The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXXII - Additional Letters of John Stuart Mill, ed. Marion Filipiuk, Michael Laine, and John M. Robson, Introduction by Marion Filipiuk (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1991). http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/239,
|Available in the following formats:|
|Facsimile PDF||16.5 MB||This is a facsimile or image-based PDF made from scans of the original book.|
|Facsimile PDF small||4.31 MB||This is a compressed facsimile or image-based PDF made from scans of the original book.|
|Kindle||734 KB||This is an E-book formatted for Amazon Kindle devices.|
|EBook PDF||1.78 MB|
|Simplified HTML||1.63 MB||This is a simplifed HTML format, intended for screen readers and other limited-function browsers.|
Vol. 32 of the 33 vol. Collected Works contains letters by Mill which were left out of earlier volumes and a full list of correspondents, and of persons and works cited in the letters.
The online edition of the Collected Works is published under licence from the copyright holder, The University of Toronto Press. ©2006 The University of Toronto Press. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form or medium without the permission of The University of Toronto Press.
editors, both past and present, of Mill’s correspondence have had to live with the certain knowledge that the task would remain incomplete. To the second volume of Earlier Letters, Professor Francis E. Mineka had to append three “Additional Letters” that had come to light after the volumes were in page proof.1 At the conclusion of the fourth volume of Later Letters, he added another, much larger collection of recently discovered letters, one of which had, again, arrived too late to take its proper chronological place, even in the late additions.2 We have been somewhat more fortunate with timing, in being able to add to this collection at the very last moment a newly arrived series of letters to M.E. Grant Duff. The ever impending problem of new acquisitions bears evidence to the continued flourishing state of Mill studies, and we cannot pretend to undue concern.
Even before the manuscript of Volumes XIV-XVII was submitted to the publisher, a misplaced fragment of a letter was sent to John M. Robson, appropriately by Professor F.A. Hayek, the originator of the project to collect and publish Mill’s correspondence. The fragment appeared first in the Mill News Letter,3 and was added in its proper place in Volume XIV. Six letters from Mill to Sir William Molesworth also made their first appearance in the News Letter,4 and then were subsequently included in the Appendix to Later Letters.
Since 1972 thirty-seven more letters have been edited for publication in the News Letter by friends of Mill and members of the Mill Project, and seven others have been published in the Mill Society Bulletin, Japan. As we continued to become aware of the existence of yet other letters, and were fairly certain that in the intervening years new material would have found its way into manuscript Edition: current; Page: [viii] collections, we became convinced that we should initiate a new search and gather in all known correspondence as part of the Collected Works.
Beginning in 1985, major public and university libraries and archives in the United Kingdom, the United States, and France, historical associations, relevant special collections, and selected libraries in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand were contacted about recent acquisitions or holdings possibly overlooked, with some pleasantly surprising results. We were informed of three Mill letters in an important collection of manuscripts recently left to the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York by Gordon N. Ray; and a set of eight letters exchanged between Mill and James Fitzjames Stephen was drawn to our attention by the Librarian at Cambridge University. In the course of locating the various drafts of Mill’s despatches in the India Office Library and Records for the publication of a finding list in Volume XXX of the Collected Works, Martin and Zawahir Moir found more than seventy letters and notes from Mill to his colleagues in the East India Company. Professor Shohken Mawatari undertook the task of checking the manuscript holdings in Japan, with resulting additions to this collection, and Professor Shigekazu Yamashita sent us copies of the letters to Theodor Gomperz, earlier believed lost, but now held at Kokugakuin University. Individual collectors, such as Professor Arnold Heertje, have also been extremely helpful and generous.
From the files of Professor Mineka (which included those of Professor Hayek), graciously passed on to us in 1985, emerged other clues to previously unpublished material, such as entries from dealers’ catalogues. Though most of these letters could no longer be traced, three have subsequently been located, in the Pierpont Morgan (Ray) collection and in Japan; some, no doubt, remain in private hands. In the files was also a series of typescripts of letters from Mill to Henry Cole made by Professor James McCrimmon from manuscripts in his possession in the early 1940s. Some, but not all, of these were printed in Volumes XII-XIII; the rest appear here for the first time. We believe that the McCrimmon manuscripts, apparently sent off for inclusion in the Mill-Taylor Collection at the London School of Economics, were probably victims of enemy action while in transit during the Second World War. A letter to Professor Mineka, indicating the existence of a manuscript fragment at Manchester College, Oxford, enabled us to obtain the first part of Letter 1474A, to Mary Carpenter; and, much to our surprise, the remaining fragment appeared in the collection of the College of Law, Nihon University, Tokyo.
In all, well over 300 letters have come to light over the past eighteen years, and now take their place in the Collected Works. The distribution by decade is generally similar to that in the previous volumes. Three have been added to the relatively meagre number that hitherto represented the correspondence of the 1820s, and forty-three to each of the decades of the 1830s and 1840s. There are fifty-eight new letters written in the 1850s, of which forty-four derive from the Edition: current; Page: [ix] India Office Records. By far the greatest number, however, 129, belong to the decade of the 1860s, when Mill achieved the height of his fame; and thirty-three, in a roughly similar proportion, represent the first two-and-a-half years of the 1870s. They add appreciably to our knowledge of almost every stage of Mill’s life.
Particularly significant is the long letter to George and Harriet Grote (8.1), which describes many of the activities of Mill’s circle in 1824-25, and three early letters to John Bowring (8.2, 8.3, and 31.1) that suggest the relations between him and the Mills may not have been quite so strained as has previously been believed. A letter of condolence to J.B. Say, on the death of Mme Say (29.1), reveals the deep respect and gratitude that Mill entertained for Say and his family, as well as the depth of his feelings on the suicide of his great friend Eyton Tooke. A response to questions by J.A. Blanqui (85.1), Say’s pupil and successor, about the teaching and propagation of political economy in England in 1833, illustrates Mill’s boundless good will and effort in accommodating and assisting French acquaintances. A letter to the Paris bookseller Paulin (177.01) also, however, demonstrates his signal lack of success in making the London and Westminster Review a real vehicle for the international exchange of ideas.
The series of letters to Henry Cole, which is discussed in a separate section below, has greatly enriched the detail of the circumstances surrounding the transfer of the Review to him and William Hickson in 1840. Two other letters of that year (284.1 and 285.1) to John Calvert, from a Mill deeply grieved by his younger brother’s death, show that relations with Calvert, John Sterling’s great friend, on whom Mill relied during Henry’s last days at Falmouth, were close. The second also throws light on the way in which discussions at the Sterling Club helped Mill to understand the Christian commitment of the Wilberforces, and it dates his earliest steps to revise his essays for publication, a plan not completed until the appearance in 1859 of Dissertations and Discussions. The correspondence with Theodor Gomperz, discussed in detail below, which began in the 1850s, illustrates another of Mill’s warm, personal relations, in this case with a younger disciple who was much in need of the generosity of spirit that was shown him. A separate section is also devoted to consideration of the recently discovered internal memos from the archives of the East India Company, which add to our understanding both of the workings of the Company and of Mill’s work as its employee.
Many previously unknown and interesting contacts during the decade of the 1860s came to light in the course of our search, some producing challenging questions. The second of three letters (594A, 617A, 1547A) to J.E. Thorold Rogers, Drummond Professor of Political Economy at Oxford, expresses Mill’s relief at escaping “the crowd and turmoil of the present occasion,” in mid-June 1863, and adds, “I should be a little ashamed, too, as well as surprised, at being thought sufficiently orthodox when Kingsley is not.” No evidence has been found that Mill was, like Kingsley, nominated for the degree of Doctor of Common Edition: current; Page: [x] Laws, but at that time Kingsley withdrew his name from the lists of candidates because of objections to his views. A letter to the botanist John Lindley, editor of the Gardeners’ Chronicle (671B), demonstrates both Mill’s active concern for conservation and his intolerance of the “selfish rapacity” of those who would collect rare plants. Three letters to James Fitzjames Stephen (690A, 833A, 1431A) illustrate the course of their relationship between 1864 and 1869.5 Two letters to the philosopher Henry Sidgwick in the fall of 1867 (1127A, 1160A) are, like two of those to Stephen, answers to requests for advice, and demonstrate the same tact and wisdom in response to difficult questions. Five to J.M.F. Ludlow (1046A, 1046B, 1112A, 1118A, 1521B) deal with more practical matters, the administrative reforms with which Mill was concerned; they reveal that in 1867 Ludlow was very active in assisting Benjamin Scott in preparing his evidence for the Select Committee on Metropolitan Government (on which Mill served), and that Ludlow had assisted James Beal in preparing his bills on the same subject.6 One letter is Ludlow’s reward for services rendered: a warm endorsement by Mill of his candidacy for the office of Registrar of Friendly Societies, along with a keen and humorous assessment of the politician Robert Lowe. There are three letters supportive, in principle, of William Rossiter’s efforts in 1867 and 1868 to launch and develop the South London Working Men’s College and its accompanying school (1152B, 1239A, 1246A), and one to Elizabeth Malleson (999A) applauding her similar endeavours for a Working Women’s College.
An excerpt from a letter written to the General Council of the International Working Men’s Association in July 1870 (1583A) confirms that Mill had indeed some knowledge of Marx, or, specifically, of his speech on the Franco-Prussian war, which may have been sent to him for comment and which he found admirable. Other new contacts in the few years of the 1870s that remained to him continue to illustrate the constant demands made upon his time for a variety of causes. A group of letters that are held at the Palais du Roure in Avignon may also illustrate something about the way Mill’s correspondence was bundled up, when, more than thirty years after his death, books and papers were disposed of at the local Librairie Roumanille. There are fourteen letters to Mill, with seven draft replies written verso and two drafts on separate sheets, most dating from the short period of August to October, 1871; the remaining pieces are a certificate dated 1858, unanswered letters of 1861, 1864, and 1865, and an envelope from 1888.7 Edition: current; Page: [xi] In all there are twenty items, probably representing a single lot at the sale in May, 1905.
The editorial method followed here is virtually the same as that used in the six previous volumes of correspondence. When the autograph letter has not been available, the draft has been used and is so identified. We have reproduced our sources as closely as possible, retaining vagaries of spelling in both English and French without comment. We have, however, transferred dates and addresses that appeared at the end of a letter to the beginning, and occasionally have silently added an end-of-line comma or full stop. The first footnote to each letter provides the location of the manuscript; addresses and postmarks where available; publication information for letters previously printed; information about conjectural dating; and, at first references, identification of the recipient. When possible, letters have been related to those sent to Mill.
The practice in the Appendices of Collected Works, Volume XVII, has been followed for the enumeration of the letters. For additional Earlier Letters, a decimal notation has been used: e.g., Letter 284. 1 below, of 25 Apr., 1840, is next in chronological sequence after 284, of 22 Apr., 1840, in Volume XIII, pp. 429-30. An alphabetical indicator signals additions to Later Letters: e.g., Letter 336A below, of 29 Nov., 1858, follows 336, of 28 Nov., 1858, in Volume XV, p. 578. In eight cases, when the letter antedated one already inserted in the sequence, we were forced to resort to a further refinement; see, e.g., 171.01 and 862AA below. Letters already in Collected Works in incomplete form, reprinted here in full, retain their original numbers. Of fifty-two undated letters discovered, we have managed to assign dates to all but fifteen; these last have been arranged chronologically, as far as could be determined, in a separate section, and bear the prefix “No.” In footnotes, letters in this volume will generally be referred to by number, letters in Earlier and Later Letters, by volume and page.8Edition: current; Page: [xii]
several of the new letters to Henry Cole and one to John Mitchell Kemble throw more light on the story of Mill’s divesting himself of the London and Westminster Review and transferring it in the spring of 1840 to Cole and William Edward Hickson.9 Mill’s determination to withdraw from the costly proprietorship and onerous editorship was evident in October 1839, when he tried to interest Thomas Wentworth Beaumont, the wealthy proprietor of the British and Foreign Review, in taking it on. His first tentative approach (265.1 below) was through Kemble, the editor, with whom he had only “a former slight acquaintance,” but through whom he thought it prudent to make the preliminary enquiry. Since the two reviews had had the “same difficulties to struggle against,” and basically the same readership to draw upon, Mill thought there might be some pecuniary advantage to Beaumont in incorporating the rival radical organ. Kemble’s reply apparently indicated several issues on which the opinions of the two reviews had been at variance, and clearly suggested that he was unfavourably disposed to the merger; but he offered to write to Beaumont.10 Mill was left dangling for months, expecting some sort of response from Beaumont, and apparently unwilling to let the silence speak for itself.
