witness to the Trades Union Commission. They will find few who know so much of the subject and feel so impartially on it. There must often be witnesses quite as hard of hearing as you are.

With our kind regards to Mrs Plummer, I am

dear Mr Plummer
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1032.

TO HERBERT SPENCER

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 9. 1867

Dear Sir

I am very happy that you think so favourably of the St Andrews address, except on one point. In regard to classical instruction, I do not altogether agree with you that the side favourable to it is too strong; for I think there is a growing reaction to the opposite extreme, producing a danger on that side which being the side most in harmony with modern tendencies has the best chance of being ultimately the stronger.

I am most happy to hear that there is a chance of reviving the scheme of the Reader. I agree with you as to the desirableness of taking time to mature the plans, so as to avoid the mistakes made with the Reader, through which the subscriptions were expended without a fair trial of the experiment. I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Herbert Spencer Esq.

1033.

TO ROBERT HERBERT STORY

Feb. 9. 1867

Dear Sir

Allow me to thank you for the book you have been so good as to send, and which I am quite prepared to find very interesting. I am sorry that the occupations, parliamentary and other, which press on me, are not likely soon to leave me the leisure necessary for reading it.

I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Rev. R. H. Story

1034.

TO WILLIAM GEORGE WARD

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

Feb 9 1867

D^r Sir

The Dublin Review reached me duly & I thought I had acknowledged it. The article on Jamaica was excellent. I am very happy that you feel with me so strongly on that subject. I am glad too that you like the St. Andrews Address.

I wish I had seen your article on Free Will while I was revising my book for a new edition and replying to other critics. You would have been a much worthier adversary than most of those I have had.

1035.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 10. 1867

Dear Sir

I have communicated to my solicitor your remarks and wishes on the subject of the registration of the mortgage. In the meantime I have received from him the inclosed letter. I do not remember the exact import or effect of the words which you wished omitted. But he says that even as the draft originally stood, it would not have pledged the back stock, or any monies still to come in from the back numbers.

I inclose a cheque, for which the deed of mortgage will be the receipt, and I am Dear Sir

yrs very truly

J. S. Mill

Dr Chapman

1036.

TO WILLIAM GEORGE WARD

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 11, 1867

Dear Sir—

I shall be very glad to see the proof of your article & I only regret that the pressure on my time during the session will make it impossible for me to take notice of it in the forthcoming edition of my book.

1037.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 13. 1867

Dear Mr Cairnes

I shall be happy to support your friend Mr Courtney if I am able to attend the Club. There is at present a vacancy by the death of Mr Cowell.

The progress of the cause of women’s suffrage, both here and in the United States, is indeed wonderful. It is a great encouragement to those who have been working uphill.

I hope you will let me hear from you now and then.

With the most earnest wishes for your early and complete restoration to health. I am

Dear Mr Cairnes
yours ever truly

J. S. Mill

1038.

TO EDWARD WALFORD

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 14, 1867

Dear Sir

Want of time, combined with dislike for the operation, has obliged me to refuse all proposals from photographers to take my likeness, except in one instance, when I sat to Mr Watkins of Parliament Street, from whom any one who wishes for a photograph of me can obtain one. I hope, therefore, that you will excuse me if I decline to sit to Mr Edwards. I am

Dear Sir
yours faithfully

J. S. Mill

Edward Walford Esq.

1039.

TO WILLIAM GEORGE WARD

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

Feb. 14, 1867

Dear Sir—

I have read your article with very great interest. You are the clearest thinker I have met for a long time who has written on your side of these great questions. And I quite admit that your theory of divine premovement is not on the face of it inadmissible. Your illustration of the mice inside the piano is excellent. The uniform sequences which the mice might discover between the sounds & the phenomena inside would not negative the player without. But you only put back the collision between the two theories for a certain distance. It comes at last. At whatever point in the upward series the unforseeable will of the divine musician comes in, there the uniformity of physical sequence fails: the chain has been traced to its beginning; a physical phenomenon has taken place without any antecedent physical conditions. Now what would be asserted on the other side of the question is, that the facts always admit of, & render highly probable, the supposition that there were such antecedent physical conditions, & that there has been no ultimate beginning to that series of facts, short of whatever beginning there was to the whole history of the universe.

We do not pretend that we can disprove divine interference in events, & direct guidance of them. All our evidence is only negative. We say that so far as known to mankind everything takes place as it would do if there were no such direct guidance. We think that every event is abstractedly capable of being predicted, because mankind are in each case as near to being able actually to predict what happens as could be expected, regard being had to the degree of accessibility of the data, & the complexity of the conditions of the problem.

I cannot perceive in your article any errors in physics. But I am not a safe authority on matters of physical science. Astronomers now think that they can predict much more than eclipses & the return of comets—their predictions reach even to the dissipation of the sun’s heat & the heaping up of the solar system in one dead mass of congelation. But I hold all this to be at present nothing more than scientific conjecture. All that is required by your argument is that the possibility of absolute & categorical prediction should be, as yet, confined to cosmic phenomena. This, I believe, all men of science admit, & I indorse everything on that subject which is said by Mansel in your note. Scientific prediction in other physical sciences is not absolute, but conditional. We know certainly that oxygen & hydrogen brought together in a particular way will produce water, but we cannot predict with certainty that oxygen & hydrogen will come together in that way unless brought together by human agency. The human power of prediction at present extends only to effects which depend on a very small number of causes. Astronomical phenomena do depend on a very small number of causes, & consequently can be predicted. Most other physical phenomena can be predicted with the same certainty provided we are able to limit the causes in question to a very small number. This power of prediction you have not, I think, allowed for in your Essay. Yet it surely is all important. For if the effect of any single cause, or of any pair or triad of causes, can be calculated, the joint effect of a myriad of such causes is abstractedly capable of calculation. That we are unable practically to calculate it is no more than might be expected, at least in the present state of our knowledge, however calculable it may in itself be.

With regard to free will, you have not said much that affects my argument. I am not aware of having ever said that foreknowledge is inconsistent with free will. That knotty metaphysical question I have avoided entering into, & in my Logic I have even built upon the admissions of the free will philosophers that our freedom be real though God foreknows our actions. You simplify the main question very much by your luminous distinction between the spontaneous impulse of the will, which you regard as strictly dependent on preexisting mental dispositions & external solicitations, & what the man may himself do to oppose or alter that spontaneous impulse. The distinction has important practical consequences but I see no philosophical bearing that it has on free will; for it seems to me that the same degree of knowledge of a person’s character which will enable us to judge with tolerable assurance what his spontaneous impulse will be, will also enable us to judge with about an equal degree of assurance whether he will make any effort, & (in a general way) how much effort he is likely to make, to control that impulse. Our foresight in this matter cannot be certain, because we never can be really in possession of sufficient data. But it is not more uncertain than the insufficiency & uncertainty of the data suffice to account for.

Thanking you very much for giving me the opportunity of reading your very able & interesting speculation I am &c.

1040.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 16 [1867]

Dear Sir

The best train to come by on Sunday will be the North Kent train which leaves Charing Cross at 1.5, as it is the earliest after 9.45, and as I am not sure that I shall be alone later in the afternoon. From the Blackheath station to my house (the last but one in Blackheath Park) is about ten minutes walk. I am Dear Sir

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Dr Chapman

1041.

TO GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 16. 1867

Dear Sir

I accompanied the deputation which waited on Mr Walpole yesterday, and we found it useless to press on him the appointment of any additional members of the Commission, as he had already once cancelled a Commission already signed by the Queen, in order to issue a new one with Mr Harrison’s name in it, and was unwilling to take the same step a second time. I am Dear Sir

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

G. J. Holyoake Esq.

1042.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 18, 1867

Dear Sir

Many thanks for the cards for your Lecture which you were kind enough to send. It would have been a real pleasure to me to make use of them, but unfortunately there is no prospect of my being able to do so. Shall I return the cards to you? I am

Dear Sir
yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

1043.

TO THOMAS HARE

[Before Feb. 19, 1867]

. . . received your note I had been planning a Resolution to move in the Committee of the House if the Government Resolutions ever get that far. I am disposed to go straight up to the main position, and move the Resolution annexed. The objection to yours is, that it will be impossible to keep the discussion of it . . . . [personal?] representation, which everybody except ourselves and the extreme Radicals is opposed to, and which, in fact, is not desirable or admissible except in conjunction with your option. I think it is now time to move directly the leading principle of your plan, to which all the rest of it is merely subsidiary.

Mr. Ware was very much pleased by his interview with you.

I hope you have quite recovered from your indisposition. I am Dear Mr. Hare

ever yrs truly

J. S. Mill

1044.

TO THOMAS HARE

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 19. 1867

Dear Mr. Hare

I am most happy that you approve so completely of my intended Resolution. As I understood from Mr. Gladstone’s speech yesterday evening that the Government will be allowed to proceed with their Resolutions, I shall give notice of mine tonight.

We look forward with pleasure to seeing you on Sunday. I am Dear Mr. Hare

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1045.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Blackheath Park
  Kent

Feb. 20, 1867

Dear Sir

My friend Mr Kyllmann of Manchester writes to me that having been spoken to by Mr Jacob Bright, he has succeeded in raising among his friends £80 for the Review, and expects to receive £20 more. This is so much further towards the sum wanted, and I thought you would be glad to be informed of it at once. I am Dear Sir

yrs very truly

J. S. Mill

Dr Chapman

1046.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 21. 1867

Dear M^r Christie

There are a great many important features in your plan and I will endeavour by its help to think the subject out in a practical point of view as soon as leisure is given us from the urgency of the present contest. No one will give his mind to a detailed scheme for checking bribery at the present moment; but there is a very strong sense that it ought to be one of the first things done after passing a reform bill. You will have seen how strongly M^r Gladstone has already in the House, expressed his sense of its necessity. I am

Dear Mr Christie
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1047.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

• Blackheath Park
  Kent

Feb^y 27^th 1867

Sir

I have not leisure to go at length into the subject of your letter, but I spoke of Dr Arnold as a practical reformer precisely because I think that it was in practice rather than in theory that his work and his influence were most beneficial. I look upon the example he set of friendly intercourse between master and scholars, and of effort on the part of the teacher to arouse moral ambition in his pupils, as of great practical value; and if generally followed, sure to produce (as I think it has already produced) a considerable reform in the whole method and results of school teaching.

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1048.

TO HENRY I. ROWNTREE

[March, 1867]

I hope you will permit me to observe that the principle that “it is unjust that the great bulk of the nation should be held amenable to laws in the making of which they have had no voice,” cannot stop at “residential manhood suffrage;” but requires that the suffrage be extended to women also. I earnestly hope that the working men of England will show the sincerity of their principles by being willing to carry them out when urged in favour of others besides themselves.

1049.

TO WILLIAM RANDAL CREMER

B[lackheath] P[ark] March 1, 1867.

Dear Sir—

I am sorry to say that the proceedings at the meeting of Delegates reported in the Star of Feb. 28, a meeting promoted by the Reform League & at which members of its Council were the chief speakers, make it necessary for me to withdraw the paper which I had expressed my willingness to sign: because I can no longer say with sincerity that an agitation conducted in the manner proposed at that meeting would be beneficial to the cause of Reform.

The speeches delivered at the meeting were characterized by two things: a determined rejection beforehand of all compromise on the Reform question, even if proposed by the public men in whose sincerity & zeal as reformers you have repeatedly expressed the fullest confidence, & a readiness to proceed at once to a trial of physical force if any opposition is made either to your demands or to the particular mode, even though illegal, which you may select for the expression of them.

It is best that I sh^d express my opinion plainly & unreservedly on both these points. My conviction is that any Reform bill capable of being passed at present & for some time to come must be more or less of a compromise. I have hitherto thought that the leading minds among the working classes recognized this, & though frankly declaring that nothing less than the whole of what they think required by justice will finally satisfy them, were aware that such ultimate success can only in this country be obtained by a succession of steps, and that a large portion of the middle and some portion of the higher classes may be carried with them in the first step, & perhaps in every successive step, but would certainly resist a passage all at once from the present distribution of political power to one exactly the reverse, the effects of which they feel quite unable to foresee. All this the speakers at the meeting on Thursday either forgot or entirely disregarded.

But even if I thought them right on this point I sh^d think them utterly & fatally wrong in the course they adopted of directly instigating the mass of reformers to seek the attainment of their object by physical violence. One of the leading speakers proclaimed superiority of physical force as constituting right, & as justifying the people in “riding down” the ministers of the law; & the speaker who followed him emphatically expressed concurrence in his treatment. I do not impute to the meeting the monstrous doctrine of these two speakers. But unless misreported, the general tone was that of a direct appeal to revolutionary expedients. Now it is my deep conviction that there are only two things which justify an attempt at revolution. One is personal oppression & tyranny & consequent personal suffering of such intensity that to put an immediate stop to them is worth almost any amount of present evil & future danger. The other is when either the system of government does not permit the redress of grievances to be sought by peaceable & legal means, or when those means have been perseveringly exerted to the utmost for a long series of years, & their inefficacy has been demonstrated by experiment. No one will say that any of these justifications for revolution exist in the present case. Yet unless the language used was mere bravado, the speakers appear to have meant to say that the time has already come for revolution.

I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of these things; I believe them to be the result of feelings of irritation, for which there has been ample provocation and abundant excuse. But however natural irritation it may be, things done or said under its influence are very likely to be repented of afterwards. This, however, is for you to judge of. I do not claim the smallest right of offering advice to you or to the League, but you have asked me to express, in a written document, approbation of the general character & effects of your agitation, & as it is impossible for me to do this when it has assumed a character of which I decidedly disapprove, I have thought it best to explain candidly the reasons why I must now decline to comply with your request.

1050.

TO JAMES GARTH MARSHALL

• Blackheath Park

March 3. 1867

Dear Sir

Excuse the long delay in answering your letter of the 22^nd ult^o. I have really had no time, during the interval, to write anything which would bear delay.

I quite agree with you that in proposing Mr Hare’s scheme, a suggestion should be made for its tentative introduction on a limited scale. Mr Hare has himself made several such suggestions, and particularly that of giving every qualified elector the option of being registered either locally as at present, or as a member of a national constituency. The new mode of voting would be applied only to those who chose the latter, and who in the commencement at least, would probably be a select and not very numerous body. This suggestion seems to me preferable to that of trying the experiment on a distinct category of electors composed of the professional and specially educated classes; on account of the serious objections that exist to any mode of officially recognising the special representation of classes. But if such a category of electors were going to be created, I certainly think that the application of Mr Hare’s plan to it might usefully be proposed.

I do not at all agree with you that small minorities in the nation have not a claim to the means of getting themselves specially represented in Parliament. I regard the maturing of opinions by public discussion as one of the most important functions of the House of Commons. And as to the danger of loss of time by the discussion of mere absurdities, there is a sort of voluntary police in the H. of Commons which is only too effectual in setting bounds to any discussion that is felt to be a bore. There are few who would be willing to occupy the position in the House of Mr Whalley, though his follies, I am afraid, are far from being those of a very small fraction of the public. I do not believe that any opinion, entertained by very few, would be able to obtain more than an occasional and rare hearing in the H. of C. unless it had for its organ some member generally respected & looked up to. I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

J. G. Marshall Esq

1051.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

March 3. 1867

Dear Mr Plummer

I shall have much pleasure in giving you an introduction to an old friend of mine at Paris, M. Gustave d’Eichthal, who knows England and the English language well, will be interested in you and your history, is well qualified to advise you, and can give you other introductions if you require them. If you will let me know when you are going, I will send you a letter to him.

I am happy to hear a good account of your prospects. There is a great heap of parliamentary papers ready for you, if they continue to be useful. Shall I send them to Homer Terrace?

With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer, I am

Dear Mr Plummer
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1052.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath Park

March 5. 1867

Dear Chadwick

I supposed you knew the time fixed for the Committee on Mr Hardy’s bill. I am sorry to say it is next Thursday. I have not heard whether it is likely to be further put off.

I have been in communication with various people on the subject, among whom Dr Stallard, as far as he goes, seems to agree very much with you, while Beal and his Vestry attack the bill on the old anti-centralization notions, as interfering too much with the guardians. I had to fight a deputation of them in the tea room along with eight or ten metropolitan members, most of whom went with me against them. But the deputation also are for merging the separate boards in one. Their strongest objection was to the nominees. What do you think of that part of the plan? Could a better system of inspectors be substituted for it?

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1053.

TO WILLIAM LONGMAN

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

March 6, 1867

Dear Sir—

I agree to the terms mentioned in your note of March 4 for the people’s edition of the Address.

Please send a copy of the People’s Ed. of “Pol. Economy” to Mr W. Dixon, care of Mr Radford, 7 Red Lion Street Clerkenwell E. C. charging me as usual with all expenses.

1054.

TO RICHARD RUSSELL

March 6^th, 1867

Dear Sir—

I do not see that the fact that it may become expedient at some future time to admit women to the House of Representatives can be any bar to admitting their claim at present to be electors. Any objections to the meeting of persons of both sexes for the purpose of legislation are such as naturally tend to diminish with a higher state of civilization. In some countries the sexes are still separated at church; in the East the influence of sex is so strong that even family life is rendered impossible by it, and brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, are separated, and men and women can only associate together in the single relation of husband and wife. But we have proved by experience that exactly in proportion as men and women associate publicly together in a variety of relations not founded on sex, their doing so becomes safe and beneficial, and raises the tone of public morality. I am disposed to think that no legislation is needed to prevent women from becoming members of parl^t for that before any woman is likely to be chosen by a sufficient number of electors, public opinion will ensure sufficient propriety of sentiment in the House of Commons to make her presence there perfectly harmless.

As to the objection that men & women might on some occasions differ collectively, and that the women might have their own way, it has much less force than the similar objection to the working classes, because men and women are much more likely to be evenly balanced in number than the poor & the rich. I cannot see how arranging that men shall always have their own way in everything can in justice be the proper way to prevent women from occasionally having theirs. There is a more even balance between men and women than between any other two classes and therefore the attainment of justice through equal representation may be more easily trusted to the reason & right feeling of the best among each acting as a check to violence or party feeling on either side.

I should object to the plan of a subordinate house of representatives for women just as I should object to any such plan for working men, and just as I should object to placing the House of Commons in any such subordination to the House of Lords. I dislike all merely class representation, and I still more disapprove of all class subordination. Moreover one of the useful functions of a H. of Representatives is discussion, and the representation of women’s point of view whether through male or female representatives is part of what would be gained by admitting women to the suffrage. And it is not merely in the H. of C. but also even in the tone of electioneering and popular politics that the admission of new elements to the national life is of importance. New topics get discussed and old ones from new points of view. Different classes of electors are aroused to interest, and to influence one another. Shutting their representatives up separately, even if with equal powers, would be to weaken the educational influence of political contests, and at the same time to intensify their bitterness.

1055.

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL

• Blackheath Park, Kent

le 8 mars 1867

Mon cher d’Eichthal

Je viens de donner une lettre de recommandation auprès de vous à M. John Plummer, qui se rend à Paris comme représentant de plusieurs associations ouvrières, dans l’espoir d’obtenir pour elles certaines facilités, dont je ne sais pas précisément la nature, par rapport à l’Exposition. Je me rappelle le grand intérêt que vous avez pris, il y a bien longtemps, à Rowland Detrosier. M. Plummer est un homme encore plus remarquable. Il a été longtemps simple ouvrier dans une petite ville de province. Il a commencé à écrire sous la stimulation d’une vive indignation contre certains procédés d’un Trades Union. De là, il a été toujours en progrès; il est maintenant écrivain et journaliste, et ses écrits, sur toutes les questions qui intéressent particulièrement la classes ouvrière, sont remarquables par leur bon sens, par leur philanthropie éclairée, et même par la pureté de leur style. Malgré les désavantages, non seulement de sa position mais de sa personne, car il est boiteux et un peu sourd, il a une influence considérable parmi les classes ouvrières, surtout en matière sociale et économique, car, quoique radical, il s’occupe moins de politique que des questions d’éducation et de progrès moral et intellectuel. Je suis sûr que vous ne le connaîtrez pas sans éprouver pour lui un vif intérêt; et si vous pouviez l’aider à obtenir ce qu’il désire, j’en serais vraiment reconnaissant.

J’ai vu hier Monsieur votre fils, pendant un quart d’heure à la Chambre. Je compte causer avec lui plus au long à son retour de Liverpool.

Votre affectionné

J. S. Mill

1056.

TO THOMAS HARE

• Blackheath Park

March 8. 1867

Dear Mr. Hare

The best plan, I think, will be for me to give notice, on Monday next, that I shall, in the course of the Reform discussions, call the attention of the House to the principle of Personal Representation. I will then put your clauses in the paper immediately after the production of the Bill.

I am Dear Mr. Hare
yours ever truly

J. S. Mill

1057.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

March 8, 1867

Dear Mr Plummer

I inclose a brief introduction to my friend M. d’Eichthal. I write to him by today’s post at greater length, in order to tell him more particulars about you than could well be put into a letter which he will only read at the moment of receiving your visit.

I have no power of introducing you to any one who has access to the Emperor, as my political opinions have always prevented me from cultivating an acquaintance with any of his adherents. Perhaps some of your other friends may have more power of being useful to you in this capacity; and it would be worth while for you to mention your wish yourself to M. d’Eichthal, as he may perhaps be able to help you.

I will look out the Parliamentary papers and send them to you as soon as I have time.

Our kind regards to Mrs Plummer.

I am Dear Mr Plummer
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1058.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath Park

March 9. 1867

Dear Chadwick

You will have seen that you were mistaken about what Mr Hardy did on Thursday, and that the [substantive?] discussion in Committee commenced last night. In the course of it, I had opportunities of enunciating several of the true principles of administration (though I am very imperfectly reported—the Star report is the best) and I shall bring out others of them on Monday when the Committee is to be resumed and when it will get to the position and mode of appointment of the medical officers. None of the reports give (what I said very emphatically) that, for the executive duties, the only persons to be relied on are the paid officers, and that the use of boards is to look after those officers.

Mr Hardy tells me that Miss Nightingale’s paper is already before the House annexed to the Cubical Space Report.

Thanks for your article, which I will return shortly.

yrs ever truly

J. S. Mill

1059.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

• Blackheath Park

March 11^th 1867

Dear Sir

You are evidently a real student and I wish that all who read my books would scrutinize them with the same strictness.

In quoting the passage from De Quincey I did not mean to make myself answerable for all it contains, but only for so much of it as is recognized in my own introductory sentences. I thought it in the main right and well fitted to carry the reader into the very heart of the subject, and when there to set him looking about and thinking for himself, which opinion is confirmed by the effect it has had upon you. I do not think that Mr De Quincey has in this passage given a correct expression to the whole of the truth, and on the particular point which is the subject of your letter my opinion agrees with that which, if I rightly understand your letter, you have arrived at.

Yours faithfully

J. S. Mill

1060.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath Park

March 12. 1867

Dear Chadwick

The time had passed for moving your amendment in Committee but I have put it on the notice paper (to the great satisfaction, among others, of Dr Stallard) to be moved on bringing up the Report. I shewed it first to Mr Hardy, who said that the plan was ‘what we shall certainly come to.’

What I said is better reported this time than last, though briefly.

The Bill is now through Committee, and one of Mr Hardy’s own amendments has given the Poor Law Board, to a great extent, the power you want, of classifying without district restrictions.

ever yrs truly

J. S. Mill

1061.

TO THOMAS HARE

• Blackheath Park

March 15. 1867

Dear Mr Hare

Disraeli said last night in answer to a question, that the Reform Bill would be in the hands of members on Tuesday morning. It seems likely that its provisions will include cumulative voting. If so, our clauses ought to be moved as an amendment on that. I think the clause giving power to the Speaker of framing rules should stand and I expect to be able to suggest some other improvements in the draft. As I gave my notice in general terms last night, the middle of next week will be soon enough for putting the actual clauses on the paper. I will call on you at your office as soon as possible after we have the Bill. I am

Dear Mr Hare
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1062.

TO WILLIAM WOOD

• Blackheath Park

March 15th 1867

Dear Sir

Among the many letters on Reform which I have received since the subject assumed a practical aspect, none has given me so much pleasure and none I think has shown so true a perception of important principles and distinctions as yours. I am not aware that I differ essentially from anything which your letter contains though I should sometimes express the same, or an equivalent meaning in different words.

If you have time and are inclined to write further to me on the subject, specifying the particular mode which occurs to you of giving effect to the principles of representation laid down by you, it will give me much pleasure to hear from you.

I am dear Sir
yours truly

J. S. Mill

1063.

TO RICHARD RUSSELL

March 20, 1867

Dear Sir

I am glad to find that considering women essentially inferior to men and therefore requiring that the constitution shall recognise the domination of men over women, you are yet willing to grant to women a right to advise men how to govern them; and that you think they ought to be permitted larger liberty and privileges than they at present enjoy.

Your point of view is quite reasonable and complete in itself; I have only one fault to find with it—I think it a mistaken one. I see no reason for believing women to be inferior to men, and I do not believe them to be so. You will of course see that it would be impossible for me to find time to enter with you into a discussion on the fundamental equality of the two sexes, it will be sufficient to indicate to you that this is the true point on which we are at issue.

H.T. [for JSM]

1064.

TO JAMES ANTHONY FROUDE

• Blackheath Park

March 21, 1867

Dear Sir

I hope it is not in consequence of indisposition that you are going abroad. If it is not, I congratulate you on the prospect.

My daughter desires me to say that she hopes to be able to send the second instalment of Buckle by Easter. It may, however, be further delayed by the endeavour to fill up blanks left in the MSS. requiring reference to various books not immediately accessible.

The series of Reform papers have hitherto been excellent and you must have been both judicious and fortunate in your selection of writers. I am not aware at present that I can make any suggestion as to subjects, or recommend any writers but those whom I mentioned in a former letter. I will however think about it, and if anything further occurs to me, I will let you know before Thursday, as it will not be possible for me to have the pleasure of dining with you, the demands on my time being more pressing than ever; not to mention that on Monday, and probably on Tuesday, my presence in the House will be absolutely necessary.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

J. A. Froude Esq.

1065.

TO GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE

• Blackheath Park

March 21, 1867

Dear Sir

I have heard nothing of your petition since I returned it to you in the lobby, but I will make particular enquiry about it today in the House.

I am Dear Sir
yrs very truly

J. S. Mill

1066.

TO GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE

• House of Commons

Friday [March 22, 1867]

Dear Sir,

I have just presented your petition, and stated its contents, incorporating some of the most striking expressions in it. I have not moved that it should be printed, as I am told that this is only done when it is intended that a motion should be grounded on the petition; but it is sure to be printed by the Committee of Petitions and sent to every member with their periodical report.

I am Dear Sir
Very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1067.

TO GEORGE GROTE

• [Embossed] House of Commons Library

Wed^y [? 26 March 1867]

My dear Grote

We shall be delighted to see you on Sunday. I will send you Herbert Spencer’s address not having the number by me. It is Queen’s Gardens Hyde Park.

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1068.

TO THOMAS HARE

• Blackheath Park

March 26. 1867

Dear Mr Hare

I understood you to say one day in conversation, that the majority of the old deeds of endowment of schools included girls as well as boys, but that this part of the original design has been allowed to fall into desuetude. Am I right as to the fact? If so, I shall make use of it in my speech on the representation of women.

I was glad to see your hand again in the Daily News. Helen asks me to beg you to be kind enough to tell Miss Hare that there is now no chance of the women’s suffrage debate coming on next Thursday, and it is not likely even for next week. I am Dear Mr Hare

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1069.

TO HERBERT SPENCER

• Blackheath Park

March 26. 1867

Dear Sir

Mr Grote has promised to dine with us on Sunday April 7th and this being one of the Sundays on which I understood you to say that you would be in town, we hope to have the pleasure of seeing you on that day. We dine at five o’clock.

I am Dear Sir
Very truly yours,

J. S. Mill

Herbert Spencer, Esq.

1070.

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL

March 28, 1867

My dear d’Eichthal

This line will introduce to you Mr Theobald, at present of Balliol College, Oxford, the son of a very old friend of mine who has spent the greater part of his life in India. Mr Theobald is studying for the bar, and during the few weeks which he is able to pass at Paris, he is anxious to see all that he can of the judicial proceedings of the French courts as well as to improve his knowledge of the French language and of French affairs in general. I could not possibly address him to any one more competent to advise and aid him, or more disposed, as I know, to do him any kind office for my sake and for his own.

I am
my dear d’Eichthal
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1071.

TO RICHARD RUSSELL

2nd April 1867

Dear Sir—

I am glad to find that you agree with me in thinking that there is no sufficient evidence that women are morally or intellectually, or essentially inferior to men. But in that case I am afraid I no longer think your theory reasonable so far as it goes, and complete in itself.

I do not think it indisputable that the physically strongest must necessarily be dominant over the physically weaker in civilized society, since I look upon it as the fundamental purpose of civilization to redress as much as possible all such natural inequalities, and I think the degree to which they have been redressed as one of the best tests of civilization.

Nor is superior physical strength invariably even at present the ground of political supremacy, for I suppose there can be little doubt that negroes are physically stronger than white men. But superiority whether of physical strength or of intelligence, having once given any sub-division of humanity an advantage over another it is always difficult for the dominant class to see that their own particular superiority does not justly entitle them to limit the freedom or check the development of those who chance to be inferior to themselves in some respects. To see this it is necessary to admit in some form or other the law of justice or of the general good as the final test, but I do not at all despair of mankind as a whole becoming capable of recognising it as such, as I understand you yourself to do. I must beg you to excuse the brevity with which I am obliged to write.

1072.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath Park

April 5. 1867

Dear Chadwick

Your plan of registration would be cheap and effectual and might have answered under the old constitution of the Poor Law Board; but it would never be consented to, nor would be admissible, to place the whole registration of the country under the supreme control of a member of the existing Cabinet, whatever it might be.

The subject of expenses of elections will certainly come on this year, unless there is an early dissolution. A paper in the next number of Fraser would, I have no doubt, be quite in time for it.

I return your paper by book post, and along with it the evidence of Chamberlain Scott, which please return

In haste
ever yrs

J. S. Mill

1073.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

Blackheath Park, April 5, 1867

Dear Sir,

It is impossible for me to find time for attending the meeting on Saturday, but I heartily agree in the demand for an efficient lodger franchise and I trust that the House will insist on its introduction in any Reform Bill which it allows to pass.

I am
Yours truly

J. S. Mill

1074.

TO EDWARD TRUELOVE

• Avignon

April 16, 1867.

Dear Sir

I hardly think there would be any use in putting the question you propose to the Government, as they would only return a blunt negative. But the subject ought to be brought in a direct manner before the House at an early period. Perhaps the best time, if a Reform Bill passes, would be in the first session of the Reformed Parliament.

I am not surprised, though very glad, to hear that you and the ladies of your family are strongly interested in favour of the admission of women to the suffrage. I am dear Sir

yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

Edward Truelove, Esq.

1074A.

TO FREDERICK J. FURNIVALL

• Avignon

April 21. 1867

Dear Sir

Owing to my absence from England, I have only just received your letter. I inclose a note addressed to yourself, which will probably answer your purpose as well as anything which I am competent to write. Wishing you success I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1074B.

TO FREDERICK J. FURNIVALL

• Avignon

April 21. 1867

Dear Mr Furnivall

The House of Commons will be very fortunate if it finds a person of higher qualification than yourself to fill the vacant office of its Librarian. What are the special requisites for the charge of that particular Library I do not know; but if a life largely devoted to philological erudition, and especially to the history of the English language and literature, is among them, your publications, and the trust confided in you by the Philological Society, are better evidence in your behalf than even the very distinguished testimonials which you possess. I may perhaps be allowed to add, that your enlightened and zealous participation in one of the most useful movements for the educational and social improvement of the working classes, indicates a habit of mind which turns all literary knowledge and acquirements to the most valuable practical ends.

I am Dear Mr Furnivall

very sincerely yours

J. S. Mill

F. J. Furnivall Esq.

1075.

TO THOMAS HUGHES

• Saint Véran, Avignon

April 21. 1867

Dear Mr Hughes

I am very glad to hear of the merit and success of the Frame Makers’ and Gilders’ Association, but I have no intention whatever of taking a new house, and am not likely to be in the way of becoming a customer of the Association. Were the case otherwise, your recommendation, and what you say about them, would be strong inducements for giving them a trial. I am

Dear Mr Hughes
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1076.

TO AUGUST JOANNY CHAPÉ

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

April 28. 1867

Dear Sir

I have been a long time without answering your letter of Jan. 12 & you have been very patient under the delay. I am so busy that it is with difficulty I have found time to read your MS. To write to you what I think on the different topics of it would be impossible for it would require nothing less than a treatise to explain how far I think you right & how far wrong on all the greatest subjects, religious, political, & social, which can possibly occupy the thoughts of an intelligent human being. Let me say however that I think the production very creditable to you, that I advise you by all means to continue thinking, reading, & studying; but I hesitate to advise you to publish, because I think you will very probably acquire additional thoughts which will modify some of those that you have stated with so much vigour, & on many points with so great a foundation of truth. You will also, by persevering self culture, acquire constantly greater power of doing justice to your thoughts by your mode of expressing them. Had I time I sh^d be very glad to correspond with you, & discuss those great matters of speculation but my pressing occupations forbid any such hope.

I will return your MS, to any address you may give.

1077.

TO HENRY FAWCETT

• Blackheath Park

May 1. 1867

Dear Mr Fawcett

Allow me to express my sincere congratulations on the fortunate event which I have learnt from the newspapers, and my warmest wishes for your happiness and that of the lady who has joined her destiny with yours.

It will give me great pleasure to repeat my congratulations personally. Would it be convenient and agreeable to you and Mrs Fawcett to dine with us here on Sunday the 12^th at five?

The Liberal party is at sixes and sevens, but things are not, I think, so bad as they look. The women’s suffrage question may perhaps come on as early as Monday. I am

Dear Mr Fawcett
yours ever truly

J. S. Mill

1078.

TO WILLIAM WOOD

• Blackheath Park
  Kent

May 1st 1867

Dear Sir

Want of time has hitherto prevented me from complying with your request that I would acknowledge receipt of your last letter, which I would gladly do at greater length than is possible for me at present.

I think with you that the plan of Reform proposed in your letter is far preferable to that of the present Gov^t. I presume that your household suffrage would include women who are householders. I am glad to hear that you are against the Ballot. For other points I would refer you to Mr Hare’s book and my own volume on Representation.

I shall hope to hear from you again, and to be able at a more favourable moment to reply more fully to any communications with which you may favour me.

I am dear Sir
yours truly

J. S. Mill

Mr. William Wood

1079.

TO THOMAS HARE

Blackheath Park, May 6, 1867

Dear Mr. Hare—

I greatly regret that the absolute necessity of my being present at a most critical debate and division on the Reform Bill makes it impossible for me to attend our poor friend’s funeral. His loss is most grievous, not only to those who were so fortunate as to know him, but to the great political, social and philosophical principles to which he was so deeply devoted. I have known few men throughout life with minds so open to reason and evidence, so constantly in the foremost rank of human progress, or whose feelings so entirely went along with their principles in inspiring that ceaseless activity in working for what they deemed right, by which in all ages the great victories have been won for truth and justice. Manchester will long have cause to mourn the loss of Max Kyllmann, and England would mourn for him too, if his unostentatious worth, and his unflagging zeal in the promotion of all important movements in opinion, could be known as widely as they deserve to be.—I am, dear Mr. Hare, ever truly yours,

J. S. Mill

Thomas Hare Esq.

1080.

TO EDWARD KYLLMANN

• Blackheath Park

May 6, 1867

Dear Mr Kyllmann

I have seldom been more shocked by any similar event than I was by the melancholy loss of your poor brother. Most gladly would I shew in any way my profound respect for his memory and my sympathy with his poor wife but tonight, debate and division are unhappily among the most critical in the whole progress of the Reform Bill, making it absolutely necessary for me to be present, and to remain to an hour which would make it impossible for me to arrive at Manchester in time.

I am, Dear Mr Kyllmann with the deepest sympathy

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1081.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

May 10, 1867

Sir

My letter did not amount to a promise that I would support the proposal to omit the word ‘certificated’ in the clause giving the franchise to attornies, though it expressed a willingness to entertain the question.

The Chelsea garden grievances which you complain of are a proper subject for a memorial to the Home Secretary or a petition to parliament, either of which I should be happy to present if it should be desired that I should do so rather than one of the members for Middlesex.

I am Sir
Yours faithfully

J. S. Mill

1082.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Blackheath Park

May 14, 1867

Dear Sir

From the length of time which elapsed without my hearing further from you on the state of your affairs as connected with the Review, I had hoped that things had in some way assumed a better aspect, but I am sorry to find that the very reverse is the case. I shall be anxious to hear the results of your communication with Mr Jacob Bright, my own prospects of being of use in the matter by any influence with monied people being, as I have said from the first, anything but promising. But I will endeavour to do what little I can, and will keep you informed of anything I have to tell. I am Dear Sir

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Dr Chapman

1083.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath Park

May 19. 1867

Dear Chadwick

From the turn which events are taking, there is now, I think, no prospect whatever of an early dissolution.

In thinking of the various possibilities of your return to Parliament, it has occurred to me that one of the most promising might be, to offer yourself for one of the two Parliamentary boroughs into which the Tower Hamlets are to be divided. One advantage of this is that you would not displace any existing member, whose friends would oppose you: another is, that there are no preponderant or commanding local interests in a metropolitan borough.

Another chance would be to try against Doulton for Lambeth. Almost any presentable candidate standing as a supporter of Reform and of Gladstone, could probably succeed against Doulton if he were the first in the field.

It is feared that the University of London will return Fowler, the late Tory candidate for the City, who is an alumnus of University College, and takes an active part in its affairs and in those of the University.

I am Dear Chadwick
yours ever truly

J. S. Mill

1084.

TO HERBERT SPENCER

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

May 24. 1867

Dear Sir—

I write now to ask a favour of you, which however I am certain before I ask it you will grant if it can reasonably be granted. My daughter has formed a plan for publishing a series of papers on the representation of women, which she would like to consist of the following:

• 1. Mrs Mill’s paper from the West^r on the Enfranchisement of women
• 2. Mr Spencer’s chapter on the rights of women from “Social Statics”
• 3. Passages on the same subject from Mr Bailey’s “Rationale of Repr” with Mr Mill’s speech in the H. of C. & passages from “Repr. Gov^t”.
• 4. Miss Becker’s article on Female Suffrage from Contemp Rev.
• 5. Mrs Bodichon’s papers read at the Soc. Science Assⁿ.
• 6. Miss Taylor’s article on the Claim of Englishwomen to the franchise.

If the consent of these different writers can be obtained, she proposes to get them reprinted in a uniform series & published by Messrs Trubner at a very low price; probably 1 d. each.

Can you consent to the publication in this form of your chapter, without which my daughter says the series would want solidity.

1085.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath Park

May 26. 1867

Dear Mr Cairnes

We were very happy to hear of the improvement in your bodily state which you mention in your letter of the 20th. I should hope, most earnestly, that you will not omit any measures whatever that promise a chance of improvement, nor allow yourself to remain in any circumstances in which you do not think you find some improvement going on. I know by experience how much may be done by energetic measures, and while I have great faith in the power of intelligent medical men over disease, I would never place faith in any individual one, under whose treatment I was not progressing. I think one ought to use one’s own intelligence in seeking for remedies, and to use the advice of the best doctors as a guide and help to one’s own judgment. It pained me to hear that you were not making progress at Pau. It is possible that the climate of that place is not sufficiently bracing for you, and that the keen stimulating air of Nice, so dangerous in some cases, and so magically beneficial in others, might be of use in yours. Dr Gurney of Nice is a man of whose professional abilities I have a very high opinion, and whose long residence at Nice makes him a very good judge of the cases [in] which stimulating air may safely be tried, while I know that he sends away patients who he thinks have been injudiciously sent there by other medical men. If you should at any time think of trying the effect of dry bracing air in warm climates, such as that of Nice, Egypt, Malta, &c. you might perhaps like to hear Dr Gurney’s opinion of it in reference to your own case, and I am certain that if you wrote to him mentioning that I begged you to do so, you would get a very intelligent and disinterested opinion. I am so desirous that you would leave no means untried that I hope you will excuse me for mentioning this.

As the volume of Dissertations has not been forwarded, and as you have not read the paper on Plato, I will send you a separate copy of it by post. I had already desired that the new and enlarged edition of the book on Hamilton should be sent immediately on publication to the care of Major Cairnes at Pau.

You will have seen the debate on the representation of women. The minority of 73 (which would have been near 100 if the division had not taken place unexpectedly at a bad time of the evening) is most encouraging, and has put its members and many other supporters in great spirits. The greatest triumph of all is getting [John] Bright’s vote: ten days before, he was decidedly against us.

We are not yet safe from the gross blunder as well as crime of shedding the blood of Fenian prisoners. The Government had decided, by a majority, to hang Burke. About 50 M.P.’s, of which I was one, went as soon as possible to intercede with Lord Derby, and at this time of writing I do not yet know what is the result. If they have not given in we shall attack them furiously in the House tomorrow.

As to Lord Naas’ bill, it does so very little that nobody seems to wish it to pass, except, probably, himself: I think, however, that it had better pass, because it contains the principle of giving compensation for improvements beneficial to the landlord, though made without his consent. But there are symptoms of the Government’s giving way on this point, and if they do, the Bill will be a mere authority to lend public money, even if ostensibly to tenants, yet really to landlords, for improvements by which landlords alone will benefit, except so far as everybody is benefitted by any agricultural improvement.

I hope you do not depend on the Times or Galignani for all your news. Probably you see the Daily News. Not only that, but the Star, and even the Telegraph, are much fairer, have often better reports and contain much that the Times does not choose to give.

With our kind regards to Mrs Cairnes, whose health we were happy to hear had improved.

I am Dear Mr Cairnes
yours most truly

J. S. Mill

May 30. I kept the letter open to be able to say that Burke’s life is spared. But we had to threaten that some of us would go down to Balmoral.

1086.

TO THOMAS HARE

• Blackheath Park

Monday
[May 26, 1867]

Dear Mr Hare

I write merely to remind you that the question of Personal Representation is very likely to come on next Thursday and that your name is on the Speaker’s list.

ever yours truly,

J. S. Mill

1087.

TO JOHN NICHOL

May 26, 1867

Dear Sir

It would give me much pleasure if you would take dinner with me at the House of Commons on Tuesday at seven. Under the new arrangements I shall be free from 7 to 9, and I have asked Prof. Bain to join us.

I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1088.

TO JOHN ALLEN

• Blackheath Park

May 27. 1867

Dear Sir—

I do not anticipate that women would be made less valuable in the house by having their minds directed to the great concerns of mankind: but quite the contrary, wherever men’s minds are employed as much as they ought to be on those great concerns.

Neither do I think that the adaptation of the work of each person to his or her special endowments or position is a thing to be preappointed by society. I believe that perfect freedom will adjust these things far better than any general regulation can.

Perhaps I do not differ so much from you as you suppose, as to what is likely to be permanently the main occupation of a very great majority of women. But I do not think that the majority should give laws to the individual action of the minority.

I do not undervalue “what teachers of religion can effect”. I rate it most highly, but what they do effect I rate very low. An example of what they might do has been given lately by the Independent Church at Totnes, in severely rebuking those of its members who have been implicated in bribery, and only not expelling them from its communion because they expressed the deepest penitence, and determination never to offend in that manner again. This gave me the rare satisfaction of finding an existing Church, or branch of a Church, who are actually Christians. I am, Dear Sir, with many thanks for your kind and courteous expressions towards myself,

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

The Venerable

Archdeacon Allen.

1089.

TO HELEN TAYLOR

• House of Commons

May 27, 1867

Dear—

All is as it should be. Disraeli, in answer to the O’Donoghue, has announced the Queen’s consent to the remission of the capital sentence: & if he had not, the O’Donoghue, Sir John Gray and two others were prepared and determined to go to Balmoral tonight.

My regards to pussy.
Your ever affectionate

J.S.M.

1090.

TO EDWARD OWEN GREENING

• Blackheath Park

30 May 1867

The introduction of the Co-operative trading principle for the supply of things required by the cultivators of the land will be very useful, both in itself, and, as a possible preparation for Co-operative Farming.

I am glad that there is no rivalry between your paper and Mr Pitman’s, but I would be glad to hear that a union had been affected between them. I am sorry to say I have no time to send any communication to either.

1091.

TO G. W. SHARP

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

June 1. 1867

Sir—

In answer to your letter of May 27 I beg to say that the passage you refer to in my speech at St James’s Hall was correctly reported. And I do not know how anyone could express himself otherwise who believes, as all Englishmen do, that insurrections & revolutions are sometimes justifiable. I will only mention, as cases about which there is scarcely any dispute in this country, the resistance to Charles I; our own Revolution of 1688; the Polish insurrections; & the Italian revolutions by Garibaldi & his friends.

I did not mean that all insurrections, if successful, stand exculpated; the rebellion of the American slaveholders would have been equally guilty & even more detestable if it had succeeded. What I was arguing for was that even those revolutionists who deserve our sympathy, ought yet for the general good, to be subject to legal punishment if they fail.

1092.

TO WILLIAM TODD

London, Blackheath Park, June 1, 1867.

Dear Sir,—

The superiority of the qualification, by direct taxation, over that by local rating, has been made still more obvious by the recent discussions, than it was before; and I have met with many, in Parliament and out of it, who think so, including one member of the present Government. But the almost certainty we now have of really passing a large Parliamentary Reform, depends on our letting the Government have their way on the point which they have chosen to proclaim as the principle of their bill, and the only thing they cannot give up. In the very first session of the Reformed Parliament, the question will probably be revived, as the parishes will not like to lose the convenience of collecting the rates through the owner; and the desire to reintroduce the compound householder, without refusing him a vote, will probably lead to a movement in favour of some other condition, such as yours would be. To discuss it, on this Reform Bill, would be to complicate the subject with a long discussion about taxation and finance, which neither Parliament nor the country would, at the present moment, support.—I am, dear Sir, yours very sincerely,

J. S. Mill

Mr. William Todd, Gateshead.

1093.

TO JOHN NICOLAUS TRÜBNER

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

June 1. 1867

Dear Sir

I was not aware that anybody was reprinting the speech.

We have said nothing yet about the conditions of publication, & I leave it entirely to your choice whether you prefer to publish it at half profit, taking the risk, or to publish it on my account.

My daughter, Miss Taylor, would be glad to know whether you would publish, on her account, a new edition of her pamphlet in smaller type on a cheaper quality of paper so as to be sold for a penny. She would be obliged by your giving her an estimate of the cost of such an edition of 3000 copies & informing her of the difference which is made in the cost by any increase in the number of copies.

[P.S.] Please send a copy of the speech as soon as published to Mr Hansard in the Row.

1094.

TO WILLIAM WOOD

• Blackheath Park

June 1. 1867

Dear Sir

Your letter of May 20 interested me very much as the preceding ones did. You seem to have profited much by your really solid reading, and to have made excellent use of your powers of thought; and I shall be most happy to hear from you on the other subjects you mention. My immediate object in writing is to say that though it is very honourable to you to have relinquished your intention of going to the Paris Exhibition, it is really desirable that you should go, as there is much to be learnt in that way also by a thinking person like yourself: and to make up for the delay it may cause in stocking your bookcase, I would with the greatest pleasure lend you, say for six months at a time, any standard books I have in my library which may be interesting and useful to you which I am not immediately using. If you would let me know the subjects which you would like to study at present, I could probably recommend to you some of the best books there are on it. I am

Dear Sir
yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

Mr. William Wood

1095.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

• Blackheath Park.

June 2. 1867

Dear Madam

It is impossible for me to bring forward the Cumulative Vote as a substitute for Personal Representation, which in my opinion attains the same specific object far more completely, and has many additional recommendations, both moral and political, which the Cumulative Vote has not. The Cumulative Vote, however, under the necessary condition of three members to a constituency, is to be proposed by Mr Hughes, and I shall vote for it as the second best proposal: whether I shall say anything on that occasion will depend on circumstances, but much of what I have said for Mr Hare’s plan will be argument for the Cumulative Vote.

I am sorry that the Representation of Women has not the benefit of your support. No doubt, there are plenty of women, as there are of men, who are at present very insufficiently qualified for the exercise of political judgment; but their exclusion from the suffrage does more than anything else to perpetuate that incapacity, by stamping it with the approbation of Society. The removal of that stamp would make women feel entitled to exercise their minds on politics, and they would very soon know quite as much on the subject as men know; which they never will do while society and the law warn them off the ground.

I am Dear Madam
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1096.

TO SAMUEL N. WOOD

• Blackheath Park, Kent

June 2, 1867

Dear Sir:

Being one who takes as deep and as continuous an interest in the political, moral, and social progress of the United States as if he were himself an American citizen, I hope I shall not be intrusive if I express to you as the executive organ of the Impartial Suffrage Association, the deep joy I felt on learning that both branches of the Legislature of Kansas had, by large majorities, proposed for the approval of your citizens an amendment to your constitution, abolishing the unjust political privileges of sex at one and the same stroke with the kindred privilege of colour. We are accustomed to see Kansas foremost in the struggle for the equal claims of all human beings to freedom and citizenship. I shall never forget with what profound interest I and others who felt with me watched every incident of the preliminary civil war in which your noble State, then only a Territory, preceded the great nation of which it is a part, in shedding its blood to arrest the extension of slavery.

Kansas was the herald and protagonist of the memorable contest, which at the cost of so many heroic lives, has admitted the African race to the blessings of freedom and education, and she is now taking the same advanced position in the peaceful but equally important contest which, by relieving half the human race from artificial disabilities belonging to the ideas of a past age, will give a new impulse and improved character to the career of social and moral progress now opening for mankind. If your citizens, next November, give effect to the enlightened views of your Legislature, history will remember that one of the youngest States in the civilized world has been the first to adopt a measure of liberation destined to extend all over the earth, and to be looked back to (as is my fixed conviction) as one of the most fertile in beneficial consequences of all the improvements yet effected in human affairs. I am, sir, with the warmest wishes for the prosperity of Kansas,

Yours very truly

J. Stuart Mill

1097.

TO HENRY FAWCETT

• Blackheath Park

June 7. 1867

Dear Mr Fawcett

Much as I sympathize with the object of the Select Committee on the University Bill, I would rather not serve on it, as I have much work on my hands, and there are many who would be much more useful on the Committee than I could be.

I am
Dear Mr Fawcett
ever yrs truly

J. S. Mill

1098.

TO JOHN NICOLAUS TRÜBNER

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

June 7. 1867

Dear Sir

Will you kindly have a page of the “Claim of Englishwomen to the Suffrage” set up on specimen paper?

The two copies of the Speech have not yet arrived. I should be glad to have a dozen for the present.

With regard to the conditions of publication whichever of the two modes you prefer will be agreeable to me.

1099.

TO HELEN TAYLOR

• Saffron Walden

Sunday morning
[June 9, 1867]

Dear—

the Spectator you kindly sent came safe. We have, as you see, splendid weather and things have gone prosperously with us thus far except as to my neuralgia, which came on as usual after the first half hour’s walking and remained much the same as in our bad days in the [Lebern?] (bad in that respect but glorious in all others). And, what is worse, I have it already this morning before starting, from the mere exertion of dressing. I am obliged therefore to take a fly today to carry us out a certain distance and begin our walk from thence though if I had been in proper condition we would have done it all on foot. We have determined to remain here the whole time, as none of the other places we wish to go to are too distant for excursions from hence. So any letters or newspapers posted on Monday will reach me if sent here. It is unnecessary to post any on Tuesday. With love to pussy, your ever affectionate

J.S.M.

1100.

TO HELEN TAYLOR

• Saffron Walden

Monday ev^g
[June 10, 1867]

I wrote yesterday morning rather gloomily, dear, so I write again to say that the fly plan answered perfectly, that I have had quite as much walking yesterday and today as on Saturday, but having it by portions at a time & separated by considerable rests, I have had but little pain. The country is not pretty, though it has pretty bits here and there; but we have thriven well botanically, having found two rare plants yesterday and two today, being four out of the five we hoped for. We hope to find the fifth tomorrow. I have been thinking very often of you and puss, and hoping that the PMG [Pall Mall Gazette] would put in your letter. As for work I have been too tired each evening to do any except reading reviews, and I must work double tides when I get back; hoping that there will not be an extraordinary number of pressing letters and that the Bankruptcy bill will not get on too fast in Committee. If my turn does not come until Monday I am safe. Adieu dear till Wednesday.

Your most affectionate

J.S.M.

1101.

TO FREDERIC HARRISON

June 16, 1867

[Mill entirely approved of my Six Letters on Martial Law —published by the Committee in 1867; and he was good enough to write (June 16, 1867):] . . . your aid and counsel are of great value to the Committee . . . .

1102.

TO DR. WILLIAM W. IRELAND

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

June 22. 1867.

Dear Sir—

I am very glad to receive so favourable an account of your health & to know that you fully share the feelings I expressed respecting the monstrous excesses committed & the brutal language used during & after the repression of the Indian mutiny. It is a duty to speak one’s mind openly concerning these things when there is a proper opportunity and the abusive attack made by some of the military officers in the House on a petition which referred in a very mild manner to these horrors, not only gave the opportunity, but would have made the omission to use it a disgraceful piece of cowardice.

1103.

TO JOHN NICOLAUS TRÜBNER

• Blackheath Park

June 23. 1867

Dear Sir

Please send, at my expense, twelve copies of the Speech to Mr Fitzgerald, office of the City Item, Philadelphia; and 100 copies to Miss Becker, 10 Grove Street, Ardwick, Manchester.

My daughter approves of the specimen you sent & decides to have 5000 copies of her pamphlet printed at the expense stated in your estimate. As she reprints it chiefly for distribution & does not look for a remunerating sale she fixes the price at a penny & cannot expect that a publisher sh^d take the risk, but she desires me to ask on what condition you would be willing to publish it on her account.

She sends a title page and would wish to see a proof.

1104.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath Park

June 30. 1867

Dear Mr Cairnes

Many thanks for your kind and interesting letter of June 10. Since then we have twice had news of you through Thornton. I should think Barèges a very desirable place to try, as regards specific influence on your complaint, though all the Pyrenean climates are moist and relaxing. With regard to Montreux, I have been there, and remember its situation, which seemed sheltered, but I should have thought that no place in the Alps could have a climate mild enough in winter for a weak chest, or dry enough at any season for a rheumatic patient. However you will doubtless make all necessary enquiries and only act on the advice of good medical men well acquainted with the place.

You will have seen that Fawcett did not fail to bring on his motion for opening Trinity College. You will also have seen the amendment which Monsell moved; and I am very desirous to know what you think of it. My present impression is that though constituting a change for the worse, it is less bad than the plan of the late Government because it is compatible with making the governing body of the proposed University impartial, and unconnected with the Colleges; excluding ultramontane Catholics, or at all events greatly diminishing their influence: and less bad also than the plan to which the present Government seem inclined, that of giving a charter to the Catholic University, because that would lead to a bidding for students by lowering the standard required for degrees in all secular subjects. But I wait to hear your opinion before forming any decided one of my own.

I never expected any better reception in Parliament or the press for Personal Representation than it has met with. Considerable good has notwithstanding been done, and the plan is becoming known, and obtaining serious consideration from many who had not previously attended to it. The Women’s question has been a most decided and important success, and it is truly astonishing how the right opinion is spreading both among women and men since the debate. We are now forming a Society in London for the Representation of Women, and hope to get others formed in Edinburgh, Dublin and elsewhere (there is already a most efficient one in Manchester, which obtained the majority of the 13500 signatures to this year’s petitions). The proposed Society will probably be composed of an executive committee of ladies, a General Committee of both sexes subscribing one guinea a year, which will be the ultimate governing body, and ordinary members who will only subscribe a small sum per annum, will receive the reports and circulars, but have no part of the management. The chief members of the Executive Committee will be M^rs P. A. Taylor, Miss Cobbe, M^rs Stansfeld and M^rs Fawcett. My daughter and I will be on the General Committee. Will you and M^rs Cairnes give us leave to put your names upon it? and can you give any help for the formation of a Society in Dublin?

It would have given you great pleasure had you been at the Garrison breakfast, and heard, especially Bright, and Garrison himself. I wished for you, too, at the splendid Reform meetings at St James’s Hall, if only to see and hear the admirable feelings of the people respecting Ireland. A propos, at the last meeting M^rs Law addressed them in favour of the political equality of women, and was not only loudly applauded but when she asked all who were in favour of it to hold up their hands, nearly the whole of the multitude who were present did so. Is not that worth having worked for? I am

Dear Mr Cairnes
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1105.

TO JOHN COLAM

June 30. 1867

Sir

In reply to your communication of the 28^th I beg to express my regret that it will not be in my power to attend the annual meeting of the Society.

I am Sir
Yours very faithfully

J. S. Mill

J. Colam Esq

1106.

TO GEORGE JOHN GRAHAM

• Blackheath Park

June 30. 1867

Dear Graham

It gives me great pleasure to be of any use to you, but your deposit of securities deprives me of even the small merit of trusting you.

I shall be glad if I am able to do anything for young Bisset in regard to the India Office, though I have not yet had an opportunity of ascertaining whether it is in my power. I fear, indeed, that his interpretation of the limit of age is incorrect.

I am Dear Graham
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1107.

TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN

• Blackheath Park

July 3. 1867

Dear Sir

A very remarkable working man, of Hanley in the potteries, who is a correspondent of mine, wishes to go through a “course of geometry, theoretical and practical”, with a view, inter alia, to what he calls his bread studies “the application of science and art to the production of pottery”: and he asks me to recommend to him the book or books which would be most useful to him. I need hardly say that I am very ill qualified to do this from my own knowledge, and I therefore venture to ask of you what answer I had better give to his question. I only know him (Wood is his name) from several long letters I have received from him; but these shew me that he is a student and a thinker, and that in recommending books to him, it is not necessary to adapt oneself to an inferior capacity; but it is, no doubt, desirable to keep practical application constantly though not exclusively in view.

Hoping that you will excuse the liberty I take, I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Augustus De Morgan Esq.

1108.

TO ROBERT W. OLLIVIER

July 3rd 1867.

Dear Sir

I should certainly endeavour to find time for assisting any movement among my Constituents which I think of public importance and with which I am able to sympathise.

But any movement for attempting to interfere with the full liberty of the Sovereign in the disposal of her private life so long as the example given is not mischievous, I should look upon with the very strongest disapproval.

I can conceive nothing more likely to be immoral & mischievous in its whole influence on society than any attempt to exact luxurious expenditure as a duty from those placed in high station; and I believe I am not expecting too much from the morality, the public spirit, & the patriotism of those tradesmen who make an immediate profit from such expenditure, in believing that they will be content to live by ministering to the store of luxury & pleasure which is a strong & universal principle in human nature, without seeking to stimulate artificially what if not kept within close bounds, is the ruin of public & private happiness & morality.

I do not hesitate to say that from the point of view of political economy, the notion entertained by many that such artificial stimulus is good for trade, is founded in error. All which it really does is to transfer gains from some dealers & tradesmen to others; while by encouraging expenditure which is not reproductive, it tends to diminish instead of increasing the employment for labour & the general wealth of the country.

And even if my convictions on these points were different from what they are, I should still think that the private affections—I will go further & say the personal tastes—of a Constitutional Sovereign are entitled to the respectful acquiescence of the people and ought never to be interfered with until at least they lead to conduct which would excite moral disapprobation, or entail legal penalties on private individuals.

1109.

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL

• Blackheath Park, Kent

le 4 juillet 1867

Mon cher d’Eichthal

Je suis honteux d’avoir si longtemps tardé à vous remercier de vos aimables attentions à M. Théobald et à M. Plummer et à répondre à votre lettre du 19 avril. Vous savez, du reste, ce que c’est que la vie parlementaire dès qu’on la prend au sérieux, et vous concevez jusqu’à quel point elle nuit à la correspondance. Aujourd’hui même je suis forcé d’être très bref. D’abord j’applaudis à votre Association pour l’encouragement des études Grecques en France, et puisque vous croyez que l’adhésion d’un étranger peut servir à quelque chose, je vous prie de proposer mon nom, et je vous ferai parvenir par la première occasion la cotisation annuelle. Il n’y a guère lieu, quant à présent, à quelque chose de semblable en Angleterre, où les études grecques sont suffisamment encouragées. Il est vrai que les méthodes d’enseignement ont besoin d’une réforme radicale, mais les savants et les professeurs les plus éclairés y travaillent déjà, et je crois que nous sommes à cet égard en voie de progrès, un peu lent à la vérité, comme d’ordinaire dans ce pays-ci.

Maintenant laissez-moi vous témoigner le plaisir véritable que m’a donné la noble protestation que vous avez publiée contre la recrudescence de l’esprit guerrier et des haines nationales dont la France naguère semblait menacée. Vous avez été presque le premier à vous prononcer en ce moment critique, et ce fut pour moi une grande joie que de voir avec quelle énergie la voix d’une grande partie de la nation a répondu à cet appel. On ne pourra plus désormais accuser la nation française de velléités guerrières et perturbatrices. Quoique dans beaucoup d’esprits l’honneur national reste encore trop attaché à la réputation d’être puissant pour nuire aux autres peuples, il y a évidemment très peu de Français qui désirent se servir de cette puissance.

J’espère, mon cher d’Eichthal, que vos sollicitudes sur la santé de Madame d’Eichthal se sont heureusement dissipées et que la vôtre est toujours bonne.

Bien des amitiés à votre frère

tout à vous

J. S. Mill

1110.

TO PARKER PILLSBURY

Blackheath Park, Kent, July 4 [1867]

Dear Sir:

In acknowledging your letter of Feb. 18, I am ashamed to see how long that acknowledgment has been delayed. Your letter arrived in the thick of the parliamentary conflict, and I have ever since been so fully and engrossingly occupied, that I have had no time to write any letters but such as are indispensable, nor had I any leisure to write anything which would have been worth offering to be laid before the anniversary meeting of the Equal Rights Association. Since that time, however, many things have happened, and among others the debate in the House of Commons on the motion for giving the suffrage to woman. The unexpectedly large minority which the proposal obtained, and the thought and discussion which it excited in quarters where the subject had never been thought of before, have given an immense impulse to the question. Numbers both of men and women in all ranks have since given in their adhesion to the movement; and agreement with it is rapidly becoming a badge of advanced liberalism.

I need not say with what pleasure I learned, both from your letter and from many other sources, the great progress which the question is making in the United States, where the disabilities of women are now the only remaining national violation of the principles of your immortal Declaration of Independence; nor need I describe the feelings caused in me by the assurance of yourself and others that the essay published in the Westminster Review in 1851 has been in America, as it has been here, one of the most powerful agents in placing the question in the position it now occupies.

I am, dear sir, yours sincerely and respectfully,

J. S. Mill

Parker Pillsbury Esq.

1111.

TO WILLIAM WOOD

• Blackheath Park

July 9. 1867

Dear Sir

As I have not myself sufficient knowledge of recent works on geometry to be able to direct you to the books best adapted for your purpose, I have consulted my friend Mr De Morgan, the late Professor of Mathematics at University College London, who is not only one of our best mathematicians but a distinguished thinker on other important subjects. He was much interested by what I told him of you, and suggests that you should write directly to himself, stating in some detail both what you know and what you want. In doing so, you should specify what you know, whether much or little, of arithmetic, geometry, algebra, and physical science, as well as anything else you may like to tell him of your general knowledge and mental habits. His address is Augustus De Morgan Esq, 91 Adelaide Road, London, N. W.

I am very glad that you have so just and clear an appreciation of the true character and merits of Mr Hare’s system, and that you are making it known among your friends and fellow workmen. It is in that way that truth gets on. I am obliged to be brief, but I shall always be happy to hear from you at any length. Continue to direct here, as, when I am abroad, letters are forwarded to me at least once a week. Do not send stamped envelopes. I am Dear Sir

yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

Mr William Wood

1112.

TO HENRY FAWCETT

• Blackheath Park

July 17. 1867

Dear Mr Fawcett

I entirely agree with you about the unsatisfactoriness of Lord Stanley’s answer, and I meant to give notice of a further question the next time I am at the House, which will be on Friday.

I am, on the whole, rather against carrying the subject of the Sultan’s ball any farther. It is by no means the strongest case of charging India with expenses that if incurred at all, should be borne by England; and many who might support us in other cases would probably consider the reason given by Northcote, that the civility is in return for assistance given to telegraphic communication with India, a sufficient justification for charging India with the expense. But what weighs with me more than this, is that, very possibly, Northcote did not tell us all. The real fact is that the Sultan has done his part in the telegraphic business very badly; he will not allow English telegraph clerks, and his Turkish ones perform the duty abominably. Perhaps, therefore, under pretence of thanking him for what he has done, the real object is to induce him to do better, and there may be a plan for coaxing him into concessions by putting him in good humour, which any further opposition might unwittingly obstruct. What you have already done has been very useful; the disavowals which it has elicited have wiped off part of the stain on our character, and it would perhaps be as well to let the matter rest for the present. I am

Dear Mr Fawcett
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1113.

TO EDMOND BEALES

July 22. 1867

Dear Sir

I have already, by sending a subscription, given in my adhesion to the determination of the Reform League to employ its organization in promoting the registration of the Liberals, who will become entitled to the suffrage under the new Reform Act. With regard to the further object of promoting the election of candidates professing advanced Liberal principles I should be glad if not only the Reform League, but all the other organisations of Reformers throughout the country would keep themselves in existence for that purpose—There will be ample work for all of them and I only hope that they will not confine their support to candidates who adhere to their own particular programme, but will extend it to advanced Liberals of all shades, a close union of whom among themselves was never more needed than it will be at the first General Election under the new Act. I am Dear Sir

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Edmond Beales Esq.

1114.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 22. 1867

Dear Chadwick

Mr Stansfeld is a graduate, but he has been interesting himself for Mr Bagehot, and, I think, joined in the requisition to him. The other two I will speak to. I shall be glad to help in drawing up a requisition, but it seems necessary that it should be (at least nominally) prepared by members of the constituency.

Many thanks for the copy of your report. I have just finished reading it with great interest. I think it might be made useful for your candidature.

Ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1115.

TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 22. 1867

Dear Sir

After receiving your answer to my note, I wrote to my Hanley correspondent, Mr W. Wood, and he has probably written to you by this time. If he has not, it will be because he may wish to write at greater length than he has immediately time for. But I feel quite confident that you will hear from him. With many thanks for your kind interest in the matter, I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

A. De Morgan Esq.

1116.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath Park

July 23. 1867

Dear Mr Cairnes

I am much obliged to you for your most interesting letter which I have shewn to Fawcett and shall shew to others who are interested in the Irish education question—which question I am sorry to say looks very ill. I hope soon to write to you about it at length. But my present object is different. I have heard that you have written to the authorities at University College expressing a fear that you may be obliged to resign the Professorship. Now even a chance of your being able to resume its duties is so valuable that I entreat you not to resign in the present season at least. I am aware that Waley declines going on for another year, but our friend Leslie is ready and desirous to take the duty as your locum tenens, and if you are willing to go on with a substitute for another year and to recommend Leslie as that substitute, there can, I think, be no doubt that the arrangement would be accepted. The inestimable chance would then remain of your being able to take the duties; and Leslie is, next to you, by far the fittest person I know to fill the place, among those who would take it.

Excuse my brevity, as I am obliged to go to the House unexpectedly early to give all the opposition I can to the bill about the Parks. I will write again very shortly and am

Dear Mr Cairnes
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1117.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

July 25. 1867

Dear Chadwick

I spoke to O’Reilly yesterday, within five minutes after he came into the House. Unfortunately he had already engaged himself to Fortescue and others to support Bagehot, otherwise he is almost sure he should have supported you. The O’Donoghue he thinks is not a graduate. Sir Colman O’Loghlen is, but he is on Lowe’s Committee. They both, however, say that an attempt will be made to induce Gladstone to let himself be proposed and that all are likely to give way to him. I am greatly afraid that many who might have supported you are thus preengaged. But that is no reason for not bringing your name forward, if your medical and educational supporters can make up a tolerable list of signatures. I am Dear Chadwick

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1118.

TO WILLIAM LONGMAN

• H[ouse] of C[ommons]

July 25. 1867

Dear Sir—

My daughter would be glad to have some separate copies of the second instalment of Mr Buckle’s remains which will be in Fraser’s Magazine for August & of the third also as soon as published which I understand will probably be in September.

A friend of mine who has been engaged for many years in making a collection of the proverbs of all nations, has asked me for an introduction to you with a view to its publication. His name is Irvine & the only writings he is known by are botanical but he is a man of much Scotch shrewdness & extensive linguistic acquirements. If you think it might suit you to entertain the subject, Mr Irvine would be glad to call on you with part of his MS.

1119.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath Park

July 30. 1867

Dear Mr Cairnes

I am most happy that you have given up your intention of immediately tendering your resignation, and I most earnestly hope that improved health may render it unnecessary for you to do so for a long time to come. In regard to Leslie, I am very sorry to hear that his recent relations with you have not been cordial. No one has expressed himself more feelingly than he has done about your illness. I am certain that if he were allowed to supply your place, he would feel that he was not only not conferring, but receiving a favour, and one of great value to himself, as a means of making himself better known. He will be, I am sure, very thankful for your willingness to bear testimony to his fitness, which he scrupled to ask you to do, because, as he said, you might possibly have some other person in view whom you might prefer to him. I will say nothing to him until I hear again from you. I am still obliged to delay writing to you on the education question.

I am Dear Mr Cairnes
ever truly yours

J. S. Mill

1120.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 31. 1867

Dear Chadwick

It is not the O’Conor Don, but his brother, who is a graduate of the University. The O’Conor Don says he will speak to his brother, but is afraid he is already pledged to Bagehot. Grant Duff was not at the House yesterday, but I have written to him in strong terms, and will speak to him at the first opportunity. Continue to let me know anything I can do.

ever yrs truly

J. S. Mill

1121.

TO GEORGE JOHN GRAHAM

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 31 [1867]

Dear Graham

I suppose your packet was mistaken for printed matter by my servants at Avignon, as they have not forwarded it to me here. I have written by today’s post to order all doubtful packets to be sent at once, and suppose it will arrive about Thursday. Whenever it arrives I will execute the document and send it to you.

Ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1122.

TO GEORGE GROTE

• Blackheath Park

July 31, 1867

My dear Grote

I inclose a note which I have just received from Mr Waley. I had myself also had a letter from Prof. Cairnes in which while assenting to my strong recommendation not to resign the Professorship at present, he expresses his opinion that Leslie would be a very proper substitute. I have written again to Cairnes and am waiting for his reply, which will probably bring a formal recommendation of Leslie if this has not been already sent to the Secretary.

I am extremely glad that you were able to induce the Council to take no step on the subject of Professor Beesly.

I am my dear Grote
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1123.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath Park

Aug. 1. 1867

Dear Mr Cairnes

I thank you for your very kind note of the 29th but you were not at all wrong in the request you made to me nor did I for one moment think you so. I was glad to be able to assure you in my note of yesterday, that I know Leslie desires the arrangement on his own account, and has not the smallest idea of conferring a favour, but would feel, on the contrary, that he was receiving one by your recommendation. I hope to be able soon to write to you at some length.

I am Dear Mr Cairnes
ever truly yours

J. S. Mill

1124.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• H of C Library

Friday
[August 2, 1867]

Dear Chadwick

Grant Duff is, most unfortunately, pledged to Bagehot, otherwise I really think he would have supported you. He says that, to give you a chance, your address ought to be out directly. As for the ballotting among the candidates that is not likely to occur unless a Tory, or some person in every way objectionable, should start.

I have not yet been able to see Cheatham.

Ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1125.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• [Embossed]
• House of Commons

Friday
[August 2, 1867]

Dear Chadwick

Cheatham is not a graduate of Un. Coll. but his son is, and I hope that what I have said to the father will get you the son’s vote which appears luckily to be disengaged.

I should think Bristol hopeless, but if any one speaks to Berkeley it had better be some other person rather than I, for though he is very civil to me, he regards me as a stumbling block in the way of the ballot, the political matter he cares most for.

Lubbock’s friends are stirring, but if he finds there is no chance and retires, some of them (being scientific people) might probably prefer you to Lowe or Bagehot. I am

yrs very truly

J. S. Mill

1126.

TO LORD HOUGHTON

Blackheath Park, August 2nd, 1867.

Dear Lord Houghton,—

A society is in course of formation to carry on the movement for admitting women to the suffrage, to which, I know, you are favourable, and it will be of great value to the society if you would give your adhesion to it by allowing me to add your name to the General Committee. Business will be conducted by the Executive Committee of ladies, and the members of the General Committee are responsible for nothing except approval of the object and an annual subscription of a guinea. My daughter and I are on the General Committee, and it would give me great pleasure to be allowed to enrol you on the list.

Very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1127.

TO HERBERT SPENCER

• Blackheath Park

Aug. 2. 1867

Dear Mr. Spencer

A society is in course of formation for the admission of women to the Suffrage. The executive committee consists of ladies, but there will be a General Committee, the members of which will incur no obligation or responsibility beyond an annual subscription of a guinea, but who, by giving their names, will express their approval of the object. My daughter and I have joined the general Committee. Will you allow us to add your name to the list, either of the General Committee, or of the ordinary members? I am

Dear Mr. Spencer
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1128.

TO MARY THOMPSON

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

Aug 4. 1867

Dear Madam

You will be glad to hear that a Society has been formed to continue the movement for the admission of women to the suffrage, and I should be very happy to be allowed to add your name to the General Committee, of which my daughter and I are members. No responsibility is incurred except the annual subscription; but the General Committee is the body which will hereafter elect the Executive Committee. I am

Dear Madam
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Miss Thompson

1129.

TO WILLIAM THOMAS THORNTON

• [Embossed]
• House of Commons

Aug. 6. [1867]

Dear Thornton

I will not thank you for your kind and hearty response about the Women’s Suffrage Society. I will only say that it is like yourself.

Concerning Mr Hare’s plan, although opinion on the subject is making great progress, I fear it is hardly ripe, especially among members of parliament, for forming an organized combination. When we can muster a little stronger it will be worth while to begin.

I need not say how earnestly I hope that your excursion may entirely restore your health and working power, and give you all the pleasure you can desire. I am

Dear Thornton
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1130.

TO LORD HOUGHTON

After August 7, 1867

Dear Lord Houghton—

I am very glad that you are willing to be on the General Committee of the Women’s Suffrage Society. The grounds of justice and of principle for removing the disabilities of women cannot be better stated than in your words, and in those of Lady Houghton cited in your note. Would it be too much to ask the benefit of her name along with yours on the General Committee? I am not uneasy about the future fate of representation of minorities, for the working men do not share the indifference of the middle class to superior cultivation, and are much more willing than the middle class to give full and thorough-going effect to a principle. Hughes stated at the meeting on Wednesday that the question was debated at the Working Men’s College, and after several discussions was at last decided in favour of representation of minorities. The only plan which fully and fairly carries out the democratic principle is Mr. Hare’s, and that is now rapidly making way among thinking people.

Very truly yours,

J. S. Mill

1131.

TO MARY CARPENTER

• Blackheath Park

Aug. 9. 1867.

Dear Madam

In case you should not have received the Prospectus of the Society now forming to promote the movement for the admission of women to the suffrage I take the liberty of inclosing it and of saying how much pleasure it would afford me if I might be permitted to add your name to the General Committee of which many of my friends are members.

Those who form the General Committee incur no obligation as to work or time, or anything but the annual subscription. The object of the Society is strictly limited to obtaining the suffrage for women who fulfil the same conditions as male electors: but the most important effect of gaining this political object would be the influence it would have on the social disabilities and the general social position of women.

I am, &c.

J. S. Mill

1132.

TO FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE

• Blackheath Park

Aug. 9. 1867

Dear Madam

As I know how fully you appreciate a great many of the evil effects produced upon the character of women (and operating to the destruction of their own and others’ happiness) by the existing state of opinion, and as you have done me the honour to express some regard for my opinion on these subjects I should not like to abstain from mentioning the formation of a Society aimed in my opinion at the very root of all the evils you deplore and have passed your life in combating.

There are a great number of people, particularly women, who from want of the habit of reflecting on politics are quite incapable of realizing the enormous power of politics, that is to say, of legislation to confer happiness and also to influence the opinion and the moral nature of the governed.

As I am convinced that this power is by far the greatest that it is possible to wield for human happiness I can neither approve of women who decline the responsibility of wielding it, nor of men who would shut out women from the right to wield it. Until women do wield it to the best of their ability, little or great, and that in a direct open manner, I am convinced that the evils of which I know you to be peculiarly aware can never be satisfactorily dealt with and this conviction must be my apology for troubling you now. I am

Dear Madam
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Miss Nightingale

1133.

TO LORD BROUGHAM

• Blackheath Park

Aug. 10. 1867

My dear Lord Brougham

Though I do not positively know whether you are favourable to the movement for opening the suffrage to women, I presume so far on the congeniality of that proposal to your large and liberal feelings on political and social questions, as to venture on sending you the Prospectus of a Society now forming to promote the object. The work of the Society will be done by the very efficient Executive Committee of ladies, but there is a General Committee, of which I am myself a member, and which many friends both in and out of Parliament have joined; and it would give me great pleasure if you would permit me to add your name.

I was very happy to hear that you had returned to England in good health. I am

My dear Lord Brougham
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

I have among my books a Delphin Lucretius which I rather think was borrowed by my father from you. I ought to have asked you long ago whether this was the case. If my impression is correct, perhaps you will kindly inform me where to send it.

1134.

TO THE REV. STEPHEN THOMAS HAWTREY

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

Aug. 10. 1867

Dear Sir—

I thank you for your two little books, & regret that until within the last few days I have been prevented from reading them by mere want of time & by no means through indifference to their contents.

You have not misunderstood my meaning in the St Andrews address though the very concise manner in which I was obliged to express everything in that paper may probably have given you a partially incorrect impression of my opinions on education generally. There is much in your view of the subject with which I heartily agree. Your strictures on the system of French schools by which the boys are never for an instant out of the sight or free from the direct control of a master I entirely agree in & I have long thought that while French schoolboys, on the average, are better taught & learn more than English boys, the freer system of English schools has much to do with the superiority of England over France in the love & practice of personal & political freedom. I also agree to the full in your & Dr Hook’s principle that real education depends on “the contact of human living soul with human living soul.” But I am entirely sceptical as to the possibility of accomplishing this in any very considerable degree in a numerous school. Even the family if it consisted of 200 or 300 boys could not possibly accomplish it. A wise & zealous master may no doubt acquire a certain amount of beneficial moral influence over the boys & may come into really close contact with the minds & characters of a few among them. In the former of these points if not in both, St Mark’s School appears to have been signally successful; & the principles on which it appears to be conducted are well calculated to attain whatever such success is attainable. But while I applaud both your theory & your practice I have the less hope of finding my opinion radically altered by them because you seem to me to regard Eton as a favourable specimen of what a school can do in the way of moral & religious training; an opinion from which all that I know of the kind of article turned out annually from Eton into the higher walks of life in this country leads me strongly to dissent.

1135.

TO MONCURE DANIEL CONWAY

• Blackheath Park

Aug. 11. 1867

Dear Sir

I thank you for the cuttings you kindly sent. Mr Greeley’s notion of two separate legislatures, one of men and the other of women, is unwise enough, though there are points in the article which make one feel indulgently towards the writer. I have met with an Englishman who had a similar notion. I suppose one might search long before finding a third.