As early as August 1839, Mill began to confide his problems with the Review (and with John Robertson, who had been mismanaging it in his absence on the Continent) to Cole, who was obviously interested in becoming involved, but said nothing at that point.11 He knew about Mill’s offering it to Beaumont, since they discussed the matter during walks to town in October. There is no hard evidence in Cole’s diary that he was pressing his suit, though VanArsdel interprets the fact that all contact with Mill ceased during Cole’s illness, 7 November to 14 January, as an indication that he was perhaps putting too much pressure on Mill.12
Robertson apparently called on Cole on the first day of that illness to talk about the “future management of the review.” A previously unpublished letter from Mill Edition: current; Page: [xiii] to Cole (268.1) may be dated to 12 November, the Tuesday following that meeting. Robertson must have explained some sort of “plan” that he and Cole had formulated, which possibly involved their sharing of the editorial duties in future. The letter also suggests that they were hoping Mill might be persuaded to retain the proprietorship if he were relieved of the editorial burden. Robertson appears not to have felt that his position was threatened by the proposed arrangement, as Mill says, “He seemed to me to be neither for nor against the plan, but to await my decision. Now my decision, if I consider myself only, will be, whatever becomes of the review, to withdraw myself from it.” Beaumont is still his major hope; he thinks, after waiting nearly a month, that he “cannot be much longer without” an answer. If Beaumont fails, Mill says: “I should like best . . . that your schemes should proceed, with some other person than myself as the proprietor.”
There is no mention of Hickson in this letter, and no indication that the discussion went any further at this point. Mill may have decided that he prefered to shelve their plans until he knew definitely where Beaumont stood. Cole, however, was not totally idle. The diary for 17 November notes that Hickson called and “promised to help in some new arrangements of the L. and W.R.” This is the first entry that specifically links Hickson with the plans, though contacts between Cole and Hickson were frequent during this period.13
Mill continued to wait throughout December and January, and the only relevant item in Cole’s diary is the unspecific comment that on 7 January, 1840 he had a chat with William Makepeace Thackeray about the Review. It is likely that no one wanted to push Mill, since all were aware that he had serious concerns and financial responsibilities resulting from the declining health of his brother Henry. And it is likely that Mill’s procrastination and wavering were at least partly the result of his disturbed state of mind and the uncertainty about his brother’s fate.14
On 6 February, in the midst of this turmoil, and presumably feeling the pressure of shortly having to produce the March number, Mill suddenly offered the Review to Cole, still “in case of Beaumont’s refusal to buy it,” and then, just as suddenly, the next day withdrew the offer. Letters 273 and 276, the dates of which were uncertain, can now be assigned through Cole’s diary to 6 and 8 February: Cole and his brother called on Mill on the 9th to try to straighten things out. “One or two Edition: current; Page: [xiv] friends” had, in the interval, been trying to persuade Mill that he should not allow the Review to continue with the name unchanged, as he would remain closely associated in people’s minds with it, and that it would be more to his credit “that it should cease entirely than that it should be continued as anything else than the philosophical & political organ it was designed to be.” Perhaps Mill felt guilty and embarrassed about having treated Cole badly, because, after a breathing space, contact, if not negotiations, resumed by 15 February.15
At the “eleventh hour,” on a Thursday, probably 27 rather than 20 February, Mill wrote to Cole, again offering him the Review if he would carry it on under the name of Westminster, and adding that he would be even happier to turn it over to him and Hickson jointly, as Cole proposed, but all this still subject to a last-minute offer from Beaumont, “or from some other quarter almost as improbable.”16 Letter 277.1, here published for the first time, is obviously a second note written at “20 minutes before 6,” on the same day, just as Mill was rushing off to Reynell’s to oversee the printing of the March number of the Review.17 It was prompted, obviously, by the fact that he had indeed had the offer from the “other quarter [he] alluded to,” and he would suddenly like the matter decided, with “an announcement in the present number,” but was still somewhat short of certain: “if you are willing to carry it on our agreement must be conditional on the very probable event of my refusing [the other offer].”
No such announcement appeared in the March number, though, curiously, discussion seems to have heated up among all parties almost at once. It is scarcely surprising that final arrangements failed to be made on such short notice, and other moves were apparently afoot. Cole had noted in his diary on 20 February (a Thursday) that Robertson had called on him; there is no specific mention of the Review at all, but on the following Friday, the 28th, Cole and Robertson dined together, and then with Mill and George Fletcher (an occasional contributor to the Westminster) walked to Kensington. How can all this be squared with Mill’s making an offer to Cole on the 27th, which Cole not only failed to take up at once, but failed to mention in his diary?
It is possible that by 20 February Robertson could see that Mill was wanting to put the matter to rest soon, and that his job as editor was in jeopardy; so a reminder to Cole of his interest in staying on, and his difficulties, may have appeared timely. Cole’s lack of response to Mill’s offer may have resulted from “the force of circumstances”—an inability to reach Hickson, vagueness in their arrangements (as everything still seemed to hinge on Beaumont), or his own financial uncertainty. Whatever the reasons, or the sequence of events, it is certain that after the conversations on the 28th, Robertson was aware that the tide had definitely set Edition: current; Page: [xv] against him and that he immediately mounted a campaign to save his position. It sounds, indeed, as if Robertson had made a bid to conduct the Review as sole editor. Cole’s diary for the 29th reports:
Walked to town with John Mill who seemed to think that Robertson could not manage the Review by himself. . . . Robertson called and in a round about manner urged all sorts of reasons to influence his remaining Editor of the Review. He said he did not like J. Mill’s conduct and that he had offers to write in the Edinburgh, that without him and J. Mill the character of the Review would be gone, that in fact the Review owed him £900, that he had never been able to have his own way, etc. etc.18
It seems likely that Robertson had had a rude shock on the 28th when he discovered that Cole and Hickson were potential co-proprietors and his editorship was in question. Cole was apparently sympathetic to his problems, and Robertson persevered. On 5 March he returned to visit Cole, and made a new proposal—that Cole “be sole proprietor and he editor of the Review.” Mill must have heard about this scheme from Robertson later on the same day and hoped to talk to Cole about it the next morning, but missed him. This inference dates Mill’s letter of Friday to 6 March.19
It is here that an undated letter of Cole’s must fit, in response to Mill’s early morning note.20 It is also headed “Friday.” Cole had talked to Hickson on Thursday night; Hickson was unwilling to enter into a joint proprietorship with Robertson as editor. In the letter Mill is asked to decide between Cole and Hickson, or Cole and Robertson: “the decision must rest with you.” Later that day, Mill replies: “The responsibility thus devolving wholly on me I must take till Monday to consider. But I will be prepared to give you an answer positively on that day.” (277.2.)
Cole, however, did not wait for Mill’s answer—or he knew what it would be. His diary for 6 March notes: “Wrote to John Mill abt. Robertson’s editorship. . . . In the evening writing to Robertson to decline his proposition.” On Saturday, the 7th, Hickson made Cole a generous offer to take a greater number of the shares, thereby lessening Cole’s financial responsibility in the venture.21
VanArsdel’s dating of Mill’s letter of partial explanation to Robertson to 10 or 11 March seems correct.22 Mill undoubtedly would have written before the formal transfer took place, as it did on Thursday, the 12th.23 Letter 279, in reply to Robertson’s answer of complaint, may thus be dated to Monday, 16 March.24Edition: current; Page: [xvi]
Mill obviously agreed to help Cole and Hickson with the editing if they so wished, and the brief letter to Cole (287.1) can probably be dated “before 26 May,” the date of publication of the June issue. “The Critical and Miscellaneous Notices” section became a feature of the Review under the new owners, mentioned as such in the notice of change. Though Mill clearly thought it was a poor substitute for solid articles, he went over the notices for the June number, as requested, and contributed three to the September number. This letter must have reference to the June and not the September number, because Cole withdrew in July and was no longer in charge of the section.25
The evidence from the three new letters to Cole printed below, Cole’s diary, Caroline Fox’s diary, and VanArsdel’s article permits a redating and reordering of the letters from this period as listed below. (Those preceded by No. are found in Collected Works, Volume XIII.)26
|268.1 [12 Nov., 1839?]||No. 275 [6 Mar., 1840]|
|No. 274 [22 or 29 Jan., 1840]||277.2 [6 Mar., 1840]|
|No. 273 [6 Feb., 1840]||No. 278 [10 or 11 Mar., 1840]|
|No. 276 [8 Feb., 1840]||No. 280 12 Mar., 1840|
|No. 277 [27 Feb., 1840]||No. 279 [16 Mar., 1840]|
|277.1 [27 Feb., 1840]|
the relationship between Mill and his young Austrian disciple Theodor Gomperz was similar to that with the even younger Englishman, John Morley. With these two men, Mill’s role was that of father figure as well as mentor, and his genuine interest in, and abundant kindness to, the rising generation of the talented and reform-minded is much in evidence in his dealings with them. But Gomperz’s special problems brought out the depth of Mill’s generosity of spirit for a troubled mind in a way that no other relationship called for. Mill was, in many ways, at his absolute best with Gomperz, in the honesty that accompanied the compassion and the modest reticence that avoided applying pressure to an overburdened spirit. Yet in the circumstances that accompanied Gomperz’s aspirations to Helen Taylor’s hand, Mill also demonstrated the naïveté bordering on blindness that was characteristic of his attitudes where his wife and her daughter were concerned. Gomperz treasured Mill’s letters to him over the years, and they were used by his Edition: current; Page: [xvii] son Heinrich in a study of his father’s life, based on his correspondence.27 It was from this source and from drafts in the Johns Hopkins and Mill-Taylor collections that most of these letters came into Later Letters.
In a communication to the editor of the New York Times of 25 April, 1939, Heinrich Gomperz claimed to have “published all of these letters in their full English text,” and then, having
put [them] to all the use they were capable of yielding, . . . sold the originals at a very modest price to a second-hand bookseller in London from whom they were purchased by Lord Stamp, who, not knowing that they had already been published, . . . wrote a lengthy article about them and, indeed, republished them in part in The Times of London on Dec 29, 1938.
Stamp’s selection in fact revealed that Gomperz had not published quite all of the letters, or “their . . . full text,” as, for example, a two-sentence fragment of Letter 292 and an additional paragraph of Letter 324 below, which Stamp included, bore witness. It was subsequently assumed that the letters were destroyed in 1941, when Lord Stamp died in an air raid that demolished his home.28 We now know that such was not the case. The collection appeared on the market in 1986 and, through the Tokyo dealers, Maruzen, was purchased by Kokugakuin University. It includes thirty-nine letters to Gomperz, a questionnaire relating to the Logic, and a letter to Gomperz’s sister Josephine von Wertheimstein. Owing to the good offices of Professor Shigekazu Yamashita, we were able to obtain copies for collation with the versions which had already appeared in Later Letters.29
Eight letters in the collection, and the questionnaire, are previously unpublished. Four have additional paragraphs, and other differences range from as many as three-and-a-half missing sentences to a short phrase or two. We have decided to reprint those letters (including the one to Gomperz’s sister) that differ by as much as, or more than, a major clause from the version published in Later Letters, with substantive variants noted at the foot of the page. Variants (excluding consideration of salutations and complimentary closings) between the manuscripts and the other letters in Collected Works, not reprinted here, are listed in Appendix A below.
The friendship between Mill and Gomperz began when the latter wrote in the summer of 1854 asking permission to translate and publish a German edition of the Edition: current; Page: [xviii] Logic, a request which Mill readily granted.30 Three previously unknown notes from Mill to Gomperz (262A, 262B, and 262C, below), dated almost two years later in the early fall of 1856, document the fact that Gomperz, when in England, was provided with the latest edition of the Logic, the fourth, and invited overnight to Blackheath to discuss the translation. It was the only occasion on which Gomperz met Harriet, and she seems to have approved of him, if one may judge from the personal revelation she made to him.31 Her approval would surely help to account for Mill’s continued loyalty to Gomperz, despite his inability, over a considerable period, to arrange for publication of the translations of Mill’s works.
The friendship was thus firmly established in 1856, though there was at once to be a year’s gap in their correspondence. Gomperz apparently next wrote to Mill on 30 September, 1857, telling of the death of his father earlier that year and asking a favour. Could Mill determine whether it would be possible for a medical friend of his to obtain a post in the service of the East India Company? Mill replied at once, on 5 October, as helpfully as he was able, in Letter 292 below (most of which is previously unpublished), and expressed an interest in learning more about Gomperz’s own scholarly work. Yet another ten months passed before Gomperz wrote again, apparently on 21 August, 1858, telling of his publications in the Rheinisches Museum, and suggesting that he would like to include in his translation of the Logic some of Mill’s controversy with Whewell. Once again, Mill’s response (324 below) was immediate, on 30 August, agreeing to all Gomperz’s suggestions, and in a previously unpublished paragraph saying that he needed a long “recruiting” from the “confinement of an office”; he had therefore seen fit to refuse the post on the Council of India that had been offered to him by Lord Stanley.