I hardly think (to carry on your metaphor) that it is worth while to fire at such a long range on a position so little formidable. Perhaps to write against the proposal as a serious thing might be the way to make it one. Moreover I have too much on my hands at present. I shall be glad to hear if you find that the suggestion does any mischief. But I am more inclined to think that whatever leads people to turn over a great question in every possible way, is likely on the whole to be useful.

I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1136.

TO SAMUEL SULLIVAN COX

Aug. 12.1867

Dear Sir

This letter will be presented to you by my political and personal friend Lord Amberley, who is visiting your country to acquire that knowledge of it which is so necessary to an European and especially to a British Statesman. No one is likely to make a better use of such knowledge than Lord Amberley, for he has purposes and abilities which make him perhaps the most promising of all our rising politicians.

Lord Amberley is kind enough to take charge of the book and photograph which you did me the honour to express a wish to possess, I am ashamed to say how long ago. But I have been so overloaded with work ever since, that this and many other things, though not forgotten, have been postponed. I have never yet thanked you for the kind present of your speeches which I hope hereafter to study much more than I have been able to do hitherto. I am

Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Hon. S. S. Cox

1137.

TO RALPH WALDO EMERSON

• Blackheath Park, Kent

Aug. 12. 1867

My dear Sir

I give this letter to my friend Lord Amberley, not so much for his sake, for he would easily obtain abundant introductions to you, as to make use of the privilege of writing to you which was kindly conferred on me by the letter I had the pleasure of receiving from you last year. Few Englishmen, especially few Englishmen in political life, are more worthy of the privilege of knowing you than Lord Amberley who, while he is one of the very best of our rising politicians, is even more interested in the intellectual movement of mankind than in the political. He is likely to keep always in the front rank of his cotemporaries, and I fully share the general hope of his friends that he will be as useful to the coming generation as his father has been to that which is past.

I wish I could share with him the pleasure and benefit of hearing from your own lips your commentary on the present state and prospects of mankind. To me it seems that our two countries, on the whole the two most advanced countries of the world, have just successfully emerged from a crisis essentially similar, though by much the gravest and most trying in the United States; which has shaken up and dislocated old prejudices, set the stagnant waters flowing, and the most certain consequence of which is that all the fundamental problems of politics and society, so long smothered by general indolence and apathy, will surge up and demand better solutions than they have ever yet obtained. To those who, like me, regard stagnation as the greatest of our dangers, and the primary source of almost all social evils, this is a very hopeful and promising state of things; but it will make a most serious demand upon the energies of all cultivated minds, to obtain for thoughts which are not obvious at first sight, their just share of influence among the crowd of notions plausible but false or only half true. I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

R. W. Emerson Esq.

1138.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

Aug. 15. 1867

Dear Mr Plummer

I will immediately send you the papers you ask for, in another parcel of Parliamentary papers. The former I must ask you to return when done with, as I shall require to study them. The addresses you intend writing will, I have no doubt, be of great use. I thank you for the article in the Liverpool Albion, which I had not seen. I spoke on the Indian Budget debate, but not on the Orissa debate, as I think it a good rule not to speak when there are other people capable and desirous of saying what one wishes should be said.

I am Dear Mr Plummer
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1139.

TO JOHN NICHOL

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

Aug. 17, 1867

Dear Sir

I thank you very much for your two letters, and have had great pleasure in sending your name for the General Committee. All that you say on the women’s suffrage question I agree with so completely, that it is quite unnecessary for me to say anything more on the subject.

With regard to the projected Society for the encouragement of free inquiry and discussion, those who live in Scotland are the best judges of the value and seasonableness of the proposal. As far as I can presume to judge, I should think such a Society very desirable, but I feel some doubt whether my temporary connexion with one of the Scotch universities would prevent it from being thought a kind of intrusion in me to occupy so prominent a position in it as you propose. Perhaps you will allow me to suspend any positive answer at present and will in the meantime kindly inform me of the reception which the project meets with, and the progress it makes towards realization. I am

Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

P.S. As we leave England in two or three days, perhaps you will kindly send your subscription to the Treasurer, Mrs. P. A. Taylor, Aubrey House, Notting Hill, London.

1140.

TO DAVID AMES WELLS

Aug. 18. 1867

Dear Sir

I think that a country can sometimes, by taxing its exports, make foreigners pay a part or even the whole of the tax. I have discussed this question in the first paper of a volume entitled “Essays on some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy”, and have there, as I think, shewn that even a tax on imports is not, of necessity, wholly paid by the home consumer, but that a part of it is sometimes paid (not by the foreign producer, but) by the foreign consumer of the country’s exports.

But these things, though abstractedly true, are too much interfered with by other agencies to be of much importance in practice. To confine myself to the case of exports: it is clear that a country can only make foreigners pay a tax on articles in which it possesses a superiority so preeminent that it has no competition to fear. Even then, foreign countries which cannot produce the article at all, or not at such a price as to compete with the taxed producer, may be able to produce some substitute for it, or something which will be accepted instead of it. In the present day, when there are so many exporting countries, and when the advantage of one country over another in any article is generally limited to a small margin, the attempt to tax exports almost always leads to the total or partial loss of that branch of trade. The latest considerable experiment of this kind that I remember in any part of the British possessions was in Ceylon. That island was supposed to have a natural monopoly of cinnamon, and for many years it derived a large revenue from an export duty; but in the end other nations either grew cinnamon, or used something else instead: the tax had to be repealed, and the trade, nevertheless was reduced to comparative insignificance.

I am leaving England for the Continent just when you are returning and cannot hope to meet you again this season; but I hope that our acquaintance will not be dropped and that we shall correspond on the many important subjects in which we feel a common interest. I am

Dear Sir y^rs very truly

J. S. Mill

D. A. Wells Esq.

1141.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

Aug. 20. 1867

Dear Chadwick

I have made a great many minor alterations in your address, both for the sake of clearness and brevity, though it is still longer than I like. For greater legibility I have made most of the alterations in ink, but of course subject to your own judgment. The passages that I have struck out encumber the case more than they strengthen it; at least, that is my opinion. I have also made some slight alterations in the letter which is to be addressed to myself. I hope the reply to it, which I inclose, will meet your wishes, and be useful to your candidature.

Letters sent here will be forwarded to me wherever we are. I am

Dear Chadwick
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1142.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

Aug. 20. 1867

Dear Chadwick

I think you eminently entitled to offer yourself as a candidate for the House of Commons; and, while I should rejoice to see you elected by any constituency, I should deem it highly appropriate that you should be returned by the University of London, one of the few bodies which, being emancipated from all local influences, are peculiarly called on to guide their choice exclusively by the capability of a candidate to render important public service.

The services you are capable of rendering, are of the precise kind which will be most needed under our reformed Constitution. It is generally felt that one of the most pressing occupations of the new Parliament will be the better organisation of the machinery of government, which at present, from defects of construction, produces almost the minimum of beneficial result, at almost the maximum of cost. No one whom I know of has devoted so great a portion of his life, or so great an amount of mental power, as you have done, to the study of the scientific principles of administration. The course of your official life has continually brought you into contact with the most difficult administrative problems, and you have so well used the opportunities it afforded, that among all the administrative questions which you have touched (and they are both numerous and of the highest importance) there is hardly one on which you have not originated thoughts and suggestions of the greatest value; some of which have been carried into effect with distinguished success, while the merit of others has been manifested by the consequences which have followed their neglect. On several of the most important branches of public administration, you add to your knowledge of principles a knowledge of details which few can rival. I need only mention the sanitary department, the importance of which, now so widely recognised, you were among the very first to press upon a careless public; the various branches of the administration of relief to the destitute; and many parts of the great subject of the education of the poor, which is destined henceforth to be one of the most anxious cares of our public men of all parties, and which it is next to impossible to make really efficient except by means and on principles repeatedly pointed out by you.

These are claims which, as it seems to me, are well entitled to recognition from a scientific body like the University. They correspond more exactly with the exigencies of this particular juncture, than the merits, great as they are, of several of the other candidates; who, moreover, are almost sure to obtain access to the House of Commons through the ordinary channels. The time requires men who are not merely willing to adopt, but able to originate and prepare, important improvements; and when a man of this stamp offers his services, the consideration of whether he is or is not a graduate of the University sinks into insignificance.

I am Dear Chadwick
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Edwin Chadwick Esq., C.B.

1143.

TO WILLIAM JAMES LINTON

Aug. 21, 1867

Dear Sir

The object of the periodical mentioned in your note is one in which I fully sympathize, and I should have much pleasure in aiding a work in which Mr Mazzini takes interest; but unhappily I have no leisure for writing in periodicals at all, and certainly could not safely make any promise to do so. Pray accept this excuse, which is quite sincere, and believe me,

Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

W. J. Linton Esq.

1144.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Baden

Aug. 28. 1867

Dear Sir

I do not see how I can make the proposal to Mr Jacob Bright which you suggest. He probably would not think himself justified in parting with the £130 (unless for your entire liberation) without the express consent of each of the donors; and it is very doubtful if he would like to be asked to ask this of them. But, under the increased hope of ultimate extrication for you and the Review, given by the surplus of your receipts over your expenses in the last three months, I can lend you £100 on your personal security, for which I inclose a cheque.

Since I saw you I had some conversation with Mr Grote on your affairs, and shewed him the statements which you sent to me. He shewed, I thought, a willingness to join with others in helping, and I think you would be justified in sending him the latest statement of your affairs.

Letters sent to Blackheath as usual, will be forwarded to me.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

P.S. You will understand that I do not wish to be repaid the £100 at any given time, or until you can do it without inconvenience: but in case of unforeseen loss, I should wish only to bear my share of loss with the others who have pecuniary claims on you.

J.S.M.

1145.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Freudenstadt (Würtemberg)

Sept. 1. 1867

Dear Mr Cairnes

I have delayed a long time fulfilling my promise to write to you on the prospects of the Irish Education question, and you will see by the date of this at what time and place I have first found leisure to do so. Your long letter from Barèges was quite convincing to me, and therefore confirmed me in all my bad auguries. The evident intention of the Tory Government is to charter, if not to endow, a Catholic University. The very best thing which the Liberal leaders have to oppose to this will be Monsel’s plan, and the choice will lie between these two. The worst is that I do not see what there is for a true Liberal to do but to lament; for the only principle of opposition which could be taken up is the one so clearly laid down in your letter, viz. that no educational institution should be supported or aided by the State, but those which are perfectly impartial, as the Queen’s Colleges are, in respect to religion. But to stand upon this principle is to bind oneself to vote against all the grants of money by the Privy Council to denominational schools; and neither I, nor, as far as I know, any other Liberal, would think it right to do this. The misery is that ninety nine hundredths of England wish for only denominational places of education, and will not support any others; & it is not practicable permanently to have only a denominational system in England and only a mixed one in Ireland. The denominational principle is not giving way at all in England. The Manchester party, whose plan was originally one of purely secular education supported by a school rate, have been obliged this year to provide in their bill that the denominational schools might be recognized and paid, provided there was a conscience clause. Even this, though brought in by Bruce, was resisted and thrown out. The Scotch School Commission, in which Tory, Whig and Liberal leaders all joined in recommending that schools which all could attend should be maintained by a school rate, did not go beyond stipulating for a conscience clause. The denominational feeling is perhaps not quite so strong about Universities as about schools, and there is the precedent of the London University. But this precedent only avails for keeping up the Queen’s University, and not against creating denominational ones. The appeal of the Irish Catholics is irresistible by the English, as soon as the No Popery feeling no longer overrides their principles: “you insist on denominational education for yourselves; why then deny it to us?” If I made any prediction, it would be that the present Government would give a charter to the Catholic University, but that the great strength of Voluntaryism, backed by the No Popery feeling, would oblige them to give up the endowment. Perhaps, for the reasons you give, this result would be less noxious than Monsel’s plan; though it would have the effect which Monsel, to me, predicted from it, viz. that the priests and prelates who manage the Catholic University, and who care little about secular instruction, would compete for students by making the standard for their degrees so contemptibly low as to degrade education in Ireland.

The (falsely called) cumulative vote in a few constituencies is of doubtful value in itself; but as a breaking in upon the old humdrum notions, and as necessitating the reopening of the larger question, it is of great importance; and the discussions have given a general idea of Hare’s system to numbers who knew nothing about it before, and have made many converts to it. The subject is also making great way in America: there is a Society at New York for “Personal Representation” of which Dudley Field is one of the leaders, and I am told that Greeley and Wendell Phillips are both favourable to the principle. That question, as well as women’s suffrage, is now fairly launched in both countries. The Committee of which you and M^rs Cairnes kindly consented to be members, now considerably exceeds 100 in number, including two peers (Lords Romilly and Houghton), thirty members of the House of Commons (among whom, besides the best of the Radicals, I may mention Baines and Coleridge and many other known names, but by no means exclusively such. Your friend M^r Webb joins the Society, but modestly declines being on the Committee. I hope, however, to overcome his objection, as such men as he is are very much wanted on the Committee, and will be most useful as centres of local information and exertion. M^r Webb is not sanguine about gaining much support in Ireland at present, but it will come in time. A good many Irish liberal members of Parliament both Catholic and Protestant have already joined the Committee.

There is much to be said on the question of the Declaration of Paris which must wait till another time. I only just opened the subject in the House of Commons at the very end of the session, but it must come up for discussion again and again. Almost every one (except Sir Roundell Palmer) seems to agree with me thus far, that if we do not go back, we must go farther, and exempt private property from seizure even in the vessels of the belligerent countries. This last course is advocated by many. Lord Hobart (who by the way has joined the Committee of the Women’s Suffrage Society), goes farther still, and would abolish commercial blockades. The consequence of all this, it seems to me, would be that the naval powers would be unable to defend themselves against the military; and the independence of our own country could perhaps only be preserved by our joining the American Confederation as three States, England, Scotland and Ireland. This would at least have the advantage of settling the Irish difficulty.

Please write to Blackheath as usual until I write to you from Avignon, which will not be for some weeks. I hope your health is more benefitted by Aix than it was by Barèges. I am

Dear M^r Cairnes
Ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1146.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

Before September 3, 1867

I have long been convinced that complete justice to Ireland was scarcely to be hoped for unless by a reform in Parliament sufficiently thorough to take away the present preponderance of the landed interest, and transfer a large share of political power to classes who are not under the influence of landed or Church prejudices. There is considerable reason to hope that the Parliamentary reform which we have now obtained may accomplish this. Whatever power has been gained by the working classes or by the advanced Liberals will, I am convinced, be used for the complete redress of the grievances of Ireland on the two most fundamental points—the Church and the land. An era of hope therefore is opening for Ireland, which, if improved by wise and harmonious action on the part of your representatives and ours, may make the connection between the two countries an unalloyed benefit to both.

1147.

TO WILLIAM BROUGHAM

• Avignon

Oct. 9. 1867

Dear Sir

I have directed my servant to forward the Lucretius to 21 Berkeley Square, and I must again apologize for having retained it such an undue length of time.

I regret that the proposal for the admission of women of independent position to the suffrage, cannot have the benefit of Lord Brougham’s great name and support. I saw with great pleasure the statements of his improved state of health, which I hope will long continue. With thanks to Lord Brougham and yourself for your letter I am Dear Sir

yours very faithfully

J. S. Mill

William Brougham, Esq.

1148.

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL

• Avignon

le 9 octobre 1867

Mon cher d’Eichthal

Je vous dois depuis longtemps une réponse à deux bonnes et intéressantes lettres, et je dois aussi ma souscription de 10 francs à la Société des Etudes Grecques. Je la comprends aujourd’hui dans un même mandat de poste avec les cinq francs de la Ligue Internationale de la Paix (celle de M. Frédéric Passy), vous priant de vouloir bien remettre les deux sommes à destination. Le succès de la Société des Etudes Grecques me fait un bien grand plaisir. Nulle part une pareille société ne saurait être plus utile qu’en France, sans compter qu’elle réunit déjà les hommes éclairés de la Grèce actuelle avec ceux qui apprécient le mieux ce que la Grèce ancienne a fait et ce que les études grecques peuvent encore faire pour le progrès de l’humanité. Je vous félicite de l’initiative que vous avez prise dans ces deux mouvements, celui des Etudes Grecques et celui de la paix. J’espère beaucoup plus de la Société Passy que de celle qui s’est tant remuée à Genève. Quand on se réunit pour prêcher la paix, il faudrait savoir se taire pour le moment sur la diversité de ses opinions politiques.

Vous avez bien jugé le résultat de la campagne réformiste de cette année en Angleterre. Nous avons fait un grand pas en avant, quand personne ne s’attendait à un aussi grand. Mais lorsque la tendance générale des choses est dans un certain sens, les intérêts même égoïstes trouvent quelquefois leur compte à hâter le mouvement. Vous dites très bien que “quand les gens ont l’égalité et la responsabilité, ils deviennent tout autres”: c’est ce qui me fait hâter de mes voeux le suffrage universel, et lutter pour y faire comprendre les femmes qui en ont certes le plus grand besoin.

J’espère que le séjour de Trouville aura parfaitement rétabli la santé de Madame d’Eichthal. Je vous prie de me rappeler à ses souvenirs et à ceux de votre fils ainé, ainsi que de mon ancien ami votre frère. Je serai ici jusqu’à la prochaine réunion du parlement, et je serai charmé d’avoir de vos nouvelles.

Votre affectionné

J. S. Mill

1149.

TO GEORGE HOWELL

• Avignon

Oct. 14, 1867

Dear Sir

The Lecture project is very good, but it is not in my power to be one of the corps of lecturers; not only because it would be very inconvenient to me to return to England on purpose, but because I am obliged to decline all proposals for delivering Lectures, being unable to spare the time necessary for preparing them.

I am
Dear Sir
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Mr George Howell

1150.

TO WILLIAM THOMAS THORNTON

Avignon Oct. 19.1867

Dear Thornton—

I have just finished reading your Chapter in the Fortnightly & I put down my observations while my mind is full of its contents. In execution I think it excellent, & of good augury for the success of the book; for, beginning with so luminous a statement of principles & going on as it probably will do afterwards to important practical recommendations, it bids fair both to make a more than ordinary impression on those who read it at first, & to be permanently distinguished from other writings on the subject as a systematic treatise. I expect that the subsequent chapters will be equally well executed & that I shall agree with all or most of your practical conclusions. But in its principles the chapter does not carry me with it. I find in it what I always find where a standard is assumed of so called justice distinct from general utility & supposed to be paramount whenever the two conflict, viz. that some other standard might just as well have been assumed. Not only do I not admit any standard of right which does not derive its sole authority from utility, but I remark that in such cases an adversary could always find some other maxim of justice equal in authority but leading to opposite conclusions. A great many rules of morality of every day application are habitually classed as principles of justice. You have selected one of these; Louis Blanc against whom you are arguing would select others. You say, the rich are not bound to give employment & subsistence to the poor because they had nothing to do with bringing the poor into the world. Louis Blanc would or might say that the riches and often the very subsistence of the rich would not exist for them if the poor had not been brought into the world, & that to return good for good & the product to the producer is a duty of justice. Again, when he says that the raw material of the earth was not given to a few or to one generation but to the human race, you answer, admitting this, the vast majority of the poor could never have been born if the earth had not been appropriated & compensation is only due to them for their share of what the earth could have produced if it had remained unappropriated. To this L.B. might answer, Compensation is due to them not for that only but for not allowing them to appropriate their rateable share of the soil and to obtain what they by their labour can make that share produce. Again you argue throughout that no question of justice can arise as to the amount for which A hires the labour of B, because A is not bound to hire B at all. Is not this assuming that what the jurists call a duty of imperfect obligation, i.e., not owed to an assignable individual, is no duty? A may not be bound to hire B, but if he is bound to hire or to benefit some person or persons at his choice, the amount of the benefit may be an essential condition to his fulfilment of the duty. You carry your adherence to one particular view of moral obligation so far as to pronounce a person blameless in point of duty (however odious otherwise) who refuses to save the life of another without an exorbitant payment; I conceive on the contrary that it is a serious question whether a person who can save another’s life & does not do it even without any hope of reward, ought not to be amenable to the criminal law. For these reasons I think that the chapter, though as I said impressive, & though likely to be provocative of thought, will probably not convince a single person. All who did not already agree with you will find maxims of justice equally plausible, & in my estimation quite equally strong in support of contrary conclusions.

What you may perhaps effect is to make some of the poor, or of their friends, think they ought not to be severe on the rich as men for using the advantages which their position gives them. But the more they are persuaded of that the more determined will they be to upset the social system which gives a few persons these advantages. They may say, it is not A’s fault that he is rich, but they will be not the less likely to say, let us oblige him to divide his riches equally among all & start afresh; & they will never be persuaded by the principles of justice which you have laid down to think this unjust. They would say, it may have been right to allow appropriation as long as unappropriated land was to be had by all, but when all is appropriated, & some are left without, there ought to be a redivision, the γη̑ς ἀναδασμός of the Greeks. Nor can they be met as far as I see by any arguments but those of expediency—which, once let in, would open the whole question of the rights of the poor & obligations of the rich, & would I think, lead to consequences very different from those which you draw from your theory of justice though probably not very different from what you would practically recommend.

I have stated strongly the fault I find with your Chapter. It would take me a considerable space to set out all the good I find in it. To mention only one thing, the book will be very serviceable in carrying on what may be called the emancipation of pol. economy—its liberation from the kind of doctrines of the old school (now taken up by well to do people) which treat what they call economical laws, demand & supply for instance, as if they were laws of inanimate matter, not amenable to the will of the human beings from whose feelings, interests, & principles of action they proceed. This is one of the queer mental confusions which will be wondered at by & by & you are helping very much in the good work of clearing it up.

We arrived here a few days ago & I am settling down to the winter’s work which will not be political or economical but psychological. I am going to prepare in concert with Bain a new edition of my father’s Analysis of the Mind with notes and supplementary matter. This will be not only very useful but a very great relief by its extreme unlikeness to parliamentary work & to parliamentary semi-work or idleness. I hope your health has greatly benefitted by your holiday & goes on improving.

1151.

TO OSCAR BROWNING

• Avignon

October 26. 1867.

Dear Sir—

I was glad to receive your letter because it is important to know what an Eton master (especially one who admits defects in the institution) says in vindication of Eton. Your defence however is mainly directed to other points than those which I have attacked. I have never I believe expressed any opinion as to the merits or defects of Eton in comparison with our other public schools. As the one of highest pretensions I took it as the representative of them all. Nor in what I said of moral results had I particularly in view the grosser & more disreputable vices. I look upon the general moral state of the educated classes of Great Britain, taken in the mass, as essentially low & mean: a mean standard, & a contemptible falling short even of their own standard. You will not expect that I sh^d, in such a letter as the present, enter into a discussion as to the truth of this opinion, or shew how it is verified in our whole social state & in the manifestations which proceed from those classes on all public occasions on which the moral aspect of the facts is the predominant one. But if this opinion or anything approaching to it is justified by the fact, I cannot be wrong, as you seem to think, in visiting the shortcomings or vices of a class upon the school (or schools) which chiefly educates that class, not as the authors or primary causes of the evil, but as having at least been signally unsuccessful in counteracting it. The teachers, I apprehend, are only entitled to wash their hands of the “shortcomings or vices” of their pupils when they acknowledge & deplore them & shew that their utmost efforts are steadily exerted in the contrary direction.

When you say that so many of your best boys go into the Guards you say what amounts to an acknowledgment of utter failure in educating them morally either for the special responsibilities of a governing class or for the universal duties of a man.

I am not called on to deny that Eton as well as other schools, is far more successful in individual specimens than it is in the mass: & the peculiarities which you mention in its system, the less rigid confinement to a single curriculum & the more intimate association of every boy with his tutor afford facilities for this which, I have no doubt, are often taken good advantage of. But the use made of these facilities depends on what the tutors are & that their general quality sh^d [be] high is hardly consistent with what you say in your letter of the nepotism, favoritism, & general unfitness of the body who possess “the patronage of the chief school appointments.” From this evil you call on Parl^t to relieve you & on me to do what I can to help, & you may rely on my doing so: The Public Schools Bill has been passed over by the H of C in the last two sessions not from neglect but from the incessant occupation of the H with the Reform Bill, & I look forward to its occupying much of the attention of the House in the session next to come.

I am &c

1152.

TO JAMES GARTH MARSHALL

• Avignon

Oct. 26. 1867

Dear Sir

I thank you for sending me your valuable Address, and Mr Buckalew’s speech. The latter I had seen, and it is one of many signs that the principle of the representation of minorities, and (as far as the case admits) of all sections and opinions in proportion to their numbers, is making rapid way in the United States. The footing, small as it is, which the principle has obtained in our own legislation by the new Reform Act, ensures its being discussed and rediscussed with a practical aim, and, if so, it is sure to be, ere long, understood and appreciated.

I feel, with you, the immense importance of effecting at once all that can be effected for the restraining of bribery; and the time is favourable as some of the leading Tories are very much afraid of the money power, and would now help the Liberals in the attempt to keep it within bounds. It is true that they do this mainly in the interest of the local influences; but no matter. The local influences are doomed: the emancipation of the farmers has commenced; while even the agricultural labourers are beginning to revolt against their employers. Within a few years their children will have been put to school, and after that, they will obtain votes. The real permanent danger now is, lest when the labouring class become the disposers of their own votes, they should sell them.

It is very important to get together for the next session all the best suggestions for the suppression of corrupt practices at elections, with a view to their being embodied in a bill which the advanced liberals could in a body support. They might not carry it, but they would probably be able to force a large part of its provisions upon the Government. Some of your suggestions should certainly be included; particularly that of making it the duty of a public officer to prosecute. I hope you will continue thinking on the subject, and will put on paper all available thoughts that occur to you with a view to bringing them into a common stock at the beginning of the session. I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

James Garth Marshall Esq.

1153.

TO ALEXANDER BAIN

• S[aint] V[éran]

Nov. 4. 1867

Dear Bain—

I thank you very much for your letter, & for the promise of matter so soon for the edition of the Analysis. I myself have not begun writing yet, but see my way more & more clearly to the work; I have been reading through Laromiguière, & Maudslay. The first I read chiefly to know what he makes of the active department of human nature (that being his strong point) from the psychological side without the physiological. On that & on other subjects he is meritorious as far as he goes, but too easily satisfied. In the higher departments he leaves everything unexplained, or smuggles the explicandum into its own explanation. His acute remarks sometimes however anticipate the thoughts which others have worked out. I was surprised to find in him a complete anticipation of my father’s important remark on the ambiguity of the copula. He also anticipated Hamilton’s view of abstraction as distinct from generalization, & his notion of the substantial identity of Nominalism & Conceptualism. From Maudslay I have learnt more; but (as with most of the physiologists) his theories seem to me to go far beyond the evidence. I observe, by the way, that he takes Carpenter’s view, that ideation is the special function of the cerebral hemispheres, sensation (or rather something ill-defined which he calls a residuum) being packed up there by nerve force to be manufactured into idea. If I am not mistaken, you consider this to be obsolete and false theory. Is it not so? A propos—why does Maudslay charge me with disparaging physiology, either in itself or in its application to Mind? It is like Matthew Arnold enumerating me among the enemies of culture.

Besides these I have been toiling through Stirling’s Secret of Hegel. It is right to learn what Hegel is & one learns it only too well from Stirling’s book. I say too well because I found by actual experience of Hegel that conversancy with him tends to deprave one’s intellect. The attempt to unwind an apparently infinite series of self contradictions not disguised but openly faced & coined into [illegible word] science by being stamped with a set of big abstract terms, really if persisted in impairs the acquired delicacy of perception of false reasoning & false thinking which has been gained by years of careful mental discipline with terms of real meaning. For some time after I had finished the book all such words as reflexion, development, evolution, &c., gave me a sort of sickening feeling which I have not yet entirely got rid of.

Mansel’s article is very poor. It is a satisfaction to know that he could find nothing better to say. It will cost me only a few sentences in another edition. It is tolerably good tempered however much more so than his last.

I am obliged to you for discouraging the idea of my lecturing for Univ. College. I have so little time now that I must keep it for the few things which it is my special duty to do before the night cometh when no man can work. I wonder how you find time to do all you do. I look forward to your new book with much pleasure.

I am glad that Mr Hunter has done so well with the article for Chambers. That question is making way in a wonderful manner. In the U. States the so called radical party seems to be taking up in a body the equality of women as it has that of negroes. At least all the leaders seem to be doing so, Chief Justice Chase among the rest. The Governor of Kansas is said to be actually canvassing the State for the sanction by popular suffrage of the constitutional amendment which has passed both Houses admitting women to the franchise.

We are very well & hope to return three months hence in good condition.

1154.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Avignon

Nov. 4. 1867

Dear Chadwick

Thanks for sending me a bulletin of your progress. What you say about the effect of your address is encouraging; but it is disheartening to see that in the constituencies generally, the only power which seems capable of making head against money is local influence. The great question of next session will be the promised bill against electoral corruption. The advanced Liberals must have their rival bill, and I am anxious that all who have thought on the subject, and particularly that you, should put down, as heads of a bill, all that has occurred to them as desirable on this subject. When all suggestions have been got together, the most feasible may be selected, and the best radicals in and out of the House may be urged to combine in forcing them on the government.

Whenever you think the time has come to form a Committee and raise a subscription for your return to Parliament, I beg you to put me down as I said before, for £50, and I am ready to serve on any London or General Committee. I suppose that, for the University, the Committee must consist of members of the constituency, which I am not; but if any others are eligible, I should be glad to be one.

I have read and been duly edified by the paper you mention in the Journal of the Society of Arts. I think there is a chance that Ireland may be tried as a corpus vile for experimentation on government management of railways and telegraphs, as well as of other things. Certainly there is little to spoil there: the worst that could happen would but be one more failure, and there is no necessity to fail.

Your first paper read to the Academy, I have lately received, and will read, as well as the one which is yet to come. There is no difficulty of principle in legislating for trades’ unions, but a great deal in detail. For example on that question of picketting. The principle is that they may persuade, but must not intimidate. But who is there to be persuaded, in case of a strike, but those who have accepted work? and how are they to be got at, except by watching to see who they are? and if persuasion is permitted, can the persuader be withheld from expressing disapprobation, and strongly too? while, as we all know, this expression of disapprobation easily degenerates into illegitimate intimidation. But how or where is the line to be drawn? Can more be done than to prohibit threats? and not even that, if the mischief threatened is not physical, but mere ill will, with its natural expression? Hardly any one who has written on the practical question seems to me to have faced this difficulty.

Ever, dear Chadwick,
yours truly

J. S. Mill

1155.

TO RALPH WALDO EMERSON

• Avignon

6th November 1867.

Dear Sir,—

A few months ago I took the liberty of introducing Lord Amberley to you. I now venture to give an introduction to another friend of mine, of great capacity and promise, Mr John Morley, one of our best and most rising periodical writers on serious subjects—moral, social, and philosophical, still more than political—and at present editor of the Fortnightly Review. I should not thus presume did I not feel confident that you would find Mr Morley worthy of your attention and interest, both as man and as a thinker.—I am, dear Sir, very truly yours,

J. S. Mill

1156.

TO E. W. YOUNG

• Avignon

Nov. 10. 1867

Dear Sir—

I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 23^rd ult^o.

I do not claim any greater latitude of making exceptions to general rules of morality on the utilitarian theory than is accorded by moralists on all theories. Every ethical system admits the possibility & even frequency, of a conflict of duties. In most cases the conflict occasions no great difficulty, because one of the duties is in general obviously paramount to the other. The difficulty arises when the choice is between a very great violation of a duty usually subordinate & a very small infringement of one ordinarily of more peremptory obligation. In such a case the former, I cannot but think, may be the greater moral offence. When I mentioned, as a case of this kind, the case of stealing or taking by force the food or medicine necessary for saving a life, I was thinking rather of saving another person’s life than one’s own. A much stricter rule is required in the latter case than in the former, for the obvious reason, that there is more probability of self deception or of dishonesty. But I am far from saying that the rule sh^d never be relaxed even when the case is one’s own. A runaway slave by the laws of slave countries commits a theft: he steals his own person from his lawful owner. If you say, this is not morally theft, because property in a human being ought not to exist, take the case of a child or an apprentice who runs away on account of intolerable ill usage. There is in the doctrine I maintain nothing inconsistent with the loftiest estimation of the heroism of martyrs. There are times when the grandest results for the human race depend on the public assertion of one’s convictions at the risk of death by torture. When this is the case martyrdom may be a duty; & in cases when it does not become the duty of all it may be an admirable act of virtue in whoever does it, & a duty in those who as leaders or teachers are bound to set an example of virtue to others, & to do more for the common faith or cause than a simple believer. I do not know whether what I have written will do anything towards removing your difficulty, but I have not leisure to enter further into the subject.

1157.

TO JOHN HENRY BRIDGES

• Avignon

Nov. 16, 1867

Dear Sir—

The question which you put to me is one which, I think, every sincere reformer of advance opinions, must have put to himself since the outbreak of Fenianism. The answer which I have given to it for my own guidance is this: To declare openly on all suitable occasions that England is bound either to govern Ireland so that Ireland shall be satisfied with her government, or to set Ireland free to govern herself. This doctrine I have already publicly professed. At one of the Reform Union meetings at St James’s Hall last summer I put the question to a multitudinous assemblage composed in great part of working men, “Do you think England has a right to retain Ireland in subjection unless she can make her government satisfactory to the Irish?” & the enthusiastic shout of “NO” from apparently the whole body of the meeting, might have been heard, I think, outside the building. The time, therefore, is fully come for holding this language. But having said thus much, I must now add that I think it would be extremely wrong to say or do anything that would give fresh encouragement to the Irish to seek separation from England. I think so, because, for many reasons which to you need not be stated, G. Britain & Ireland are capable of making jointly a much better government for Ireland than Ireland alone is likely to make: but still more because I believe that in the present state of English opinion an attempt at separation even if supported by the mass of the Irish people would be put down by the strong hand, would cause immense misery in Ireland & greatly embitter the feelings between Irish & English & between the two parties in Ireland. And the Irish of the class which furnishes separatists are so excitable & so devoid of common sense that a very little encouragement from any reputable quarter in G. Britain might have a stimulating effect on them such as we cannot limit or calculate. The responsibility therefore of giving even a single word of encouragement is such as I sh^d be very sorry that any English liberal sh^d assume.

The parallel of Hungary seems to me to fail in the most essential particulars. The Hungarian people have shewn throughout a most remarkable amount of the esprit de conduite—a good sense, a calm & judicious appreciation of means & ends, which prove them to be highly qualified both for acquiring & for preserving national independence & free institutions. In this respect they are a complete contrast to the Irish. Moreover, the Hungarians are a full match in military qualities or resources, for the whole remainder of the Austrian empire & therefore any terms of accommodation deliberately agreed upon between them & the other half has a considerable chance of being kept and after all the success of the experiment of two independent legislatures & governments under the same crown royal is as yet very doubtful, & it is far too soon to predict its results. Still less likely is it that this Dualism sh^d succeed in Ireland. The question there is not Repeal but Separation. There is not a Fenian who would be content with a separate legislature. They all seem to want total separation, & a republic, and total separation is what I think we must make up our minds to if after having done full justice to the Irish in church & land matters & done all we can do for their educational & economical interests we find that their aversion to union with us remains unabated. But for their friends in England to begin already pointing to separation even in the distance, would be the very way to make the Irish separately resolve that nothing else sh^d succeed.

At present the Irish members of the H. of C. of the extreme party instead of “regarding the efforts of English radicals with antipathy,” are on such terms of cordial alliance & cooperation with them as I do not believe ever was the case before: they are, apparently for the first time, convinced that the popular party in England really feels to them as fellow countrymen, & really wishes to do them complete justice, & are fixing their hopes more & more on helping that party to acquire the power of doing so. They seem to dread Fenianism extremely, & some of them have said to me that if the two countries were separated, there would be a civil war in Ireland. The only important point on which most of the advanced liberals differ from the representatives of the Irish party is the question of denominational education: If we escape quarreling on that point there is every prospect of a closer & closer alliance between us. I look therefore with more hope on the cultivation of that alliance than on any proceeding by English liberals which would give gain de cause to the Separatist party in Ireland.

This is the way in which the subject presents itself to my mind. If it adds anything to your materials of thought on the question I shall be very glad that you have done me the honour of writing to me about it.

1158.

TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE

• Avignon

Nov. 19. 1867

My dear Sir

As I am at present fully engaged upon work in which I think it desirable to employ all the time of the Parliamentary recess, it is not my intention to be in England for the short autumn session unless it should be absolutely necessary. My apology for troubling you with this letter is, that I should consider myself bound by your judgment as to what constitutes necessity; that is to say, the importance of any particular point at issue, and the probable closeness of the division upon it. More especially if the Government should propose to provide for the expenses of the Abyssinian expedition by an ordinary loan, or by bonds of long date, and you should think it advisable to take the sense of the House on a counter proposition to raise the whole of the supplies within the year, or partly by bonds to be paid off in a year or two years; which would probably be in accordance with your opinions, and would be entirely so with mine; and if the House were almost equally divided so that every vote was of importance; I should feel it an absolute duty to be present. My object, therefore, in taking the liberty of troubling you with this letter, is to say that if I could receive a telegram from Mr Glyn any day before twelve o’clock (which I believe I could do if it were sent off from London early in the morning) I could be in London by eight or nine o’clock of the night of the following day. I am

My dear Sir
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

The Right Honourable

W. E. Gladstone M.P. &c &c

1159.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Avignon

Nov. 20. 1867

Dear Mr Christie

Electoral corruption will, as you say, be the most important subject of the next session, and we should endeavour to induce those who have thought on it with a view to practical legislation, to bring their suggestions into a common stock, that they may be sifted, and a selection made of all which are likely to be efficacious, to be made the basis of a Bill, such as the advanced Liberals might in a body support. Few have taken so much pains with the subject as you have, and I hope you will draw up the heads of such a measure as you would yourself propose if you were a minister. Those, whether in or out of Parliament, who have contributed to this stock of suggestions might meet together as soon as Parliament reassembles in February and produce an outline of a Bill which might be circulated among the Liberal party. It might be possible to prevail on M^r Gladstone to introduce it: but whoever may do so, the Bill will only be a rallying point: the fight will not be on that, but on the attempt to engraft its provisions on the bill of the Tory Government. I have already spoken or written to several of those who have most considered the subject, and I hope we shall succeed in getting together really good materials for a Bill.

I quite agree with you on the importance, on all accounts, of including municipal elections in the measure.

I am
Dear Mr Christie
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

W. D. Christie Esq.

1160.

TO WALTER LOVELL

• Avignon

Nov. 25. 1867

Dear Sir

I moved an amendment on the Reform Bill, for the admission of women to the suffrage, on the 20^th of May last, and my speech was fully reported in the papers of the next day, and in Hansard. It has been published separately by Trübner, 60 Paternoster Row. I have not written any book expressly on the subject, but it is one of the points which I have discussed in a volume entitled “Considerations on Representative Government” of which there are both a Library and a People’s Edition.

I am
yours very faithfully

J. S. Mill

Walter Lovell Esq.

1161.

TO ALEXANDER BAIN

• Avignon

Dec. 6. 1867

Dear Bain—

I have received your letter & the packet of MS. The death of Clark is a painful surprise to me. I had heard from him several times since I left England & his last letter dated as late as the 15^th of November was more than usually lively & varied, discussing Berkeleianism, the psychology of the senses, &c. It was very unlike a person so near his end. Of what illness did he die?

I shall be happy to nominate Mr Findlater as my Assessor for the remainder of the term, if you will be kind enough to ascertain for me whether he will accept the office & to give me his complete name & the designation by which I sh^d describe him to the St Andrews people when they write to me on the subject. Any probability of a vacancy in the Moral Philosophy chair during the period makes it extremely important to have in the University Court a man whose views on that subject are likely to agree with ours. No doubt you will be on the look out for a fit person to fill that professorship if the vacancy occurs. I shall probably have to depend chiefly upon your knowledge of available Scotchmen for the purpose.

I am very thankful to you for having found, & indeed made, time to do so much for the Analysis. I like all your notes very much & they all supply valuable matter most of which I could not have made out by myself. The only case in which we have gone over the same ground is the case of Association by Resemblance, on which I have also written, to the same general effect as you; & I propose to retain both, as they do not repeat, but enlarge & strengthen one another. Yours is, I think, one of the very best of the present batch. I also have been working pretty vigorously, & have exactly got through the first volume. I have written (as far as regards the rough draft) a great number of minor notes & several long ones, the two longest being on the subjects that you particularly recommended to me, Belief & Nominalism. I have no doubt that I shall get through the second volume in the same manner by the meeting of Parl^t. What will remain for the next recess will be the rewriting, which will probably involve much enlargement as well as improvement. But I shall not commence this until your part of the work is finished & before me. I shall be particularly glad of any notes on the chapter on Memory as that phenomenon is still to me the great unresolvable fact of Psychology. It seems to me that it & the problem of Belief are in fact the same, viz. that which I have stated in the chapter on the Ego in my book on Hamilton —the distinction between recognising something as a mere thought & as an actual fact.

There are two subjects which my knowledge is unequal to, & on which I hope you will give me further assistance. One of them is the direct relation between Ideas & states of the nerves. You must have observed that the source of some of the chief imperfections of the Analysis is the author’s steady refusal to admit any production of ideas by physical causes except through the medium of sensations raising up ideas already associated with them. He carries this so far, as to explain the fact that chronic indigestion excites feelings of anxiety by the circumstance that anxiety disorders the digestion. You have just touched this topic in one of your notes, but in a very summary manner. The other point is one which I could, if necessary, get up from your Grammar without troubling you: it is the distinctive characters of the Subordinate Parts of Speech. Your view of the Adjective I believe coincides with my father’s, that it serves for making cross divisions. You could however help me very much if you had time to annotate those sections. There is one point which I am quite unequal to. The philology of the Analysis on the subject of prepositions, conjunctions, &c. though right in principle is now obsolete in detail & I do not know who is the best person to ask to amend it. Can you suggest the right person?

I have not found any help in Bailey for dealing with Nominalism though he objects to the same points in my father’s exposition which I object to. I have however derived some benefit from reading again Bailey’s four volumes; but how very, very shallow he is! He not only cannot seize any of the less obvious applications of the principle of association, but he is unfeignedly unable to make out what the writers who speak of such things can possibly mean. Yet at the same time, how plausible! He has scarcely his equal in skimming over the hollow places in philosophy, & putting a smooth face on unsolved difficulties. If he had been in the Forum at the time of Curtius he would not have leaped into the gulf, but would have thrown a platform over it, by which people might walk across without noticing it. When he attempts to confute those who are trying to resolve difficulties which he does not see, he usually does it by formally stating & developing at great length some elementary truth which he fancies to be all there is in the matter. As elementary truths are very often lost sight of, these elaborate enforcements of them are, in many cases, useful, but are seldom at all germane to the particular controversy. The best thing about him (except his chapters on the moral sentiments) is that he is a decided supporter of the “experience hypothesis”: but he is so in a way, & in a sense, peculiarly his own: What used to be called the mundus intelligibilis, consisting of all the obscurer notions which have wearied & divided metaphysicians, he disposes of by maintaining that the Intelligible world is all perceived through the senses. Why puzzle ourselves about the necessity of any of our beliefs? Necessity is a quality of outward facts, & can be seen. We see that the theorems of geometry are necessary. How absurd to seek for an explanation or a definition of Cause! We see one thing cause another.

How different Herbert Spencer whose Psychology I have been reading for the third time! The second of his four parts is admirable as a specimen of analysis. It is a great satisfaction to find how closely his results coincide with ours. I hope he will not make the book worse instead of better in the projected rewriting, as I am afraid he is going to do with his Social Statics.

The long miscellaneous chapter with which the 2^nd volume of the Analysis commences will give us a great deal of occupation—for under the guise of explaining names it contains the author’s solutions of most of the great questions of metaphysics proper. I shall hope by & by for a full note from you on the Will whether I write one myself or no. The original generation of Will which Hartley had the first glimpse of but which you have been the first to understand thoroughly, will be much better treated by you than by me. I may perhaps add something of my own on the polemics of the subject.

1162.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Avignon

Dec. 22. 1867

Dear Chadwick

I received your letter and proof yesterday afternoon and I read the proof immediately on receiving it. Like most things you write, it is full of instructive and important details, but I differ from you on the point of its being impossible for Trades Unions to raise wages. The only reason I can find assigned in the article for this opinion is that if they do raise wages, they increase the cost of production and price of the product, and thereby lessen the demand and bring wages down again. But increased wages do not necessarily raise the price of the article (nor even make competition with foreigners more difficult) so long as there is any margin of profits to take the increase from. Of course neither Trades Unions, nor anything else can permanently raise wages so high as not to leave a rate of profit sufficient to encourage accumulation. But if they limit their attempt within reasonable bounds, I do not see why they should not in many cases succeed, both in raising wages, and in (what is equivalent) diminishing the hours of labour. The rules laid down by some Unions against piecework, or against machinery, or against the admission of more than a limited number of persons into the trade, and so forth, appear to me as noxious as they do to you, though I do not see how legislation can interfere with people for annexing these conditions to the acceptance of work, provided they do not use force, or threats of force, to prevent other workmen from accepting it. I have marked in pencil, on the margin of the proof, one or two places where something seems omitted which is necessary to the grammar.

I infer from the newspapers that the public are half crazy about Fenianism. Gladstone’s Lancashire speeches will, however, I hope have some effect in recalling some of them to common calmness and ordinary good feeling.

I am Dear Chadwick
yours ever truly

J. S. Mill

1163.

TO F. KIDELL

• Avignon

Dec. 22. 1867

Sir

You will find in the Parliamentary reports on Petitions for the session 1867 the statement of the number of signatures to petitions sent up to Parliament, begging for the extension of the suffrage to women. The number, as far as my memory serves me, was about 13000. Of these, many were men; there does not exist, that I am aware of, any statement of what proportion: probably, however, considerably less than half. A petition was also presented the year before, for the same object, signed by 1500 persons, all women.

I am Sir
yours very faithfully

J. S. Mill

F. Kidell Esq.

1164.

TO WILLIAM LONGMAN

• Avignon

Dec. 22. 1867

Dear Sir—

I sh^d be glad to know at once what proposal you are prepared to make for a new edition of the Logic supposing that no cheap edition is issued; also on what conditions you would propose to issue a cheap edition & in case of my acceding to them what difference this would make in your proposals for a new library edition. I sh^d be obliged if you will be so good as to send me the sheets of the last ed. of the Logic here as soon as possible.

1165.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Avignon

Dec. 28. 1867

Dear M^r Christie

I am glad that your ideas for a Bribery Bill are put on paper, and will soon be published. I quite agree with you as to the importance of including Municipal elections. Your other point, that of having an enquiry as a matter of course after all elections, I had not thought of. One can at once see many reasons in its favour, but it will be a difficult thing to get carried, owing to the habitual objection to “fishing” enquiries, and to enquiries when there is no complaint. It is, however, evident that the absence of complaint is, in such a case, no evidence of the absence of mischief.

I forget if you have ever expressed any opinion on requiring a declaration on honour from members of parliament, and if so on the terms in which it should be drawn up. Other points are, What should be the punishment of the convicted briber? Should not all persons proved to have been agents of bribery, be for ever interdicted from acting as election agents? Should not all monies expended for election purposes pass through a public officer, so that the mere fact of incurring expenditure in which he is passed over should be legal proof of an unlawful purpose? If so, what should be the definition of election purposes?

Further, it is quite as necessary to deal with what are at present lawful expenses as with actual corruption. They are as mischievous, and even as demoralizing politically, though not so depraving privately. The Liberals ought to force on both subjects in the approaching session.

As Disraeli means to bring in his Bill on the very day of reassembling, I think it will be wiser to try to get a conference after than before that time. If it were tried before, some desirable people would be absent, and others would say “Let us wait till we see the Bill.” But the Bill being almost sure to be grossly inadequate, it will then be easier to get people to join in an effort to extort something better.

I am
Dear M^r Christie
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1166.

TO HORACE WHITE

Avignon, Dec. 28, 1867

Dear Sir:

I am much obliged by your kind offices to Lord Amberley and Mr Morley, both of whom will, I am convinced, not only derive great benefit from any knowledge they acquire of America as it really is, but will make excellent use of that knowledge, and will help to spread it more widely when they return home.

I am afraid we differ rather fundamentally in our opinions on the justice and policy of exclusive taxation on what is called realized property. I have gone very fully into the question in the chapter on Taxation in the concluding work of my Principles of Political Economy, and it would not be possible in a letter to explain myself so fully or so clearly. But it seems to me contrary both to the rule of equal justice and to economical policy, to tax one person because he has saved, and leave another untaxed, because he has spent all his gains on himself and family, without adding anything to the accumulated means of further production. The contribution you propose to levy for the payment of the national debt would be simply taking away from everybody who had laid by anything for distant purpose, the greater part of the whole of his savings, while the self-indulgent who have spent all in present pleasures would escape altogether, though benefitted as much as any one else by the protection of government. It seems to me a very narrow view of the purposes of government to suppose that it is only of use to the possessors of accumulated capital. It protects, or at least is bound to protect, every body’s life, person and dignity from injury and insult; and even as regards pecuniary matters, those who spend all they get have as much objection to its being taken from them by malefactors as those who save. You say that those who would be left untaxed would, in consequence, have more means of saving; but being already persons who are less frugal in their disposition than others of the same means, they are still less likely to save when a large part of their savings would not be at their own disposal, but would be taken by the State.

On the mere economic question, “is there any way in which an annual tax may be collected from capital without leaving to the latter an opportunity to collect it back from labor?” I should answer that capital will not have this opportunity. I do not believe that the burthens laid on the capitalist ever fall on labor, except in one way, viz: if the burthens are so heavy as to check the accumulation of capital, and prevent it from keeping up with the increase of population; in which case, without doubt, wages would fall, unless the increased numbers migrated to a less crowded field for the employment of labor, such as your Western Territories.

The objections to special taxes on capital accumulated by personal frugality, do not in the same degree apply to inherited property; and I am quite in favor of some special taxation of all inheritances above a small amount—and graduated taxation too; a percentage rising with the amount of the inheritance.

I would also have no direct tax on such incomes as are only sufficient to give mere necessaries of life and health to an average family; nor would I have any indirect taxes on the necessaries of life and health; though I would on the luxuries, even of the poor; especially luxuries which are apt to be noxious, such as intoxicating drinks. Your cotton tax comes within the class of taxes on necessaries, and is therefore, I think, a bad tax; but not knowing in which manner it is levied, I do not feel certain as to its exact incidence. I should suspect that it is partly a tax on the laborer; not however by depressing money wages, but by making them not go so far as they otherwise would, in the purchase of clothing.

I am
Dear Sir
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Horace White Esq.

1167.

TO MARY CARPENTER

• Avignon

Dec. 29, 1867

Dear Madam

I have to thank you for your letter of Aug. 11 which a journey of some length on the Continent and much occupation ever since have prevented me from answering before now.

If you think that to give your name in aid of the movement for political enfranchisement of women might be in any degree injurious to the work you have chosen, I cordially agree that those who are working in another department than your own for the public good have no claim upon you. Whether giving your name to our Society would have any such mischievous effect you are far better qualified to judge than I am, and I will not therefore venture an opinion. I will content myself with thanking you for the pleasure with which I learn from your letter that you are with us in principle, and with expressing the hope that the time may not be very far distant when the progress of events and of public opinion may remove the obstacles which prevent you from joining us.

There are however one or two points in your letter in which I cannot agree with you. To take the most important first, most important because it is a point of moral obligation. You say you do not desire a vote for yourself. I have too great a respect for you not to venture to say that in my opinion this is a dereliction of the duty you owe to your fellow creatures. If your vote could affect only yourself, that is to say if you only could be the sufferer, materially speaking, from allowing yourself to be governed by others, it would still be a question whether unless those others govern you with perfect justice, you are morally entitled to forego the right and power which a vote would give you to force them to do justice, and thereby become themselves better moral creatures. But it is not the fact that the possession of a vote would enable you only to protect yourself. Every citizen possessed of a vote is possessed of a means of protecting those who cannot vote, such as infants, the sick, idiots &c. as well as of a means of helping others who can vote to do good in every conceivable way in which just and provident legislation can affect human happiness. I am deeply persuaded that nothing but a most regrettable absence of thought on this subject can account for or even partially excuse, for wholly excuse it cannot, the very common neglect of the power of voting which prevails among gentlemen and educated persons. I am certain that a time will come when it will be felt that a man, and I need not add a woman too, because any rational creature, is committing a most gross dereliction of duty when he habitually neglects to make use of this power conscientiously and at any cost of labour to himself. He owes it as a return to the civilisation to which he owes not only all the security and peace, all the highest enjoyments of his life, but also the possibility of attaining refinement and moral elevation. He owes it therefore by the deepest debt that man can owe to his fellow creatures. Nor is it less imperative that he should pay it because if the duty of voting is not fulfilled from virtuous and public motives the power of voting will be left to people who are induced to exercise it by the spur of selfish interest or ambition. Thus I can conceive no duty not even the most primary duties of private and personal morality, that it is more absolutely essential to the happiness of mankind that every virtuous and rational citizen should fulfill steadily and carefully. The right of voting is in my opinion not only a power to be coveted (although it is a legitimate power which may be honestly coveted by an honourable ambition) but it is still more essentially an obligation to be dutifully fulfilled.

You will see from this that I cannot agree in the wish you express that the right should rather be “given to woman by those who deprived her of it than from her own demand.” Because even if any sentiment of generosity should make one feel that it is a more beautiful thing to receive a legitimate power unasked than asked, there can be no generosity and nothing noble or beautiful in waiting to have a duty thrust upon one instead of asking to be allowed to take it upon oneself for the good of every one concerned.

In regard to the third point on which you express yourself uncertain—whether the time has yet come for agitation—there are several reasons which concur to make me think it has. In the first place to agitate for the change in the law is not to obtain it; and therefore even if any of us think that women are not yet prepared to exercise the suffrage, that will still not be a reason against agitating for it, because much smaller changes than this can never be obtained until after the agitation for them has lasted some time, and the agitation itself will be the most effectual means of preparing people for the change whenever it comes.

The great change now taking place in the right of voting among men is however the main reason for bringing forward this question at this particular time. The subject of the right of voting is under discussion, and people’s minds are comparatively open to receiving new ideas on the subject. If it is true that women ought to vote, it is wrong to lose the present opportunity of spreading this truth as far and wide as possible. By doing so we are only sowing seed to bear fruit in due time if it is good seed suited to the soil and the climate. We do not dream of reaping the harvest directly.

I have troubled you, dear Madam, with a very long letter, but I agree too much with you not to wish to agree still further.

I am, &c.

J. S. Mill

1168.

TO THOMAS HARE

• Saint Véran

Dec. 30. 1867

Dear Mr Hare

It gave me great pleasure to hear from you. The news you give of the acceptance by the Reform League of the proposed conference may turn out very important. There are a number of the most intelligent leaders of the working men in the League, and even in the Council; men who have not the silly aversion of most of the well-to-do people to anything new in politics, and who are capable of understanding, and accustomed to requiring, general principles of some sort as a basis of their convictions. If you could make an impression on two or three of these—if you could make a convert of even one such man as Odger, or Cremer, or Howell —the gain would be immense.

I am glad you have seen Dudley Field, and I hope your communications with him will continue. I was asked some time ago to meet him at Paris, but as I did not go to Paris during his stay, nothing came of it.

Mr Rathbone’s Lecture was calculated to be very useful to the people it was addressed to. Though the philosophy of it is not profound, its tendency and spirit, and many of its practical recommendations, are very valuable. It indicates a good kind and type of person: in addition to which he seems either to hold, or to be much inclined to, many right opinions, among others the enfranchisement of women, and Personal Representation. There are a great number of signs, of which this lecture is one, that the general moral and social condition of the country and of the world are inspiring many people with serious reflections of a very novel kind, and especially with an anxious interest about the future; as a consequence of which we may hope to see a great increase of efforts to deal with the primordial sources of national evils, and at all events a far greater willingness to listen to suggestions of improvement the grounds of which do not lie on the surface.

I was glad to hear about the Philomathic society, but I am obliged to decline all invitations like the one in question.

I should say something about the proposal to change the petition for women’s suffrage into one for a Declaratory Act, if Helen had not gone so fully into that question in her letter to Miss Hare. Her reasons seem to me conclusive, and I quite share her fear lest talking extrajudicially about a right which Parliament does not wish women to possess, should lead to removing all doubts by a declaratory Act the wrong way. I am

Dear Mr Hare
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1169.

TO FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE

• Avignon

Dec. 31. 1867

Dear Madam

You will readily believe that only the pressure of constant occupation has prevented me from replying earlier to the interesting letter I received from you in August. If you prefer to do your work rather by moving the hidden springs than by allowing yourself to be known to the world as doing what you really do, it is not for me to make any observations on this preference (inasmuch as I am bound to presume that you have good reasons for it) other than to say that I much regret that this preference is so very general among women. Myself—but then I am a man—I cannot help thinking that the world would be better if every man, woman, and child in it could appear to others in an exactly true light; known as the doer of the work that he does, and striving neither to be under nor overvalued. I am not so “Utopian” as to suppose that bad people will very readily lend themselves to this programme; but I confess to considerable regret that good women should so often be almost as fond of false appearances as bad men and women can be; seeking as much to hide their good deeds as the others do to hide their bad ones; forgetting probably the while that they are putting somebody—more or less willing—in the position of a false pretender to merits not his own, but belonging legitimately to the lady who delights to keep in the background.

I know that it often appears, in practical matters, that one can get a great deal of work done swiftly and apparently effectually, by working through others; securing perhaps in this way their zealous cooperation instead of their jealous (or perhaps only stupid) obstruction. In the long run, however, I doubt whether any work is ever so well done as when it is done ostensibly and publicly under the direction or at the instigation of the original mind that has seen the necessity of doing it. Whether this is the fact or not, I am quite certain that were the world in general to know how much of all its important work is and always has been done by women, the knowledge would have a very useful effect upon it, and I am not certain that any woman who possesses any talent whatever could make a better use of it in the present stage of the world than by simply letting things take their natural course, and allowing it to be known just as if she were a man. I know that this is not pleasant to the sensitive character fostered by the present influences among the best women; but it is to me a question whether the noble, and as I think, heroic enthusiasm of truth and public good ought not in this age to nerve women to as courageous a sacrifice of their most justly cherished delicacy, as that of which the early Christian women left an example for the reverent love and admiration of all future time. I have no doubt that the Roman ladies thought them very indelicate.

In regard to the questions you do me the honour to ask me—first, “Are there not evils which press much more hardly on women than not having a vote?” 2^dly “May not this, when obtained, put women in opposition to those who withhold from them these rights, so as to retard still further the legislation necessary to put them in “possession of their rights?” 3^dly “Could not the existing disabilities as to property and influence of women be swept away by the legislature as it stands at present?”

To answer these questions fundamentally would require only to state fundamental principles of political liberty, and to reiterate that debate so nobly carried on in our own history whether social happiness or dignity, commercial liberty, religious freedom, or any form of material prosperity, is or is not best founded on political liberty.

It may be granted in the abstract, that a ruling power, whether a monarch, a class, a race, or a sex, could sweep away the disabilities of the ruled. The question is, has it ever seemed to them urgent to sweep away these disabilities, until there was a prospect of the ruled getting political power? More than this, it is probably a question whether it is in human nature that it ever should seem to them urgent.

In the same way it may often be a question whether painful symptoms do not press more hardly upon a patient than the hidden disease which is the cause of them. And undoubtedly, if the symptoms themselves are killing, the physician had better address himself to them at once, and leave the disease alone for a time. But if the oppressions and miseries under which women suffer are killing, women take a great deal of killing to kill them. God knows I do not undervalue these miseries; for I think that man, and woman too, a heartless coward whose blood does not boil at the thought of what women suffer; but I am quite persuaded that if we were to remove them all tomorrow, in ten years new forms of suffering would have arisen; for no earthly power can ever prevent the constant unceasing unsleeping elastic pressure of human egotism from weighing down and thrusting aside those who have not the power to resist it. Where there is life there is egotism, and if men were to abolish every unjust law today, there is nothing to prevent them from making new ones tomorrow; and moreover, what is of still greater importance, new circumstances will constantly be arising, for which fresh legislation will be needed. And how are you to ensure that such legislation will be just, unless you can either make men perfect, or give women an equal voice in their own affairs? I leave you to judge which is the easiest.

What, however, constitutes an even more pressing and practical reason for endeavouring to obtain the political enfranchisement of women, instead of endeavouring to sweep away any or all of their social grievances, is, that I believe it will be positively easier to obtain this reform, than to obtain any single one of all the others, all of which must inevitably follow from it. To prefer to sweep away any of these others first, is as though one were to prefer to cut away branch after branch, giving more labour to each branch than one need do to the trunk of the tree.

The third question, whether there is not danger of political partisanship and bitterness of feeling between men and women, is also a question which I think has been asked and answered in other departments of politics. It has been asked and answered, too, though the answer has been different from that which we most of us approve of in politics, in the case of marriage. To prevent quarrels, it has been thought best to make one party absolute master of both. No doubt, if women can never do anything in politics except for and through men, they cannot be partisans against men. No doubt, where you have death, you have none of the troubles of life. But if women were to prove possessed with ever so great a spirit of partisanship, and were they to call forth thereby ever so intense partisanship on the part of men, and were they, as the weakest, to be driven to any extremities, I don’t see that the result would be very different from what it is at present, inasmuch as I apprehend that the present position of women in every country in the world is exactly measured by the personal and family affections of men, and that every modification for the better in women’s absolute annihilation and servitude is at present owing not to any sense of abstract right or justice on the part of men, but to their sense of what they would like for their own wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters. Political partisanship against the mass of women will not, among civilized men, diminish the sense of what is due to the objects of their private affections. But I believe, on the contrary, that the dignity given to women in general by the very fact of their being able to be political partisans, is likely to be itself a means of raising men’s estimation of what is due to them. So that, if men come to look upon women as a large number of unamiable but powerful opponents and a small number of dearly loved and charming persons, I think men will think more highly of women, and will feel less disposed to use badly any superior power that after all they themselves may still possess, than if they look upon women as I think men generally do at present, as a few dearly loved, preeminently worthy and charming persons, and a great number of helpless fools.

On the whole, then, I think, firstly, that political power is the only security against every form of oppression; secondly, that at the present day in England it would be easier to attain political rights for such women as have the same claims as enfranchised men, than to obtain any other considerable reform in the position of women; thirdly, I see no danger of party spirit running high between men and women and no possibility of its making things worse than they are if it did.

Finally, I feel some hesitation in saying to you what I think of the responsibility that lies upon each one of us to stand steadfastly and with all the boldness and all the humility that a deep sense of duty can inspire, by what the experience of life and an honest use of our own intelligence has taught us to be the truth. I will confess to you that I have often stood amazed at what has seemed to me the presumption with which persons who think themselves humble set bounds to the capacities of improvement of their fellow creatures—think themselves qualified to define how much or how little of the divine light of truth can be borne by the world in general; assume that none but the very élite can see what is perfectly clear to themselves, and think themselves permitted to dole out in infinitesimal doses that daily bread of truth upon which they themselves live, and without which the world must come to an end. When I see this to me inexplicable form of moderation in those who nevertheless believe that the truth of which they have got hold really is the truth, I rejoice that there are so many presumptuous persons who think themselves bound to say what they think true—who think that if they have been fortunate enough to get hold of a truth, they cannot do a better service to their fellow creatures than by saying it openly; who think that the truth that has not been too much for themselves will not be too much for others; who think that what they have been capable of seeing, other people will be capable of seeing too, without a series of delicately managed gradations. I even go so far as to think that we owe it to our fellow creatures and to posterity to struggle for the advancement of every opinion of which we are deeply persuaded. I do not, however, mean to say that there is any judge but our own conscience of how we can best work for the advancement of such truths, nor do I mean to say that it may not be right for any of us, endowed with special faculties, to choose out special work, and to decline to join in work for which we think others better qualified and which we think may impede us for our own peculiar province. Therefore, while I have seen with much regret that you join in so few movements for the public good, I have never presumed to think you wrong, because I have supposed that your abstinence arose from your devotion to one particular branch of public-spirited work.

I am Dear Madam
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1868

1170.

TO THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE HOSPICES D’AVIGNON

• S[aint] V[éran]

Jan. 8. 1868

Messieurs—

Par une lettre du 27 Novembre 1863 vous avez bien voulu me concéder la ceppe de 50 arbres sur le chemin vicinal No. 1 et voisin de ma propriété moyennant une redevance annuelle de 25 francs, soit 50 centimes pour chaque arbre. Depuis quelques jours les employés de votre administration ont coupé et enlevé sept de ces arbres, qu’ils disaient être morts. En conséquence, j’ai à vous proposer soit de diminuer dans la même proportion le paiement annuel soit de m’accorder d’autres arbres pour compléter le nombre primitif. Je préfèrerais que la concession fût modifiée de manière à la borne à 43 arbres ou même à 42 ce qui donnerait la pierre milliaire du premier kilomètre du chemin comme borne très commode de la concession. Mais si des difficultés administratives s’opposent à ce que vous m’accordiez cette modification je vous prierais alors, messieurs, de me concéder sept arbres de plus le long du chemin du côté de l’est, c’est à dire jusqu’au huitième arbre au delà de la pierre milliaire inclusivement.

1171.

TO THE REV. LEOPOLD JOHN BERNAYS

• Avignon

Jan. 8. 1868

Dear Sir

I thank you for the opportunity of reading the little pamphlet on education. All that the author says against centralizing the education of the country in the hands of government is very just, & I entertain the strongest objections to any plan which would give a practical monopoly to schools under government control. But I have never conceived compulsory education in that sense. What I understand by it is that all parents should be required to have their children taught certain things, being left free to select the teachers, but the sufficiency of the teaching being ensured by a government inspection of schools & by a real & searching examination of pupils. The actual provision of schools by a local rate would not necessarily be required if any schools already existed in the locality which were sufficient for the purpose or which could be made so by aid from the local funds & by inspection. Moreover, a mere consolidation of the already existing school endowments, now mostly jobbed or, at best, very inefficiently applied, would probably enable good instruction to be provided in all localities in which it is not already afforded by private exertions. Of course there must be a Government department to control the employment of these funds, but it does not follow that the teachers need be appointed or directly controlled by any public office. The control might rest in a school committee chosen from the locality itself, perhaps by a mixed system of election & nomination & entrusted with considerable latitude as to all details. These are all points for mature consideration; but a thorough system of instruction for the whole country we must have; & I do not see anything short of a legal obligation which will overcome the indifference, the greed, or the really urgent pecuniary interest of parents.

1172.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Avignon

Jan. 8. 1868

Dear Mr Christie

I am very much obliged to you both for your letter and for sending me your pamphlet and the Bill. In order not to delay returning you the pamphlet (which goes by this post) I have copied out its list of recommendations. I think almost all of them excellent. Above all, you seem to me to be right in having everywhere one public officer who shall perform all the duties connected with elections, and who shall be specially responsible (as far as it is possible to make him so) for doing everything that can be done to keep them pure. You have also perceived the necessity of having an appeal from his decision; since otherwise he would acquire, in the cases not contested before him by the parties, & would carry into the others a habit of indulgence and laisser-aller which would make him as little to be relied on as the Poor Law Inspectors have come to be. But do you not think that the jurisdiction in appeal should be (as the Select Committee propose that the original jurisdiction should be) with one of the Judges, rather than with five M.P.’s named by the Speaker, and a legal Assessor? These M.P.’s would never be impartial. It could not be hoped that they would be better selected than the present Chairmen of Election Committees, and the evidence which you quote from the Corrupt Practices Report shews how confidently parties rely on the partiality of these.

I am acquainted with the Blue Book of 1860, having gone carefully through it some time ago. I am aware of the failure of the Election Auditors; but they were sure to be a failure like Railway Auditors, unless a great deal more was done to ensure their fidelity than was provided for by the Act which created them. I see that we quite agree on the subject, as you give all the powers of the Election Auditor to your Returning Officer, who, if your plan were adopted, would be a very different sort of person from the Election Auditors, and far more in the public eye. I am glad that you require all election expenses to pass through the Returning Officer. I would make him the direct dispenser even of all charities on the part of the member or candidate; otherwise these are sure to be so bestowed as to “keep up the . . . interest.”

The Bill, as altered by the Select Committee, has more good points than I expected. But the £1000 security is a bar to its making much practical improvement. Some such provision is perhaps necessary on Disraeli’s plan, to prevent frivolous petitions by men of straw who could not be made to pay costs. But all such necessity would be obviated by your plan of having an enquiry and scrutiny after every election, by a special officer whose business it would be to watch over elections.

The Bill provides a better system of penalties for bribery than I expected. It is perhaps better that the disqualifications (being so comprehensive and severe as they are) should be for seven years, as proposed, rather than for life; since if they were for life there would be much danger that opinion would be indulgent to every excuse for not inflicting them.

I am
Dear M^r Christie
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

W. D. Christie Esq.

1173.

TO HENRY SOLLY

Avignon, Jan. 8, 1868

. . . I should be very happy to be of use to you in your new undertaking; but . . . there is very little that I can say in recommendation of you that is not already known to the public, and especially to the working men, of whose claims and interests you have so long been a consistent and zealous supporter . . . . My absence from England would in any case prevent me from being able to attend the meeting on the 15th. . . . Very truly yours,

J. S. Mill

1174.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Avignon

Jan. 9. 1868

Dear Chadwick

I quite agree with you as to the inutility of the Cobden Club unless it makes itself an instrument for diffusing good opinions, and several members of the Club have already expressed to me the same feeling. Mr Potter who, I believe, is the real founder of the Club, has told me that he very much wishes to make it useful as a political organ. I think it very desirable that your suggestions should be brought before the managing Committee. This I could do, either by writing them a letter enclosing yours, or by attending a meeting of the Committee (for I am a member, though I have never acted as such) as soon as possible after my return to England, and bringing the subject regularly before them. I will do whichever of the two you prefer. Some good will be done if the Club can be prevailed on to take even a small step in the direction of your proposals. The largest measure you suggest, that of pressing for a Congress to reconsider the international law of Europe on the subject of the commencement of hostilities, has not the smallest chance of leading to anything practical, but the value of the demonstration might be considerable.

I think with you that Mr Leslie’s article on Military Systems is very important, and ought to be made widely known if possible.

I am Dear Chadwick
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1175.

TO WILLIAM LONGMAN

• Avignon

Jan. 9. 1868

Dear Sir—

I thank you for your letter. After consideration I have made up my mind not to print a cheap edition of the Logic at present, but to propose to you to publish a new edition in the same form & on the same terms as the last viz. £500 per an edition of 1500.

1176.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

• Avignon

Jan. 9. 1868

Dear Sir

I am very sorry to say that I have no means of procuring any situation, but I shall most willingly recommend books to you, and after you have read M^r Bain’s treatises I should be glad to hear what sort of impression they make on you, as it would be some help to me in making further recommendations.

I am
yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

1177.

TO SECRETARY, UNIVERSAL FRANCHISE ASSOCIATION

• Avignon

January 16, 1868

Dear Madam—

I have watched the progress of opinion in favor of the enfranchisement of women in America with deep interest, believing that your country is destined to lead the way in this great question, as it has already done in so many others. I learn with great pleasure the formation of your association at Washington, and feel much honored that you have included my name in your Consulting Committee. I inclose a credit of £2 on New York, not having been able to obtain one [on] Washington, being one from myself and the same amount from my step-daughter, Miss Helen Taylor, as subscriptions to your association, and should I have any likely opportunity I will not fail to mention your association among our friends in England, but the cause has in this country, as yet, so few supporters that those among us who are able to give pecuniary help find all their available means absorbed by the expenses necessary for diffusing the principles in our own country. You will hear with interest that a society has been formed in England for the same purpose.

I am, dear Madam, yours, very sincerely,

J. S. Mill

1178.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Avignon

Jan. 17. 1868

Dear Chadwick

I have inclosed your two letters to Mr Potter with one from myself, pressing on him the consideration of them.

I have read the extracts from the Medical Mirror, and I quite feel with you against circulating among the electors, from you or your friends, a mere attack on Lowe. If one candidate puts forth a personal attack upon another (a thing it is seldom wise to do) it should be a weightier, and better considered one than this. But if any one in no way connected with your candidature chooses to circulate it, I do not think you need concern yourself about the matter.

I shall always be ready to put in a timely word for competitive examinations; but I do not know that the present is a particularly favourable time for a motion in Parliament to extend them, and it is still more uncertain whether I have not already quite as much on my hands as I can manage.

I am Dear Chadwick
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1179.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Avignon

Jan. 17. 1868

Dear Mr Christie

The same post which brought your letter, brought the proof from the Law Magazine. The article will do much good, and I wish it were circulated widely among the liberal members of Parliament. It does not, however, remove the few difficulties which your pamphlet had left in my mind. The Chairmen of Election Committees have been less grossly partial since they were a fixed body selected on the responsibility of the Speaker, but they are still believed and expected to lean to their own party. The corruption which was so flagrant as to cause the disfranchisement of Yarmouth, did not make void the seats of the Conservative members, for the Chairman of the Committee was a Conservative. At present what I prefer is the plan you propose, of an investigation after every election, parliamentary or municipal, by a special officer, with the addition of an appeal from that officer to one of the Judges. It is possible indeed, that to make the appeal be to a Committee of the House with legal assessors, might facilitate the passing of the measure. But it is our business to demand what is best, and not to propose a splitting of the difference, though we may accept it if forced.

Unfortunately none of the Members you mention as specially interesting themselves in this subject belong to the advanced Liberal section: unless Pollard Urquhart may be so regarded, and he does not carry weight. They may be made useful, but we shall need others. If you have an opportunity, I think you should try to stir up M’Cullagh Torrens. I mean to do so, but he should be attacked on more sides than one. He is clever, and I have found him dependable upon for things requiring work.

With regard to your personal grievance, I sympathize sincerely and heartily in your feelings respecting it, and it is painful to me to say anything which may look like indifference to the subject. But I think you will enter into the reasons which compelled me, on going into Parliament, to lay down a rule not to take up personal cases. My sole purpose in consenting to be elected, was to do what I could for my opinions on questions of a purely public nature and on which there is no one else in Parliament to speak: and for no object but this should I have thought myself justified in giving up time which was already usefully employed. Now it is quite impossible for me to give my time and labour to the many public questions which have a claim on me, unless I abstain from any other parliamentary business. To get up thoroughly a subject like that of your conduct of the Brazil negociations, so as to be invulnerable to criticism, and certain of not being unjust to any one, would be enough to occupy me almost a whole session. It would not, I think, be wise or right that I should postpone my own proper business in Parliament, for the sake of which alone I am there, in order to do what could be done as well by almost any member of parliament who would take the pains, and by many much better than by me. But I shall be truly glad if the subject is taken up in Parliament, and properly discussed and canvassed so as to bring out all the truth.

I am

Dear Mr Christie
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1180.

TO THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE HOSPICES D’AVIGNON

• S[aint] V[éran]

Jan. 20. 1868

Messieurs—

Permettez-moi de vous exprimer mes sincères remerciments de l’accueil favorable que vous avez bien voulu donner à ma proposition au sujet des arbres en réduisant la redevance annuelle à 21 fr.50.

Il y a pourtant dans votre lettre un petit malentendu, que je dois probablément attribuer à l’insuffisance de mes explications. La concession primitive de 50 arbres ne s’arrêtait pas à la pierre milliaire mais comprenait le premier arbre au delà en sorte que la modification que vous m’avez accordie ne donnerait pas plus qu’auparavant comme borne la pierre milliaire. Pour faire de cette pierre la limite de la concession, ce que serait en effet fort commode, il faudrait comme je l’indiquai dans ma lettre du 8 janvier, réduire le nombre des arbres concédés à 42 au lieu de 43, ce qui entraînerait la réduction de la redevance à 21 fr. par an. Il est vrai que je n’ai tiré jusqu’ici aucun avantage de mon droit au dernier arbre, dont la ceppe a été exploitée par le concessionaire voisin, par suite de l’incertitude de la limite.

1181.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Avignon

Jan. 27. 1868

Dear Chadwick

It would be a very good thing if you could get into Parliament for Bristol even for the present session, but one of the great evils of the present mode of election is that a local man is almost always the one preferred unless some one else is willing to pay a great deal more money. Even Radical Bradford elects a semi-Tory, because he is a local man, in preference to Miall.

I have written to Mr Gladstone expressing in strong terms my sense of the importance of your being in Parliament, with the reasons of it, and of the desirableness of your being on Mr Glyn’s list (Mr George Glyn, the younger of the Glyns, is Mr Brand’s successor as whip). I do not think Mr Gladstone is likely to take the suggestion amiss, and it will at any rate place the matter before his mind.

Can I anywhere find a summary of your recommendations for a legislative measure against corruption at elections? and if not, could you find time to send me one? This subject is to come on, the very day of the reassembling of Parliament.

Ever, my dear Chadwick
yours truly

J. S. Mill

1182.

TO AUGUST JOANNY CHAPÉ

• Avignon

Jan. 27. 1868

Dear Sir—

I much regret to hear of the state of your health. But I hope you are not relying in any degree upon the pecuniary results of the paper you sent me. It is very creditable as the first essay of a beginner, but I believe it to have no chance of being accepted either by a bookseller or by the editor of any paying periodical. Its opinions alone would exclude it from almost every periodical which can afford to pay its contributors. And the opinions & arguments are presented rather as they would be written down for the writer’s own satisfaction, than in the manner of one who is trying to convince or persuade others. I am very sorry if this causes you any disappointment, but I am convinced that to attempt to derive pecuniary fruits from this first attempt would only add to disappointment the loss of time & trouble. Regretting that I have nothing more agreeable to communicate.

1183.

TO THEODOR GOMPERZ

• Avignon

Jan. 27. 1868

Dear M^r Gomperz—

It gave me very great pleasure to see your handwriting once more. But I greatly regret that you should have had the causes of unhappiness to which you allude & respecting which you hold out the hope that I shall hear something from Mr Wessel.

I am truly glad that your labours on the System of Logic will now produce fruits. I am just now revising the book for the seventh edition. There will not be many, nor very important alterations; but I shall be happy to send you the sheets of the new edition, with the alterations marked if it is possible for you to receive them in time.

With respect to the Inaugural Address, I have given permission to a young geologist, Dr Anton Dohrn, of Jena, to translate it into German, & perhaps Mr Grosser would be good enough to communicate with him.

A Dr Sattler has just written to me from Madeira to propose translating the essay on Comte. He refers to Gervinus as a voucher. I have referred him to Mr Grosser.

Dr Wille’s translation of “Considerations on Representative Gov^t” seemed to me when I looked through the first pages of it, to need a good deal of correction.

With respect to introductory matter I should prefer, on every account, that anything of the sort should be written by you. It would be sure to be both valuable in itself and much more fitted to explain and recommend the series of Works to the German public, than anything I could write.

I am unable to give any opinion as to including the “Essays on Unsettled Questions of P. E.” but if a new ed. of them were called for here I should alter the first Essay considerably. It is probably prudent to keep back the book on Hamilton for the present.

I have written a few lines to Mr Grosser in answer to his letter, & have referred him for particulars to you.

I have to thank you for your publications of & respecting the Herculanean MSS which are always very interesting to me.

[P.S.]

I shall be at Blackheath on & after the 12^th of February.

1184.