On 10 November, pleased to have at last, it seemed, found a publisher for the Logic, Weber of Leipzig, who was planning to bring it out in December and January, Gomperz replied.32 He enclosed a pamphlet, Die Theorie der Induktion, by Professor Ernst Friedrich Apelt of the University of Jena, and asked Mill if he would care to answer the arguments and include his response in the translated volumes. He also asked for permission to be the translator of On Liberty. This letter arrived when Mill was crippled by grief at Harriet’s death, but he dutifully Edition: current; Page: [xix] replied to Gomperz on 4 December,33 suggesting that perhaps Gomperz would make some comment on the controversy himself and seeming not to have focused on the request about On Liberty. In his lost letter of condolence of 10 December, Gomperz apparently was enthusiastic in his praise of Harriet; Mill was pleased that “so little as [he] saw of her, should have made so true an impresson.” He acceded to Gomperz’s request about the translation of the forthcoming work, promising to let him have “one of the earliest copies or the sheets.”34
In January 1859, Gomperz apparently wrote again, asking another favour—that a copy of On Liberty be sent to a friend. Mill made the arrangements, and then, not having had any acknowledgment by 31 March, wrote volunteering to send another copy if the first had gone astray. He also made a discreet enquiry into Gomperz’s “various literary projects” (381 below, previously unpublished). This letter went unanswered, and Mill wrote yet again on 16 May (392 below). He asked this time not about the book for the friend, but whether Gomperz had ever received the sheets of On Liberty and whether he was still wanting to do the translation, since he had had another offer from a Prussian magistrate, Eduard John, who was interested in undertaking it and seemed like “a competent person.” Mill in fact directly asked Gomperz (in a sentence omitted by his son) whether he knew of John, and whether “in case the undertaking should not suit [Gomperz],” he should “close with [John’s] offer.” Mill was obviously anxious that On Liberty should make the impact and gain the recognition that the memory of Harriet deserved.
This appeal brought a response from Gomperz in late May or early June, in which he referred to “unhappy events which [had] caused [him] so much pain and disturbance of mind.” Whatever the events, here was the first evidence of the emotional problems that were to plague Gomperz for the next several years and to impede progress both with his own scholarly work and with his good intentions of making Mill’s writings known in German-speaking Europe. In his reply of 11 June (398 below), Mill said he was content to leave the translation of On Liberty with Gomperz as he wished, and he tried to remove any semblance of pressure concerning it. The relationship then lapsed into a period of silence for almost two years.
Mill’s note of 18 April, 1861, and the follow-up of 3 July (487B and 494A below), were not published in Briefe, presumably because they underlined Gomperz’s failure to fulfil his commitments. Unsure that the first note would reach Gomperz, since his address had been mislaid, Mill asked him to write and give it in full again so that a copy of Representative Government could be properly sent; he also mentioned his surprise at learning that a German translation of On Liberty had appeared. By 3 July Mill had found the address, and wrote to say that a copy of the Edition: current; Page: [xx] new work was on the way and that he was “vexed” to learn of the German version by an unknown translator (494A). Whether Gomperz received the first of these appeals is not known, but the second at least evoked a response written on 1 August, which fortunately is still extant. Gomperz had evidently been in the depths of a depression for some time. Though a considerable portion of the translation of On Liberty had been finished and even “printed long ago,” his lethargy and “apathy of mind” had prevented its completion and publication. His embarrassment at his lack of performance and his immense gratitude for Mill’s kindness in renewing their friendship are touching, as is Mill’s response of 24 August.35 Mill was fully able to sympathize with a “morbid affection” that sapped energy, but expressed great confidence in Gomperz’s ability and encouraged him to continue with his translation of On Liberty. He also assured Gomperz that he did not “know anything more important or more intensely interesting than the progress and chances of the political transformation of Austria,” and that he agreed, “from beginning to end,” in Gomperz’s analysis of the Hungarian question.
Yet another silence fell until Mill, showing great forethought, wrote again, this time from Athens, on 12 June, 1862 (538B below, previously unpublished), to say that he and Helen were planning to visit Vienna and Budapest on their return home and would like to see Gomperz in Vienna, or elsewhere in Austria, “during the month of August.” He asked that Gomperz write to him, Poste Restante in Constantinople, where they hoped to be “in a month from this time, perhaps sooner.” Heinrich Gomperz did not publish this note, presumably because in his view it represented merely a complication of arrangements; but Mill watchers are interested in his deliberately planning to visit Gomperz (probably motivated in part by the young man’s new political concerns and connections) and his shortening his trip with Helen, reaching Constantinople by 24 June.36 It is interesting too that they continued in the area until about 5 July, without receiving any communication from Gomperz, as Mill’s note to him of 17 July, announcing their early arrival in Vienna, suggests.37 This note, which implies no failure on the part of Gomperz,38 Edition: current; Page: [xxi] was published by his son Heinrich; it in fact initiated a visit of several days, which was both a pleasant interlude and a prelude to further problems.
On his return to Avignon from Bad Ischel, where he and Helen had left Gomperz, Mill wrote on 17 September (554 below) to tell him of their movements in Austria after they had parted, and their activities since, in three-and-a-half sentences of interesting detail that his son chose not to include. Heinrich also made another, apparently minor, omission at the end, of two short sentences: “I have found Dr Schiel’s letter; it is dated Frankfurt. Let me hear from you now and then.” The implications in the comment about Schiel, however, are rich. In 1849 J. von Schiel had published a translation of part of the Logic, as Die inductive Logik, and in 1862-63 through the same publisher, Vieweg, a complete translation of the work. Mill’s brief remark suggests that Schiel had written to Gomperz to tell him that he was issuing this new edition, and that he had also written to inform Mill. It suggests too that there had probably been some discussion of the difficulties that Gomperz had had in trying to find a publisher, and also of Gomperz’s position as the authorized translator of Mill’s works; yet, again, the fact of a previously issued translation did not negate Mill’s endorsement of Gomperz’s efforts, though still unfulfilled.
Before Mill had posted this letter of 17 September, he had received a letter from Gomperz (now lost) that expressed great anxiety at not having heard about their safe return. Gomperz had apparently misread the signals of friendship that he had been receiving during their time together, and had begun to entertain romantic notions about a possibly permanent relation with Helen and her father. Mill’s comment in his postscript to the letter of 17 September—“I should have written before, had I thought you would have felt any such anxiety as you mention on our account”—appears unintentionally to have fed Gomperz’s hopes rather than lessened them.
The effect of these aspirations, and no doubt also of the appearance of Schiel’s edition of the Logic, seems to have been that Gomperz was driven back to his own translation of that work, and to plans for a trip to England. He wrote to Mill in late November or early December,39 setting out his hopes for a reunion in London in January and enclosing a questionnaire about the Logic, the first question of which reflects his persistent concern about his being the truly authorized translation, carried out “with the collaboration of the author” (564 below). Gomperz apparently reached London in mid-February, 1863, and Mill at once hastened to provide the new arrival with a letter of introduction, dated 20 February, to the Greek historian George Grote (589A below, previously unpublished). On that same day, Mill also took the trouble to write to the editor of the Spectator (589B below, also previously unpublished) to send him some information about the political situation in Austria that Gomperz had enclosed in an earlier letter. One must conclude that Mill hoped that the younger man would be pleasantly Edition: current; Page: [xxii] surprised, and encouraged in his endeavours, by seeing that some serious notice had been taken of his activities and his writings.
Mill clearly made an effort to repay the hospitality shown to him and Helen in Austria the previous summer, unaware that his gestures of friendship might well be misconstrued by a young man with marriage on his mind. Gomperz was invited on two consecutive Sunday evenings to dinner at Blackheath, where he met William Thornton and Thomas Hare.40 Mill also arranged for him to attend a meeting of the Political Economy Club on 6 March,41 and the public meeting of the 26th in St. James’s Hall, at which the trades unionists of London demonstrated their support for the cause of the North in the American Civil War. Mill’s invitation to that meeting (603A below), at which Gomperz was to meet Henry Fawcett, is previously unpublished. The occasion for Gomperz was an extremely impressive one, both historically, as it was the first time that the working men’s societies had participated in public discussion of a great public question of the day, and personally, as he accompanied Helen, while Mill sat on the platform.42 Yet another token of Mill’s friendship was the gift of a copy of Utilitarianism; and on Gomperz’s immediate request, permission was once again granted to him to be the authorized translator.43
Mill and Helen apparently never mentioned to Gomperz that they were planning to leave for Avignon two days after the meeting in St. James’s Hall.44 Gomperz’s letter to his sister Josephine of 29 March, describing his reception at breakfast by the Grotes at their London home on that day, suggests that he was quite unaware of the departure.45 By the time he returned on 5 April from a weekend with the Grotes and their friends at Barrow Green, however, he had heard the news, and, despite his recent social success, he was plunged into despair, both because he had obviously failed to convey his intentions about Helen and because he felt abandoned.46 On 18 April Gomperz wrote to suggest that he join Mill and Helen in Avignon, where he hoped to make his feelings clear.Edition: current; Page: [xxiii]
Mill’s answer of the 23rd, dissuading him from the visit, poured cold water on his hopes.47 He sent a tormented response, to which Mill replied, on 9 May,48 honestly, yet somewhat tenatively, since Gomperz’s letter referred to “suppositions,” apparently adverse to himself, which Mill was deemed to have made. Gomperz then went off to Oxford, where he did, in fact, make some progress with his plans to study and edit tracings of manuscripts from Herculaneum, before experiencing a kind of breakdown towards the end of the month. His strange behaviour caused his new friends there to send for help from home, which arrived, apparently in the first week of June, in the person of his friend Eduard Wessel, but not before Gomperz had gone missing for a short time and caused some alarm.49 According to Weinberg’s account, it was on Saturday, 6 June, as this crisis was occurring, that Mill, back from Avignon, invited him to dinner on the 7th to meet Alexander Bain.50 Gomperz of course did not receive this invitation until he came back to London shortly thereafter with Wessel.
The next note of invitation of 11 June (617 below) suggests that Mill, receiving no reply, went to call on Gomperz; the two phrases omitted from the letter as published by his son indicate that there was apparently some intervening arrangement proposed for the 12th, a dinner at Blackheath with Louis Blanc. When Blanc proved unavailable for that date, Mill wrote to suggest that Gomperz and Wessel come on Sunday, the 14th. The restoration of what may seem trivial omissions shows clearly that Mill was making an all-out effort to see the distressed young man.51
Distressed he most assuredly was, however, though apparently under control at the Sunday dinner party. On the following day, it seems that he wrote to Mill, hinting again at his “wishes” with regard to Helen and communicating his paranoid fears about having been “maligned” to them. This time, Mill understood what he was aiming at, and in his reply of 16 June very kindly, but firmly, suggested that he had no chance with Helen. Mill also, however, most wisely left a course of action open to him: “If you think fit to carry the matter farther, either by speech or writing—even if only for the relief of your own feelings—you will have my truest sympathy, as you have my sincere friendship and esteem. . . . I hope that nothing that has passed will make any difference in your friendly feelings towards Edition: current; Page: [xxiv] us, who remain unchanged to you. . . .” And Mill expressed hope that Gomperz and Wessel would come (as had probably been arranged at the earlier meeting) on the following day.52 Mill’s sympathy for such mental anguish was the product of experience, and his everlasting tolerance of Gomperz’s inability to bring out German editions of his works, as undertaken, was probably born of the awareness that he had contributed, even if unknowingly—or perhaps because unknowingly—to his suffering.
After Gomperz’s departure from London, which must have occurred very shortly after their last visit, Mill wrote to him on 15 July a most kind and friendly letter of encouragement,53 expressing confidence in his great ability and in the therapeutic benefits of “real intellectual work.” Gomperz apparently responded immediately, on the 18th, from the depths of unhappiness and paranoia.54 Mill waited until the 29th to reply, presumably because Gomperz had intimated that he would write again immediately, but then failed to do so. Once more Mill’s wisdom in dealing with emotional disturbance, and delusions, is greatly in evidence. He forthrightly asks Gomperz to explain to him in exactly what way he sees himself as misunderstood, so that the matter may be cleared up, and he gently reiterates the gospel of work, in proper doses, as the remedy for a great mind, greatly troubled. Nor did his active concern cease at that point. When he received no response to this encouragement, he replied on 25 August (639 below) to a letter from Gomperz’s sister, apparently written earlier, on her brother’s return to Austria, explaining the line of encouragement he had taken with him. In a sentence omitted by Heinrich Gomperz, Mill suggests that Wessel had, in the interim, sent him word of their friend’s condition,55 and Mill asked that he continue to do so.
It appears that Gomperz made some response himself after this second, indirect, effort, saying that he was somewhat better, and at work, but he also responded to Mill’s attempt to let him clear the air. Mill’s reply of 17 September (644 below) certainly suggests, however, that Gomperz was still suffering from paranoid delusions, which Mill once more dealt with directly; and once again he acceded to the request from Gomperz to be recognized as the authorized translator of Utilitarianism, enclosing a formal statement to that effect on a separate sheet.