TO JULIUS GROSSER

• Avignon

Jan. 27. 1868

Dear Sir—

Excuse my writing to you in my own language on account of my want of practice in writing German. It gives me much pleasure to hear of your proposed publication & to know that a person so eminently qualified as my friend Mr Gomperz will furnish some of the translations & exercise a general superintendance over others. I have written to Mr. Gomperz on a few minor particulars for which I beg to refer you to him.

1185.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Avignon

Jan. 27. 1868

Dear Sir

I thank you for your note, and the very satisfactory intelligence it contains respecting your prospects. I wish I had known sooner that the articles in the Daily News on East London distress were written by you, as I should then have been much more particular in reading them. I am glad the Blue Books have been useful. I have no doubt that your Lectures will be instructive to the working men on the points which most concern them. When you feel in doubt on any point of principle on which it is necessary for you to touch, I should at any time with pleasure give you any assistance I could in clearing it up. We shall arrive at Blackheath only just in time for the reassembling of Parliament. Pray give our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer.

I am Dear Mr Plummer
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1186.

TO MARY CARPENTER

• Avignon

Feb. 3, 1868

Dear Madam—

I am glad to find that the letter I sent in answer to yours on the question of Women’s suffrage is thought likely to have a useful influence on the minds of those who read it, and I should be glad to see it printed, as well as more from the same hand, but I should not like to be a party to its being printed with my name, because it was written (as is the case with no inconsiderable portion of my correspondence) by my step-daughter Miss Helen Taylor. Without this help it would be impossible for me to carry on so very voluminous a correspondence as I am at present able to do: and we are so completely one in our opinions and feelings, that it makes hardly any difference which of us puts them into words. It is often with regret that I see attributed to myself work which I think good and which is chiefly hers. In this case (by no means a solitary one) it happened to be entirely hers; what she wrote expressed so perfectly all I could have wished to say, that I transcribed it unaltered. I am sure therefore that you will appreciate the dislike I feel to consenting that it should be published or even printed under my name. If everything said in a private letter is the real opinion or feeling of the person who signs it, it is indifferent whether it is written by him or for him, especially if it is as well done as he could do it. But anything printed comes into the class of literary performances, and I should feel (only in a less degree) as if I were to publish a book written by my daughter with my own name instead of hers prefixed to it.

I am &c

J. S. Mill

1186A.

TO JOHN VENN

• Avignon

Feb. 4. 1868

Dear Sir

I am late in acknowledging the gift of your very valuable work “The Logic of Chance.” As I perceived at once, as well as heard from others who read it, that it well deserved consecutive study, for which pressing occupations left me at the moment no leisure, I laid it by till the time should come when I must necessarily take up the subject in revising my System of Logic for another edition. This time has only recently arrived, and I have availed myself of your criticisms to make several alterations in the corresponding chapters of the book, which alterations however are rather in the mode of expression than in the substance of the opinions expressed.

I think your book very important, both as a contribution to the theory of the subject, and as a corrective to prevalent errors. Your general mode of viewing this class of questions is by far the best and most philosophical I have met with; and while there is evidence of a great agreement between us in our mode of regarding the great problems of inductive philosophy, you have, on this particular subject, thrown light upon many more points than space and time had allowed me to enter into. Your book is one of the highest compliments which could have been paid to mine; for I have scarcely met with any thinker who seems to have so completely assimilated the best thoughts and principles of my book, thereby affording strong indication that your own thoughts had flowed in much the same direction, independently of any external suggestion.

There are, however, some points on which we differ, and on which your book has not convinced me. For one thing, you seem to go farther in rejecting the doctrines of mathematicians on the subject than even I do. If I understand you rightly, you attach little value to the rule for determining the probability by which of several causes a known event has been produced, which rule seems to me to rest on solid grounds, and to be quite reconcileable with the principle that all evaluation of probabilities must depend on appropriate statistics. But our chief difference (not unconnected with this last) consists in your not recognising what I regard as one of the fundamental distinctions in philosophy, that between causal and empirical laws. The root of this difference seems to be the opinion you express that the entire sum of the circumstances which make up the unconditionally invariable antecedent of any effect, is hardly ever repeated. This seems to me, if I may be allowed to say so, a less well-considered opinion than most of yours. If the exact combination of antecedents that is connected with the effect, did not reappear, neither would the effect itself ever reappear, except so far as it might be an effect which had several independent modes of production.

If I had time to enter fully into the subject I should perhaps trouble you with a detailed examination of the arguments in your chapter on Causation. But, from the general evidence of your book, I shall be surprised if you do not end by agreeing with me on this point, by the progress of your own thoughts. On my side, I promise myself that when I have more time to devote to the subject, I shall have still more to learn from your book than I have yet learnt from it, and that at some future time it may help me to expand and improve materially those parts of my Logic.

Again thanking you for the pleasure and instruction you have given me, I am

Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

John Venn Esq

1187.

TO CHARLES HAYES

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

Feb. 15. 1868.

Dear Sir—

I sh^d be happy to support almost any feasible plan which would ensure the regular appropriation of a surplus revenue to the reduction of the national debt. The mode you propose of effecting this is strongly recommended by the close connexion of the subject with the limitation of our coal supply, & plans similar to it have sometimes been suggested. For my own part I am unable to see the force of the strong objection which many public men entertain to any tax on coals. As for the iron manufacturers, Mr Plimsoll has shewn in his letters in the Times that the coal they waste amounts to as great a quantity as their Belgian rivals consume altogether & it would do good instead of harm to compel them by a tax to be more economical. No plan for reducing the debt has a better claim to consideration than yours, but until it has been more discussed it is impossible to come to a positive opinion in favour of it.

1188.

TO WILLIAM TALLACK

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

Feb. 15. 1868

Sir

In reply to your communication I beg to say that I would rather not sign the form recommending the Address of the Howard Association “to the consideration of influential persons,” because the form, though not expressly declaring, would be understood to imply, an adhesion, not only to the opinions expressed in the Address, but to the objects of the Association, some of which I highly approve, but from others of which, I dissent.

I am Sir
yours very faithfully

J. S. Mill

William Tallack Esq

1189.

TO DAVID MASSON

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

Feb. 16. 1868

Dear Mr Masson

I must apologize for giving you further trouble on the subject of my daughter’s article which you were so kind as to forward to Mr Macmillan, but as she has no other copy, and as we observe that Mr Macmillan does not undertake to return articles unless the name and address are written on them, a condition which was not complied with in this instance, we hope you will excuse our having recourse to your good offices to obtain the return of the article, if it should not be found to suit the Magazine.

I hope that your anxiety about Mrs Masson’s health is now over. I am

Dear Mr Masson
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1190.

TO THOMAS JOSEPH HASLAM

Feb. 19. 1868

Dear Sir

I am very happy to hear of so decided an improvement in your state of health, and of the progress of the movement for women’s suffrage in Dublin.

I thank you for your pamphlet. Nothing can be more important than the question to which it relates, nor more laudable than the purpose it has in view. About the expediency of putting it into circulation, in however quiet a manner, you are the best judge. My opinion is that the morality of the matter lies wholly between married people themselves, and that such facts as those which the pamphlet communicates ought to be made known to them by their medical advisers. But we are very far from that point at present, and in the meanwhile every one must act according to his own judgment of what is prudent and right. I am

Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

T. J. Haslam Esq.

1191.

TO WILLIAM WOOD

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 19. 1868

Dear Sir

I have received your two letters (under one cover) and have read them with the same pleasure which all your former letters have given me. On all the subjects on which you have yet given me the benefit of an expression of your opinions, they appear to me not only sound and rational, but comprehensive; and what you call your “besetting weakness”, that of always referring questions to first principles, and treating them as wholes, or in other words looking at all the cases together which fall under the same or similar principles, seems to me to be the source of your strength.

I hope that you will continue to favour me with similar communications at your leisure, and that you will let me know when there is anything I can do to help you. I might be sometimes useful in lending you books that you may not have access to at Hanley. I am

Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Mr William Wood.

1192.

TO LINDSEY MIDDLETON ASPLAND

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

Feb. 23. 1868

Dear Sir—

I am sorry that the resolution adopted by the Jamaica Committee sh^d deprive them of the benefit of your cooperation. But the fact that it does so reveals a fundamental difference of opinion between you & the majority of the C^ee as to the mode in which a struggle like that which they have undertaken, sh^d be carried on. This is not like a contest for some political improvement, in which the only question is whether it shall be obtained a little sooner or a little later. Ours is, morally, a protest against a series of atrocious crimes, & politically an assertion of the authority of the criminal law over public delinquents. This protest & vindication must be made now or never: & to relinquish the effort while a single unexhausted chance remains would be, in my estimation, to make ourselves to some extent participants in the crime. Suppose it to be certain that we shall fail in bringing the criminal to justice, still there will be a portion of the nation that will have held out to the last & refused to condone the guilt, & it is better for the future that even one person should have done this than that the national judgment sh^d go in favour of the criminal with universal, at least passive acquiescence. You talk of leaving Eyre to contempt. What he would be left to is boastful triumph, followed by the fruits of victory in the shape of lucrative Government employment, probably with power to do again what he has done, & with undiminished if not increased disposition to do it. He has, after years of skulking, come over & defied us doubtless for this express purpose, & were we not to accept his challenge we sh^d be justly reproached for our past conduct toward him since we sh^d shrink from meeting him before the tribunal which we have been invoking as the proper judge of his guilt or innocence.

1193.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 23. 1868

Dear Chadwick

I have received the inclosed note from Louis Blanc. Can you give his friend —who is a man of some distinction—any help in the matter?

After I wrote to you the other day, the inclosed slip of paper was handed to me from Mr Gladstone. I suppose you are by this time in communication with Mr Glyn.

ever yrs truly

J. S. Mill

1194.

TO LORD HOBART

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 23. 1868

My dear Lord

There are few persons whose complete adhesion to the opinions expressed in my pamphlet could have given me more pleasure and encouragement than yours. I am truly glad to find the deep sense I entertain of the necessity of a radical change in the relations of the people of Ireland to the soil and the formidable and growing danger of the attempts to palter with the subject by measures which scarcely touch the evil, confirmed by an equally strong conviction on your part. Though every day shews more and more the incapacity of our governing classes to use their minds to any purpose on the subject, there is a hopeful change taking place in the minds of some other portions of the public; and if the Reform Act, when it comes into operation, fulfils in other respects the hopes that have been founded on it, we may hope that it will lead to a less prejudiced consideration of the measures necessary for Ireland. If not, I agree with you in thinking that the ultimate issue (after a period of great suffering, crime, and national disaster) will be separation.

I am my dear Lord
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

The Lord Hobart.

1195.

TO GEORGE WALKER

• Blackheath Park

Feb. 26. 1868

Dear Sir

Sir Robert Collier’s application for a warrant against Mr Eyre will be made tomorrow (Thursday) as the case has never yet been brought before the public in a manner satisfactory to those who consider Eyre as a great public criminal, it is of great importance that Sir Robert Collier’s speech should be correctly and fully reported. The Jamaica Committee will therefore employ a short hand writer to take it down, and a copy of the report, corrected by Mr Shaen and with mere surplusage cut out, will be sent to the Daily News in the course of the evening. I hope that you will think it desirable and find it practicable to insert the report in your paper. I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

George Walker Esq.

1196.

TO LOUIS BLANC

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

le 29 février
1868

Mon cher Monsieur Louis Blanc

Je me suis addressé à celui de mes amis qui est le plus au courant du personnel de l’éducation militaire, à M. Chadwick, pour avoir des renseignements sur le Conseil, et j’ai reçu de lui la réponse ci-jointe. Comme lui, je crois qu’il y a peu à espérer pour votre ami d’une recommandation libérale quelconque. Celle des autorités de Sandhurst College pourrait être plus efficace, en supposant qu’il n’y a pas de parti pris de nommer quelqu’un par faveur, ou par intérêt politique.

votre tout dévoué

J. S. Mill.

1197.

TO M. E. GRANT DUFF

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

Feb. 29 [1868]

Dear Sir

I have just received an answer from Heligoland which I have the pleasure of forwarding to you.

The long adjournment of the House seems to be a mere expedient of the the Government to gain time. It will help towards making the present session of Parliament a useless one. I am

Dear Sir
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

M. E. Grant Duff Esq. M.P.

1198.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath Park

March 1. 1868

Dear Mr Cairnes

I was disappointed that your letter did not report a further progress in the improvement of your health. It is something, however, that your letter is in your own handwriting, which it was a great pleasure again to see.

I thank you for Mr Nesbitt’s paper, which I was very glad to have an opportunity of reading. My opinion on the Education question is exactly what it was, namely, entirely with you, up to the limits of practicability. What either Disraeli or Gladstone intend or desire on that subject will probably appear in the debate on the state of Ireland, which has been, probably with set purpose, staved off till next week by the adjournment of the House. The question is now getting involved with that of the endowment or disendowment of the churches, and it is impossible to foresee what may be proposed. But I fear that whatever is done, the change will be for the worse.

I hope you received a pamphlet of mine on the land question, with the practical conclusions of which I am afraid you will not agree. But all the public signs, and all the authentic private information I have access to, tend to shew that nothing short of what I propose would now tranquillize Ireland, or reconcile the Irish people to the Union. And I am sure that nothing less than some very startling proposal would have any chance of whipping up the languid interest of English public men in the subject, and making them feel the critical nature of the situation, or exert their minds to understand it. On the whole I have met with more approbation, and not more abuse, than I expected.

About our relations with the United States, there seems less cause of uneasiness than there was some time ago. The principal newspapers on both sides have grown, in comparison, conciliatory, and I do not despair of a quiet settlement both of the Alabama claims and of the naturalization question.

Ever, my dear Mr Cairnes
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1199.

TO WILLIAM WOOD

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

March 5. 1868

Dear Sir

Your letter of the 2nd inst. gave me the pleasure your letters always do. Were I to enter into the subjects on which it touches, there would be much to be said; but it is not necessary to do so in order to express my agreement with the opinions stated in your letter, which appear to me thoroughly sound and enlightened.

I am, unfortunately, very poor in recent treatises on practical science, of which I hardly possess one. In regard to works of general literature, you would oblige me by mentioning those which you say you would like to possess. I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Mr William Wood

1200.

TO WILLIAM ALLINGHAM

• Blackheath Park, Kent

March 8, 1868

Dear Sir—

I duly received the copy of Laurence Bloomfield in Ireland, and the pressure of occupations alone prevented me from thanking you for it. I had read all of it previously as it came out in Fraser’s Magazine, and was much pleased with its spirit and tendency.

I hope there may be a chance that the same ability and the same principles may be employed in a prose discussion of the remedies for Irish evils.

I am Dear Sir,
yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

W. Allingham, Esq.

1201.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

March 8. 1868

Dear Mr Christie

Thanks for your explanations. I inclose a recommendation in the form of a letter to you, which I hope may answer your purpose.

I said nothing on the second reading of the Bribery Bill, as the House were evidently unwilling to discuss the subject until they see the promised alterations. But the going into Committee pro forma next Thursday, or more seriously on a later day, may afford a better occasion; and we shall, I hope, have had our meeting before that time. I am

Dear Mr Christie
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1202.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Blackheath Park, Kent

March 8. [1868]

Dear Mr. Christie,—

I am extremely glad that you intend to present yourself as a candidate to the electors of the Stirling Burghs. The Scotch burghs have long supplied the House with some of the best and most to be depended on of the advanced Liberals, and I believe that you, if elected, would be worthy of a place among the number. There would, moreover, be a peculiar propriety in your return to Parliament by a constituency so free from electoral corruption as those of Scotland have proved themselves to be; since you have thought to greater purpose on the means of preventing electoral corruption, and are likely to be of more service in passing measures for that vitally important end than any other person whom I could name. Your diplomatic experience, and your knowledge of the mode in which our foreign affairs are conducted, would be of great value in Parliament, acquired as that knowledge was in the course of an honourable service, of the rewards of which you have been deprived for no obvious reason but that an interested clamour was raised against some parts of your official conduct, the authors of which, by general admission, failed to make good any imputation against you, unless it be an imputation to have made yourself disagreeable to those who were endeavouring to evade the fulfilment of their national obligations.—I am, dear Mr. Christie, very truly yours,

J. S. Mill

W. D. Christie, Esq.

1203.

TO THOMAS HARE

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

March 8. 1868

Dear Mr. Hare

I send you a paper I have received from Mr. Boyd Kinnear. He seems a good deal shaken in his opposition. And he is a person well worth gaining over to the plan, if possible.

The article in Tuesday’s Times (I suppose by Mr. Courtney) will give the question a new and much more advanced position than it has yet had. Your proposal for a Conference is producing splendid fruits. The perfectly intelligent adhesion of so many leaders of the working men at the meeting, is most encouraging.

ever yrs truly

J. S. Mill

1204.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath

March 10. 1868

Dear Mr Cairnes

The pamphlet may have missed you through being directed Poste Restante, as I did not then know your address at Nice. I send another copy by this post. You will not find in it much argument, of a nature to remove any difficulties which you are likely to feel. The object was to strike hard, and compel people to listen to the largest possible proposal. This has been accomplished, and now the time is come for discussing in detail the manner in which the plan, if adopted, would work. I do not share your hopes that anything much short of what I have proposed, would give peace or prosperity to Ireland in union with England: but if there is any intermediate course which would do so, its adoption is likely to be very much promoted by frightening the Government and the landlords with something more revolutionary; as even the Saturday Review admits.

The great Irish debate begins tonight, and in the course of it I shall probably have an opportunity of answering the practical objections to my proposal.

I am
Dear Mr Cairnes
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1205.

TO MARY SOMERVILLE

• Blackheath Park, Kent

March 11, 1868

Dear Madam

I must beg of you to excuse my addressing you, which I do on account of the very great interest I take in the matter on which I write, and the earnest desire I feel that you may accede to the request I am commissioned to make to you.

I believe you have already heard that a Society was formed last year for endeavouring to extend the franchise to women, and in this Society I take a warm interest, and have been glad to see many of my friends join it.

Looking upon your own justly honoured name as the one which, before all others, the Society would be proud to include among its members, I was much gratified when, some months ago, I heard that you had consented to join it. But I am now informed by Mrs Taylor, the Secretary of the Society (to whose disinterested zeal and energy we are all much indebted) that on enquiring of Miss Cobbe, from whom she received the notification of your willingness to join us, whether she should put down your name and those of your daughters as members of the General Committee, or as members of the Society, she finds some uncertainty on this matter, and that Miss Cobbe hesitates to say more than that she is certain of your “approval.” In this uncertainty, I am commissioned by Mrs Taylor to express to you her deep regret if unwittingly your name has been made use of without your own full sanction; and at the same time, to beg of you to permit your name and those of Miss Somerville and Miss M. Somerville to be placed on the General Committee. I greatly regret if there has been any misunderstanding, but Mrs Taylor tells me that she was under the impression that you had received copies of the Circular of the Society, and had given your consent to become a member after having seen them: and it is only when printing a list of the subscribers that she finds her friend unwilling to define in which list your name is to be inserted, though quite certain of your approval of the aims of the Society.

You will see by the papers I inclose, that the Society consists, besides the Executive Committee: Firstly, of a General Committee, consisting of annual subscribers of one guinea, who are not responsible for the management; who, in giving their names, are considered to give in an adhesion only to the specific object of the Society, the extension of the franchise to women. Secondly, of ordinary members, consisting of all subscribers of one shilling or upwards, less than one guinea. Some of our most valued members belong to this latter portion, and I beg that you will allow your name to be included in one of the two: certain as I am that in doing so you will give the weight and dignity of the living name to which English-women justly look up with the greatest pride, to help a movement better calculated than any other to enable women in general to attain a position more worthy of them than that which they now hold, and one better fitted to make them of use to the world.

I am Dear Madam with the greatest respect

Yours sincerely

J. S. Mill

1206.

TO THEODOR GOMPERZ

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

March 18. 1868

My dear Mr Gomperz—

I hope you received the sheets of the First Book of the new edition of the “System of Logic.” There were no alterations in it that were at all worth being attended to by a translator, except a correction (suggested by Mr Grote) in the statement in the chapter on Verbal & Real Questions regarding a passage of Porphyry.

I have directed the printer to send you immediately the remaining sheets of the first volume & I now inclose the only pages of the old edition (as far as the printer has yet reached) which contain any alterations worth attending to. They are, as you will see, mostly of little importance. I will make sure that the sheets of vol. 2 are sent to you without any avoidable delay.

1207.

TO NICHOLAS KILBURN

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

March 18. 1868.

Dear Sir—

I have to thank you for your enclosure & inquiry. It is the first time I have ever heard that I was a believer in Spiritualism, & I am not sorry to be able to suppose that some of the other names I have seen mentioned as believers in it are no more so than myself.

For my own part I not only have never seen any evidence that I think of the slightest weight in favour of Spiritualism but I sh^d also find it very difficult to believe any of it on any evidence whatever: And I am in the habit of expressing my opinion to that effect very openly whenever the subject is mentioned in my presence.

You are at liberty to make any use you please of this letter.

1208.

TO CHARLES ELIOT NORTON

• Blackheath Park, Kent

March 18, 1868

Dear Sir

It is a worthy act on the part of the New England Loyal Publication Society, to resume its operations for the purpose of contending against the deplorable doctrines now afloat in the United States about currency and the obligation of contracts. A breach of faith with the national creditor by the people of the United States, under whatever disguise, would be, in my estimation, the most unfortunate event for the morality of the world, and for the reputation and progress of free institutions, which at the present time could possibly happen; and of all modes of defrauding the public creditor, that of cancelling the debt by handing over to him a vast quantity of paper depreciated to worthlessness by excessive issue, would be, in its practical operation, the worst. If, as you do me the honour of thinking, anything that I could write on the subject could in the smallest degree aid your exertions to ward off this calamity from your country and from mankind, I should feel bound in duty to what little I can for the purpose. Unfortunately, it is impossible for me to write anything requiring care and concentration of thought during the session of parliament. But to the extent of a letter, or a short article adapted for a newspaper, I could promise: and if you would kindly let me know the form and mode of publication which you would prefer I will do my best to meet your wishes. I am Dear Sir

very sincerely yours

J. S. Mill

Charles Eliot Norton Esq.

1208A.

TO JOHN VENN

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

March 18. 1868

Dear Sir

I thank you very sincerely for your further remarks in illustration of the matters treated in your book. I shall keep them by me for a fuller and more deliberate consideration than it is in my power to give them during the session of Parliament. I will merely, at present, say a few words on a single point; the flaw which seems to you to exist in the theory of the predictability of human history, from the influence which the foresight itself may have in modifying the facts foreseen. This influence is real, but does not seem to me to affect the theory; for the self-consciousness of mankind, and their foresight of their own future, is itself a foreseeable and calculable element. It might have been predicted by a superior being that at such and such an epoch in the development of the human mind, mankind would begin to perceive the law of their own future, and that their perception would modify the future in such and such a way.

There is an inconsistency though only a verbal one, between the two passages which you cite from my Political Economy.

Your examination papers in Political Economy are very thorough and searching.

You are most welcome to use any part of my letter as a testimonial, provided it is so used as to shew that it was not written with a view to the present vacancy in the Examinership in Logic; as, with regard to that vacancy any influence it is in my power to exercise is preengaged in favour of another highly qualified candidate.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

J. Venn Esq

1209.

TO FLORENCE MAY

[after March 22, 1868]

Dear Madam—

I am much interested by the observations in your letter & by the evidence it affords of how very deeply you feel the consequences of the subordination of women although you have not been in the habit of tracing them to their cause. Women of every age & of every position in life with very few exceptions suffer from some one or other of the evils that are the natural results of political subordination. There are some few women who can scarcely be said to suffer personally from these evils, & who are even so fortunate that their intellect itself is freed by happy accident from the numbing effects of the education & position of women. But that indignation & fervent desire of redress which these few do not feel on their own account, they will be likely to feel all the more deeply for the sake of others; and suffering themselves from no one particular grievance, may be perhaps the better qualified to see what is the common root of the many grievances from which others are suffering.

Those two which you particularly mention, the want of education & the want of a career, are probably those most deeply & pressingly felt at present in our own country among educated women of the class of ladies. And although I think it would be easy to trace the still more sad & bitter sufferings of married women & women among the poor to a political cause, still these two are among the evils which are most evidently the consequence of political defranchisement [. . . ?] would be most speedily & easily removed by opening the suffrage to women.

How very quickly public attention to the education of a class follows upon opening the franchise to that class we have all of us seen within the last year in the sudden & universal interest in the education of the poor which has followed upon our new Reform Bill. It is not going too far to say that six months have done more with the aid of the Reform Bill to ripen public opinion in the matter of popular education than 20 years with the aid of all the most enlightened thinkers & writers among us. On the other side we see how very little extensive endowments will do if those for whose benefit they have been made have not the power of insuring their application; since there is scarcely one if one of all the educational endowments in the country, most of which were originally made for poor boys & girls, which have not been long ago appropriated to the boys of those classes which possess political influence. And I am persuaded that if women in this country urged by a strong feeling of the importance of the education of women to found magnificent institutions for that object, and to train women without any votes, a century or two hence would see them all silently lapsed into the hands of those who possess by the vote the power of attending to their own interests. It is not by accident that this has happened hitherto with all our endowments, nor is it by any extraordinary perversity or wickedness. It is by the steady & invariable pressure of self interest in all human affairs, for make what regulations you will, somebody must enforce them; they will not enforce themselves; & those among the persons affected who have the power to enforce them will be active in enforcing what concerns themselves, & will by mere forgetfulness & negligence, if from nothing worse, let what does not, lapse into the oblivion & neglect which have been the fate of the regulations concerning the poorer scholars in almost all our magnificent endowments for education. Give to women a vote & it will be worth while to educate them, as it is now thought worth while to educate the working classes. Give to women a vote & they will begin to ask what has become of the funds for the education of girls in our existing endowments & when a voter asks a candidate a question, the question will not be pooh poohed as feminine talk. Give to women a vote, & new institutions arising from the new sense of the importance of women in the world will not be turned aside from the objects for which they were intended.

The closing of all careers to women is still more obviously the consequence of their political insignificance. A lady who takes much interest in this subject has taken some pains to point out the many ways in which the mere fact of having no vote causes women applicants for employment to be passed over. The daughters & widows of farmers have the greatest difficulty in inducing, & only can induce a few philanthropic landlords to permit them to retain the farms of their fathers & husbands because a woman has no vote & the landlord likes all his tenants to vote for his own candidates. Postmistresses & other little functionaries are disappearing to the level at which voters begin because all these little places are given through the influence of members of Parl^t, who naturally give them to voters. In France some years ago many hundred women were employed as clerks in telegraph offices; since the lowering of the suffrage in that country to all the men, no fresh women clerks have been appointed. I need scarcely point out to you how all these things throw hundreds of women upon such few means of earning their bread as men cannot keep for themselves, & make the pressure of competition greater & the chance of success less even in these few. But it is evident that these same principles are at work in all those departments of life which might furnish what may properly be called a career as distinguished from a mere living. Parliament decides the rules by which entry into all professions is governed & a parl^t consisting of men elected by men only, either expressly excludes women or more often leaves the drawing up of those rules to a body of professional men who shut out women with all the jealousy of rivals. Thus it is that the medical profession threatens to be closed against women as well as all public employments.

But I feel sure that as you come to reflect on these subjects you will be peculiarly able to see the working of several principles, & I will do myself the pleasure of forwarding some of the papers & publications of the Society for Women’s Suffrage.

1210.

TO JOHN A. ELLIOTT

24 March, 1868

If my circumstances permitted me to help all who want aid, or even all authors who want aid, and if I had the pleasure of knowing anything of yourself otherwise than through your writings, the repugnance I feel to the opinions expressed in those writings would very likely be no bar to sympathy and interest in your individual self. But as my own motive for writing has always been the desire to defend and to excite sympathy for that which I hold to be the highest of all causes, that liberty against which the system of Slavery is the deepest outrage, I can never see any attempt to hold up Slaveholders to sympathy without deep regret.

1211.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

March 29, 1868

Dear M^r Christie

You will have seen that in Thursday’s debate I broke ground on the subject of the two or three most important of your suggestions respecting a bribery bill. I think my doing so has done some good. There seems so much difficulty in bringing the various MP’s who have been spoken to on the subject to meet together, that I have determined to act without reference to any meeting, and have therefore given notice of an amendment for the prohibition of paid canvassers, and have suggested several other amendments which I am endeavouring to induce suitable members to move. I am told that I may expect a good deal of support even from Tories on the subject of paid canvassers.

I am sorry that you found no opening at Stirling, but since you think my letter calculated to be of use, I am glad it was published, since it helps to make you generally known as a candidate. I am Dear Mr Christie

very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1212.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

March 31. [1868]

Dear Chadwick

To write a paper on the education question, or to open a debate on it, are more than I can at present undertake; but when the day is fixed for renewing the discussion, I will attend, and probably speak.

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1213.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

March 31. 1868

Dear Mr Christie

I much regret that I have given my order for Friday—and could have given many others if I had had them to give. The demand for orders this week is the greatest I have known.

M^r Torrens has undertaken one of the amendments, and I am in communication with other members. In drawing up my clause prohibiting paid canvassers, I shall include another important suggestion of yours, the limitation to one paid agent. Otherwise, as has been well remarked to me, the canvassers would simply be retained as agents.

I shall put the clause or clauses on the paper on Friday, and should be very glad of any suggestions from you in the meantime as to the wording of it. I suppose I must take some lawyer into counsel.

I will either ask, or get some one to ask, the question you suggest about Municipal Elections.

I at once set down the very useful article in the Pall Mall Gazette to you. I wish it had been some one else, as any one else would probably have mentioned your pamphlet as the source from which my proposals were taken. I am

Dear M^r Christie
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1214.

TO MARY SOMERVILLE

• Blackheath Park, Kent

March 31, 1868

Dear Madam

Your letter gave me very great pleasure, both personally, and for the sake of the cause in which I am glad to know from yourself that your interest is already of old date. I now write to ask of you a further service to that cause—a service the value of which will probably be less in your own eyes, than in those of any other person connected with the movement. Petitions in considerable numbers are coming in; a dozen or more have already been presented, and many others are in the hands of members, from various places, great and small; but there will be one, promoted by the London Branch of the Society, to be presented by myself in May signed both by women and men which far exceeds in number of signatures all hitherto presented. It has already nearly 14000 signatures, many of them names of great weight, and many more are expected. Now it would not only be felt a great honour by the promoters, but would also be of great value to the cause, if you would allow the first signature to this petition to bear your name.

In the hope that you will not refuse us this favour, I inclose what will, in that case, be the first sheet of the voluminous document, and I beg you to return it to me at the address which heads this letter. I am

Dear Madam
very sincerely yours

J. S. Mill

Mrs Somerville

1215.

TO WILLIAM WOOD

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

April 2. 1868

Dear Sir

Your letter dated March 16 was like all your letters, very interesting to me. It is a real pleasure to receive them.

I do not happen to have in my possession spare copies of any of the books in your list but I have little doubt of being able to procure some of them. Milton’s Prose Works however are not easy to be met with. Some of the books you mention are French: is it translations that you wish for, or have you been enabled to learn to read French books in the original?

The Mr De Morgan who died lately is, I am sorry to say, a son of the eminent mathematician with whom you have corresponded.

I inclose a petition which is in course of signature, and as I know you agree with its sentiments, should be glad if you would sign it or get it signed by men or women who agree with it and send it back to me. It has already been signed by 14,000 persons, and it is found that working women are very often willing to sign it. I am Dear Sir

yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

Mr William Wood

1216.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

April 3. 1868

Dear Mr Christie

Many thanks for your very valuable cautions. I shall not finally draw up my clauses until I receive your further suggestions. It is only too clear that we have plenty of time.

Mr Disraeli’s answer to my question was civil but in no degree satisfactory. In fact the enquiring into municipal corruption in any effectual manner seems to depend on the creation of the permanent officers proposed by you which is inconsistent with the general plan of his Bill. I am afraid this main principle of your plan will have to wait for the rejection of the Government Bill, or for the failure of it in practice if adopted. Perhaps you can suggest some mode of bringing it before the House by way of amendment. I am quite ready to do so if you think it expedient.

Mr Hibbert, who is rather clever as well as careful in framing amendments will probably propose at least one amendment carrying out one of your proposals. Mr Fawcett is willing, if wanted, to propose other amendments besides those of which he has given notice, & I have other members in view. So that, among us, we have the subject well in hand and shall be able to force on a series of discussions.

Dear Mr Christie
yrs very truly

J. S. Mill

[P.S.] Serjeant Pulling has sent me his two articles from the Law Review. His plans seem to agree very much in principle with yours.

1217.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

• Avignon

le 7 avril 1868

Mademoiselle

Je n’avais pas fait tirer à part des exemplaires de mon discours sur l’Irlande, mais puisque vous me faites l’honneur d’en désirer un, je l’ai commandé exprès pour le Journal des Economistes, qui, je l’espère, le recevra prochainement.

Quant à la traduction, je n’ai pas pu faire un erratum en temps convenable pour le Journal. Du reste, je ne tenais à faire des corrections à la traduction que dans le cas où par hasard on aurait l’intention de la publier séparément.

Ma fille me charge, Mademoiselle, de vous transmettre ses salutations amicales, et je vous prie d’agréer l’hommage de mes sentiments de haute estime et d’amitié.

J. S. Mill

1218.

TO LUCY STONE

• Avignon

April 14, 1868

Dear Madam

I have had the pleasure of receiving your letter of the 23rd ult. I beg to express not only my earnest wishes, but my confident hopes for the success of the efforts which the American Association for Equal Rights is carrying on to obtain the full rights of citizenship for every subject of the United States, and especially for that moiety of the nation who, though the imaginary disqualification of difference of race and blood cannot be alleged in their case, are denied a voice in those public interests which concern them in the same manner and in the same degree as the other moiety. In this country the political enfranchisement of women is gaining ground rapidly in public opinion, and if the cause is thus prospering in the old country, which has never yet professed to ground its political institutions on principles of equal justice, but chiefly on historical precedent, how much more ought it to prosper in the United States, the very foundation of whose institutions is the equality of all human beings in the eye of the law and of the constitution, and who proclaimed that great devotion in the memorable document by which they first attested their existence as a nation. There is no true democracy where large classes of the community are denied equality of political rights. Every Government which permanently divides its people into a governing part and a governed part is an aristocratic Government, by whatever name it may be called, and I am convinced that the people of the United States of both political parties are capable of seeing this, and, attached as they both are to the general principles of democratic government, only need a persevering appeal to their reason and good feelings to induce them to free their constitution from the remains of the old system of privileged orders and arbitrary disqualifications.—I am, dear Madam, sincerely and respectfully yours,

J. S. Mill

Mrs. Lucy Stone

1219.

TO LYON PLAYFAIR

• Avignon

April 16. 1868

Dear Sir

I shall certainly oppose the attempt to reduce the four Scottish universities to one representative in Parliament when Trinity College, Dublin, has two.

Scotland owes much more to her universities than either England or Ireland to theirs, and they have been far greater diffusers of a Liberal education. To treat the people’s universities so much worse than the universities of the higher ranks is quite according to custom, but ought to be resisted to the utmost.

In the same spirit, the present Irish Reform Bill gives no representation at all to the Queen’s University. I am

Dear Sir
y^rs very truly

J. S. Mill

Prof. Lyon Playfair

1220.

TO PROFESSOR CARL ADOLF BUCHHEIM

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

April 20, 1868

Mr Mill presents his compliments to Professor Buchheim, and feels honoured by the request made in his note of the 18^th inst. If the extracts were voluminous, the consent of the publishers, Messrs Longmans and Co, would be necessary, as well as that of Mr Mill, which he would be most willing to give: but for extracting “a short passage”, it is a proof of delicacy of feeling on Professor Buchheim’s part that he should have deemed any permission to be required.

1221.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

April 20. 1868

Dear Mr Christie—

The Bribery Bill stands for Thursday, after the Budget; and as the Budget is not likely to afford much matter for discussion, it may leave time for beginning the passage of the Bribery Bill through Committee. This, however, it will be hardly possible to know till the time comes. I will endeavour to learn what the Government intend or expect, but I do not believe they will be willing, or probably able, to tell me. Unless they do, I can hardly avoid putting my clauses on the paper before Thursday. But they can be altered or enlarged afterwards, a thing continually done.

I should be sorry if I thought we really differed about extradition treaties. I am quite in favour of extradition of real criminals, but I hold strongly the necessity of so defining the crimes for which it can be demanded, that offences really political may not be included, under cover of the names of ordinary crimes: e.g. Louis Napoleon’s shooting the sentinel at Boulogne under the crime of murder. I would adopt a proviso to except cases in which the offence formed part of an armed insurrection, or of an attempt to excite an armed insurrection for the purpose of effecting changes in the government. The preliminary enquiry previous to extradition must of course go fully into this question. I am

Dear Mr Christie
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

W. D. Christie Esq.

1222.

TO WILLIAM LONGMAN

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

April 20. 1868

Dear Sir—

It is a very difficult thing to find a person competent to edit Hume’s Philosophical Works as the editor ought to be highly instructed both in the deepest philosophical speculations & in their history & capable besides of original thinking & writing of a high order of philosophy. This applies even to the Essays, apart from the Treatise on Human Nature. But, with a little more time to think about it I may be able to suggest some one who could perform the work at least not discreditably.

I am much obliged by your answer to my question about my father’s copyrights. The “Elements of Political Economy” were first published at the end of 1821 or beginning of 1822: the third edition, (considerably altered & enlarged) came out in 1826. The “Analysis” was published in 1829 & the “Fragment on Mackintosh” in 1835.

Can there be any unauthorized publication of selections from my writings, to which the order you have received has reference? or what can be the nature of the misunderstanding?

I have had an application, which will probably be made to you, for permission to reprint some chapters or parts of chapters of the P. of P. Econ to be used in Victoria against the Protectionists. I have answered that I myself sh^d be very happy, but it cannot be done without your consent.

1223.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

April 22. 1868

Dear Mr Christie—

I have ascertained that the Bribery Bill will certainly not be brought on this week.

Hibbert has undertaken to move an amendment providing that all payments shall be made through the returning officer.

1224.

TO PETER DEML

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

April 22, 1868

Dear Sir—

I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 14^th inst.

Your purpose of endeavouring to improve the popular discussion of the remedies for poverty, by substituting reason & science for vague declamation, is most laudable & commands my strongest sympathy. You will render a great service by diverting the attention of thinkers & of the working classes to the close connexion between the rate of wages & the ratio of population to the means of subsistence & employment. At the same time you doubtless agree with me in thinking that this is only one of several causes which conspire to determine the good or bad material condition of the labourer. It would not be a correct view of my opinions to suppose that I think everything wrong in the doctrines of Socialism; on the contrary I think that there are many elements of truth in them, & that much good may be done in that direction, especially by the progress of the Cooperative movement, now so successfully commenced in most of the leading countries of Europe. Since you do me the honour to be a reader of my writings, I may be permitted to refer you, on this subject, to the chapter of my “Principles of P.E.” entitled “The Probable Future of the Labouring Classes,” which expresses in a sufficiently distinct manner the position I take up with regard to this class of questions.

1225.

TO JAMES TRASK

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

April 22. 1868

Dear Sir—

I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 20^th inst. & its inclosures.

Even labourers who have the means of saving from their wages, (which cannot be said of the first person mentioned in your letter) must if they have not done so, be relieved at times of temporary inability to work; but there ought to be legal means of recovering the amount from their wages as soon as they are again able to earn. By the poor law of 1834 power was I believe, given to guardians to grant temporary loans to persons in distress: certainly this power was given in the original bill & I am not aware of its having been struck out though I am surprised at never having heard of its being used.

I do not think it beyond the competence of a government to compel all its subjects to insure against the various evils of life—which is the principle of your proposed National Friendly Society. But I think it much better simply to afford them facilities for doing so without employing compulsion, and I do not believe that a compulsory measure would be carried unless long & thorough previous discussion had led the working classes themselves to demand it. Neither, I think, would it ever be felt to be just to take compulsory measures against the improvidence of the labouring classes, leaving that of all other classes free.

1226.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

April 23. 1868

Dear Sir

My daughter desires me to say, that she would be most happy to be in any way of use to the Review, but that she is at present too much occupied to be able to undertake the work you propose, and that moreover she has not sufficient knowledge of the subject to feel competent to it. She thinks that a more capable person for the work, if she would consent to undertake it, would be Mrs Fawcett.

The inclosures in your note are very interesting. I hope your professional prospects continue to improve. I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Dr Chapman

1227.

TO THEODOR GOMPERZ

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

April 23, 1868

My dear Mr Gomperz—

Many thanks for your letter. All that you have done and are doing in respect to the edition of my writings seems to me highly judicious. I am most happy in accepting Mr Wessel’s offer to translate the Dissertations & Discussions & to retranslate the Representative Gov^t. It is a rare good fortune to find a translator with such a union of eminent qualifications certified by such a witness as you. And it is the greater satisfaction to me on account of his intimacy with yourself, & of the sincere esteem which I conceived for him personally during the short period of our intercourse.

In the case of D^r Sattler I hope I did not omit to mention that I know nothing of his qualifications except that he referred to Gervinus as an authority for them. I am therefore very glad that you intend to make corrections if they sh^d be needed. I hope D^r Soetbeer has brought up his translation of the Pol. Econ. to the latest edition.

With respect to the Inaugural Address assuming that D^r Dohrn who holds my written authority for translating it, waives that authority, I gladly place it at your discretion as well as the “Utilitarianism” & I inclose on a separate piece of paper an authority for the translation by any person whom you select. With regard to the passage you mention in the Utilitarianism I have not had time regularly to rewrite the book, & it had escaped my memory that you thought that argument apparently though not really fallacious which proves to me the necessity of, at least, further explanation & development. I beg that in the translation you will kindly reserve that passage to yourself, & will remove the stumbling block, by expressing the real argument in such terms as you think will express it best.

I am very curious to know your answer to Mr Grote’s arguments about the Platonic Canon & I hope you will have time to write it out & communicate it to himself. I am certain of being very much interested by your researches on the state of Egypt under the Ptolemies as I was by your “Traumdeutung und Zauberei.” I learnt with great pleasure from Mr Wessel the favourable reception of your labours, the growth of your reputation & the prospect of your obtaining increased means of usefulness by being appointed to a Professorship, to which in the present state of opinion you cannot long remain ineligible while I most truly sympathize with you on the heavy blows which have fallen on your family & especially on the lady to whom we had so much pleasure in being introduced at Vienna in 1862. She has indeed suffered two of the greatest calamities with which human life, full of suffering as it is, can strike anyone & we can only hope that one of these calamities may not be lasting & irreparable, as unhappily the other is.

I inclose a few lines to Mr Wessel. With kindest regards,

ever yours truly

[Added, at the end of the MS draft:]

Dear Mr Gomperz I hereby give my fullest consent to the translation of my “Inaugural Address” and “Utilitarianism” by any person authorized by you. I am

1228.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

April 25. 1868

Dear Mr Christie

The Notice paper distributed today omits to give the amendments to the Bribery Bill referring for them to former papers. Of these I send you the only one I can now recover, along with a copy of the Bill. Probably you have later information than this paper gives. I will write to you more fully tomorrow. I am Dear Mr Christie

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1229.

TO GEORGE HOWELL

• Blackheath Park

April 26, 1868

Dear Sir

I think the plan of the Club a very good one and beg to be put down as a member. I enclose the subscription of 2/6d and a contribution of £1 for the purpose mentioned in your note, and I have directed my publishers to send copies of my writings for the Library.

I am
Dear Sir
Yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

1230.

TO JAMES TRASK

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

April 27. 1868

Dear Sir—

I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 25^th.

No doubt houserents & some of the necessaries of life are cheaper in the country than in large towns; but clothing, & in most country districts in the S. of England food, are distressingly dearer; the working people being completely at the mercy of the tradespeople, a thraldom from which only co-operative stores can relieve them. Would not this be a still more important movement to help forward in the rural districts, than for a National Friendly Society? I am glad that you do not propose making subscription to the Society compulsory. I have no objection to any use you may like to make of my letter.

1231.

TO MARY SOMERVILLE

• Blackheath Park, Kent

May 2, 1868.

Dear Madam

By a negligence I do not know how to account for, I find that I sent you a printed copy of the petition to which you so kindly gave your signature, whereas it ought to have been in writing. We are therefore constrained either to lose the honour and advantage of having your signature first, or else once again to trouble you, after you have already shewn so much kindness.

I am
Dear Madam
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Mrs Somerville

1232.

TO HERBERT SPENCER

• Blackheath Park, Kent

May 2. 1868.

Dear Sir

From the interest you took in the Reader, and again last year in another proposal for founding a weekly paper, I infer that you agree with me in thinking that some good might be done by a thoroughly liberal well written paper. I have now been applied to by Mr Boyd Kinnear, who is very earnestly desirous of establishing something of the sort, a prospectus of which I inclose. He tells me that although the contributions, being signed by the writers, will be allowed considerable latitude in the expression of opinion, and place is to be given in “Correspondence” for opinions contrary to those of the paper, yet the general tendency of the paper is “not to be extreme—only pretty much mine (J. S. Mill) in politics and philosophy.” It is with some surprise that I hear I am a model moderate man, but I have no objection to accept the position, if all my opinions are to be accepted as moderate too. From what I see it appears to me that Mr Boyd Kinnear and his proposed associates have much more definite ideas on politics than on any of the other topics that interest us; and I have told them that I think the paper, to be successful either among thinking working men or really liberal thinkers in any class, must include good writing with advanced opinions on science and philosophy. He demurred a little at first to this, apparently disliking to give up much space to anything but politics, because he proposes that the paper should be small, about half the size of the Saturday Review, with good print and paper, and costing only a penny. He seems to propose the pay of contributors to average about £2 a page. He has got a considerable staff of young men—such as those who wrote the two volumes of Essays on Reform last year —to whom he looks for regular contributions. But he wishes to have articles from writers of high standing, one or two every week, and to be able to give their names as regular contributors. He proposes to be editor himself, but does not make a point of this: but I should prefer his being so, because I think it would ensure the thing not being carried on merely as a money speculation. I have recommended to him to apply to yourself and Mr Huxley and Sir John Lubbock, and he has asked me to do so. Do you think the plan promises well, and that you yourself, and those of your friends who were thinking of some such scheme last year, would be disposed to amalgamate with Mr Boyd Kinnear? For myself, I will do my best, which is not very much, to help the scheme, if I can see persons like yourself connected with it, who are likely to keep it in a good school in philosophical matters: but I do not feel inclined to do so if it is likely to be, like some of the daily papers, pretty good in politics, but altogether gone-by in other matters. Among the persons Mr Boyd Kinnear has mentioned to me as having promised to write are Mr Roundell, the two Trollopes, Dean Alford (!) Lord Amberley, Baynes and Masson.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1233.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

May 5, 1868

Dear Mr Plummer

The writer of the article signed L. is as profoundly ignorant of everything that belongs to his subject, as it is possible for a person who reads newspapers and can write English to be. Being the dupe of all the most exploded nonsense of the old Mercantile System, he is not one of those who can have been misled by the passage he quotes from my book or who could be influenced by any further disclaimer on my part of the conclusions drawn from it. One of the curious absurdities in his letter is, that he says he wants protection only for articles which can be produced cheaper than they can be imported, that is, only for things which do not need protection. It is a bad sign of the political backwardness of New South Wales if arguments like his need answering; but, as it appears they do, I applaud your intention of refuting him.

I am very glad you find the parliamentary papers useful. It will be very disgraceful if Mr Hughes is not reelected. His determination not to spend money ought of itself to give him the warm support of every honest Radical.

I am
Dear Mr Plummer
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1234.

TO STUART GRACE

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

May 6, 1868

Dear Sir

I beg to acknowledge your communication of the 4^th instant, and to say that it will not be in my power to attend the University Court. I am unacquainted with the particular circumstances of D^r Cook’s case, except as stated in his letter, but the grant of retiring allowances as a means of facilitating the retirement of aged professors appears to me highly beneficial.

I am Dear Sir
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Stuart Grace Esq.

1235.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

[Before May 8, 1868]

I am very happy to hear that you have formed at Birmingham a branch of the National Society for Women’s Suffrage, and I wish you most cordially all success in your important work. There is no movement to which I should be more happy to devote my time and labour than to this one, the consequences of which are likely to be so momentous and so beneficial to both sexes. The pressure of my occupations will, however, make it impossible for me to be present at the meeting to which you do me the honour to invite me.

1236.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

May 8. 1868

Dear Mr Christie—

I have put on the notice paper the whole of the amendments which you wrote on the margin of the Gov^t Bill; & also my own amendment, forbidding paid canvassers, & solicitors’ agents or subagents other than the one recognized by the Act of 1854. This clause has been revised for me by Serjeant Pulling.

On Monday I shall probably put on the paper other clauses.

The Bribery Bill is not to be proceeded with, I understand, until after the Boundary Bill & the Scotch & Irish Reform Bills; but I shall do what little I can to prevent its being put off to another Parliament.

1237.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

May 11. 1868

Dear Mr Christie

I thank you for your letter. Not being a member of a Club, I may have some difficulty in referring to the Pall Mall Gazette of April 24 but if you would kindly suggest what you consider an unexceptionable wording for the passage in my amendment, there is plenty of time to alter it.

I will keep in view what you suggest respecting questions to Disraeli. I expect that every possible question will be put to him about his intentions, every member of the House being interested in knowing them: but the intentional vagueness of his answers makes the extorting of clear information very difficult. I am

very truly yours

J. S. Mill

W. D. Christie Esq.

1238.

TO HERBERT SPENCER

• Blackheath Park, Kent,

May 14, 1868.

Dear Mr Spencer

I thank you very much for your kind attention to my note. Greatly as your personal cooperation would have increased the chances of usefulness for the proposed publication, I can only regret the very sufficient reasons which compel you to withhold it. Any cooperation whatever from Mr Huxley and Mr Tyndall will be of great value, even though they be unable to promise so much of it as would help to determine the philosophical character of the periodical.

It is to be hoped that Sir John Lubbock may be disposed to join.

I duly received the second edition of “First Principles” and have only delayed thanking you because I have as yet been obliged to exercise the self denial of postponing the study of it. It will however be one of the first things I do after the end of the Session.

I am
Dear Mr Spencer
very truly yours

J. S. Mill.

1239.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Blackheath Park,
• Kent.

May 17, 1868

Dear Mr. Christie,

I thank you much for the two numbers of the Pall Mall Gazette, which I will keep for the present and return to you. The latter of them I had seen.

I find by the annual return of expiring acts of Parliament, that the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act (1854) expires this very summer. Does this circumstance affect any of our amendments?

I found it would be entirely useless to suggest the abandonment of the Boundary Bill.

I am,
Dear Mr. Christie,
Yours very truly,

J. S. Mill.

1240.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

May 20. 1868

Dear Mr Christie

The “Register of Temporary laws now in force” just distributed states the duration of the 26 & 27 Vict. c. 29 to be until the 8^th June 1868 and the “end of the next session”; which I understand to mean the session (if any) then pending.

I yesterday put on the paper Serjeant Pulling’s clauses providing for a scrutiny of all elections before the return of the writ, and extending that scrutiny to municipal elections, and likewise two of your clauses (but by some mistake the clerk has omitted one) allowing Election Committees to inquire into corruption committed at municipal elections within the two years previous. After consideration I thought this better than moving an instruction to the Committee. It brings the subject in a practical way before the consideration of members, which is all we can hope to do this year on a proposal which deviates so far from the system of the Government Bill. Next year we must have a Bill of our own, drawn up on your principles. These particular amendments will serve this year as a peg for discussion, but our previous efforts had better, I think, be reserved for the anti-canvassing clauses, which there is no likelihood of arriving at tomorrow, and on which I shall be very happy to receive your further suggestions. I am

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1241.

TO WILLIAM FRASER RAE

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

May 20, 1868

Dear Sir

The project which you have heard of is not mine, but Mr Boyd Kinnear’s; but I think sufficiently well of it to be desirous of giving it what help I can. I will tell you more about it when we meet. If it goes forward, your aid as a contributor will be very valuable.

Yours is the first report which has reached me of the Conference last Saturday at the Working Men’s College. I was myself invited to attend it, but was not able. We saw with great pleasure your presence at the Birmingham meeting, and your general activity in the cause.

I seldom see the Express and have not seen the articles you mention, but I saw your leaders in the Daily News.

I am Dear Sir
y^rs very truly

J. S. Mill

W. F. Rae Esq.

1242.

TO JULES SIMON

May 20^th 1868

• Blackheath Park

Monsieur

J’ose espérer que vous voudrez bien ne pas trouver déplacée la liberté que je prends en vous recommandant le nom de mon ami M. Chadwick pour le fauteuil d’Associé Étranger à l’Académie des [sciences morales et] Pol. vacant par la mort de Lord Brougham. Vous n’ignorez pas les rares qualités de M. Chadwick, & les services importants qu’il ne cesse de rendre à quelques-uns des intérêts les plus importants et jusqu’à lui les plus négligés de l’humanité.

On peut dire avec vérité que sa vie est consacrée au progrès de l’administration publique, et qu’il apporte à presque toutes les branches de cette étude si négligée parmi nous, des pensées aussi vraies, et fécondes qu’originales. Lié avec lui depuis le commencement de sa carrière publique, je sais mieux que personne l’ardeur désintéressée qui l’a de tout temps caractérisé et le rôle qu’il a joué dans la préparation de tous les importants progrès administratifs qui se sont réalisés de nos temps en Angleterre, sans parler de ceux encore plus nombreux qui restent encore à réaliser. Vous savez M[onsieur] les contributions que M. Chadwick a faites aux travaux de l’Académie depuis qu’il a l’honneur d’en être un des correspondants, contributions qui seraient déjà un titre à l’honneur encore plus grand auquel il aspire actuellement. Si l’Académie le jugeait digne d’une marque si éclatante de son estime, pour lui cette haute appréciation de la part d’un corps si illustre ne pourrait manquer d’accroître encore la considération dont il jouait déjà, parmi ses compatriotes les plus éclairés, et par là d’augmenter ses moyens de rendre service à son pays et au monde, à quoi il tient beaucoup plus qu’à toute distinction personnelle quelque honorable qu’elle soit.

1243.

TO JULES SIMON

May 21^st 1868

Cher Monsieur

Il me serait difficile d’exprimer combien je me sens reconnaissant de votre lettre. Je vous avoue qu’ordinairement je suis très indifférent aux honneurs et dignités de toute espèce. Mais je suis déjà fier du titre de Correspondant de l’Académie, et je le serais encore plus de l’honneur que vous et vos amis m’avez destiné, et cela pour une excellente raison, puisque cet honneur aurait été conféré par des hommes que je respecte [et] s’il n’y avait aucune chance pour mon ami M. Chadwick, je regrettrais d’avoir perdu l’honneur d’être même proposé par la partie de l’Académie qui selon moi consiste des hommes les plus distingués. Mais s’il y a quelque chance pour mon ami je préférais de lui céder la place. M. Chadwick est un homme très désintéressé et pas assez apprécié, et cet honneur en ajoutant à son influence serait encore une récompense pour ses travaux, la dignité d’associé de l’Académie étant comme de raison, très hautement appréciée chez nous. Ce serait donc pour moi un grand plaisir que de la voir obtenir par M. Chadwick, et aussi d’avoir été pour quelque chose là dedans. Et il me serait de l’autre côté très pénible d’être moi-même l’obstacle même apparent à son succès.

Sachant d’ailleurs que mes opinions philosophiques sont mal reçues par une grande partie de l’Académie j’ai cru que peut-être M. Chadwick pourrait obtenir beaucoup de suffrages qui ne me seraient pas donnés, et qu’en ajoutant à ceux-là les suffrages que j’aurais pu obtenir, il aurait d’excellentes chances de réussir. Permettez-moi de vous remercier de tout mon coeur de l’extrème bonté que vous montrez pour moi. Il n’y a que peu de personnes dont l’estime me serait aussi précieuse. Pardonnez-moi aussi que je ne réponds pas d’une manière plus [illegible word] à votre lettre. Je crois de vous avoir suffisamment exprimé le mélange de sentiments que j’éprouve.

1244.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

May 22. 1868

Dear Mr Christie

You will have seen the debate on the first amendment, which however is a good deal abridged in the report. The minority of 74 is not discouraging, as Whitbread, Melly, and (I believe) many others who voted against the amendment will vote for it when it is moved in a separate clause. The bill cannot well be brought on again before next Thursday, and in the meantime if you would draw up a clause embodying the purpose of the rejected amendment, I will put it on the paper. I ask you to take this trouble because you would do it much better than I can myself.

I send you the full list of amendments as it now stands. I have never had a spare copy before. Hibbert’s is not yet among them, but he intends to give it in. I shall this evening substitute the clauses you last sent (with one or two slight verbal changes) for my original notice on the subject of paid canvassers.

The feeling of the House is better than I expected. Many, especially of the advanced liberals, seem really to take up the subject seriously. I am

Dear Mr Christie
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1245.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

May 25. 1868

Dear Mr Christie

I propose to bring up the new clause in Committee. As the new clauses are not discussed until after the bill has been gone through, we are still a long way from them.

It is probable however that the Government will bring up a new clause providing for an easier and prompter enquiry into complaints of general corruption. But they object to having this done by their tribunal, viz. the Judges. There can be no similar objection to its being done by our tribunal: and the reason why we cannot come to an agreement with them, is that our plan fits into our general system, but does not fit into theirs.

Many voted against the amendment for the reason which you mention in the case of Grant Duff: some of them moved by the fact that Ayrton (who, they think, wants to defeat the Bill) supported the amendment. But Ayrton means to propose an amendment of his own, for the same general purpose as your and Serjeant Pulling’s plans, though differing from them in its machinery.

Bain promises to do all he can for your candidature. I will take the first opportunity of speaking to Mr Morrison.

I am Dear Mr Christie

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1246.

TO FREDERICK W. CHESSON

• Blackheath Park

May 27, 1868

. . . . Mr. Garvie’s chronological classification of the executions will be very useful . . . to those of us who may have to speak on the subject. . . .

1247.

TO GOLDWIN SMITH

• B[lackheath]P[ark]

May 28, 1868

My dear Goldwin Smith—

Many thanks for your valuable suggestion. There will probably be an opportunity of using it on Friday evening, as a West India proprietor of the name of Lamont means to move a resolution that Eyre’s expenses ought to be borne by the public.

It would be difficult to find any one less likely to be discomposed by the abuse heaped upon him than myself, or, I believe, than Taylor. The worst of all this is the indication which it gives of the spirit of our higher classes & of a considerable portion of the public.

A propos, I receive abusive letters, at the rate of three or four a week, & the other day I received one threatening me with assassination. They are all anonymous, and as ineffably stupid as one might expect.

It is almost superfluous to thank you for the last part of your letter. It is like yourself.

1248.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath

May 29. 1868

Dear Mr Cairnes

Before receiving your most welcome letter, I had seen the Queen’s University delegates (of whom Professor Nesbitt was not one) and had promised them all the help I could give to their application for a representative in Parliament.

Fawcett has put off his motion from tonight to this day fortnight, there being no hope of a good discussion when people were eager to get away for the holidays. McKenna, the Tory Irishman, has given notice of an amendment which would turn the debate into one between the Catholic project and Fawcett’s; a thing which Monsell was anxious to avoid. But this issue must be faced if need be. A greater practical difficulty is this: As both Monsell and Pim remark, the parallel case to Maynooth is not the Irish Church, but Trinity College: and there will not be complete religious equality if Maynooth is abolished, and any Divinity School at all kept up for the Anglican Church, however Trinity College may be freed from denominationalism in every other respect. Now it is doubtful if the public are yet prepared to support a proposal for abolishing the Divinity School altogether at Trinity College, any more than at Oxford and Cambridge: and they certainly would refuse to admit a Catholic Divinity School by the side of it.

You will have heard of, if not seen Provost Lloyd’s pamphlet. The movement in Trinity College itself against his proposal and in favour of Fawcett’s is very auspicious.

I am glad you at last got my pamphlet. Bright’s land plan would, like any plan for creating a class of peasant proprietors in Ireland, do a certain quantity of good: but I do not believe it would get over the main difficulty since it would give no security to the actual tenantry of Ireland.

Laveleye has sent me his book on Holland for the sake of an interesting account it contains of a system of landlords with tenants under them at a fixed rent, which obtains in the province of Groningen. It appears to work well there; but the recent rise of general prices is now enabling the tenants to sublet at a profit to tenants who will not enjoy the same advantages. This is provided against in my plan.

The cause of women is indeed making progress, and is now, probably, past all danger of retrogression.

I most earnestly hope that you will derive benefit from the mud baths. If you pass through London, pray let me know beforehand if possible, that I may not miss the chance of seeing you.

I am Dear Mr Cairnes
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1249.

TO GEORGE W. JULIAN

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

May 29. 1868.

Dear Sir

I have read your speech on the Land question with great interest. I have no doubt that you are right in endeavouring to prevent the sale of the public lands to mere speculators who buy to resell at a profit: but it seems to me that the land in the hands of its actual cultivators is a perfectly legitimate source of revenues. I often think that it would be much better if a new country retained all its lands as state property, giving, as we do in India, leases renewable for ever at rents guaranteed against any augmentation except by a general measure. But perhaps jacta est alea, and the people of the United States would not take land except on the same terms of absolute property on which it has been hitherto acquired. According to my own notions, absolute property in land, even when owned by the cultivators, is a prejudice and an abuse. I am

Dear Sir
Yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

Hon. Geo. W. Julian.

1250.

TO GEORGE CAPEL

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

June 6, 1868

Dear Sir—

I have already made use of your testimony (though without naming you) in a note to the new edition of my Logic just published.

I do not feel the confidence you appear to do in Messrs. Longmans’ willingness to publish the Common Place books, (at least at their own risk): but if published they would doubtless be very valuable & I will sound Messrs. Longmans on the subject.

1251.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

June 6. 1868

Dear M^r Christie

I have been delayed in answering your letters by absence from town.

The paragraphs in the Daily News on the two occasions you mention are certainly ominous, and there was another (I forget whether in the Daily News or in some other paper) which appeared while you were at Aberdeen and stated that Sir James Clark’s son was expected to stand for the second seat.

I will take an opportunity of speaking to M^r Gladstone, when he is a little less occupied with the Irish Church contest and its incidents than he is at present.

I will send you the Extradition Evidence in a day or two.

I am afraid the Radicals do not care enough about a Bribery Bill to agitate out of doors for it, placing their reliance wholly on the Ballot, which whatever it might do against intimidation, would, I am convinced, do little or nothing against Bribery.

I am
Dear M^r Christie
y^rs very truly

J. S. Mill

1252.

TO MISS NICHOLSON

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

June 8. 1868

Madam—

I have the pleasure of enclosing the papers of the Nat. Soc. for Women’s Suffrage, & of being able to inform you that on application to the Hon. Secretary Mrs P. A. Taylor, A[ubrey] H[ouse] N[otting] H[ill] London she will supply you with all the information which I am happy to hear you desire with reference to the suffrage.

Miss Nicholson

• [Thelwall Lawn?]
• Southport.

1253.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

June 9. 1868

Dear Mr Plummer

The Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market Bill has passed the second reading, has been once committed pro forma for Government amendments, and is to be discussed in Committee next Monday the 15^th, if the Irish Reform Bill, which stands before it allows time.

Many thanks for “The Oak.”

In haste
yours truly

J. S. Mill

1254.

TO WILLIAM SIMS PRATTEN

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

June 9, 1868.

Dear Sir—

I regret deeply that any one who has ever done me the honour to vote for me can disapprove of the course I thought it my duty to take in regard to Mr Eyre’s proceedings in Jamaica, because I have never in the whole course of my life felt myself called upon to take practical action on any matter on which I felt more clear as to the course indicated by the principles which I hold & have always endeavoured to promulgate. In regard to Mr Eyre personally my feelings towards him, so far as I can be said to have had any, before I knew of his conduct in Jamaica, were favourable, inasmuch as I knew of him only as a traveller whose narrative I had read with interest. Neither has anything ever occurred directly or indirectly in the whole course of my life to arouse the smallest personal feeling of any sort in me towards Mr Eyre as a private man. But I cannot say that it is possible to me as a man to regard Mr Eyre’s conduct in Jamaica without the deepest indignation, or as an Englishman without a sentiment of humiliation: nor can I pretend that I can regard without abhorrence & contempt the man who knowing himself to be guilty in the eyes of many disinterested persons, of the wanton torture & death of many hundred men & women, can be content to shelter himself under any shield whatever against a judicial examination & does not eagerly challenge and earnestly invite the closest possible scrutiny into whatever justification he thinks he can urge. To me it appears that the conduct of Mr Eyre since his return to England shews a callousness to human suffering & a contempt for his fellow men which alone go far to shew his total unfitness for any station of authority over them.

Yet if all human sympathies could be cast aside altogether, the importance of instituting a judicial enquiry into the proceedings in Jamaica would still be paramount in the eyes of all thinking persons who look upon law & justice as the foundation of order & civilisation. If the majority of any nation were willing to allow such events to pass unquestioned I have no hesitation in saying that all the ties of civil society would in that nation be at the mercy of accident. There would be no principle in the minds of men to bind civilized society together. Happily I am fully convinced that the great majority of the English nation does desire judicial enquiry into these events. Were I not so convinced I sh^d be ashamed of my country. Nevertheless even if I were not convinced of this I sh^d think it my duty to express in the clearest, the most public & the most practical way in my power my opinion of the importance of checking the lawlessness of which Mr Eyre’s conduct in Jamaica appears to my humble judgment a flagrant example. I believe from a perfectly calm & disinterested examination of the subject that M^r Eyre has either been guilty of, or has tolerated under his authority, crimes of violence & cruelty which no man of even ordinarily tender conscience or good heart could be capable of. The detestation of the right judging among his fellow creatures might however in some circumstances be a sufficient punishment for this. At all events, while the world is as full of crime as it is, I do not suppose that however strong my feelings about it, I sh^d have considered myself as peculiarly called upon to interfere against him. But I do consider myself as an Englishman called upon to protest against what I believe to be an infringement of the laws of England; against acts of violence committed by Englishmen in authority, calculated to lower the character of England in the eyes of all foreign lovers of liberty; against a precedent that could justly inflame against us the people of our dependencies; & against an example calculated to brutalize our own fellow countrymen. Nor would any amount of declamation, public or private, political or literary, have been to my mind a proper mode of chastising what I believe to be the offence committed, so long as it was uncertain whether the laws of England are not competent to restrain such lawless proceedings for the future, or punish them in the past. The humblest & obscurest English man or woman, animated with that respect for law & love of liberty on which the greatness of England has been founded in past times & depends in the future, ought in my opinion to contribute his part towards calm & legal settlement of this question. And it is at once amazing & humiliating to me that anyone who has done me the honour to read, much less to approve, of any of my writings could for one instant doubt that I sh^d think so. I can understand that anyone might doubt what might be my opinion of Mr Eyre’s conduct. I can understand that those who have not examined it as carefully as I have done might expect me to approve of it. But I cannot understand that anyone sh^d expect me not to desire an examination of it, conducted in the fairest & most open manner that could be attained. That the real or supposed crimes of men in authority should be subject to judicial examination, is the most important guarantee of English liberty, & I am not aware that any reason has ever yet been brought forward why Mr Eyre sh^d be the sole & solitary exception to this liability.

In regard to the petition concerning which you ask my opinion (that of one of the Foreign Affairs Committees against the Abyssinian war) I did not present it because I agreed in it but because I think members of parl^t sh^d extend as widely as possible the limits within which they accept petitions to present. The power of petitioning is very important, especially to all unrepresented citizens & as it can only be exercised through members of parl^t, I think they sh^d throw as few obstacles as possible in the way. Those who approve of my little book on Liberty can scarcely think me inconsistent in this opinion.

I have always thought & often said that this country was bound to recover its envoy even by war if necessary & the manner in which the war has been carried on by Sir R. Napier does honour to him & to our country. Its success is probably owing in great measure to the spirit of law & order which reduced the sufferings of war to the lowest possible point amongst the people in whose country it was carried on. The continuance of hostilities after the prisoners had been surrendered is the one point which requires, & which will probably receive, explanation.

1255.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath

June 10. [1868]

Dear Chadwick

As soon as I received your message, I sent a telegram to the office saying that I should be at home this afternoon but to my surprise was told that telegrams could not be sent to Richmond at nine on Saturday evening. If it is so it is a strong argument for the radical reform you want in the management of telegraphs. I am disappointed, for I have so much on my hands this week that I can fix no time for seeing you (unless at the House) till next Sunday; but if you can come on that forenoon, I will be at home. Could you manage to come by the 10.10 train from Charing Cross, as I have an engagement at half past two?

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1256.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

June 10. 1868

Dear Madam—

Your petition and its supplementary signatures reached me in time and I had the great satisfaction of presenting them on Tuesday. The Bill passed the second reading today, (after an interesting debate of which all the honours were on our side) by the casting vote of the Speaker, & is to be referred to a Select Committee.

1257.

TO HENRY JONES

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

June 13. 1868

Dear Sir,—

I sh^d be most happy were it in my power to further your wishes in regard to independent employment in which I most heartily sympathize: but there are few persons less able than myself to do so, & although I can sincerely say that I shall not forget your name sh^d any occasion offer itself to me, yet I cannot hold out any hope that I am likely to meet with one.

In regard to the points on which you say that the convictions in which you were brought up have been shaken I fully agree with you that it would not be right for you to attempt to inclucate those convictions. I think, however, that you will find them, at least as stated in your letter, as difficult to disprove as to prove: Except indeed in the case of prayer. I think you have omitted to mention one effect that prayer may reasonably be said to have on the mind, & which may be granted to it by those who doubt as well as by those who admit divine interposition in answer to it: I mean the effect produced on the mind of the person praying, not by the belief that it will be granted but by the elevating influence of an endeavour to commune & to become in harmony with the highest spiritual ideal that he is capable in elevated moments of conceiving. This effect may be very powerful in clearing the moral perceptions & intensifying the moral earnestness. It may be so powerful as to leave it open to question whether it is produced solely by the internal action of human nature itself or by a supernatural influence, & this question will have to be resolved by each individual from his personal experience. I know of no proof sufficient to entitle psychologists to assert it as certain that the whole of this influence is reducible to the known elements of human nature, however highly probable they may think it. As to the other two points, the existence of a Deity & the immortality of the soul, it would be still less possible to bring negative proof to bear upon such questions that would be conclusive to all minds. You might perhaps find much to interest you on these matters in Mr Herbert Spencer’s First Principles & in Mr Grote’s work on Plato.

As to the sentence you quote from my “Utilitarianism”; when I said that the general happiness is a good to the aggregate of all persons I did not mean that every human being’s happiness is a good to every other human being; though I think, in a good state of society & education it would be so. I merely meant in this particular sentence to argue that since A’s happiness is a good, B’s a good, C’s a good, &c., the sum of all these goods must be a good.

1258.

TO WILLIAM SIMS PRATTEN

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

June 13, 1868

Dear Sir—

I did not receive your former letter until late on Tuesday night & my reply to it therefore was written very hurriedly as well as without any view to publication. There are consequently in it one or two expressions which although I think them perfectly warrantable in a private communication, I sh^d not wish to make use of in print, however I think too great care cannot be taken to avoid what might be felt as violent language in all public discussions. If however you would kindly erase the words “abhorrence & contempt” & substitute “profound disapprobation” for them in one sentence & in another further on would substitute “the moral condemnation of the right judging among his fellow creatures” for “the detestation of &c” I could have no objection to the publication of the letter, provided you would state that it was not written with a view to publication, but in answer to a letter from one of my constituents.

1259.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

June 13. 1868

Dear Sir—

The report you kindly sent had been sent to me already by (I believe) Mr G. Jenkinson & I had read your speech with interest & pleasure. Such enlightened views as it expressed are not common among agriculturists but I think they are in a way rapidly to become so, & the Farmer’s Clubs are a very valuable means of diffusing them.

1260.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

June 16. 1868

Dear Mr Christie

I could not see Alderman Lusk yesterday till too late for the mail. But he promised me to send the letter to you at the Tontine today, and I presume you will receive it at the same time with this. I found he had written to his brother by Saturday’s post in recommendation of you, and he seems disposed to give you all the help he can.

In haste
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1261.

TO FREDERICK W. CHESSON

• Blackheath Park

June 19, 1868

. . . it is much better that Disraeli be reduced to do it in this sort of underhand way, than that the House should be committed more deeply. . . . If the money is not paid to Eyre before Mr Goldwin Smith’s address. . . . [induce] our friends in the provinces to write to their representatives. . . .

1262.

TO LOUIS BLANC

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

le 20 juin 1868

Mon cher Monsieur Louis Blanc

Merci de votre lettre, et de l’article de l’Etoile Belge. C’est triste à dire, mais je n’ai jamais espéré, dans cette affaire un meilleur résultat. On ne trouve un sentiment honnête et energique sur des crimes de cet ordre que dans la classe ouvrière. Cependant la protestation n’a pas été inutile. Elle est un obstacle à ce qu’on réintègre M. Eyre dans les fonctions publiques. Et les journaux Eyristes se plaignent que les gouverneurs n’oseront plus “sauver une colonie” de la même manière.

Autant que je comptais sur votre sympathie entière dans l’affaire Eyre, autant j’étais sûr de votre dissentiment sur la peine de mort. Heureusement c’est une différence qui peut exister entre amis. Nos principes sont les mêmes, et nous ne différons que sur leur application.

votre bien dévoué

J. S. Mill

1263.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

June 28. 1868

Dear Mr Cairnes

From what I hear from Mr Nesbitt and from Fawcett, I am in hopes that you are by this time arrived or arriving in London and I write to ask you to give me a line saying when it will best suit you to allow me the great pleasure of calling on you. Any time when the House is not sitting I would make convenient, but the most convenient time would be in the hour or two before the House meets. There are now morning sittings on all Tuesdays, and sometimes on Fridays. I most earnestly hope that I shall find a material improvement in your health. I am

Dear Mr Cairnes
every yours truly

J. S. Mill

1264.

TO HENRY FAWCETT

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

June 28. 1868

Dear Mr Fawcett

My daughter has read Mrs Fawcett’s article, and is extremely pleased with it. She says, the two chief feelings that it arouses in her are, pleasure that so good a new woman writer has arisen, so fundamentally right in opinions, so judicious in their exposition, and so efficient in style; and desire that she should be induced to write as much as possible. I have also read the article myself, and quite concur in Helen’s opinion, and we therefore hope that you will take all possible steps to get it published. I do not suppose that I am likely to have influence when you have not, for this purpose, but if you think so you have only to let me know, and I shall be glad to use it whereever I can.

I do not feel quite sure whether there may not be a distinct use in a College for the study of midwifery only (which function might be filled by D^r Edmunds’ College) supposing that there really is a need, as he asserts, for keeping this branch of practice apart from others. If this is really the case, it might perhaps be worth while to insert some sentence into the article, to the effect that “space will not allow of entering into the question whether there should exist a College for midwifery distinct from other branches of medical science, which may perhaps prove a useful innovation on established practice; but in that case the title Female Medical College would be a misnomer, as the purpose of the College would be to qualify practitioners for one branch only of medical practice.” I do not suggest these words, but I merely put them to indicate in what direction I think, so far as I am at present informed, a concession might be made to D^r Edmunds (that is, to D^r Chapman) without departing from the principles so ably advocated in the article and which we so thoroughly agree in; for it is not inconsistent with these to think that midwifery ought to be a special branch of medical science, and that facilities ought to be created for enabling women to study it by itself. I do not know whether Mrs Fawcett takes this view: if she does, it is perhaps possible that a qualification of this sort introduced into the article might meet D^r Chapman’s wishes: and if Mrs Fawcett does take this view, it would perhaps be fair to D^r Edmunds to say something of the sort, and repay him good for evil.

I return Cairnes’ very interesting letter. I am happy that he speaks hopefully of some improvement in his health: and if there is some improvement, we may hope that there will be more. I am

Dear Mr Fawcett
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1265.

TO ENOCH C. WINES

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

June 28. 1868

Dear Sir

Allow me to express the high sense I entertain of the honour conferred on me by being appointed a Corresponding Member of the Prison Association of New York. My occupations are not likely to allow of my contributing, like several others of your Corresponding Members, important papers to your Transactions; but, as far as I can judge from such attention as I have been able to give to the Annual Report of which you have favoured me with a copy, the objects and principles of the Association are worthy of all approbation: and all experience shews the value of such organizations in preventing or checking the growth of abuse in the management of prisons, reformatories, or workhouses.

I have the honour to be, Dear Sir,

very sincerely yours

J. S. Mill

Rev. D^r Wines.

1266.

TO GEORGE KENYON HOLDEN

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

July 5. 1868

Dear Sir—

I hope you will pardon me for the delay in acknowledging your letter dated as long ago as February. Parliamentary business is so exacting & I receive such a multitude of letters which require an immediate answer that I am often obliged to put aside for a time those which admit of delay.

Your impression is quite correct that I was applied to from Victoria in consequence of the use made by Protectionists of the passage in my Pol Econ which speaks of the occasional benefit in a young country of aiding the naturalization of an industry suited to its circumstances. I did, at that time, return an answer, which was published in a Victoria newspaper, to the effect that if this encouragement took the form of a protecting duty, it should be strictly limited to a moderate number of years & not continued beyond. I have not altered the opinion that such encouragement is sometimes useful & that in many cases the most just mode in which it could be given is that of a temporary protecting duty, on condition that it should be known & declared to be merely temporary, & of no very long duration. But I confess that I almost despair of this general understanding being ever practically established. I find that in Australia, protection is not advocated in this form or for this purpose, but that the vulgarest & most exploded fallacies are revived in its support. As far as I can perceive, those who contend for protection in Australia mean it to be as permanent as any other legislative arrangements & hold to all the false theories on the subject, of which Europe is rapidly ridding itself & which are declining even in America. In such a state of opinion as this I sh^d resist, with my utmost strength, any protection whatever, because it is far easier to withstand these false & pernicious doctrines before they have been carried into practice to any serious extent, than after powerful protected interests have been allowed to grow up under their influence.

Allow me to express my high sense of the ability & effectiveness of your letter, signed H., on this question. Such clear expositions of the principles of the subject are what can alone be trusted to for combating any natural prejudices in a free & popularly governed country.

I well remember your exertions for the adoption of Mr Hare’s system in the election of the Legislative Council & the very valuable report in which you discussed the subject. The debates in the British Parl^t which have since occurred may well have struck you by the amount of ignorance they disclosed; but great & daily progress is making in the correction of that ignorance, & many political men, including some of the most active & intelligent leaders of the working classes, are now converted to Mr Hare’s system, in principle at least, & frequently even in its detail. The doctrine of personal representation is making the same rapid progress among thinking minds on the Continent & in America. But as you are probably in correspondence with Mr Hare you have access to the best source of information on this subject.

1267.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 7. 1868

Dear Mr Christie

The papers you have from time to time sent me, have given me a good view of the situation, and the highest hopes for your success. The Scotch constituencies are keeping up their high character for political honesty.

When you read the Bribery debate of last night, do not suppose that I have abandoned, even temporarily, the advocacy of our plan of a jurisdiction. I told the House (though this is not reported) that I should bring that forward before clause 10 is disposed of: and it will come on at the beginning of the next discussion.

I will attend to your wish about referring only to the article in the Law Magazine. I did mention the pamphlet (though your name was not put to it) because it is so much fuller and more explanatory than the article.

I am Dear Mr Christie
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1268.