At this point another silence fell, and it lasted until the summer of the following year, when Mill again wrote, on 26 June, 1864 (700 below), prompted, one might surmise from the introductory sentence (another omission of Heinrich Gomperz’s), by a letter from Wessel that spoke of Gomperz’s “intended publication” of Philodemus’s On Anger. Mill yet again reaffirms his friendly feelings, as well as his genuine interest in, and the inherent value of, Gomperz’s scholarly work. Gomperz apparently at once had a copy of the volume sent to Mill, without any Edition: current; Page: [xxv] personal communication; and Mill took the opportunity of a favourable notice in the Saturday Review to acknowledge and praise it, on 22 August.56
Gomperz’s next gesture was to send Mill the first number of his Herculanean series, concerning Philodemus on induction, and Mill wrote in reply the following spring, on 30 April, 1865 (806 below). It seems that Gomperz had written to him “some months ago,” and had at the time promised a longer letter, which had failed to materialize (a detail Gomperz’s son excised). Mill had already sent Gomperz both the Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy, and the first part of his study of Comte (neither of which had apparently been acknowledged), and was planning to send shortly an advance copy of the second article on Comte. It had been two years since there had been any discussion of the projected translations of three of Mill’s works, but never a word of question or hint of reproach had been whispered. Is such restraint possible in ordinary human nature?
And so the pattern would continue on both sides, Gomperz sending Mill yet another scholarly production, the second volume of the Herculanean series, “dedicated [to him] with reverence and love, on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, May 20,” and Mill thanking him heartily, if a trifle tardily, on 22 August, 1866, giving parliamentary business as his excuse, and trying to elicit a response from the reticent disciple by asking his opinion about the remarkable political changes in Germany.57 There is no evidence that his opinion was ever forthcoming; perhaps for that reason Mill’s direct invitation to write to him in the final paragraph did not find its way into Briefe. The silence descended again until the beginning of 1868, at which time a flurry of activity about a possible collected edition of Mill’s works in German began.
In January of that year, Mill received a letter from Julius Grosser, proprietor of the Viennese firm of Tendler and Co., which was prepared to undertake the project, and an accompanying note from Gomperz,58 full of enthusiasm about this new undertaking. He naturally gave explanations for previous non-performance, described in Mill’s reply of 28 January as “causes of unhappiness . . . respecting which you hold out the hope that I shall hear something from Mr Wessel”;59 and Mill apparently did subsequently learn through him of the sudden death of Gomperz’s nephew, Carl, and the resulting breakdown of his sister Josephine.60 Mill probably follows Gomperz’s letter in discussing the works to be included in the new edition. The Logic would occupy the first two volumes, and Mill volunteered to send the alterations he was making at the time for the seventh edition. He informed Gomperz that he had already given permission to Dr. Anton Edition: current; Page: [xxvi] Dohrn of Jena to translate the Inaugural Address, and suggested that Grosser get in touch with Dohrn. Mill had also referred Wilhelm Sattler to Grosser about a translation of the work on Comte. Gomperz had apparently asked Mill whether he had seen F.A. Wille’s translation of Representative Government (1862), and Mill replied that it seemed to him to need “a good deal of correction.” Gomperz had also asked about the possible inclusion of Essays on Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, and Mill commented that he would wish to alter the first essay considerably if they were to be reissued in English—not a very positive reply. Gomperz was sure, however, that it would be wise to keep the Examination back, at least at first.
Not having received any acknowledgment of the sheets of Book I of the Logic, Mill wrote again on 18 March, 1868 (a letter not included in Briefe), inquiring whether Gomperz had received them; he enclosed those for the rest of the first volume, and promised to have the sheets of volume two sent on to him “without any avoidable delay.”61 Gomperz replied apologetically on 26 March,62 thanking Mill for the sheets of the whole work, which had arrived, and raising various issues and questions about the edition. The details are interesting, since they show that Gomperz now certainly wanted to take full charge and ensure that the translations would be of high quality. He recommended that Mill accede to Eduard Wessel’s request, enclosed, to be the translator of Dissertations and Discussions, and that Wessel also be allowed to translate Representative Government again, as Wille’s version was so poor. Sattler’s translation of Auguste Comte and Positivism would be carefully scrutinized by Gomperz, who would not hesitate to correct “any material errors.” (In the event it satisfied him so ill that another translation was undertaken later by Gomperz’s wife, Elise.) Anton Dohrn had reported that he would have to give his translation of the Inaugural Address a thorough revision, but since he had no time for the task he had no objection to another’s correcting it. Gomperz requested, however, that a new translation of the Inaugural, and that of Utilitarianism, be entrusted to his friend Adolph Wahrmund, an Oriental scholar, and that a formal statement of Mill’s consent be forwarded, so as to give Gomperz “the advantage of a fuller control over these translations [than he] could otherwise exercise.” Indeed he admitted that Wahrmund had already completed the major part of the latter task, and had “submitted without reluctance to a careful revision” by Gomperz himself.
To all this effort and enthusiasm Mill responded warmly, in a letter of 23 April;63 but before any volumes were published, the firm of Tendler went bankrupt later that year. There was no hint of trouble, however, in Gomperz’s reply of 11 May,64 and apparently no further explanation forthcoming either of this Edition: current; Page: [xxvii] disappointment or of the later renegotiation of the project with the Fues Verlag of Leipzig.
Mill wrote again, in March of the following year (1413 below), to inquire about the edition, because he had “just received an agreeable evidence of the demand for it” in another proposal for a series of his works, which he proceeded to outline.65 To his question, Mill seems to have had no reply, as on 15 June he gave Gomperz yet another gentle nudge, and for a similar reason. He had received several requests from aspiring translators for the recently issued Subjection of Women, and since it was “very desirable that this should be done immediately,” he had “accepted the offer of Dr Heinemann . . . reserving [Gomperz’s] right to include in the collected edition either his translation by agreement with him or a different translation.”66 Three weeks later, on 6 July, Mill responded in a similar vein (1454A below, previously unpublished) to a letter from Anton Dohrn, agreeing to Dohrn’s issuing his translation of the Inaugural, “merely reserving the right of the publishers of the complete edition to include it (or another translation) afterwards in their series.”
From Gomperz he appears to have received only an announcement of his marriage, which took place on 8 August of that year. On 23 October Mill replied with warm congratulations and a request for information, not for himself, but for an acquaintance, whose address he enclosed, who was anxious to discover how the system of secret voting actually functioned in those countries where it had been adopted. The edition was not mentioned.67
This is the last letter in Mill’s correspondence with Gomperz, as his son Heinrich testifies, adding, in some surprise, that Mill never thanked his father for the first volume of the Gesammelte Werke (1869), which certainly must have been sent to him.68 Whether it was indeed sent, or whether the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war in July of that year had any effect upon the arrangements, it almost certainly never arrived, since it is inconceivable that Mill would not have acknowledged its appearance.
There was a hiatus of four years before the publication of Volumes II-IV of the edition which contained, at last, Gomperz’s translation of the Logic. Heinrich Gomperz claimed that he did not know why it had taken so long.69 It was just at the time of Mill’s death that the final volume of the three was issued. In his letter of condolence to Helen Taylor of 11 May, 1873, Gomperz said he would send to her “the eight volumes of the translation of Mr. Mill’s works that have just come Edition: current; Page: [xxviii] out.”70 It is doubtful whether this intention was ever carried out, as in his letter of 25 November, 1873, thanking Helen for a copy of the Autobiography, he concluded: “If you would be good enough to let me know your residence, I would send you the nine volumes which have appeared (the ninth is being published at this moment).”71 The tenth volume, which he said was also being printed at that time, was the first of the two-volume Dissertations and Discussions, translated by Wessel. It appears that none of these volumes was despatched as suggested, however, and that two more years elapsed before the publication of the second volume of the collected essays, because the publisher made difficulties about some of the subject matter. It was October, 1875 before Elise Gomperz could write to Helen: “My husband hopes that you have received the eleven volumes of the translation he directed Mr. Reisland to send you.”72 These reached their destination, and now form part of the Somerville College collection.
Gomperz was apparently relying on his friend Wessel to complete the translation of the works to be included in the final volume of the edition, and Wessel’s death in January, 1879 left him in dire need of assistance. He found it in the person of Sigmund Freud, who was recommended by his former philosophy professor, Franz Brentano, a colleague and friend of Gomperz at the University of Vienna.73 Another year elapsed, however, before the twelfth volume appeared. When it did, Gomperz sent copies to Helen without delay,74 and surely with a sense of relief that his commitment to making Mill’s works available in German was at last fulfilled. He could now, with a clear conscience, devote all his time to Edition: current; Page: [xxix] his own writings on classical thought,75 which, in their own way, would continue to spread the influence of Mill’s empiricism in scholarly Europe.
mill’s work and influence at the East India Company has been the least studied area of his much explored life and thought. The record he compiled of the more than 1700 despatches that he drafted over the course of his thirty-five years in the Examiner’s Office of the Company76 is daunting, even to scholars with a Benthamite bent for lists. It is only recently, thanks to the efforts of Martin and Zawahir Moir, co-editors with John M. Robson of Mill’s Writings on India, that his despatches have become really accessible,77 and we anticipate that there will now be considerably more investigation of the role he played in the history of British India.
As the Moirs located the various versions of the despatches, other treasures of three kinds emerged from the collections: letters in Mill’s own hand to an official in another department, supplying further information about the matters dealt with in the documents; letters in a clerk’s hand, signed by Mill, as Examiner of India Correspondence, 1856-58, usually making requests to the Finance and Home Committee of the Company; and copies of letters, some with Mill’s signature, written when, as Examiner, he served as Clerk to the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors and communicated their views to the Board of Control.78 About half of the letters from that Committee are purely formal requests for the release by the Board of secret documents. These we have simply listed, in Appendix B, with a brief indication of the subject matter. The other seventy-three we are delighted to be able to include here, as they provide new insight into the nature of Mill’s responsibilities at the East India House, and illustrate its complex bureaucracy.
The workings of that bureaucracy were described and commented upon by officials of the Company, including Mill, as they answered the questions of an investigating Parliamentary Select Committee in 1852;79 and they have been further explained and analysed in Martin Moir’s admirable Introduction to Volume XXX of the Collected Works. Some of that explanation bears repeating here, however, to give proper context to the letters below.Edition: current; Page: [xxx]
The East India Company was governed by two different bodies: the Court of Directors, elected from among its Proprietors (the shareholders); and what was known as the Board of Control, composed of a number of commissioners appointed by the British government to oversee the Company’s operations. The Directors served on various standing committees, responsible for specific aspects of the Company’s activities;80 and to assist them in their administration they had a great number of paid officers and clerks in several departments. The Secretary was the senior official of the Company, and next to him was the Examiner, in charge of the office that had responsibility for drafting most of the despatches to India.81 The Board, which was in practice dominated by its chief commissioner, the President, also had a number of officials and clerks to help carry out its supervisory role. The dual nature of this administration resulted in a complex procedural ritual for the handling of the correspondence with India, in which there were as many as six stages.82
An abstract of each despatch received from India was made in the department and circulated to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman (the Chairs) of the Court and the members of the relevant standing committee. If the matter was purely routine, a member of the Correspondence branch of the Examiner’s office, such as Mill, would prepare a draft reply, which would be submitted, with a collection of accompanying documents, for the approval of the Chairs. (In delicate or difficult matters, the officer would take instruction from them before preparing the draft.) When each draft conformed to the views of the Chairmen (stage 1), it would be passed on for the unofficial consideration of the President of the Board (stage 2) in a form known as “PC” (“previous communication”). If the President returned it unaltered, it moved directly to the departmental standing committee. If he made alterations, the draft was returned to the Chairmen (stage 3), who had discretion to “allow wholly or partially, or reject entirely, the alterations,”83 before passing it on to the committee, which also had discretion to introduce changes (stage 4). The official draft was next discussed, possibly amended further, and passed by the Court of Directors (stage 5). Then it returned once more to the Board as a whole for its official approval (stage 6). If accepted, it was immediately despatched to India. If altered at this late stage, it was again referred to the standing committee, “upon whose report the Court decide[d], either that the alterations [should] be acquiesced in, . . . or that a remonstrance [should] be addressed to the Board against Edition: current; Page: [xxxi] the alterations, in which case the draft [was] sent back until the final decision of the Board [was] communicated, and then the despatch [was] forwarded.”84
All the opportunities for alterations to the drafts in this description suggest that changes were more common, and more substantive, than was in fact the case. It was clearly in the best interests of the Company and of its officials and employees that unnecessary hitches or confrontations not occur in a procedure that was already slow and cumbersome enough, and matters were conducted so as to ensure a smooth passage of a draft through the system. We have, unfortunately, no record of Mill’s conferring with the Chairmen, or receiving their advice, prior to drafting a despatch; but there are indications that the Chairs occasionally sounded out the President in a “Pre-PC” or “official draft sent ahead of the more formal PC in order to elicit his first reactions.”85 We know, from Mill’s evidence before the Commons Committee, that the Chairs rarely submitted a PC to the Board which they knew to contain opinions directly contrary to those of the President.86 We also know, from the letters below, that disagreement occasionally occurred, and that Mill experienced the frustrations that normally result from bureaucratic delay and bungling.