TO JOHN NICHOL

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 10, 1868

Dear Sir

My friend Mr Edwin Chadwick who is looking out for a seat in the House of Commons, and who would be one of the greatest acquisitions to the new Parliament that it could possibly receive has been told there might be a chance for the third seat at Glasgow to a candidate who could appeal as he can to great services rendered to the working classes (as the author of the first Factory Acts, a most efficient worker for Short Time, the great promoter of sanitary measures etc.) and at the same time might be less obnoxious to the higher classes of electors than a firmly working class candidate. Mr Chadwick presided at the Health section of the Social Sciences Association when it met at Glasgow and delivered an address there, which may have made him in some degree locally known. There is no person living whom I am so anxious to be in Parliament as Mr Chadwick, and I know not any one at Glasgow so likely as yourself to be able to give an impartial opinion as to the possibilities of the case. It is of no use taking the opinion of the usual party leaders as to what are the opinions of the working men; but you, perhaps, have the means of knowing something about them from the working men themselves. If you have, I should feel it a personal favour as well as a public service if you would give Mr Chadwick the benefit of your knowledge, and of your help if he should resolve to stand.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Professor Nichol Litt. D.

1269.

TO WILLIAM COX BENNETT

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 14, 1868

Dear Sir

I am most happy to hear that the proposal to elect Mr Gladstone, which does so much honour to the constituency of Greenwich, meets with so much success there. I thank you much for your kind invitation to be present at your meeting, tomorrow night, but as I am not an elector of Greenwich and as the spontaneity of this movement among the electors themselves is one of its marked characteristics, I will not, on this occasion at least, avail myself of the invitation.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

W.C. Bennett Esq.

1270.

TO JOHN NICHOL

July 16 1868

Dear Mr Nichol

I am making enquiries about the Bombay Directorship of Education, and will write to you as soon as I have received the information I have asked for.

I thank you very much for your letter. Bouverie is a very doubtful liberal; he was reckoned an Adullamite in 1866, and made a speech early this session attacking the liberal party and its leaders and reproaching Disraeli for not having coalesced with the backward Whigs. Chadwick would have no scruple about standing against him if he were invited by a sufficient number of electors. Should you be able and willing to sound any of your friends in the Kilmarnock boroughs as to the possibility of a requisition? No words I could use would overstate the value of a thoughtful and contriving administrative mind like that of Chadwick in the new Parliament, which seems likely to contain few new men of much originality or value. The papers I enclose containing information respecting what he has done, may be shewn to anybody at your discretion.

I am Dear Mr Nichol
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1271.

TO JOHN COLAM

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 26, 1868

Dear Sir

I am much honoured by the wish of the President and Committee of your Society to include me in the list of its Vice Presidents; but though I think the Society very useful, and have been for many years one of its members and subscribers, I do not feel it consistent with my principles of action to identify myself to any greater extent with the management, while it is thought necessary or advisable to limit the Society’s operations to the offences committed by the uninfluential classes of society. So long as such scenes as the pigeon shooting exhibitions lately commented upon in the newspapers, take place under the patronage and in the presence of the supposed élite of the higher classes, male and female, without attracting the notice of your Society, this respect of persons, though it may be prudent, is too foreign to my opinions and feelings, to allow of my sharing in any even indirect responsibility for it. I can not help thinking that anything of the sort is peculiarly to be regretted, because the Society really includes so many of the upper classes (and does them so much honour) that an attack upon the cruelty of the less enlightened among themselves would come with the best possible grace from them, who cannot be accused of class feeling.

I am
Dear Sir
very sincerely yours

J. S. Mill

John Colam Esq

1272.

TO JOHN PLUMMER

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 26. 1868

Dear Mr Plummer

You are too well aware how much I am occupied to have been surprised at my not answering the interesting notes I have repeatedly received from you. The same pressure of occupations is also alone responsible for our not having asked you and Mrs Plummer to come down here and tell us more fully of your proceedings and prospects. What your notes tell of them is very pleasant and satisfactory. We were very glad to find you an established contributor to the Daily News and to observe that you are active in the Committee of the Social Science Association on the Labour Question. I have also to thank you for your very interesting biography of a remarkable man. I am very glad that the Parliamentary papers continue to be useful.

With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer, I am

Dear Mr Plummer
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

1273.

TO WILLIAM DOUGAL CHRISTIE

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 27. 1868

Dear Mr Christie

From the papers you have sent, I have had a good notion of what was going on at Greenock, and am very glad that your prospects there are so good.

You will have seen that after many days and nights of hard fighting, all our efforts to improve the Bribery Bill have been defeated, even Fawcett’s clause being at last negatived. Good however has been done by the discussion, and a foundation laid for future success, as even the Saturday Review acknowledges. The Bill has, as you see, been extended to Scotland and Ireland. But its good effects, as it stands at present, will not be very great

I am Dear M^r Christie
Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

1274.

TO GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 27. 1868

Dear Sir

I always look through the Social Economist and had been struck with the great improvement in its quality.

There is nothing I desire more than that attention should be drawn to my opinions on the Ballot (or on any other important subject) whether it be by attack or defence. I am

yours very truly

J. S. Mill

G. J. Holyoake Esq.

1275.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 28, 1868

Dear Chadwick

It is very lucky that you have family connexions at Dumfries. The chance seems better there than anywhere else that we have heard of. Scotch electors, besides that they have more intelligence, are not open to bribes, and in the present electioneering, are shewing in many places a strong feeling against canvassing and election expenses. But I would suggest to you whether you had not better go down yourself at once. Already chances which you might have had in constituencies, have been intercepted by some one else merely by his being beforehand, and the same thing has happened to other excellent candidates within my knowledge. For this reason, and because I doubt if the Secretary of the Reform League at Glasgow would be able to go about to the different boroughs of the district, I return your cheque; but if you wish it, I will send £10 to Professor Nichol to be expended at his discretion.

If there is a subscription, the £50 I formerly promised is at your service; as well as a letter of the strongest recommendation.

Noel’s probable best card against you is not his money, but his evangelicalism, he being the son of Baptist Noel.

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

The correct and complete report of my speech at St James’s Hall is that of the Star.

1276.

TO WILLIAM WOOD

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 28, 1868

Dear Sir

I was not aware that any letter of yours had remained unacknowledged. On reference, however, to my papers, I have found one; and I now remember that I put it aside, in hopes that when I answered it I might be able to send you some of the books on your list. For want, however, of time to look out, I have not yet succeeded in procuring any of them. I have seen more than one in booksellers’ catalogues, but on enquiring at the shops, found they were already sold.

I have read your letter with the pleasure your letters always give me, and I am very glad to hear that you are so justly appreciated by your fellow workmen as to have been put on the Council for the selection of candidates. There is some probability that real working men will be in some places elected to the House. In your own county, at Stafford, Mr Odger, one of the very best leaders of the London working men, has started, with, I am told, very good prospects of success.

The signatures you obtained for Women’s Suffrage formed an important addition to the very numerously signed petition which I presented soon after I received them. The signatures to the different petitions for Women’s Suffrage this year have nearly reached 50,000, of whom probably more than one half were from women. The cause is prospering beyond all hope, and will prosper more and more if taken up by the enlightened among the working men. I am

Dear Sir
yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

Mr William Wood.

1277.

TO JOHN NICHOL

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

July 29 1868

Dear Sir

Mr Chadwick thinks it possible that your correspondent whose letter you kindly sent to me (and which I forwarded to Mr Chadwick) might be willing to go to Dumfries, and, if he judges well, also to Kilmarnock, and take whatever steps he thinks might be favourable to Mr Chadwick, or at least to get a clear notion of the chances at either place, if his expenses were paid. As Mr Chadwick is very desirous of this being done, he has asked me to beg you to suggest this, and has also asked me to inclose £10 to be expended in this manner, or, if you should not judge this feasible, at your discretion or at that of your correspondent, in his behalf.

I do not know whether this will be asking too much of your correspondent (I have forwarded his letter to Mr Chadwick and cannot call his name to mind) and I fear that perhaps I may be trespassing on you in asking so much of yourself. But I know you are willing to take much trouble for a public object, and you know how much value I attach to Mr Chadwick’s possible services in Parliament.

I am Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Professor Nichol

1277A.

TO ARTHUR PENRHYN STANLEY

July 29. [1868]

My dear Sir

I am sorry I was engaged when you called. Possibly you wished to speak to me concerning the Memorial in favour of Dr. Tulloch, which I did not see till this afternoon (having only just returned home) but which I have already sent off to Mrs. Tulloch. If however there is any other subject on which you wish to speak to me, and you will let me know in time, I can call at your house either on Saturday morning between 11 and 12 or at any time before 5 on Monday or Tuesday.

I am
My dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

The Very Reverend

The Dean of Westminster

1278.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

Aug. 1. 1868

Dear Chadwick

The inclosed came this morning from Prof. Nichol. Perhaps what it communicates about Kilmarnock may compensate for your correspondent’s unfavourable report from Dumfries.

Mr Beales having returned to town, I called on him yesterday. He was quite aware of the strength of your claims to a seat in Parliament, and expressed his desire to help you. He does not think it necessary that you should join the League. He would like to have some conversation with you, if you could call on him any day at his Chambers, Stone Buildings Lincoln’s Inn, between 10 and 4. I think he wishes to know how far your opinions on specially radical points are such as would be satisfactory to the working men. At his desire I told him of what your views have been in regard to the London University, Kilmarnock, and Dumfries, and he said there would probably be places in England where the League could help you.

We leave this evening for Avignon, where letters will find us.

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1279.

TO J. BAILEY AND H. ARMISTEAD

• Avignon

August 8th [1868]

Gentlemen—

I beg to acknowledge the receipt of the resolution passed at the meeting of the St Anne’s Electoral Association on the 4th inst. I entirely agree with the Association in their condemnation of the law by which the goods of the lodger who has paid his rent to his immediate landlord may be seized to meet the claims of the head landlord. It is discreditable to Parliament that the unjust state of the law should have continued so long, and I would advise that petitions for its repeal should be signed by the numerous class who are aggrieved by it, and presented to the new Parliament as soon as possible after it meets. The grievances which are the most petitioned against are likely to be the soonest redressed.

I am, Gentlemen,
very sincerely yours

John S. Mill

Mr. J. Bailey & Mr H. Armistead

1280.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN

• Avignon

Aug. 12. 1868

Dear Sir

I regret that your note was not received until I had left England, otherwise I should have been happy to confer with you on any matter you might wish to consult me upon; and I shall with great pleasure give you my opinion in writing on the matter in question, if you think it worth while to write to me respecting it. I am Dear Sir

very truly yours

J. S. Mill

Dr Chapman

1281.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Avignon

Aug. 22. 1868

Dear Chadwick

I have written a rather full letter to Mr Henderson, with liberty to make any use he pleases of it. I need not say how much I hope that you have found a favourable passport. In haste

Yours ever

J. S. Mill

1282.

TO JAMES HENDERSON

• Avignon

Aug. 22. 1868

Dear Sir

I have heard with much gratification that it is under the consideration of some of the advanced Liberals to put forward my old friend Mr Chadwick for one of the districts of Scottish boroughs; for not only do I deem Mr Chadwick eminently qualified for a seat in the House of Commons, both for the work he would himself do, & for that which he would be the cause of in others, but I should consider his absence from the next Parliament as a public misfortune. Any constituency that returns him to Parliament will in my opinion be doing a public service of great value & would do itself still further honour if he were to be returned free of expense.

I have known Mr Chadwick with considerable intimacy from the time when both of us were very young men. He was then quite unknown to the public, but was already active in a quiet way in standing up against jobbing & oppression; & it is within my knowledge (for I was aware of every step in the proceedings) that within a very short interval he had the principal share in defeating two different attempts to commit great public and private wrong. He had even then bestowed much thought & study on the details of administration, & some papers which he wrote on administrative subjects attracted the notice of Mr Senior, who appointed him an Assistant Commissioner under the original Commission of Poor Law Inquiry, in which capacity he displayed such superior ability that he was made a member of the Commission itself, for the express purpose of assisting in drawing up the New Poor Law. No one, except Mr Senior, had so great a share as Mr Chadwick in originating all that was best in the Poor Law of 1834; & had his counsel been taken in all respects as it was in some, had his clauses respecting the education of Pauper Children not been rejected in the House of Lords—had his plans been accepted for the separation of the sick, the lunatic, the old, & the young from one another & from the able-bodied, & their distribution in different houses with a view to totally different modes of treatment, not only would the vast expense of constructing the Union Workhouses have been in a great measure saved, but the greatest blots upon our present Poor Law Administration would have been effectually provided against.

The next of Mr Chadwick’s great public services was as a member of the Factory Commission which proposed & carried the limitation of the labours of children in factories to six hours. From that time Mr Chadwick has never ceased to occupy himself with the improvement of the condition of factory operatives. He was the proposer, & has been the indefatigable apostle of the half time school system by which the education of the children of the operative classes has been made compatible with the necessities of the family. He proposed but did not succeed in carrying a measure for the protection of the operatives, by making masters pecuniarily responsible for accidents. He has been, from the beginning, the leading mind of the sanitary movement, which has done so much, & will do so much more to improve not only the health but the moral & economical condition of the working population generally & especially of its most neglected portions. Almost as much of his time & thoughts has been employed upon the great question of public education in its most difficult department, its business details, & I know of no one capable of being of so much use to our future ministers and legislators in forming an organized plan by which the most efficient education can be given to the whole people at the smallest sacrifice either to the public or to individuals. I have touched only on main points; for, to go through all the minor, but still important matters of public interest which he has helped forward, would take up far too much time & space. I may say in brief, that he is one of the organizing & contriving minds of the age; a class of minds of which there are very few, & still fewer who apply those qualities to the practical business of government. He is, moreover, one of the few persons who have a passion for the public good; and nearly the whole of his time is devoted to it, in one form or another.

With respect to political questions in the narrower sense of the word, I may say that Mr Chadwick was highly esteemed by Mr Bentham, the father of enlightened Radicalism; that throughout life I have seldom had occasion to differ from him on subjects of that nature; & should we be returned to Parliament there are few whose vote I should expect oftener to agree with mine on all subjects involving the principles of popular government.

You are at liberty to make any use you think well, of this letter

Yours very truly

J. S. Mill

James Henderson Esq.

1283.

TO AUSTIN HOLYOAKE

Avignon, August 28, 1868

Dear Sir,—

I enclose a subscription of £10 to the fund for defraying the expenses of Mr Bradlaugh’s election to the House of Commons. I do so in the confidence that Mr Bradlaugh would not contest any place where by so doing he would risk the return of a Tory in the room of a supporter of Mr Gladstone, and of the disendowment of the Irish Church.—

I am, dear Sir, yours very faithfully

J. S. Mill

1284.

TO CHARLES ELIOT NORTON

• Avignon

Sept. 11, 1868

Dear Sir

I regret that your arrival in England should have taken place just after I had left for the Continent with no prospect of returning until the eve of the general election. Should you still be in the neighbourhood of London at that time, I hope I may have the pleasure of seeing and conversing with you.

The changes in the opinions and feelings of large bodies of Englishmen and Englishwomen even within the last few years, are as striking to me as they are to you. The old fetters of prejudice and routine seem to be giving way on all sides, and what is wanted now is clear and well considered positive opinions. All the great subjects, political, social, and religious, are brought into question; and there is a preparation going on in England, as there is in the United States, for a much better settlement of them than the world has yet had: but, naturally, the evidences of this are not so obvious on the surface as are those of the breaking up of old doctrines.

You probably think that I have forgotten my promise to write a letter on the Repudiation question, for publication in America. I have always kept it in mind; but as long as the session lasted, I never found time, nor was able to turn my mind to the subject with sufficient steadiness. Since I have been here, I have written the draft of a letter which now only requires revision, and when it is finished I will forward it to you, to be made use of in any manner which in your judgment it may be fitted for. Will you kindly let me know if it should be sent to your present, or to what other, address?

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

C. Elliot [sic] Norton Esq.

1285.

TO CHARLES GILPIN

• A[vignon].

Sept. 12. 1868.

Dear Sir—

I sh^d be sorry indeed if your election could be perilled, but I do not think it can be. I understood from Mr Bradlaugh not only that he had no intention of standing against you, but that he considered your election certain: & I hope you will not allow yourself to be persuaded that one of the mere rank & file Liberals can be as valuable in the H of C. as yourself. But (although for totally different reasons) I think Mr B. also would be a very valuable member of Parl^t. He also holds opinions not cut after the pattern of some 300 or so other liberal members of P^t, & I think him able to sustain them with ability which would give them effect. This is what we want in the H of C., & while it is most important to uphold honest & honorable men, faithful supporters of our own party, like Lord Henley against Tories & lukewarm Liberals, I do not think that their claims ought to be allowed to prevail against the claims of exceptional men. Where there are two men to sustain one opinion & only one man to sustain another, the one is a more valuable man than either of the two: & after all, the men willing to vote against the Irish Church are at least 200 to one as against men holding original opinions of their own like yourself & Mr Bradlaugh. Moreover, the good average liberal, especially if he is a man of rank, is likely to have a better chance for a larger number of constituencies than such a man as Mr Bradlaugh: you will see that I urged upon Mr B. the importance of not allowing a Tory to step in, & this seems to me the only important consideration in the matter. You will perhaps let me add that I could scarcely forbear smiling at the modesty which could let you suppose that you were the candidate against whom Mr B’s efforts are likely to have the greatest effect, even if he did oppose you, which I sincerely believe he would not do.

1286.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Avignon

Sept. 13. 1868

Dear Chadwick

As I have not heard from you since your letter of Aug. 28, and as I see that another candidate is in the field against Bouverie, I suppose you are now at Richmond. I am a good deal disappointed that nothing came of your visit to Scotland. In your place, I think I should have run the chance. I should have tried whether, by holding meetings, without spending much money, a sufficient impression might not have been made, to obtain the warm support of the working classes: Nichol’s opinion is worth more than twenty discouragements from members or candidates or their middle class partisans, who are sure to be against disturbing any member, who is nominally of their party, in his seat. The main consideration is, whether you are likely to find any better opening elsewhere. If so, it will be either through Glyn or Beales, Beales the more likely of the two. There is still time before you, but not much more than enough, as all the constituencies are getting fitted with candidates. Your best chance is in the recalcitrancy of the new electors against the wealthy nobodies who are imposed on them by the old party managers. But you need to be ready to seize these opportunities at once, before some unwealthy or popularity-hunting nobody has got the start. Many an opportunity has been missed by good candidates in this general election already, for want of promptitude.

Let me know when there is anything I can do. My letter can be used with a few verbal changes in the first sentence, for any opening that presents itself. As soon as a subscription list is open, I will send mine. I am

Dear Chadwick
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1287.

TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN

• Avignon

Sept. 13. 1868

Dear Sir

I am much obliged to you for your letter, which I shall place among the papers to be referred to at the next revision of my Logic. I was not aware of the antiquity of the phrase ars artium as applied to Logic. I had marked the humourous doggrel from Molière to be quoted correctly, instead of incorrectly, as I had done on the authority of Whewell. The words I used in p. 71 were probably also quoted at secondhand from some writer who retained the pith of the satire without remembering its words. I may have followed many modern authorities in speaking of occult causes when I ought to have spoken of occult qualities. Who was the introducer of the former phrase? Was it Descartes?

Probably I had better substitute some other phrase for “second intention” in my illustration of no meaning. I know the meaning, indeed more than one meaning, of “second intention,” and it is best not to stumble against possible sense when one wants to exemplify nonsense.

I am Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

A. De Morgan Esq.

Virtus Dormitiva

In the article ‘Physique’ of the Dict. de Phil. Schol. of the Abbé Migne’s collection, after noting the virtutes and essentiae as scholastic faults, which is only true of their abuses, the author proceeds thus:—

‘Arnauld lui-même, Arnauld le Cartésien, pratiquait les vieux erremens de la scholastique, lorsqu’il disait à Malebranche, “Il est insensé de se demander pourquoi l’âme humaine pense à l’infini et au nécessaire. Elle y pense parce que c’est dans son essence d’y penser.”

‘Aujourd’hui encore l’école écossaise et l’école éclectique expliquent exclusivement les phénomènes psychologiques par des facultés qu’on multiplie et qu’on distingue parfois avec une ridicule subtilité; et on s’imagine qu’en plaçant ainsi sous les faits intimes des facultés que la conscience n’a jamais perçues on a fait de la science.

‘L’école rationaliste commet la même erreur dans la question de l’origine du langage. L’homme parle parce qu’il a la faculté, donc il a pu inventer la parole.’

The Schoolmen never generalised a quality until they had at least two instances. As long as there was only A which had a certain virtus, they said nothing about it; it was occult, i.e. unknown. But when B was found to have the same they had such knowledge as comes of classification, being almost all they had.

The moderns invented a name upon one instance, and made it a cause. They said that magnetism was the explanation of the magnet. The Schoolmen would have waited until the amber showed its quality, and then the distinction of magnetism and electricity would have been specific knowledge, the genus being virtus attractiva. It is something to know two phenomena with a generic agreement and a specific difference.

If the medical candidate had known the mind of those who classed, he would have said, I do not know why except in that I can refer the phenomenon to a class. We note agreements and differences and arrange them. Arnauld, &c., might have a similar answer made for them, but not for those who inferred power of invention of languages from possession.

1288.

TO J. R. WARE

• Avignon

Sept. 13. 1868

Dear Sir

The numbers of the Illustrated Weekly News which you were so kind as to send, were only quite recently forwarded to me here. The articles on Trade Unions to which you call my attention seem to me very sensible, and I agree in all essentials with them. I am quite of opinion that the various forms of Cooperation (among which the one most widely applicable at present to production, as distinguished from distribution, is what you term the system of small percentage partnerships) are the real and only thorough means of healing the feud between capitalists and labourers; and, while tending eventually to supersede trade unions, are meanwhile a natural and gradually increasing corrective of their operation.

I look also with hope to the ultimate working of the foreign competition, on the effects of which you dwell in the first of the two articles. The operatives are now fully alive to this part of the case, and are beginning to try how far the combination principle among labourers for wages, admits of becoming international, as it has already become national instead of only local, and general instead of being confined to each trade without help from other trades. The final experiment has thus commenced, the result of which will fix the limits of what the trade union principle can do. And the larger view of questions which these considerations open up, and which is already visibly enlightening the minds of the more advanced workpeople, will dispose them more and more to look for the just improvement of their condition rather in becoming their own capitalists, or allying themselves on fair conditions with the owners of capital, than in their present uncomfortable, and often disastrous, relations with them. I am

Dear Sir
yours very sincerely

J. S. Mill

J. R. Ware Esq.

1289.

TO WILLIAM COX BENNETT

• Avignon

Sept. 14. 1868

Dear Sir

Mr Dickson, whom I understand to be the Secretary for Deptford, wrote to me during your absence, asking me either to attend or to write a letter; and as I was unable to attend, I sent him a letter for the purpose of being read at the meeting, the receipt of which he has acknowledged. It would be too late now for me to write to Mr Bright with a view to the meeting of the 16^th, even if I felt entitled to indicate to him the course I should think best, which I am not sure that I do. I am very glad to hear of the powerful support which has been promised for the meeting. The success of the movement seems certain, and will do lasting honour to the borough of Greenwich. I am

Dear Sir
very truly yours

J. S. Mill

W.C. Bennett Esq.

1290.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Avignon,

Sept. 22 1868

Dear Chadwick

The question of standing against Mr Bouverie is, of course, entirely for your own consideration. But, after Mr. Bouverie’s attack on Mr. Gladstone and the Liberal party in the early part of last session, he certainly cannot be counted on for allegiance to the party, and can only be considered as aiming at the character of an independent member.

The question, therefore, is solely between your opinions and public services, and Mr Bouverie’s: and I am not aware of any such services rendered by him to the public, and to the cause of improvement, as need give you the smallest scruple in asking any Liberal Constituency to give you the preference. I am

Dear Chadwick
very truly yours

(Signed) J. S. Mill

Edwin Chadwick Esq

1291.

TO CHARLES ELIOT NORTON

• Avignon

Sept. 24, 1868

Dear Sir

Along with this, I send you the letter which I have written for publication. I have, on consideration, thought it best not to address it to an American newspaper, which would be too like arrogating to myself the right of lecturing the American people. I have given it the form of an answer to a private friend who has asked my opinion on the question. If you will honour me so far as to be that private friend, please fill up the blank at the beginning with your own name. In any other case, three stars must stand for a name.

Should there be any mistake of fact, or anything that seems to you injudicious, or otherwise objectionable in the letter, you would do me a favour by pointing it out. It is unnecessary in that case to send the letter back, as I have kept a copy.

There is no doubt that the feeling of the mass of the working classes in England is very much alienated from the propertied classes. They are very strongly imbued with a sense of the opposition of interest between the receivers of wages and the payers of them. But I do not think that this feeling has reached the point of personal hatred between classes. I think that the operatives have confidence in the good will towards them of many persons in the higher and middle ranks, and that experience has taught them to expect that the others will be brought round gradually by the joint influence of conviction, persuasion, and prudence. The intelligent, who are the politically active part of the working classes, are not impatient; they have a sincere dread of the mass of brutal ignorance behind them, and have consequently set themselves to demand very vigorously a real national education. This they will soon obtain, & it will alter, in an incalculable degree, all the bad elements of the existing state of things. Already the aspirations of the workmen to the improvement of their physical condition are pointing not so much to anything to be done directly by the State, as to what they can do for themselves by cooperation. Revolution and civil war will not come from their side of the question; for, when their minds are sufficiently made up, the existing political institutions are sufficient to carry into execution their will. The political enfranchisement of women, whenever it takes place, will further strengthen the influences opposed to violence and bloodshed. The only question which may possibly become dangerous is that of the land. There are signs of a rapidly growing conviction in the operative classes that the land ought not to be private property but should belong to the State. This opinion, which has always seemed to me fundamentally just, may perhaps come to maturity before the landholding classes are prepared even to listen to it; & in that case there will be bad blood and violent class animosities: but even then, as far as I am able to anticipate the future, it seems to me that the probabilities are in favour of the settlement of the question by a succession of compromises without coming to blows. I am

Dear Sir
very sincerely yours

J. S. Mill.

C. Elliot [sic] Norton Esq.

1292.

TO CHARLES ELIOT NORTON

• Avignon

Sept. 24, 1868.

Dear M^r . . .

You ask me what I think of the controversy now going on in the United States respecting the rightfulness of paying off a portion of the national debt contracted in cash, in a depreciated paper currency, and of taxing, in violation of an express compact, the interest of the national bonds. It is painful, even to have to answer such a question. It is already a great calamity that two such proposals should have been inscribed in the electoral programme of a great political party, and not unanimously rejected even by its opponents. The success of either proposal would, in my estimation, be one of the heaviest blows that could be given to the reputation of popular governments, and to the morality and civilization of the human race.

This is one of those vital questions which send us back to the first principles of social existence, and compel us to ask ourselves what are the conditions which enable mankind to dwell together in nations and communities, to work together in joint undertakings, and exchange the privations of the savage for the blessings of civilized life. The very first and most essential of these conditions is, that they should be able to trust one another’s engagements. Even savage life could not be carried on unless the savages frequently helped one another: in civilized life every human being depends for comfort, for security, often for life itself, upon things done for him by other people. If he could not rely upon other people for doing what they undertake; if his experience taught him that a man who makes a promise, does so with the intention of only keeping the promise if it happens to be quite convenient; he would have to look to himself alone for all protection, and for the supply of all his wants. He would be below the condition of most savages. If we cannot trust each other’s word (was the saying of an eminent man) we may as well go back to the woods.

But if there is one case more than another in which it is indispensable that men should keep their promises—should do what they pledge themselves to do—it is the case of money contracts. All the complex fabric of our civilization rests upon the paying and receiving of money; every one’s plans of life, and almost every one’s assurance of living at all, are built upon the expectation of receiving, at the appointed time, the money or money’s worth due to him from others. If any one buys a thing, and then does not pay for it; or sells a thing, and then does not deliver it; if any one hires services, and does not pay the wages agreed on, or receives wages, and does not perform the service; if any one borrows money or money’s worth, and, though able, does not repay it at the time agreed on, or withholds the equivalent which he had bargained to give for its use; the defaulter not only proves himself a dishonourable and dishonest man, he not only inflicts an injury, which may be serious, which may be even irreparable, upon the individual who has trusted him, but he does what lies in him to dissolve and put an end to that trust in one another, without which there would be no exchange of commodities, no separation of employments, and no man would have any satisfaction for his wants except what his own labour or craft could directly provide. The impossibility of carrying on human society, even in an almost rudimentary state, without holding men to the fulfilment of their engagements, has always been so obvious that there is not a single known community, past or present, in which provision has not been made for enforcing those engagements, by laws and tribunals, supported either by a public force set apart for the purpose, or, in ruder societies, by the collective strength of the community.

Can any reason be given why the obligation of good faith, which holds between one man and another, is not equally binding between the entire community and any person who has trusted them? Is a promise made by the whole people through their authorized agents less sacred than a promise made by a private person, which also may have been made through his agents? Ought the fact that there is a tribunal which can compel individuals to keep their contracts, and no tribunal which can coerce a nation—ought the fact, that the debt of a nation is a debt of honour; ought the fact that a nation can be a swindler and a knave if it chooses—ought this to make any civilized people think that it can dispense in its own favour, with the duty which its own tribunals enforce against its citizens? Unless it be a sufficient license for committing a crime, that it can be committed without any immediate penalty except the disgrace, there is no other difference between the two cases but such as makes the criminality greater, of a nation which robs its creditors, than of an individual. For, in the first place, a nation always can pay its creditors if it chooses; which cannot always be said of an individual. And, in the next place, a breach of faith by a whole people involves everybody in the guilt, except such as with their whole heart and strength denounce and protest against it. It is an example of fraud displayed in the sight of mankind, and penetrating into every family in the country. It is a direct sanction of the like dishonesty to every citizen in his private transactions. Let any one be really persuaded that a whole people may break its word, and refuse to pay in full the money it has borrowed—is he likely to think that he himself is culpable for doing the same in his own private affairs, if he can manage to evade the legal punishment which is the only real distinction between the two cases?

The detractors of democratic government on this side of the Atlantic have been accustomed to say that however specious may be the arguments for it, in its actual working it would turn out to be a retrogradation towards barbarism. Until now, the example of the great American Republic, notwithstanding the dishonourable conduct of several of the States (mostly—would that I could say always—among those which had been demoralized by slavery) has generally been deemed a practical refutation of these sinister prophecies. But the charge against democracy of being a return to barbarism would be made out, if its effect were to be the public repudiation of pecuniary engagements. It is a remarkable fact, that what the people of the United States are now urged to do with respect to the five-twenty bonds —urged by the programme of a political party (happily not by every member even of that party) bears an almost exact likeness to some of the most disgraceful misdeeds of the European despots in the middle ages. Read the history of the most profligate Kings of France and other European countries, not excepting England, and see who were those whose conduct excited the greatest public indignation during their lives, and left the deepest stain on their memory when dead. They were those who debased the coin. What was their motive for debasing it? To put off their creditors with the same nominal sum of money, but a less quantity of the precious metal. Even the despots were so conscious and so much afraid of the infamy of this fraud, that they generally endeavoured to commit it secretly and in silence. They made it a capital offence to betray the secret. Would they have been less guilty if they had impudently brazened it out? Living in a rude age, the only means at their disposal for committing the fraud was the coarse expedient of altering the coin. Their ingenuity had not reached the contrivance of putting forth pieces of paper which pretended to be money and were not, inducing people to take them by a promise printed on the paper to give for it on demand real money of the same nominal value, and then breaking that promise and issuing them in such numbers as to be only worth half the money which they purported to represent. But this roundabout way, and the direct way, have the self-same purpose; to get rid of debts, by paying, instead of what one has engaged to pay, what is called the same sum of money, but is really a much smaller sum. And this example, set by the despots of barbarous ages, the people of the United States, in the ninety-second year of their national freedom, are invited by many of their active politicians to imitate!

Observe, too, that none of the apologies, poor and weak as they are, which have been suggested to the nations of Europe by the same sort of bad advisers, have any applicability to the case of the United States. The Democracy of European countries have sometimes been told that they are not bound to pay their national debts, because the money was borrowed by Kings and aristocracies who did not represent the people, and was expended in keeping the people in subjection or in carrying on foreign wars which the people had not authorized. None of these lame excuses can be alleged by the American repudiators. The most audacious pleader for dishonesty cannot deny that the money was borrowed by a Congress and a President elected by, and fully responsible to, the people—borrowed for the service of the American Republic in its utmost need, for a war which was emphatically a war of the people, and in which the stake involved was the preservation of their collective existence as a nation. The only persons in whose mouths any other doctrine can possibly be sincere, are the ex-rebels and their favourers. To all but them, it is impossible even to conceive a case in which the obligation to pay the debt, principal and interest, to the full extent of the contract, could be more binding.

A plea which imposes upon some people, who would shrink from anything which they themselves regarded as repudiation, is this: Greenbacks, however they may be depreciated, are legal tender—are the lawful currency of the United States: other persons are obliged to receive this currency in payment of all their dues, and why should the public creditor be an exception? This seems to have been the argument which prevailed with the upright, but not always clearsighted or discerning mind of the late Thaddeus Stevens. But the answers to it are manifold. The first is, that almost all persons except the public creditor have the remedy in their own hands. Those who have goods to sell can and do demand a higher price; those who sell their services can and do require a higher remuneration. Even in loan transactions that are yet to come, the lenders know the chances they are exposed to—are aware that the medium they are to be paid in is of uncertain value, and can and will require a rate of interest sufficient in their estimation to cover their risks. To all these persons the uncertainty of the measure of value is a source of great inconvenience, but to none of them is it an injustice. Injustice is done to those who had lent their money, or had otherwise become entitled to fixed annual incomes, before specie payments were suspended. Among these are the old creditors of many of the States. All persons thus situated are grievously injured, by being paid their interest in depreciated greenbacks, and would be still further defrauded if the principal were repaid to them in a similar medium. But at least the nation collectively had incurred no obligation to those persons, beyond the general obligation of good government. It had not specifically pledged the national honour to them. Even the separate States never, I believe, pledged their faith to their creditors that they should not suffer this particular injury; however binding the obligation ought to have been felt in honour and conscience. That pledge has been given to the creditors of the United States. I make no distinction between payment of the interest, and repayment of the principal. The bonds themselves, it is not denied, stipulate expressly that the interest shall be paid in cash, but are silent as to the principal. That the obligation, however, applied to principal as well as interest, was universally understood; was expressly declared by the authorized agents of the nation whenever the question was asked; was not then gainsaid by any of those who are now attempting to shake off the obligation, and was only not declared in expressed terms because nobody thought that such a declaration was necessary, or could add any strength to the pledge. In consequence of this understanding the loans were obtained at rates of interest very low under the circumstances; far lower than would otherwise have been possible. Governments which pay their creditors in inconvertible paper always borrow, if able to borrow at all, on much more onerous terms than other Governments. If those who lent their savings to the United States had been told at the time, that every thousand dollars they lent should be repaid to them in greenbacks which might then be worth not more than a thousand cents (the depreciation of the French assignats amounted to that and more) nobody, unless he could afford to make the nation a present of his money, would have parted with it unless at a rate of interest sufficient to ensure him against this extreme risk. The United States obtained these great sums of money in their extreme necessity, at an interest (all things considered) not very much exceeding what the high value of capital in a new country compels them to pay in ordinary times; and after having reaped the benefit—having by that indispensable help, saved their national existence, they are now exhorted to withhold the price, at the cost of the national honour.

The same reasons of justice and good faith apply still more obviously to the condition, expressly stipulated by the lenders, that the interest on the bonds should not be subject to direct taxation. Some people imagine that the breach of this stipulation would not be robbery provided that the bonds are not taxed at a higher rate than other property. Now I find it stated as a known fact, that they are already subject to the same direct taxation as other property; that the income they yield is subject to income tax. But even if they were not, of what consequence would it be if exemption from all direct taxation were a condition of the contract? An exemption expressly stipulated for, is not an unjust advantage conceded to them over other people, since for every advantage so obtained, value has been given by those who enjoy it, in the shape of a diminished interest. The only difference in respect of taxation between them and the rest of the public is, that they have paid down their taxes in advance, while other people wait for the visit of the tax-gatherer. To make them pay over again, under pretence that they had not already paid, would be one of the most flagrant forms of the iniquity of breaking a contract and keeping the pecuniary consideration received for it.

But there is little danger that these immoral counsels will prevail. It has been shewn by many examples in the recent history of the United States, that an agitation for something wrong and mischievous may go on for a certain length of time without visibly stirring up the good sense and honesty of the country to resist it; and many such agitations commence, culminate and decay, without disturbing public tranquillity, or leaving any permanent traces of their existence: but that when one of these agitations attains a sufficient height to begin to be dangerous, a mass of opinion which ordinarily remains quiescent rouses itself into activity, puts down the wrong thing with a vigorous hand, and peremptorily demands the right thing instead. So, I doubt not, it will be with this pernicious and discreditable, but, as I firmly believe, chiefly factitious movement, set up by political adventurers for the chance of gaining the few stray votes which, in the present state of the parties, might suffice to turn the balance of many an election.

I am
Dear Mr.
very sincerely yours

J. S. Mill

1293.

TO THOMAS BEGGS

• A[vignon]

Sept. 27. 1868

Dear Sir—

I am exceedingly sorry that you should have had any trouble or annoyance in consequence of my subscription for the election of Mr Bradlaugh. When, some time ago, I was asked to allow my name to be put on Mr B.’s Comm^ee I declined, giving as my reason that I thought myself bound to consider the possible wishes of my friends in W[estminste]^r. But when it came to a question of refusing any support whatever to Mr B. to whom I sh^d certainly have given some had I never been put forward for W, it appeared to me that it would be inconsistent with the footing on which I stand with the constituency, as well as not altogether open on my part, were I to act otherwise as member for W. than I sh^d have done before W. did me the honour to choose me. In giving this aid to Mr B. I did not take at all into consideration his religious opinions, with which as practical politicians we have nothing whatever to do. Though, like yourself I know his career only by report, I have understood that he was formerly violent & intemperate in his language, a defect which it is to be hoped may disappear with time but which if it does not he will share with some of the best known men in the H. of Commons, for there are several members of Parl^t whom few working men at all events would be disposed to consider models of temperance in speech, yet whom all parties are willing to see in the House because they are forcible exponents of a particular point of view. It may be said for Mr B. in palliation that persecution naturally provokes violence, & at the time when he commenced men were still put in prison for expressing his opinions, indeed, if I remember right, he himself has been imprisoned for them.

But with regard to Mr B’s political opinions & conduct all that I know is greatly in his favour, No one who is active in politics on the radical side seems to me less open than he is to the much lavished accusations of being a demagogue or a panderer to popular prejudice. He seems to me a thinking man, who forms his opinions for himself, & defends them with equal ardour whether they attract or alienate those whom he seeks to influence. I may mention as one example, that he is a strenuous supporter of representation of minorities which whether right or wrong (a thing I do not now discuss) at least proves him to be no friend to the despotism of the greater number; & as a second example his earnest Malthusianism which places him in opposition to a vast mass of popular prejudice, supposed to be particularly rife among the radicals of the working classes. If the capability of taking & the courage of maintaining such views as these is not a recommendation, to impartial persons, of an extreme radical politician, what is?

With regard to his standing against Liberals, or rather against a Liberal, for to my excellent friend Mr Gilpin he disclaims all opposition, I am extremely desirous that you should fully understand my opinion on that subject. Undoubtedly the point of first importance at the present juncture, is to return to Parl^t supporters of Mr Gladstone & of the disendowment of the Irish Church. This object ought not to be sacrificed to any other & a member whose vote can be relied on for this purpose ought not to be opposed at any risk of bringing in a Tory. You are aware that I have cautioned Mr B. on this point as I do everyone to whom I give any advice about the approaching elections. But the importance of the immediate struggle ought not to make us forget that the Parl^t we are going to elect has much other work to do besides this—that we are looking to it for a general revision of our institutions & for making a commencement of effort against the many remediable evils which infest the existing state of society. Already the too exclusive attention to one great question has caused it to be generally remarked, by friends & enemies, that there will be very little new blood in the future Parl^t, that the new H of C will be entirely composed of the same men, or the same kind of men, as the old one. Now I do not hesitate to say that this is not what ought to happen. We want, in the first place, representatives of the classes, now first admitted to the representation. And in the next place we want men of understanding whose minds can admit ideas not included in the conventional creed of Liberals or of Radicals, & men also of ardent zeal, even if not always according to discretion, for it will all be wanted to make every impression against the force of at least negative resistance of those who are satisfied with their own position in life, & without meaning any harm are careless of evils because they do not feel them. Were Mr B in Parl^t, his zeal and ability would be of great use & his violence, if he were still violent, could do no harm except to himself: & he is a much less able man than I take him for if he ever again repeats such errors of violence as those he is accused of.

These are the reasons why I sh^d be glad to see Mr B in the H. of C. & why, though I sh^d have preferred to see him displace a Tory, I still desire his success even against Lord Henley; who, moreover, would probably have much less difficulty than Mr B. in obtaining another seat. I can say most sincerely that no one more thoroughly disapproves than I do any conduct or expressions needlessly offensive to the reverential feelings of any one even if I had less sympathy of feeling with him than I have with many pious minds.

1294.

TO GEORGE THATCHER

• Avignon

Sept. 27. 1868

Dear Sir—

The works which contain most matter adapted to your purpose in a small compass are a pamphlet entitled “Enfranchisement of Women” reprinted from the W[estminster] R[eview], another pamphlet by Miss Helen Taylor entitled The Claim of Englishwomen to the Suffrage, & my own speech on the subject in the H. of C. All these are published by Messrs. Trübner 60 P[aternoster] R[ow]. There are a few pages devoted to the question in Mr. S. Bailey’s Rationale of Representation & in my own “Cons^id on Repr. Gov^t” of which there is a People’s Edition.

1295.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

• A[vignon]

Sept. 27. 1868

Dear Sir—

I thank you for your proposal to translate my writings into French. All of them, however, with the exception of a collection of essays in periodicals entitled “Dissertations & Discussions” have either been already translated & published in the French language, or are in course of being translated at the present time, with my concurrence & sanction: & I am therefore precluded from closing with your gratifying offer.

With many thanks for the kind & flattering expressions in your letter, I am

1296.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

• A[vignon]

Sept. 28. 1868

Dear Sir—

I am much obliged to you for your book which I expect to read with interest & instruction when leisure permits. I thank you also for your kind invitation but am unable to avail myself of it having no other time than the recess of parlt for many important occupations.

1297.

TO SAMUEL WARREN BURTON

Avignon, Oct. 1, 1868

Dear Sir—

I beg to acknowledge your communication of the 23rd ult.

I have subscribed to the fund for the election of Mr. Bradlaugh, because, in my opinion, the change which has been made in the constitution of Parliament will be a comparative failure unless the opinions and feelings of the working classes are represented in it; and because the persons representing those opinions and feelings who seem likely to obtain seats in the new Parliament are far less numerous than I think it desirable they should be.

We are looking to the new House of Commons, not solely for putting the Liberal party in office and disestablishing the Irish Church, but for making a commencement of measures calculated to improve the material and social condition of the mass of the people. This cannot be expected unless the suffering as well as the prosperous classes are represented in the House, and represented by men who are capable of making their voices heard.—I am, dear sir, yours very faithfully,

J. S. Mill

S. W. Burton, Esq

1298.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

• A[vignon]

Oct. 1. 1868

Dear Sir—

I have had the honour of receiving your letter of the 15^th ul^to respecting the Marylebone Penny Readings. It gives me sincere pleasure that so useful a work as these readings should be so successful. I am, however, as a general rule, averse to connecting my name with any undertaking to which my occupations prevent me from giving any portion of my time & attention; & the many distinguished names already on the list of patrons & which are more than sufficient to give the Readings every advantage that can be obtained by that mode of adhesion, render the addition of my name quite superfluous.

1299.

TO EDWARD P. BOUVERIE

• Avignon

Oct. 4. 1868

Dear Mr Bouverie

It is of so much importance to the public good that the very best man each party possesses should be sent to represent it in the House of Commons, that it is much to be desired that every constituency should consider, not merely whether a man will do to represent it, but whether he is the best man to be had; and that every candidate should consider first, not his own claims and wishes, but the public interest. For my own part I can fairly disclaim acting ungenerously towards yourself when I warmly support the candidature of Mr Chadwick, because I would very gladly put him in my own place if I saw a probability of success. I consider Mr Chadwick to be an altogether exceptional man, to whom it would be an honour to any other man to give way; because, however superior he may consider himself, or might actually be, to Mr Chadwick in some things, there are others (of extreme importance in Parliament) in which Mr Chadwick has not his equal in England, nor, so far as I know, in Europe.

In regard to the matter of sowing dissensions among the Liberal party, I could say a great deal, which I am sure would meet with sympathy in the advanced portion of it at least, and would shew to all portions that I am not acting without very cogent reasons. I need not enter into these at present, because, as you will see from what I have already said, there exist reasons enough peculiar to Mr Chadwick, to decide my line of conduct towards him, even without reference to more general considerations. I am

My dear Sir
Yours very faithfully

J. S. Mill

The Right Honourable

E. P. Bouverie M.P.

1300.

TO CHARLES ELIOT NORTON

• Avignon

Oct. 4, 1868

Dear Sir

I am truly glad that you are pleased with the letter, and that you think its publication will be of service. On the matter of fact as to the liability of the bonds to income tax, my original impression was what I now learn to be the correct one; but I found the contrary so positively stated in articles and letters in newspapers, that I supposed I had been mistaken, and altered my first draft accordingly. The rectification you have been so kind as to make will perfectly meet the case.

I should have been glad if your name could have appeared in the first line, but on that point your judgment and feelings must decide.

I have no uneasiness as to the future of England from the two points in its condition which you mention in your letter. Those “who would work if they could find work to do,” will, I think, find their field of employment greatly widened by the rapid progress of industrial improvement, and such of them as the growth of the national wealth does not provide employment for, will be more and more taken off by emigration. “Those who would not work even if work were abundant and wages fair” are a comparatively limited class of the lowest of the population, and whatever they make it necessary to do in order to keep them in obedience to law will have the fullest support from the respectable working people. “The ignorance and hopelessness of the mass of the agricultural labourers” are in a fair way to be removed. The movement will soon be irresistible for a national education which will include them; and as soon as they have intelligence to know that better wages are to be had in the manufacturing towns, or in the United States or the Colonies, they will flock thither. Emigration, already so great an element in the social economy of Ireland, is only beginning to reach the agricultural districts of England. It will be the great safety valve, and will, I think, prevent the stir that is sure to take place in the minds of the agricultural labourers from having any other than a wholesome effect.

In the United States, ever since the North shook off the yoke of the South, the most favourable prophecies are always those which are verified. Allow me to say with what pleasure and instruction, always increasing, I read the North American Review. The July number is perhaps the best I have yet read. I am

Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

C. Eliot Norton Esq.

1301.

TO EDMOND BEALES

• A[vignon]

Oct. 9. 1868

Dear Sir—

You are no doubt aware that Mr Chadwick has gone down to the Kilmarnock burghs, that he has been very successful, has been generally accepted by the working men as their candidate & that they are very confident of being able to return him as their member. I hear from Mr C. that in the opinion of his supporters, the only thing which gives Mr Bouverie a chance is the candidature of M^r McDonald, who is Secretary to the Miners Union & is expected to carry with him the miners of one of the five burghs, Rutherglen, which is a mining place, but who, it seems, has very little support in the other four burghs, & though he has an encouraging letter from Professor Beesly, is not thought to have any chance of success, but may perhaps take from Mr C. a sufficient number of votes to turn the scale in favour of Mr Bouverie if the Whigs & Tories unite as they probably will. Both Whigs & Tories prefer any one of the old set of backward politicians to any man with troublesome new ideas. The inclosed report from the Glasgow Herald shews the complete failure of Mr M^cDonald at Kilmarnock. At Mr Chadwick’s meeting at K it was estimated that he had more than a thousand workmen for him, but his supporters, not to offend the miners, & to let them do the best they could, did not move an amendment at Mr McD’s meeting. It would be a great triumph of advanced opinion if Mr C. were elected & it will be a great pity if M^cD’s candidature sh^d prevent it. Mr C. was put forward before Mr M^cD. was known to be in the field, & he would be more listened to in the House even on the subject of the miners, than Mr M^cD; having paid special attention to their condition, as was shewn in his report on the sanitary condition of the labouring population in 1842 as well as on subsequent occasions. I write this to you because if you are able to bring any influence to bear on Mr McD. either directly or through Prof Beesly that might induce him to retire you may perhaps think it desirable to do so. No one man that I know is likely to do so much in the House for the interests of the working people as Mr C. & now when he seems to have a good chance it would be sad indeed that such a hindrance as this sh^d defeat it.

You are yourself encumbered by an obstacle of a similar kind, though from a much more considerable person, Mr Newton. I earnestly hope he may be induced to postpone his candidature or to try his chance with some other constituency. No radical or working class candidate ought to place himself in competition with you though it was of course quite right & no more than was to be expected from your public spirit that you should as you did set an example of willingness to be governed by any [illegible word] like a division of the liberal electors.

1302.

TO P. CALLERALL

• A[vignon]

Oct. 9. 1868

Dear Sir—

The letter of which you enclose a copy was written by me. I believe there can be no doubt that Mr Bradlaugh is a very fair representative of the opinions of a very large & important portion of the working men of England. I, who have always maintained that the working classes do not form a homogeneous mass all exactly like one another, as we have been often told they do by their opponents, of course admit most readily that Mr B. is no fair representative of other large & important sections of the working class. But as there are in the H. of C. & ought to be, representatives of the Quakers, the R. Catholics, many of the various Dissenters as well as of the C. of England, & the Jews, so I do not see why the working classes may not have one representative of opinions which are indisputably extremely rife among many of them however distasteful these opinions may be to many others.

I say all this as regards what if I understand rightly is the main objection to Mr B. because I would fully face the most serious difficulty: & I do not hesitate to say that if Mr B. chooses to take his stand upon what are called secularist principles in religion, & can succeed nevertheless in inducing any constituency to send him to Parl^t, he ought not to be prevented from doing so by want of funds: for in that case it is plain that he must represent a class of opinions sufficiently considerable to have a right to be represented. But I am not aware that Mr B. does take his stand upon these principles. I understand him to come forward as a representative of purely political opinions & in that case I do not think that any one is entitled to object to him on the ground of religious opinions: for to do so is contrary to the principles we follow when Jews &c. are admitted to Parl^t. If Mr B. were a rich man, I sh^d not have taken any steps to forward his election; had he been a rich man, I think no one would have blamed me if I had taken any such steps. As a matter of fact I have done nothing whatever to forward Mr B.’s election except to help to remove in a very small degree whatever obstacle poverty may be to his chances. I pronounce no opinion upon his merits but leave them to be judged by those who are better qualified to judge them than I can profess to be myself.

1303.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Avignon

Oct. 9. 1868

Dear Chadwick

I have received your two letters of Sept. 30 and Oct. 4. We are, as you may well imagine, highly delighted at your excellent prospects. For the purpose of getting Mr McDonald out of your way, I should have more faith in the influences of the constituency itself than in any others, for it is only local opinion that will make him think he has no chance of success. I have, however, written a long letter to Beales on the subject. Mr Beesly, though I believe I was once introduced to him, I hardly know even by sight, and have no reason to think that I have any influence with him. For aught I know, he might even be disposed to go against any recommendation of mine. Beesly belongs, I fancy, to one of the advanced Comtist sets, and they, you know, do not at all go along with me. Mr Beales may have influence with him or with McDonald, and may be willing to exert it; it is, however, just possible that McDonald represents the Potter section of the Trades Unionists, and I rather believe there is a split between that and the League. I am not, however, quite sure of this, and so I have written to Beales.

Some days ago I received a mild expostulation from Mr Bouverie. I wrote to him in reply, saying, among other things, that I must be acquitted of acting ungenerously towards him in supporting your candidature, because I would gladly give up my own seat to you, if I thought I were able to do it: and I told him that any man might be proud to give way to you, and hinted pretty plainly that public spirit called upon him to do so. I thought it best, however, not to open upon any of my personal grievances against him (e.g. his attack upon Gladstone, and Adullamite proclivities) to himself. I am rather surprised at his writing to me, and cannot think what his motive was; but I do not think he is likely to make use of my letter, because it was the most glowing eulogium of you that I could well get into the space.

There is nothing that I can do, beyond what I have done, in the matter of the election for the Institute. It would be hopeless to attempt to influence the time of the election.

I think it is a mistake to suppose that my support of Bradlaugh at all diminishes my weight. The sort of people with whom it does so have had to put up with my Women’s Suffrage, Jamaica Committee, representation of minorities, and other “crotchets”, and probably have long ago given me up, or more properly speaking, have never taken me up at all. You know that my Malthusian and religious heresies, and my accusing the working people of not speaking the truth, were all brought up against me at the Westminster election, and all increased my popularity. I am quite convinced that nothing more increases a man’s influence than his having decided opinions of his own, and sticking to them, provided he has got good reasons to give for them. No doubt, this will give handle to his enemies to laugh at him, attack him, or abuse him, as the case may be. But people’s enemies will always have something to say against them; and those who side with you in some things are delighted to see that you have the pluck to stand to your colours even when they do not altogether agree with you. See how great has been the influence of mere pluck, even in such a case as Roebuck’s; surely this should be a lesson to men not to be afraid when they are sure they are in the right. Working men, in particular, hate hesitation, and anything approaching to smoothing away differences, and have so much of it from Tories and Whigs that nothing makes them more sure that a man is what they think “of the right sort” than his speaking and acting plainly and decidedly with them when he is with them, and against them when he is against them. I doubt whether my opposition to the ballot will cost a single vote at Westminster, and I believe that what I have done in the matter of Bradlaugh is likely to gain quite as many as it will lose; although this had nothing whatever to do with my doing it. I am Dear Chadwick

ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1304.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT

• A[vignon]

Oct. 14. 1868

. . . but the landlord has now no motive for allowing him to do this, & generally does not allow it.

For any further information I would suggest your applying to some English member who took an active part in the discussion of the rate paying clauses; Mr Hibbert, for example, or Mr Hodgkinson.

1305.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Avignon

Oct. 16. 1868

Dear Chadwick

I hope you received my telegram. I must beg you not to take any public notice of my correspondence with Bouverie, as, being private, though on a public subject, I do not think it right to give publicity to it, or to anything contained in it, without the consent of the other party concerned. I am still in correspondence with him.

I do not remember anything done by Bouverie to obstruct the Reform Bill of 1866.

I have read all your speeches in the papers you sent and I think them very telling. I am

Dear Chadwick
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1306.

TO EDWARD P. BOUVERIE

Avignon, Oct. 19, 1868

Dear M^r Bouverie

Though a great deal surprised I am far from dissatisfied at seeing our correspondence up to this point in the papers, as I had not thought myself at liberty to publish it without your previous consent.

Your observation that choosing the best man to be had “would be fatal to the mutual confidence between represented & representative” is a misanthropical sentiment which I sh^d scarcely have expected to hear from you, since I can see no meaning in it unless it be that the constituencies so seldom get a good man that they can scarcely ever be expected to be faithful to the man they have got: I do not look upon the matter from so cynical a point of view. It seems to me that in this as in other matters in life the more particular people are in choosing, the less likely they are to change their minds after they have chosen. In the particular case also in which you deprecate inconstancy it would appear that the constituency of K[ilmarnock] has been constant for the last five & twenty years, from whence one may fairly infer that they made a very good choice 5 & 20 years ago. But 5 & 20 years & a new Reform Act make a great change in men & in politics, & if the constituency of K makes as judicious a choice now as it did when it last changed its representative, I sincerely hope it will be 5 & 20 years before it changes again. Still, with the fullest regard to the consideration due to past services, one must admit that there ought to be some limit to it. You would not, I presume, maintain that a seat in Parl^t ought to be a seat for life, unless the member has given some violent offence to the constituency. The urgency of an infusion of new blood is as good a reason for making a new choice, as dissatisfaction with an existing representative: & there is no time at which giving the preference to a new candidate is so little of a reflection on the former member as when a change has been made in the Constitution, admitting new electors often much more numerous than the old.

I am sorry that the occasions on which people have asked my advice or help in their electioneering affairs should have caused me so often to incur your disapprobation by expressing opinions so very different from yours as to the sort of men that would be of most use in the H of C. But I do not see that the fear of being disagreeable to one class of candidates ought to prevent me from giving my opinion, when asked, in favour of another class or that there is anything presumptuous either in answering questions that are addressed to me, or in giving testimony which I am told will be of use to those in whose favour it is given, & which, if as you say it has no weight, will at least be innocuous to their rivals.

I have no objection to receiving the advice you tender in the last sentence of your letter, although I did not invite it by opening up any communications between us. For my part I never presumed to give you any advice, nor did I “incite” you to retire in Mr C[hadwick]’s favour, because I had no idea that you were in the least likely to do so; I merely, in reply to a communication from yourself, shewed how very public spirited a proceeding I sh^d consider it if you did. I sh^d not however have troubled you with this opinion if you had not been the first to write to me.

Writing to yourself, what at the time I wrote it, I supposed was to be a private letter, I did not think it necessary to raise the question how far the present member for K. is entitled to claim the support of liberals on the ground of fidelity to the liberal party. But to the public or to the constituency I have no hesitation in saying that no untried man can be looked upon as less a member of the liberal party than the man who at the beginning of this present year, called the liberal party a rabble & declared that their leader was incapable of leading. I do not know that any one is likely to do more than this to sow dissension among the liberal party nor do I see what possible claim this gentleman can have upon party fidelity, or what pledge he can give his constituents that he will not at a critical moment turn round again upon this same “leader who cannot lead” & shew himself even more a conspicuous example of a “follower who will not follow.” Whatsoever claims he may have upon his constituency can only be those of his own individual personal merits; he is the last man who has a right to the sympathy of his whilom party or who can appeal against me on the ground of his high sense of the claims of party organisation.

Even in the most ordinary circumstances, the efficiency of representatives can only be kept up by a keen rivalry, & a probability that if they fall below the standard they have ever attained, their constituents will look out for new men who come up to it. But we are not now in ordinary times. There are not only new electors to be represented, but new questions to be decided, requiring men deeply impressed with the wants of the country, & who have exercised their minds on the means of remedying the most pressing existing evils. The liberal electors have a right to a choice between their present members & any others who may seem to them better qualified in this respect & such choice is denied them if it is regarded as treason against liberalism for a new liberal candidate to offer himself in competition with an old member.

I am keenly sensible of the importance of not dividing the liberal party: but it is not a very hopeful way of keeping the party united, for the representatives of the old electors to engross all the representation, leaving none for the new: & if a reasonable number of men of advanced opinions, or possessing the confidence of the working classes, are not to be included among the recognised candidates of the party, they cannot be blamed if they sometimes stand against those who are. Just as we are often told that to secure the unity of a married couple what is the man’s is his own, & what is the woman’s is the man’s, so now we are being told every day that to secure the unity of the liberal party which is threatened by a division between the old men & the new, the old men should be represented by themselves, & the new men by the old. With the solitary exception of the advice which you supposed me to give to yourself, I have not heard of any instance in which it has not been proposed to resolve the difficulty by the new men retiring, & the old men magnanimously accepting their retirement. And this in many cases is very naïvely put upon the ground that as the old men will not consider the public interest & retire, for fear of letting in a Tory, the new men must.

The real danger, in my opinion, of the liberal party, is not what you consider it to be. It is in the renewal of the tactics which made the last H of C a spectacle of dissension & want of principle, shewing us representatives trying to slip out of the engagements their constituents conceived them to be bound by, & others yielding a shameful obedience when called to order by the dread of losing their seats, while in cases where this powerful motive was not in operation, men elected under the same banner proved by their conduct that there was as irreconcilable a variance in their intentions & political feelings as if they had sat on opposite sides of the House. What gave this deplorable character to the last H of C was that its so called Liberal members were rallied under the cry of supporting Palmerston, as we are now told they ought to be rallied under the cry of disestablishing the Irish Church. Now, I am not one of those who think that the political progress of England has but one step more to make before reaching its summit, where it may rest & be thankful, & that if a man is ready to vote for the disestablishment of the Irish Church he is ready to do all that the staunchest liberalism can demand of him. But I would remind those who differ with me as to the all-sufficiency of this particular step, that our power to make even that step next session may depend upon our getting men into the H. of C. who are not merely certain to vote for that step, but who will follow their leaders loyally through all the parliamentary tactics with which our skilful opponent will try to impede the way. Days, weeks, & months may be lost if Mr Gladstone’s majority is composed of men who will keep their word in voting for the disestablishment of the Irish Church, but will thwart & embarrass their leader in every previous step by which that desirable consummation may have to be led up to. It was not the Tories but the Adullamites, who weakened the liberal party in the last parliament; & if a similar result should befall it in the next there will be cause for bitter regret that the liberal party did not fight out its battles at the polling booths rather than in the lobby of the H. of C. There does not appear to be any danger that Mr G[ladstone]’s nominal majority will not be greater than in the last Parl^t. What the country has to look to is that his majority shall be more steadfast to genuine liberal principles. We do not want men who cast reluctant looks back to the old order of things, nor men whose liberalism consists chiefly in a warm adherence to all the liberal measures already passed, but men whose heart & soul are in the cause of progress, & who are animated by that ardour which in politics as in war kindles the commander to his highest achievements & makes the army at his command worth twice its numbers; men whose zeal will encourage their leader to attempt what their fidelity will give him strength to do. It would be poor statesmanship to gain a seeming victory at the poll by returning a majority numerically large but composed of the same incompatible elements as the last; even if we put political principle aside & look at nothing but the exigencies of the fight we are going to sustain against a politician renowned for his skill in availing himself of the disunion of his opponents.

I am yours very faithfully

J. S. Mill

1307.

TO CHARLES STEWART WALTHER

Avignon, Oct. 25, 1868

Dear Sir—

I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 22nd inst. in behalf of Mr. Howell’s London provisional committee, asking my opinion respecting his candidature. It would give me much pleasure to see Mr. Howell returned to Parliament. I look upon it as of great importance that the working classes should be represented in the new House of Commons by persons possessing their confidence, and that some of those persons should be themselves working men; and, though my knowledge of Mr. Howell personally is not great, what I have seen of his public conduct has made me look upon him as one who, in point of opinions and abilities would be a valuable representative of the working classes in Parliament.

I am
dear Sir,
yours very sincerely,

J. S. Mill

1308.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES

• Avignon

Oct. 29. 1868

Dear Mr Cairnes

It seems a long time since I heard from you, as well as since I wrote, but Fawcett sent me some weeks ago a letter of yours to him. The report of your health, though in some respects satisfactory, shewed less improvement in the local complaint than your friends, and I suppose your medical men, had hoped for. I shall be very much interested in having later intelligence.

How weary and sick you must be of the Irish Church and all that belongs to it! The subject is sickening even to me, who have not been living in the atmosphere of the abominable passions which self interest and bigotry combined have kindled in those who will be losers in one way or another when justice is done. I am impatient to see that worn out subject dead and buried, that the public may get to the practical interests of Ireland—landed tenure, and education. On both these, there will be great battles to fight, and on the first, if not on both, they will be long battles. The delay of the contest on Education has, I think, thus far, been favourable to the right. There is a growing feeling against Denominationalism in State education, by which Ireland will benefit. I am glad to see the number of students in the Queen’s Colleges has not fallen off as was expected. The abolition of Maynooth will greatly strengthen the argument for opening Trinity College. The Catholics are quite right in saying that Maynooth is the counterpart of that, and not of the Church Establishment.

The election prospects look very favourable, as far as regards the largeness of Gladstone’s majority. You will have seen that I have brought the newspapers upon me by doing my little possible in favour of getting into that majority a small infusion of more useful elements. How impossible this is, on the old plan of leaving everything to the party managers, is shewn by the double failure of Mr Courtney’s candidature at St Ives. I am much more attacked for helping Chadwick against Bouverie (unfaithful as Bouverie has been to the Liberal party) than even for subscribing to Bradlaugh; though the latter proceeding is the more likely of the two to alienate voters in Westminster. All the opinions I hear from my supporters about the prospects there, are favourable, but their tone is not so confident as their words, and they have thought it necessary to summon me, very much against my will, to spend the fortnight before the elections in speaking at meetings. I shall therefore be in England at the very beginning of November.

You will be as indignant as I am at the attempt to turn out Fawcett. The only points on which he is attacked by Coningham and Coningham’s supporters, are among his positive merits; his not jobbing for the people of Brighton; his supporting the minority clause; and Coningham actually reproached him with wanting to punish severely an elector who is bribed!

I hope some day to talk over with you the reasons pro and con about abolishing Marriage Settlements. I have been reading Mr McDonnell’s paper which you recommended to Fawcett. I quite agree with Mr McDonnell about the bad consequences of making the eldest son sure of succeeding independently of the will of the parents. But property might be settled so that it could not be squandered, and yet the power of bequest retained. In settlements on a wife and her children it is already common to give her the power of distributing the property among the children by will, and I do not see why property should not be settled on a person for life, with power of bequest, but not of alienation inter vivos. The great argument, however, for marriage settlements is the protection of the wife. Mr McDonnell is willing that the wife’s own property should be secured to her by settlement so long as the present law respecting the property of married women is maintained. But the alteration required would be much greater than merely not to deprive her of her ownership. As long as she is at all in the husband’s power, she is liable to be forced to surrender her rights. It would be necessary that she should not be compellable to live with him; and that anything done by him which would be unlawful if done to any other person, should be unlawful when done to her. And there must be some just arrangement about the children in case of separation. Until all this is accomplished I think it would be a great aggravation of the dependent position of women to put an end to settlements.

I hope all is now safe in America, as far as relates to the continuance of the Republican party at the head of affairs, and without any diminution of vigour in their councils. Since the ex-slaveholders are incorrigible, it is a good thing that they cannot help shewing themselves to be incorrigible. The danger of tampering with the rights of the public creditor seems also to be blowing over. It certainly was thought, at one time, to be serious. I was asked to write something on Repudiation, in the form of a letter that could be published in the Nation, and afterwards circulated in the broad sheets of the Loyal Publication Society. I have done so, and it has just come back from America, and is reprinted in last Wednesday’s Morning Star (October 28). I hope if you see it you will approve of it, as I know you will of its sentiments.

I should be delighted to hear from you. It will be best to write to Blackheath until the election is over, after which, whether I am elected or not, I shall return here.

I hope Mrs Cairnes’ health continues to improve.

I am
Dear Mr Cairnes
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1309.

TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN

• Avignon

Oct. 29. 1868

Dear Sir

I have endeavoured, with such scanty means as are within my reach, to obtain information on the matter on which you wrote to me on the 20^th of September. I have been unable to learn anything about the abbés Blanchard and Dumas, but the Abbé Pézenas was a mathematician and astronomer of distinction and professor of hyd[r]ography for the navy at Marseilles, whence, when age obliged him to relinquish his professorship, he returned to Avignon, his native place, and died there in 1775. The only public library at Avignon contains an early work of his, “Histoire critique de la découverte de la longitude.” The Logarithmic Tables are not in that library, but there is a Monsieur Bourges at Avignon who well remembers to have had them in his possession. M. Bourges has a large collection of books in an unarranged and confused state, but he has promised a friend of mine to search among them for the work in question, which perhaps may still be found there. There is a biographical notice of M. Pézenas in a dictionary in M. Bourges’ possession, but it does not say anything of the Logarithmic Tables, to which, as you mention, the editors did not put their names. M. Pézenas also published a translation of a treatise on Fluxions written in English by a mathematician with a French name, but I have not been able to learn if it was Desclozeaux, or who else: probably you will know what book it must have been.

Avignon, at the time mentioned, was a place of publication (or at least printing) for all sorts of books which were published in France, licentious books, &c. which were printed in cellars and secret places, generally with extreme incorrectness: and a thing which stamped in M. Bourges’ memory the recollection of the Tables, was the singularity of the circumstance that a work requiring such punctilious exactness should have been printed in such a place.

When I obtain any further information, I shall write to you again.

I am
Dear Sir
yours very truly

J. S. Mill

Augustus De Morgan Esq.

1310.

TO CHARLES FRIEND

• A[vignon]

Oct. 29. 1868

Dear Sir—

I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 26^th inst.

Your difficulties & anxieties are such as the extreme imperfection of our public arrangements for education (though I am happy to say they are at last showing some signs of improvement) imposes on all parents who are at once thoughtful & conscientious, especially when, as is the case with the greater number, circumstances compel them to rely on others than themselves for a great part of the education of their children.

In regard to religion, I do not think it right either oneself to teach, or to allow any one else to teach one’s children, authoritatively, anything whatever that one does not from the bottom of one’s heart & by the clearest light of one’s reason, believe to be true. It seems to me that to act otherwise on any pretext whatever, is little if at all short of a crime against one’s children, against one’s fellow creatures in general, & against abstract truth in whatever form it appears most sacred to one’s eyes. One has most assuredly no right to incumber the reason & entangle the conscience of one’s children, one has no right to send citizens out into the world to play their various parts for or against their fellow creatures furnished with anything less than the most honest truth that one can give them. Nor can I see that the plea of worldly interest is the smallest valid excuse, although I am well aware how many people think it so. But in the first place he would be a wise man indeed who can foresee the state of society 15 or 20 years hence. In the second place the clear intellect & the sturdy conscience which are acquired in a household where truth is reverenced above all things are as valuable to men & women pushing their way in the world as any supposed conformity with popular prejudice. In the third place, if there is one thing to which we all ought to give our allegiance irrespective of consequence it is truth, & here I look upon the ancient Christian teaching as the highest the world has yet known, & sh^d regard it as a misfortune indeed if this noble spirit were to die out with the prejudices which have overlaid it. But I do not believe it will, & the immense value attached to worldly prosperity by the bulk of so-called Xtians is to me the best proof that their doctrine is hollow & effete.

But I do not think that there sh^d be any authoritative teaching at all on such subjects. I think parents ought to point out to their children when the children begin to question them, or to make observations of their own, the various opinions on such subjects, & what the parents themselves think the most powerful reasons for & against. Then, if the parents show a strong feeling of the importance of truth, & also of the difficulty of attaining it, it seems to me that young people’s minds will be sufficiently prepared to regard popular opinion or the opinions of those about them with respectful tolerance, & may be safely left to form definite conclusions in the course of mature life.

There is one other point in which a mother may I believe be of immense use to her children, which is apt to be too much overlooked in my opinion in modern education, but on which there is a great deal of good sense in Miss Edgeworth’s stories for children, in Sandford & Merton, & in Miss Martineau’s Household Education: & this is, teaching children (more especially if they are not going to be rich) to respect, to enjoy, & habitually to practise manual and domestic labour. The love of this, & the sense of moral dignity in doing it, are, next to the love of truth, the very most valuable possessions with which to begin life, whether we consider happiness or the power of getting on.

To cultivate the intelligence, nothing perhaps is of so much value as a love of reading: & to secure this, it is essential to let young people read whatever they may come across & are disposed to read. Moreover, if careful selections are to be made for them, it becomes a most embarrassing question at what age are they to begin to be allowed to know any of the realities of life? & in many respects such knowledge is likely to be more mischievous if it comes startlingly upon them when they are of an age to understand it than if it is taken for granted in what they read when it has no particular interest for their childish minds.

I know of no schools so good as the Birkbeck schools & if there is one within reach I should think both boys & girls could receive an excellent education at it. I do not know precisely up to what point the education is carried on at them, nor what amount of education you contemplate giving to your children. I imagine that some of the best education to be had now, of a more advanced sort, at no great expense, is to be had by following the classes at the Working Men’s College, or at one of the Scotch universities. Either of these however are of course not for children, but I believe that the Birkbeck school would be a fit preparation for either of these. You are no doubt quite aware that I think it a duty to give girls as solid an education as boys, & doubly so if they are likely to have to earn their own living: & the progress now making in the education of girls is so considerable that it is not likely that 20 years hence any young woman will be able to earn by teaching who has not some solid instruction herself.

1311.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Avignon

Oct. 30. 1868

Dear Chadwick

I am much obliged to you for your bulletins of progress. It is a thousand pities that your path should be crossed by a mad parson; and that there should be another working men’s candidate in the field, with power to take away votes from you, though without any chance for himself. If he can be induced to withdraw, it must be by the influence of working class opinion in the boroughs themselves. I wrote very strongly to Beales from whom I have had no answer: but the London chiefs of the League have probably little influence in the localities.

By publishing the correspondence, Bouverie did me a favour which he did not intend, by compelling me to do what would have been an impertinence if I had done it uncompelled—to put forth a manifesto on the necessity of bringing in new men in the place of some of the old. The reply appears to have produced a considerable effect, and seems likely to act on the electors even more than on the talking and writing public. The Times, though obliged to take notice of it, got off with the fewest words it could; and most spiteful words they were. The spite of the newspaper writers is partly against you, for getting more praise than they like you to have; partly (as the Daily News remarked ) against me, because they are angry at finding that my words have influence. One would suppose that giving a recommendatory letter to a candidate had never been heard of before, instead of being quite in the common course. The Glasgow paper you sent, mentioned Disraeli’s recommendatory letters to Wycombe. It might have added that Roebuck in 1832 went to Bath with a recommendation from Hume. How else are new men to make themselves known? This sort of cant is intended to keep all influence a monopoly in the hands of residents.

I have just received a letter from a surgeon in West Cornwall, saying that a candidate is very much wanted for that division of the county, that he would undertake within ten days to get up a numerously signed requisition to any man of mark, asking whether I can prevail upon you to go down, and saying “There would not be any doubt about his” (your) “return if he came among us. Those already in the field are of no account whatever.”

I sent you by yesterday’s post a number of Le Temps, containing a letter by Louis Blanc on the Bouverie correspondence, where you will see in what high terms he speaks of you.

I have to be in London for a meeting of electors next Monday evening, Nov. 2.

I am
Dear Chadwick
ever yours truly

J. S. Mill

1312.

TO FLORENCE MAY

[Before November? 1868]

Dear Madam—

I am very glad to find that you enjoy Buckle’s History, & I suppose from what you say, that you would like to enter into a course of reading that would be a good preparation for historical & social philosophy.

Something must depend in this course on the number of hours you can give to reading every day, & on the quickness with which you are in the habit of reading. But in any case I would strongly recommend three things. First, to read every book (with few & special exceptions) straight through from the title page to the last word. 2. To read a fixed number of pages of such reading as is taken for work, every day. I do not recommend hours, but 20, 50, or 100 pages. To read the working reading of the day as early as circumstances will admit in the day: but never, unless on some very rare exceptions, to go to sleep without having read it. 3. To fix so small a quantity of reading for work, as shall never be a burden, nor weary the mind, nor interfere inconveniently with other occupations; & to fill in the many gaps of time which will be left unoccupied by this rule, with light reading, amusing & agreeable, which has the advantage of being attractive when you are tired, of being able to put aside for days together when you are otherwise occupied, & which at the same time if well chosen may end by filling the mind with a fund of valuable knowledge as to the habits & ideas of past times & foreign countries.

I recommend, therefore, dividing your reading into four courses, which sh^d be carried on simultaneously: the first two of them to consist of books, some small portion of which sh^d be read invariably every day, & every word of which sh^d be read steadily through. The third course sh^d consist of books from which you can select portions if you like, which are comparatively light reading, but which sh^d be read because they are standard books the knowledge of which is necessary to any thorough knowledge of the progress of the human mind & of the history of manners. These need not be read every day if time is wanting, yet it might be a good rule to read some of them every day whenever there is time before taking up the still lighter or more exciting literature of the 4^th course.

The fourth course sh^d consist of those chefs d’œuvre of literature which are sure to be interesting, as well as of whatever modern books you find tempting & agreeable without fatiguing the mind. For I think it of great value to acquire a habit of constant reading in order to acquire in time the power of reading quickly, & I am convinced that this cannot be done with safety to the health of those who eschew light literature. To those who mean to spend their life in study, light literature is a necessary relief, while as I have already said, it is by no means without good results. I think that in it newspapers magazines & reviews may be very usefully included, if you find them agreeable reading; but even the most valuable articles in periodical publications ought to be read for pleasure, & not as part of the work of the day, because they do not fit in to a steady course of reading.

I inclose a list of books for the four courses, which I have put in the order in which I think it would be good to read them. The first course sh^d have the freshest part of the day, as it requires thought; & the two first courses sh^d if possible be read in the order in which I have put them down. The last two need not necessarily be read in this order, but it is very desirable that in reading them you sh^d ascertain & [note in?] your own mind while reading, the date at which they were written, so as to observe as you read the changes of ideas & manners.

I have not put down any books in any foreign language, because unless there is any foreign language you read with as much pleasure & fluency as English, I think it waste of time at present to read its literature. But if there is any such language, it would be well to let me know, because in that case I could perhaps point out useful books in each course to read in it, supplying some want which cannot be supplied in English.

1313.

TO HELEN TAYLOR

Wed^y 3 oclock
[November 1868]

Since I closed (& stamped) my letter, this has come from Miss Cobbe. I am on the whole inclined to think she had better not vote, since she believes there was an actual mistake in the name —which makes her case different from that of the Ashford and other ladies who I think should vote. But whatever you think, I have no doubt your reasons will be such as I should agree with. The polling day will probably be Tuesday.

ever affectionately

J.S.M.

1314.

TO J. S. BIRD

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

Nov. 3. 1968

Dear Sir—

The grounds of the claim for the admission of women to the Suffrage are stated in small compass in a paper reprinted from the W. R. under the title “Enfranchisement of Women”, in a pamphlet by Miss Helen Taylor, “The Claim of Englishwomen to the Suffrage” & in my own speech in the H. of C. all published by Trubner, 60 Paternoster Row. The right of women to the suffrage under the existing law, is maintained & defended in Mr Chisholm Anstey’s work on Representation & in a pamphlet published by him. The Secretary to the National Soc^y for Women’s Suffrage is Mrs. P. A. Taylor, Aubrey House, Notting Hill.

1315.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK

• Blackheath Park
• Kent

Nov. 4. 1868

Dear Chadwick

I have written at once to my correspondent, Geo. Gill Esq. Zion House, Marazion, with whom you will no doubt wish to correspond directly. It will be best to say nothing of the matter in any public manner for the present, so that the initiative may come entirely from the Cornish constituency. I hardly think that in a county, a requisition could be obtained from anything approaching to a majority of the electors; at all events not without great expense and loss of time. But of this you will judge better after further communication with Mr Gill. Meanwhile I send you his letter, that you may know what are the opinions which he himself wishes the member for West Cornwall to hold on matters interesting to the locality. Some of them are not the most enlightened; but the main points are such as you could take up and work with great effect. It is the cause of working miners against mine-owners.

ever yrs truly

J. S. Mill

1316.

TO JAMES EDWARDS

• B[lackheath] P[ark]

Nov. 5. 1868.

Dear Sir—

As a good opportunity did not present itself at the meeting yesterday evening for answering your questions, I now answer them by letter.

The first question you ask raises a difficulty which will exist at whatever sum we fix the limit to the Income Tax: for whether the tax begins at £100 at £200 or at £500, that sum will represent a larger real means of support in some places than in others. But I am very much disposed to think that the limit of £100 is too low; and that it would be an improvement to make the income tax begin at £150 (as it did at first), if not higher. If all taxation were direct, it ought to come down to the limit of income just sufficient for the necessaries of life, & everyone ought to pay in proportion to the surplus of the income he possesses beyond those mere necessaries. But so long as the larger part of our revenue is raised by indirect taxation on articles of almost universal consumption, & of which the poor consume more, in proportion to their small means than the rich, s