In 229.02, for example, from the first group of letters, one of many addressed to William Cabell, Senior Clerk in the Political Department and Assistant Secretary to the Board of Control, we see Mill attempting to resolve a difference of opinion between the Chairs and the President concerning the affairs of Oudh: “If the President after reading the Oude P.C. should continue of his former opinion I should be much obliged to you if you would suggest to me the sort of modification which would best meet the President’s views.” The difficulties entailed by the pace of the process and the multiplicity of drafts is illustrated in 241.1, where Mill is writing to ask whether the PC forwarded to the Board three months earlier “is likely to be soon returned?” Several other PCs were being held up by it; so he “would venture to suggest that in case any point or points should require prolonged consideration . . . the paras relating to them might perhaps be detached & made into a separate PC & the rest proceeded with.” In 290.2, Mill offers Cabell an abject apology for “a gross & untraceable blunder in this office . . . one of the absurdest pieces of official negligence I have ever known of.” It had resulted in the original version of a despatch being sent to the Board a second time, “instead of a greatly altered PC which I prepared & which the Chairs sanctioned.” Such errors and delays were probably not so infrequent in the Company’s operation as Mill suggests.
About half of the letters below to Cabell serve to illustrate stage 2 of the complicated processing of despatches. Having received Mill’s draft PC, forwarded Edition: current; Page: [xxxii] after its approval by the Chairmen for the Board’s consideration, Cabell occasionally asked for more documentation or clarification of some aspect of the matter at hand; for example, in 96.2, 125.1, and 239.3 below, Mill is responding to various sorts of requests. In the first, he reports that no trace had been found of a project that was thought to have appeared in despatches some number of years earlier; in the second, he records success in locating an agreement of even more recent date than the one the Board had requested; in the third, he provides a direct answer to a question regarding the desirability of asking for an explanation from the local government. Most responses, however, are more complex than these.
In 76.1 below, for instance, Mill is replying to the Board’s query whether the government in India had the legal power “to detain a civil servant in India against his will.” The question was apparently referred by the Examiner (then James Mill) to the solicitor retained by the Company, and Mill is duly reporting this man’s legal opinion. The context of the question, and several of Mill’s comments, reveal some of the characteristic features of the problems encountered by the Home Establishment in dealing with events in the field and in the handling of the despatches.
At issue was the case of Mordaunt Ricketts, the Resident at Lucknow, who had been dismissed for taking bribes and had left India before any other punitive action could be launched against him. As was so frequently the case, the officials at home were having to judge after the fact whether a matter had been properly handled on the spot, what measures could or should have been taken to ensure a different outcome, and what recommendations ought to be made to direct policy in the future. In this instance, the Board wanted to know whether, and how, Ricketts’s departure could have been prevented.
Mill’s reply affirms that the Government might have applied for some sort of restraining order on Ricketts from the Supreme Court, but that the application might not have been successful, given “the presumption they could have established against him.” This fact and the likelihood of his being able to get away “before process could have issued” should determine, in Mill’s view, the official attitude of the Home Establishment to the Indian Government’s conduct in the matter: “it is perhaps more than we could be warranted in affirming positively here that they were wrong in not making such an application.” One of the functions of the despatches, to assess fairly what had been done in the field with a view to improving performance by analysis, and criticism when necessary, is demonstrated here.87 In this case, with great tact, Mill moves on to suggest a legislative change: that power be given to the Indian Government, allowing it in future cases to detain “its servants in India until their accounts with Government are settled.”
In 249.1 below, Mill himself provides a legal opinion in answer to a question directed to him by Robert Gordon, one of the two Secretaries to the Board of Edition: current; Page: [xxxiii] Control. The Board was considering the problem raised in the estate of the late postmaster at Ryepur by the questionable legitimacy of his children, who had been born before his marriage to their mother. Gordon had apparently been told that, since the parents were Catholics, the provision of the Canon Law, by which a subsequent marriage of the parents legitimized the children, might be applicable. Mill, “although unable to refer him at once to any authority.” sounds quite certain as he explains the legal history—that the barons of England, unwilling to change the laws of the land under church pressure, had rejected this principle. Though it was relevant in Scotland and France, whose laws were of Roman origin, it was not applicable in an English jurisdiction. Mill’s legal studies are not often so evidently on display.
In his capacity as drafter of political PCs, Mill was, technically, the voice of the Chairs, but it is certain that the contents of the despatches were very much of his own devising, a fact that is reflected, for example, in 308.1 below. Cabell had written to ask whether, in composing a particular paragraph, Mill had given proper weight to the opinion of James Sutherland, the Political Agent at Gujerat, which presumably was included in the collection Cabell was examining. Mill confirms that he had indeed taken Sutherland’s views into consideration, but had been persuaded to come to a different conclusion based on other evidence.
The same responsibility for the opinions expressed in a PC under consideration by the Board of Control is demonstrated in a later reply (still at the second stage of the progress of the despatches through the system) to the questions of Thomas Nelson Waterfield, Cabell’s successor in the Political Department. In 339.1, of 16 January, 1842, Mill explains why he draws a distinction between one division of ceded territory and the others, and the conclusion he has reached as to the Company’s right to dues from it, grounding his reasons solidly on the evidence of the Resident who had negotiated the relevant treaty in 1817.88 He also gives his interpretation of a separate treaty of the same period between two local rulers, affirming that the Company had been making a mistake, irreparable so long after the event, in paying over the dues in question to one of them. The Chairs must have concurred, but the voice is Mill’s.
Three letters in the collection illustrate the third stage in the processing of despatches, the consideration by the Chairmen of any alterations to the PCs made at the Board. In the matter of treaties with native princes, discussed in 103.1 below, the President, in adding to a paragraph, had given more status to some of the Boondela chiefs and to other individuals with hereditary rights to collect rents than they merited, and Mill is writing to explain why the alteration is being Edition: current; Page: [xxxiv] rejected. “The Chairman has often seen them when he was in Bundelcund and says they are petty Jageerdars of no sort of consequence, and their engagements are not treaties but are constituted by Sunnuds on our part, & acknowledgments of allegiance on theirs.”89 Mill adds that “we have made several additions to this PC since it returned to us. We find that it saves much time & trouble to continue the subjects up to the latest advices.” The instances in which additional information about a given matter reached the home office as the discussion was in progress were obviously frequent. In this situation, however, Mill saw no difficulty created; the Board would simply be informed of the new circumstances when the PC was sent to it a second time for final approval.
Two other letters, 294.2 and 296.1, also contain criticism of the Board’s alterations in a recently returned PC. In discussing the matter at issue, however, Mill relies on his own knowledge of the local rulers in making the objection:
It strikes me that the plan suggested by the Board would never answer. We could manage the villages of a native prince & pay over the revenues to him, because he can trust us—besides he must. But they never trust one another, & there is no instance among them I believe of a joint property in which the agents of both sharers do not exercise a right of joint management. It must end therefore in our managing the villages for both governments; which neither would like.
He follows the observations with another suggestion about a change that might be implemented by a recommendation from the Board: “Would it not be better to refer to the Govt of India as a general question, the possibility of negotiating an arrangement by which the double Revenue agency might be avoided?” And in the subsequent letter to Cabell, four weeks later, he adds more argument to “the remarks which I took the liberty of privately communicating to you.” A third party to the question, the Raja of Nagpur, would never be satisfied with the arrangement. “It is not the money, but the tenure, as an ancient family possession, that he is solicitous about; & no money grant would compensate him for the cession of a privilege venerated for its antiquity.”
Mill’s objection to another alteration by the Board, in 239.2 below, relates simply to its wording: “I do not clearly understand in what manner the Joonaghur chief is to continue his responsibility for the Babrias, when he is specifically interdicted from interfering with them. It strikes me that a clearer statement of the Board’s intentions would be desirable & would facilitate the passing of the Draft through the Court.” Cabell obliged immediately with a better version that clarified Edition: current; Page: [xxxv] the matter for the benefit of the Chairmen, the members of the Political and Military Committee, and the Court, who were to consider it next, in stages 4 and 5 of the process.
The complications that could arise from the dual authority between the Board and the Court and the multiplicity of despatches are admirably illustrated in the problem created by Mr. Williams, the Resident and Commissioner at Baroda, which Mill discusses in 212.1 below. He is writing to explain why orders for Williams’s dismissal are included in the PC on Baroda that he is forwarding with this letter, when similar orders incorporated by the Board in an earlier PC on the Mahi Kantha had been rejected. The Board is to understand the delicacy of choosing the proper grounds for the dismissal. It would be “more just and less embarrassing in its consequences” if Williams’s removal were for
general unfitness . . . than for specific instances of misconduct of which his superiors (the Bombay government of the time) must share the blame & which the home authorities when they first animadverted on them did not deem worthy of so serious a punishment, for you will observe that the misconduct of Mr Williams in regard to the Myhee Caunta was as fully known to the Court when they sent out their last despatch on that subject as it is now.
A little face-saving all round is recommended in this matter. Why it would also be “more just” to fire Williams for general rather than specific reasons seems to relate to the case of his assistant, Mr. Erskine, whom the Board had ordered dismissed with him in the Mahi Kantha PC. “This seems very severe treatment for an error of judgment which in him was comparatively venial.” In Mill’s view it would be “hard to ruin the entire prospects of a young man,” given the circumstances of the case. The wisdom and utility of dealing with Williams through the Baroda channel as outlined is most tactfully, but at the same time forcefully, made. The Board did not seem to get the point, however, as six months later, in 233.1, Mill is once against suggesting that the Chairs want Williams’s conduct criticized in a general way.
Letter 271.1 below illustrates Mill’s role in the processing of the despatches in its fourth stage, the consideration of the drafts by the relevant committee of the Court. Replying to a question from the Board about the reasons for the “additional matter in para 7” of the despatch they were considering for the second time, Mill explains that
it was inserted in the Political Committee on the proposition of a Director & I presume he cannot have adverted to the passages in the Collection, to which you have now been so obliging as to refer me. (If I had remembered their existence I would have pointed them out to him.) His object was to discourage the Government from embarrassing themselves with the domestic disputes of stipendiaries.
In this case, Mill seems to think that the Board has the better view, and one regrets not being able to report whether anything further was done in the matter. It is interesting to note, however, that Mill was in close contact with the members of the Edition: current; Page: [xxxvi] Political Committee as they considered his despatches, presumably assisting them, as requested, in their deliberations.
From the Committee, the despatch moved on to the Court of Directors, where further changes might be introduced. Letter 287.1 illustrates this fifth stage, and the power of the Court to influence policy. Sending Cabell some advance notice of the “two material variations” that the Board would find in the recently approved despatch “which either has been or will be immediately sent to you from the Court in the official form,” Mill explains the Court’s changes. The first of their alterations was in support “of the proposed reform of the Jyepore Army by the substitution for the greater part of it of a force under British officers,” as this was in line with “Lord Auckland’s views on the subject of bringing the armies of the native states under our control as opportunities offer,” to which they had recently grown “much more favourable.” The second change was again related to the misconduct of an employee. In the case of Major Borthwick, the Court had decided on the evidence that the accusation by the local ruler of Borthwick’s having misappropriated funds was false, and the paragraph of criticism had been removed.
The apparently persistent problem of incompetent or dishonest officials of the Company in the field is also the issue in another letter, 49.01, that again illustrates Mill’s efforts to prepare for the sixth stage of the process, final approval by the Board. The Court having passed “Bengal Political Draft No 237,” which contained criticism of an employee, Mill is returning it to the Board, pointing out that “explanations” from this individual had been recently received from India. In Mill’s opinion, they warrant making only “verbal” alterations “in the strictures on his conduct,” and not holding up the Draft altogether; but Mill defers to the possibility of a different view at the Board, suggesting various courses of action open, and leaving the matter to Cabell’s discretion: “When you have decided which of these alternatives to adopt, we will act accordingly.”
Mill’s position as Assistant in the Correspondence Branch of the Examiner’s office in the long middle period of his career, from 1828 to two years before his retirement, was clearly one of great responsibility, and there can be no doubt that he earned the respect and the admiration of his colleagues both for his drafts and for his skills as a negotiator. Though there is a little, and humorous, evidence, that they occasionally believed him to be mistaken,90 his move upward to the senior post in the office, on the retirement of Thomas Love Peacock and David Hill in 1856, must have seemed to all concerned a normal and well-earned promotion. Then, as the new Examiner of India Correspondence, Mill naturally assumed some different duties, at least a few of which are fortunately illustrated in the other two series of letters that have recently come to light. One of these is addressed to the Finance and Home Committee of the Company, which, as its title suggests, was Edition: current; Page: [xxxvii] responsible for matters relating to the employees, the premises, and the records of the Home Establishment.
Mill’s correspondence with this Committee would not have been regular in the years before his promotion, but one letter does survive amongst the Finance and Home Committee papers from the earlier period. It is dated 9 April, 1844 (427.1), and is a statement in support of his brother George’s application for employment by the Company. The short note testifies to the superior “acquirements . . . conduct & character” of the young man, which Mill, as his chief tutor, was well qualified to know. Its success also testifies to the “high status and influence” that Mill himself enjoyed by that time in the Company, and to the fact that his own “experimental apprenticeship in the 1820s [had] provided the Company with the kind of model it later used in training other potential despatch writers,” such as George, who joined the Correspondence Branch and learned the job under his brother’s supervision. The nepotism that was traditional (“dynasties of family employees were quite common in the Company’s history”) and generally and unashamedly practised in the nineteenth century is also illustrated by this episode.91
The twenty-seven later letters, from Mill as Examiner 1856-58, to the Home and Finance Committee, treat of more mundane subjects, and underline the irony that is often inherent in promotion. Any alterations to, or maintenance of, the “physical plant,” as we now say, had to be approved in principle, and in advance, by the Committee, as 258A, B, and D, and 286D illustrate. In the first, Mill is requesting an extra office, and suggests the necessity of providing yet another room, because “It frequently happens that permission is granted by the Chairman to gentlemen in the Honorable Company’s Service or others, to consult the official records either for public or private purposes, and there is at present no place in which they can make use of such permission except the compound of the Clerks in the Office.” The second is a request that “one of the two extra offices” be included in “the general order for painting.” The third is to report that “the new room ordered by the Honorable Committee for Mr Kaye92 is now completed, and to solicit that provision of the necessary furniture may be sanctioned.” The last is in support of a letter from the Assistant Registrar in the Book Office, “representing the necessity of whitewashing the rooms occupied by his Department, and of effecting some minor improvements” in them. Diligently bureaucratic, Mill affirms: “I have the honor to state that from personal inspection I can confirm Mr Atkins’ representations, and I beg to recommend that his proposals be carried into effect.”
Changes in the accommodation of the Company’s records, the payment of the Edition: current; Page: [xxxviii] workmen involved, and the destruction of “old and useless duplicate Collections” also required the Committee’s approval (258E and G, 260B, 269B, and 286C). An increased volume of work in the Examiner’s Office necessitated the hiring of extra staff, which was sanctioned for periods of six months at a time (258G, 262D, 269C, 283A, 293A, and 306A). Provisions for individual employees, of various kinds, also required the Committee’s sanction. Leave of absence on account of illness had to be extended (269A); the death of an employee required his being replaced (258C), and his salary continued to his widow for the current quarter (258F); an official who had expended a great deal of extra time and effort on preparing a report for Parliament was entitled to special remuneration (323A); the petition from the messengers in the Book Office had to be forwarded (309B). It is not certain whether Mill actually dictated these letters or whether most were simply prepared for his signature. We do know, however, as noted above, that he personally ascertained that the Registrar’s rooms needed whitewashing.
As Examiner, Mill had to deal with the bureaucratic trivia of his office, and some of the problems in his employees’ lives. He was also concerned with more apparently important matters in his capacity as Clerk to the Secret Committee of the Court, which was composed of the two Chairmen and a senior Director, and handled matters relating to war, peace, and diplomacy. The third series of letters, addressed from this Committee to Waterfield or to one of the Secretaries of the Board, number forty-three, twenty-six of which are simply official requests for the release of documents, and are listed, with their subjects, in Appendix B. The other seventeen also have their touch of (secret) bureaucratic trivia, in two requests (283C and 299B) for the Board’s consent to the employment in the Secret Department of particular individuals, “on their taking the prescribed oath.” The remaining fifteen letters, which throw light on a variety of contemporary problems, are of considerable historical and political interest.
The first is a proposed agreement between Britain and France, apparently suggested as early as 1852, for a mutually beneficial exchange of territory in India, France seeming anxious to consolidate her possessions around Pondicherry. The terms of the exchange—that is, finding settlements of equivalent value on both sides—were difficult to arrange, however, and several different plans came under discussion. In the five letters below on the subject, 260A, 263B, 266A, 283B, and 309A, over a period of almost two years, it is clear that the chief concern both of the Secret Committee and of the Board is with matters of revenue, though the political advantage for Britain is thought to be of some interest as well. It is also evident that both bodies had to rely heavily on the assessment of the situation by the government in India.
A second problem, dealt with in six letters, was that created by the brief war with Persia from November 1856 to March 1857, the dispute centring on the fortress city of Herat. These letters demonstrate the role of the Board as a channel of communication for the British Government with the Court. In 262F, for Edition: current; Page: [xxxix] example, the Secret Committee is responding to a letter from the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, asking whether “it might be advisable to take possession of Mohummerah for the purpose of increasing pressure upon Persia.” The Committee was forwarding all the information they had that might be relevant, but refrained “from expressing any opinion on the course which it might be most expedient to adopt.” The Committee had a more positive reaction to questions about “postal communication for Government purposes . . . during the present war” in 270B, agreeing with Lord Clarendon’s view that “Bagdad via Constantinople” would be the best route, and notifying the government that “Lieutenant General Sir James Outram [head of the Company’s army for ‘the Persian Expedition’] will therefore be apprised of the arrangment and instructed to send to Her Majesty’s Ambassador a short summary of any important intelligence, which could be put into cypher at the Embassy and so forwarded by telegraph.”
The presence of the telegraph by this time (at least as far as Constantinople) makes it seem less odd to think that the Secret Committee in London had also to be consulted about orders for individual officers and arrangements for specific missions (262E, 286E, 321A). It was to facilitate the establishment of a more extensive telegraph system that Britain had obtained the Kuria Muria islands from the Imam of Muscat in 1854, a cession whose legality Mill questions in 270D, relative to another issue—the difficulty of protecting British citizens granted rights to exploit the guano of those islands.
Another problem in the Persian Gulf area is the subject of perhaps the most interesting of these letters from the Secret Committee, 283D below, concerning the actions of that flamboyant lieutenant in the Bombay Army, just beginning his career as an explorer of exotic places, Richard Burton. On leave late in 1854, Burton had undertaken his first trip into the interior of Somaliland (against the wishes of Outram, the Political Agent of the day at Aden), and had subsequently recommended to the Company that an agency be established at Berbera, a plan that the Governor of Bombay solidly rejected. Burton had then made the suggestion in a letter to the Royal Geographical Society, on which the Committee is commenting, readily concurring “in the observation of the Board respecting the impropriety of Lieutenant Burton’s conduct in addressing to the Geographical Society criticisms on the political measures of the Government of India.” An accompanying letter in the collection contains a comment to the effect that the Society ought to be discouraged from publishing Burton’s letter93—and indeed it did not appear at that time, a fact that perhaps demonstrates the Company’s power, when it so wished, to save itself embarrassment.
That the Examiner’s title was “Clerk” to the Secret Committee in its communications with the Board is probably just another instance of an inadequate Edition: current; Page: [xl] job description. It was surely proper that only the most senior official in the Correspondence Branch should be admitted to the very highest level of deliberation in the Company, but his contribution was likely greater than merely that of a secretary. Mill himself probably exercised substantial influence in that Committee, as he had when he conferred with the Chairmen about the contents of his despatches; and he clearly enjoyed the confidence of the Court, the Board, and the government, as evidenced by his being offered a post in 1858 on the newly established Council of India. That he declined to accept it, since he disapproved of the government’s assumption of control and needed “a long recruiting, not so much from work, as from the confinement of an office” (324), is no surprise.
the discovery of Mill’s letters in the archival series of the India Office Library and Records has greatly enriched our knowledge both of his career and of the East India Company’s operations, and has also confirmed our collective certainty that the task of editing Mill’s correspondence will not end with Volume XXXII of the Collected Works. It is more than probable that, as scholars continue to consult the collections of despatches, other letters will emerge, and that previously unknown items will appear in the pages of dealers’ catalogues. We would be most grateful if readers continue to report their discoveries, through the University of Toronto Press, so that the record may be kept entire.
At the conclusion of this volume are six Appendices: Appendix A contains the variant readings derived from a collation of copies of the manuscript letters to Theodor Gomperz at Kokugakuin University with those letters to him in Collected Works not reprinted here. Appendix B provides a list of the form letters from the Clerk of the Secret Committee of the East India Company to the Board of Control requesting the release of various secret documents. Appendix C contains some additions to the finding list of Mill’s Indian despatches in Volume XXX of the Collected Works. Appendix D provides a list of letters to Mill, compiled in response to many requests from readers over the years. Once more, we must mention our debt to Professor Mineka, who had listed the holdings at Yale and Johns Hopkins and made photocopies of the latter, thereby greatly facilitating the process of checking for accuracy. The Mill-Taylor Collection is, of course, the other principal repository of such letters.94 We conducted a further search, using references suggested in the footnotes to Volumes XII-XVIII, and through relevant printed sources, and were thus able to locate some previously unknown correspondence. Again, we ask readers to share their knowledge, for the record, of other “In” letters that may have been overlooked. Appendix E contains an index of the recipients of the letters printed in this volume.
Since Appendix F serves as an index to persons, writings, and statutes, Edition: current; Page: [xli] references to them do not appear in the general Index, which has been prepared with the care and efficiency that is her hallmark by Dr. Jean O’Grady.
we are grateful to all those institutions and persons mentioned in first footnotes who have provided texts and given permission to publish, and to those institutions referred to in Appendix D which supplied much helpful information enabling us to locate letters written to Mill. Unpublished Crown-copyright documents in the India Office Records reproduced/transcribed in this volume appear by permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
We are especially grateful to those who have made available and permitted us to publish letters from their own collections: Arnold Heertje, J.R.deJ. Jackson, Isaac Kramnick, Toshio Ohfuchi, Mrs. S. Sokolov-Grant, John Spedding, Paul Streeton, Akira Tada, and Satoshi Yamasaki, and to Mrs. J. Beal for permission to print letters written to James Beal now in the Greater London Record Office.
Scholars who have edited letters first published in the Mill News Letter have generously allowed us to make use of their work: Marcia Allentuck; T.P. Foley; Joseph Hamburger; Arnold Heertje; Bruce L. Kinzer; Mary and Lionel Madden; Ged Martin; Anna J. Mill; Eric Nye, who has, as well, been generous in providing information about John Sterling and his circle; Jean O’Grady; Margaret Schabas; J.B. Schneewind; Evert Schoorl; and Natalie and Gerald Sirkin. We are especially grateful to colleagues in Japan: Shohken Mawatari and Shigekazu Yamashita, mentioned above, Takutoshi Inouye, Shiro Sugihara, who allowed us to publish letters that first appeared in the Mill Society Bulletin, Japan, and Kimiyoshi Yura, editor of that journal. The extent of our debt to Martin and Zawahir Moir has, we hope, been adequately explained above; our gratitude must be repeated here.
Librarians and staff at the John P. Robarts Library of the University of Toronto and the Pratt Library of Victoria College have been continually helpful and courteous, as have the staffs of the British Library, Reference, Newspaper, and India Office Library and Records Divisions, and of the British Library of Political and Economic Science.
Of many others to whom we owe thanks, we would like to mention especially Donald Anderle of the New York Public Library; John Arnold of the State Library of Victoria; the Librarian of the Athenaeum Club; Richard Bingle of the India Office Library and Records; Simon Blundell, Librarian of the Reform Club; Trajano B. de Berrêdo Carneiro of the Maison d’Auguste Comte; Herbert Cahoon of the Pierpont Morgan Library; Bernard Crystal of Columbia University; Vicki Denby of the Houghton Library; G.M. Furlong of University College London; Michael Halls of Trinity College, Cambridge; M. Hayez at the Archives Edition: current; Page: [xlii] Départementales de Vaucluse; Cathy Henderson of the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center; Teruyoshi Higashiohji of Nihon University; Hiroshi Ishida of Fukuyama University; Gwyn Jenkins of the National Library of Wales; Hugh Kennedy and Michael Ostrove of the Osborn Collection; Karen Kearns of the Huntington Library; Donald Lawler of the Victorians Institute Journal; Robert McGown of the University of Iowa; J.A. Parker of Manchester College; Sigrid Perry of Northwestern University; Bruce Ralston of the National Library of New Zealand; Angela Raspin of the British Library of Political and Economic Science; Pam Ray of the National Library of Australia; Cynthia Requardt of Johns Hopkins University; Nancy Romero of the University of Illinois; Alice Rossi of the University of Massachusetts; Nicholas Scheetz of Georgetown University; Judith Schiff and Diane Kaplan of Yale; Helen Sherwin of Boston University; R.A.H. Smith of the British Library; Paul Sorrell and Pamela Treanor of the Dunedin Public Library; Stephen Tomlinson of the Bodleian Library; P.R. Webb of the Bishopsgate Foundation; Inge Wojtke of the Prussian State Library; and Marian Zwiercan of the Jagiellonian Library.
We are indebted to Maria Manganelli, who gave us information concerning Ernest Naville; to Clyde Ryals of the Carlyle Letters Project, Duke University, for information about the correspondence between Carlyle and Mill; to R.S. Woof of the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne for providing letters held by the Wordsworth Trust at Dove Cottage; to Donna Halladay, who helped with the material at Cambridge; and to Gina Feldberg, Peter Hess, Samuel Hollander, and Bruce L. Kinzer for their assistance and support.
Jonathan Cutmore, Michele Green, Elizabeth King, and Jannifer Smith-Rubenzahl, who have worked at the Mill Project at Victoria College, have given valuable assistance. Our thanks go as well to Rea Wilmshurst, the Project’s editorial assistant, whose knowledge and skill have resulted in the production of a clear and—on her part—accurate text.
We gratefully acknowledge how much our work has depended upon that of Professors F.A. von Hayek, Francis E. Mineka, and Dwight N. Lindley, who have in the past been responsible for the collection and publication of the bulk of Mill’s letters. Our correspondence society has had spousal support for a total of some one hundred years: our editing, to perceptive eyes, will reveal traces of the judgment, tolerance, and love of William Filipiuk, Mabel Laine, and Ann P. Robson, to whom we offer these and other thanks.
Not knowing which of you to write to, and being thus placed in the situation of the ass, I am wiser than he, and instead of starving I seize both the bundles of hay,2 and write to you both. Your journal has been received, & read with great interest, but we have been grieved to hear of Mr Grote’s indisposition, and surprised to learn that you have had so much rain. Last week was with us one of the finest weeks we have had this summer, and the harvest-work which has been done surpasses all belief. This week is equally fine, and corn will be excessively cheap—especially as I hear the harvest is as far advanced in Scotland as here.—I suppose you will be more interested by hearing all that has passed in the Utilitarian world since your departure, than by anything else that I can say.—In the first place, then, last Monday week my father and I dined with Hume, where we met Anthony Hammond, and on the whole we are very much satisfied with that personage.3 Without being much of a philosopher, or possessing very clear or definite notions on law and legislation in general, he carries his ideas of reform to a Edition: current; Page:  very great extent. He has already consolidated the whole of the Criminal Law, which it is intended to bring into Parlt either as one bill or a series of bills so as to supersede all the present system:4 he means next to go to work upon the civil law, & consolidate that too: but this consolidation he himself declares to be only preparatory to a complete codification of the whole law, common & statute: on the subject of which he has very rational ideas; and he says it would destroy the whole of the system of pleading as at present constituted, and would leave nothing to the discretion of the judge, of the evils of which he has a very strong impression. Hume expressed on the same occasion some most admirable opinions on the subject of charity, which he declared that he had recently adopted, & tho’ they seemed new to Hammond, he came into them tolerably well.—In the next place, William Whitmore has brought his cousin the member to call upon my father at the India House.5 As I was conversing all the time he staid, with Wm W. in a separate part of the room, I heard very little of what passed between my father & the other Whitmore; but my father says that he fully understands the question of the corn laws, which was the only subject on which they conversed: that he understands not only the general principle, but its practical bearings: & he declares himself fully resolved, if the ministers do not anticipate him, to bring forward a motion & force a discussion every session until he succeeds in carrying the question. As there will be an elaborate article in the Edin. Rev. by M‘Culloch to prepare the way before him, it will be of great importance that we should have an article in the Westminster Review which may bear a comparison with it: for this purpose we are anxious to ascertain, first, whether Whitmore can, and secondly, whether he will, write one.6 William W. whom we employed to get us a copy of Whitmore’s Edition: current; Page:  pamphlet, as a sort of test of his capability, wormed out of Prescott7 our ulterior designs, & has taken them up with the utmost eagerness.—I dined at Wimbledon with Mr Tooke8 on Friday last, having gone from the India House to his counting house, & thence with him to his carriage at a quarter before five: from which time till near eleven, we were engaged almost without intermission in discussing the exclusion of Irish labourers.9 In the course of the dispute he was driven, among other things, to deny the principle of population. I could perceive considerable annoyance on his part at the escape of Eyton from the paternal apron string: Two or three times he put him down with considerable harshness, & was continually making indirect hits against the dogmatism, & want of candour, of some of his opponents; by which some, he meant Eyton: who took as well the indirect as the direct reproofs, with the most infidel charity & resignation. I contrived, towards the close of the evening to take a turn with Eyton in the garden, and we had some very profitable conversation: he is eager to do whatever good he can, & to qualify himself for doing more.—The Austins are now domiciled at your quondam lodging on Brockham Green: and we regularly walk with Austin on the Sunday when we go down.10 I am in considerable doubt whether the review of Preuves will ever make its appearance, tho’ I am informed by Mrs Austin that he works at it Edition: current; Page:  during a portion of every day.11 I wish he could complete any thing, no matter what: as a given quantity of reputation, plus a given number of pounds sterling, would probably supply as great a stimulus, as his mental constitution is capable of receiving.—Charles Austin12 has been laid up, but is now, I believe, at Norwich, whence he goes to Southampton, & returns not till October. Bingham is absent: Graham not yet returned: Ellis fast bound in his new office, so that the Utilitarian community stagnates.13 Our society waxes thin, & but for the approaching batch, I should say it verged fast to decay. Patten has withdrawn: Secretan has tendered his resignation; his brother having been appointed manager to the marine department of the Alliance, the conduct of the business falls wholly upon him, & he says it leaves him no time for attendance on the society, nor yet upon our Pol. Ec. Conversations.14 If he leaves us it is all over with him. En revanche, I can give the most favorable bulletin of Harfield & of Edw. Ellis.15 The former produced at the last meeting of the society an essay on population, which obtained universal, and, considering it as a first attempt, well-deserved applause; in it he kept the promise he had made, of writ-ing sar-cas-ti-cal-ly, and some of the sar-casm was exceedingly good. He complained however that we all laughed at his or-tho-e-py, Edition: current; Page:  (vulgarly called pronunciation): and in truth we had good reason: Doane16 complimented him upon having written a ighly-able, a excellent, a admirable, and in some parts, a ironical essay. Edward Ellis is studying political economy with so much ardour and application, as leaves no fear of his ultimate success in that and in every other branch of useful knowledge which he attempts.—Next, as to our occupations: My father is about to open his battery upon the Quarterly Review: I am still upon Brodie: Ellis is upon the Elements of Pol. Ec.17 Of the occupations of any one else among our friends, I am in ignorance, except as to Arfield,18 who is reading I do not know how many books, & writing, or about to write, I do not know how many essays.—A critique on the first number of the W.R. has appeared in the North American Review: They quote largely from the first article, which they applaud greatly, as well as Bingham’s two articles on America (tho’ they say he knows very little about America—as how can he? or any one here:—& that his stateme[nts] are some of them no longer true, & others never were true).19 They also m[ake] an ingenious attempt to shew, that the Whigs & Tories are two [aristo]cratic parties, & that the Edinburgh Rev. only supports the aristocracy [of] the Whigs, instead of that of the Tories.20 But farther this deponent saith no[t.] You have seen, or will see, the attack on the 3d No. & particularly on poor Ellis, in the last Blackwood.21 I have not seen it yet, but am to see it tomorrow. Malthus, it Edition: current; Page:  seems, has been puffing himself again in the Quarterly—tho’ I have not seen the article, it propounds what no other mortal would think of propounding, his Measure of Value.22 Not more certainly is our friend Satan known by his cloven foot, than the Rev. T.R. Malthus by this unfortunate hobby.—If any thing was wanting to ensure the success of the W.R. the badness of the Edin. R. would do it. Only contrast the last Edin. with the last Westmr. That miserable stuff of M‘Culloch about primogeniture must be answered23—& will, I trust, with the grace of my lord the devil, with whose school, I have no doubt, we are already classed by the enlightened Southey,—or, if not now, shall be so classed, as soon as the article makes its appearance on his book of the Church.24 When that time arrives, I shall expect to see our names, or at any rate, that of the review, introduced into his next dissertation de omni scibili,25 with the addition of a few gentle epithets of disapprobation, as ruffian, miscreant, incendiary, & so forth; or who knows? atheist, perhaps: since, as Ellis says, those who are infidels in tithes, are necessarily infidels in all the other doctrines of religion. The Courier has already expressed some inclination to see “a well-seasoned mess of impiety from Carlile, dished up by the Morning Chronicle.”26 By the way, Black is doing Edition: current; Page:  admirable service—particularly with respect to the unpaid magistracy; who, I think, must smart under his lash: he is the greatest enemy they have.27 Prescott is, as usual, “writing an Essay for the society.” Doane is, as far as I know, doing nothing; & Place is doing every thing.28 With all our wishes for your welfare, & speedy return, I remain &c
I leave you the article on Pleadings, cut down to a moderate compass—there will be more of it afterwards for another number if you approve of it.2—I think it will do much good, & may excite controversy—Grimgribber3 has never been attacked in a periodical publication with any thing like the same severity—or if at all, only in general terms. This is specific, & the lawyers will understand its drift better.
I send you the article on the Game Laws,2 which I hope is not too long—there is more scratching in it than there usually is in my articles and there will be a great deal of small print—If anything must be left out, I think it should be some of the extracts, however of this you will judge for yourself—I also send a little poem which was written by a niece of Mr Mushet of the Mint,3 and given by him to me for you. All I have to ask is that if it cannot be praised it may not be noticed at all.
Eyton Tooke has finished his review of Lord John Russell4—I suppose he will send it to you immediately, if he has not sent it already—
Please to send my proofs to Ellis at the Indemnity Office—He comes to Croydon every day—
I should like to suspend a review of Brown’s works and particularly of his Lectures upon this Life of his which has just appeared, by the Rev. Mr Welch.5 You have not had any metaphysical articles yet—It will help to give that variety to the work which has been wanting hitherto—I have heard it suggested that you should have some philological articles—Perhaps James Gilchrist6 (not Borthwick) would write one—I know of no one else who could do it.
John Bowring Esq.
You will, I am sure, readily believe with how much regret & sympathy all your friends here have learned the great affliction which you have recently sustained.2 None of them can possibly have so much reason to know and appreciate the greatness of your loss as I have, who had so much experience of Madame Say’s excellence, and have received so much kindness from her. I beg that you will assure the remainder of your family of the part which I take in their grief. My father also is most anxious to assure you how deeply he sympathizes with you and how greatly he esteemed and respected Madame Say. He would have written to you himself long before this if he had not known that I was about to write.
I have myself suffered a most grievous and unexpected loss, by the death of my poor friend Eyton Tooke, who was well-known to you as one of the most excellent and promising of all his contemporaries, and who would have been a blessing to his country and to his kind.3 The loss of such a man will be felt in a thousand ways by persons who never knew him nor were aware what things were to be expected from him if he had lived to pursue the career of self-improvement and philanthropic exertion which he had entered upon; and how admirable a moral influence he would have exercised on all with whom he came in contact, by the unrivalled purity and rectitude of his purposes, combined with the largest and most comprehensive liberality and philanthropy. To his immediate friends, and associates in his labour and plans, the loss is irreparable and to me especially.
Poor Mr. Tooke, the father, although he has in some degree recovered from the first shock, is quite incapable of writing to you either on his own loss or on yours, and he has entrusted to me the duty of sending to you the enclosed paragraphs, extracted from the newspapers of the time, respecting the particulars of the fatal event.4
I owe you a long debt of gratitude for your kindness in sending me successively the six volumes of your work,5 which I have read with the greatest pleasure and instruction, and which I think is likely to be read by more persons, and with more Edition: current; Page:  advantage, than any other treatise on the subject which is now extant. You will hardly be surprised that I should not quite concur in the whole of your strictures on those whom you call the “économistes politiques abstraits”;6 though I am forced to admit that they have frequently occupied public attention, to the great detriment of the science, with discussions of mere nomenclature and classification, of no consequence except as to the manner of expressing or of teaching the principles of the science; and that they have occasionally generalized too far, by not taking into account a number of the modifying circumstances, which are of importance in the various questions composing the details of the science. I have myself derived several most important corrections of my speculative views from your work, and from the reflections which it suggested. I am happy to find that there is much less in your principles, than I thought there was, which is positively at variance with the rigidly scientific economists of this country. I believe that their principles when duly modified, constitute a deeper and more searching analysis of the phenomena of wealth than yours, but that they are not materially different in their practical result. I should wish to see the science taught in both ways; in one for the public, in the other for students: though I sometimes lament to see that the two sorts of teachers scarcely understand the scope or appreciate the whole merit of each other. But the rising generation of political economists in this country are not only capable of unity, but do actually unite both, and you will find when their speculations come before the public, that they have benefitted as fully by your writings as by those of Ricardo, and partake in nothing of the forms or of the spirit of a sect or school.
I consider myself to be discharging a duty towards my friend Eyton Tooke, who would have been so distinguished in this very department of science, in telling you how highly he thought of your work. In one of the last conversations I had with him, he spoke to me of it with great admiration and expressed himself almost enthusiastically on the fine spirit of general benevolence, and devotion to the cause of social improvement in all its branches, which runs through the work, and which distinguishes your writings in so honorable a manner from too many of our English economists.
I am canvassing very earnestly for the following candidates for the Atheneum, several of whom you probably intend to vote for, and if you would do as much for the remainder, you would greatly oblige me.
Mr Charles Austin
Charles Buller M.P.
Wm Ogle Carr2
I can strongly certify the fitness of all except the last, who is strongly recommended by Mr George Bentham.3
I set off so soon that I cannot count upon being able to call upon you before I go, which I should have preferred rather than to write, even without any of the additional temptations that you held out to me in your note. I am going to spend a month on and about the lakes of Cumberland & Westmoreland,2 & shall probably see a good deal of Wordsworth, who when he was last in town, very kindly asked me to his house3—but this invitation I cannot now accept, as I shall have a companion—my friend Grant, whom I am very glad that you have at last seen.4 His extreme modesty—for it is not exactly bashfulness—never would let him call upon you before.
Another excellent friend of mine, Crawley,5 who frequently walks home with Mr. Austin from the lecture,6 would, I am certain, be much pleased by making your acquaintance—though I suppose he was afraid of intruding upon you by coming to the proper side of your door, i.e. the inside. I have taken upon myself to say that you will be glad to see him—& I think I might also have safely promised that you would like him.
I look forward with great pleasure to cultivating a further acquaintance with Mr. Empson under your auspices.7 I know not to what I can be indebted for so very favorable an opinion as that which you mention, except to your mütterlich Edition: current; Page:  kindness, which makes you see every thing about me in far brighter colours than those of reality.
I am very happy to hear that Mr. Austin is better. I hope Lucy is quite recovered from all ailments.8
The Bengal Political Draft No 237 having passed the Court before the additional matter arrived from India, we did not think it worth while to keep back the Draft, thinking that it would give less trouble to prepare another Draft which might follow the former almost immediately. It might perhaps be expedient, with reference to Mr Murchison’s explanations,2 to make one or two slight alterations in the strictures on his conduct but I think they should be only verbal.
If, however, you should be of a different opinion there are several courses which might be taken.
The entire Draft might be kept back but I can see no advantage in this.
Or the Draft might be passed with the omission of the additional paragraphs which were inserted subsequently to its return from P.C.
Or paras 426, 427 of the letter dated 26th August, with the collection No 194 corresponding to these paras containing Mr Murchison’s explanations might be added to the Kedah Collection now at the Board & the Draft might be modified by the Board with reference to those particular paras, the remainder of the newly arrived matter respecting Kedah & Nanning being reserved for a future Despatch.
Or lastly, the Board might modify the Draft with reference to the whole of the recent arrivals; but as this would introduce new matter of considerable interest and Edition: current; Page:  importance, it would, I think, be more convenient that it should be taken in the regular course of correspondence.
When you have decided which of these alternatives to adopt, we will act accordingly.
At any rate we were thinking of making application to the Board, for leave to make public the Secret letter of 2d December 1831.
I know you will never suspect me of being indifferent to your company, therefore I will not scruple to tell you that I had rather not come on Friday: there will be too many without me, and one only goes to see people in a crowd when one does not care to see them otherwise, or when one does not venture to refuse—at least that is the case with me.
The attendance at the lectures is rather slack, certainly, but it is chiefly from unlucky accidents. Roebuck has been ill.2—Crawley, who has the greatest admiration for the lectures & attended regularly last year, has for the last three or four months been dangerously ill of the only serious illness he ever had, & is not even now recovered. Romilly has been overwhelmed with duties insomuch that he is at this moment failing of one very imperative one, his engagement with Cochrane (no blame to him, however).3 Graham, ever since his appointment as Edition: current; Page:  official assignee, has had all his time taken up. Strutt has been always at the House of Commons,4 Chadwick, latterly, has been engrossed by Mr. Bentham’s affairs;5 & so on.
I think there may be a class of some ten or a dozen next year among persons whom I myself know, or know of.
Your question “what can Pelham do here” shews little knowledge of the said Pelham.6 I should not at all wonder if he became a frequenter of yours. There is much good in Bulwer.
Give my love to Lucy—I trust it is not her birthday7 which I am refusing to celebrate.
I have got the tickets for Don Juan on Monday, and “request the pleasure of your company.”2 If I do not see you in the interval, we will meet at the Arcade door a little before seven.
I have taken places by the Red River Southampton coach, which leaves the Bolt in Tun at halfpast 8, and the Gloucester Coffee House at nine. Perhaps it might be as well, as we are to meet G. & R. at Lymington to send some additional linen &c. &c. thither in their parcel or box or what not; but of this each must judge for himself, & G. & R. must act as a court of appeal from both tribunals.
I inclose the letter to Paris which I said I would request you to despatch for me. For the postage thereof as far as Dover you will consider yourself as the creditor of,
The Music-buyers of Devonport are by this time aware of the name & reputation of Marinelli.2
If you are disengaged on Monday evening next, my mother and sisters will hope to have the pleasure of seeing you.2 You will meet the Fonblanques and two or three other people3—come early, by which I mean come soon after seven if you can, or as early as you are able.
My father has received from Mr Lawford the accompanying note on the power of Govt to detain a civil servant in India against his will.2 It appears they cannot do it except by application to the Supreme Court; and it is perhaps more than we could be warranted in affirming positively here that they were wrong in not making such an application in Mr Ricketts’ case because there is some doubt whether the presumption they could have established against him were such as the Court would have proceeded upon, & because he could probably have quitted India before process could have issued.3
As the P.C. is with you, perhaps the requisite alteration in the wording could be most conveniently made at the Board.
Would it not be highly advisable that the Government of India should have the Edition: current; Page:  power given it of detaining its servants in India until their accounts with Government are settled? By their covenants they are bound to remain—but it seems that the Govt cannot compel them to do so.
I am at your service this evening for anything—Fonblanque, Mrs. Kingston,2 or what not—only it is not the best of all times for Fonblanque.
I shall call here as soon as I have had my dinner somewhere.
I avail myself of your permission to answer your questions in my own language.
All the chairs of Political Economy which exist in England are of very recent foundation. The professorship at the London University you are probably aware of: the lectures however were so ill attended that for the last session or two none have been delivered.2 There is also a professorship at the rival institution in Edition: current; Page:  London, called King’s College.3 At Oxford a chair was founded a few years ago by and at the expense of an individual, a wealthy banker of London, Mr Henry Drummond. This chair has been filled successively by Mr Senior, and Dr Whately, the present Archbishop of Dublin; and you are doubtless acquainted with the excellent lectures which those distinguished persons have in each successive year, published, pursuantly to one of the provisions of the act of endowment.4 What effect the lectures produced upon those who heard them delivered, I know not; but when published they have added greatly to the reputation of their authors and have conduced to the diffusion of a taste for the science.5
Mr Pryme, a private individual, what is called in this country a provincial barrister, (now member of parliament for the town of Cambridge) for some years delivered lectures on political economy at that town, on his own private authority, without any connexion with the University: some years however after the establishment of the Oxford Professorship, the University of Cambridge followed the example, by recognizing Mr Pryme’s lectures and giving him the title of Professor of Political Economy at the University.6 Whether any emoluments from the University are annexed to the Professorship, I know not.
I am not aware of any other chairs of Political Economy in England. I am informed that one has recently been established in the University of Dublin through the influence of the Archbishop.7 There is no such chair at any of the Scotch universities, but courses of political economy have been occasionally Edition: current; Page:  though rarely delivered by the Professors of Moral Philosophy at Edinburgh.8 Some years ago (during Lord Liverpool’s ministry) a number of distinguished persons at Edinburgh presented a memorial to the King (who is the head of the Scottish universities though not of the English) requesting that he would authorize the establishment of a chair of Political Economy; but their request was refused.9
The views taken of the science in the lectures delivered from these several chairs, are of course determined by the particular opinions of the Professors; who differ, as in the present state of the science may be expected, on a great number of important points, but the tendency of all their doctrines is in favour of liberty of commerce.
I had nearly forgotten to mention that there is a chair of Political Economy at the College of Haileybury, for the education of the Civil Servants of the East India Company. This chair has for many years been filled by Mr Malthus.10
In answer to your question, “quelles doctrines sont aujourdhui en faveur” I hardly know what to say. The subject is so little studied scientifically that there can scarcely be said to be any “doctrines of political economy” in favour among any class; but in commercial & financial legislation the Tories are generally for keeping up the old institutions, the Whigs and Radicals generally for the removal of restrictions, whether imposed by monopolies, duties on importation, or indirect taxation involving an inconvenient interference with processes of manufacture.
There are no periodical papers which pay any special attention to political economy. Mr MacCulloch occasionally writes articles in the Edinburgh & Foreign Quarterly Reviews;11 and Colonel Perronet Thompson, the proprietor of the Edition: current; Page:  Westminster Review, frequently writes on questions connected with the science:12 he has taken more pains than most men in the study of it as a science. In Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine there are frequently good articles by a scientific political economist.13
The University of London has I believe got over its pecuniary difficulties, rather by reducing its expenses than by increasing its number of pupils. But the lectures on the moral & political sciences are so ill attended that several of the professors have ceased to lecture: particularly the professors of Jurisprudence and Political Economy.14 The lectures best attended are those on English law and the medical sciences,15 because those kinds of knowledge may be turned into money—which is a consideration nearer to the heart of most English fathers than the desire to make their sons wise or accomplished men.
I should be most happy to communicate any other information in my power, which you may desire to possess on these or other points.
I forgot to ask you the other day, whether a successor is yet appointed to our friend M. Say, and to enquire concerning another valued friend of my father’s and mine, whom you are doubtless well acquainted with—M. Comte.16
Would you so far oblige me as to take charge of the accompanying letter & two packets? There is nothing sealed, & you have unlimited license to untie.
Shall you be long absent? & will you not let me see something of you when you return? we never meet.
We have no clue to trace the project of Mr Elphinstone2 respecting lapsed Jageers,3 except that which is afforded by paras 18 & 19 of Political Letter from Bombay of 2d March 1822, which state that a scheme of the kind you mention was once contemplated but afterwards abandoned.
We have vainly attempted by means of this indication to discover any Minute or Dispatch in which the proposition was made.
The accompanying MS. on education has been sent to me with a request that I would offer it to you for publication.2 I hear the highest character of it from a friend of mine whom I think fully competent to judge of the merits of such a work—& I should have liked much to read it before putting it into your hands—but as I have no time just at present, I send the MS.3 There is in addition to what I now send, a mass of very valuable and erudite notes, which with the present MS. would make a good sized 8vo volume.
The author would be glad of an early answer if possible.
E. Wilson Esq.
I have had the honor of receiving and laying before Mr. Loch2 your letter of the 6th Ultimo; and I am desired to express to you his acknowledgments for the Edition: current; Page:  readiness with which you have consented to afford your valuable aid in the selection of a competent person for the office of Head Master in the Anglo Indian College,3 and which was no more than he expected from your zeal for the interests of Native Education in general, and of that Institution in particular. I have also to express his obligations to you for your remarks on the nature of the office, and on the qualifications which it requires; and, above all, for your public spirited offer to give preparatory instruction in the native languages to any gentleman whom the Court may nominate to it. Such instruction, and the continued communication with yourself which it would involve, are advantages of the value of which, to any person who may be selected for the duties in question, Mr. Loch is deeply sensible.
Your observations on the expediency of attaching a higher salary to the office than that now appropriated to it from the Education Fund, have been perused by Mr. Loch with every attention. But while he feels the force of your reasons, and the weight due to your opinion, he would not consider himself justified in proposing to the Court the adoption of the measure which you recommend, until trial shall have been made of the possibility of procuring a competent person on the terms originally proposed. He will therefore feel greatly indebted to you if you will endeavour to obtain a person qualified for the office, and willing to undertake it on the present conditions. Should this be found impracticable, it will no doubt be advisable for the Court to take into consideration the expediency of increasing the Salary.
I have the pleasure of returning to you the papers on Mr Masson,2 to stand as a fourth volume in the Colln in the manner you propose.Edition: current; Page: 
On the subject of the Board’s alteration in the reply to Bengal Pol P.C. 1308,3 (concerning the Boondela chiefs & jageerdars) as the Chairman4 has not adopted the passage which you have inserted, I may take this opportunity of mentioning why. No 49 in the classified list annexed to the H. of C. Report,5 viz the Nana of Calpee, is the chief of Jaloun, he is no longer called Nana of Calpee because Calpee has been ceded to the British Govt. No 52 is probably Kishore Sing of Punnah. The others who are referred to in the Board’s insertion (most of whom appear to be of the Chobey family) are entirely insignificant. The Chairman has often seen them when he was in Bundlecund and says they are petty Jageerdars of no sort of consequence, and their engagements are not treaties but are constituted by Sunnuds on our part, & acknowledgments of allegiance on theirs.
You will find that we have made several additions to this PC since it returned to us. We find that it saves much time & trouble to continue the subjects up to the latest advices.
Would you oblige me by letting me know by 2d post as soon as your second Report is procurable,2 as my friend Mr Nichol of Montrose has written to me to send him a copy as early as possible.
You have been in communication with Mr Nichol recently & are aware of the Edition: current; Page:  purpose for which he is anxious to see your report as soon as may be,3 & therefore you will, I know, excuse my troubling you with my present request—
. . . I have not yet seen Falconer2 not that I have thought of any better person nor so good. But I have been rather dilatory though all this week I have been intending to call & at last have written to him to come to me. Apropos I have seen a composition which I understand to be his, lately, which I did not think showed much editorial talent, a project of a programme for a Finsbury Electoral Committee.3 The ideas were all good but it was very clumsily drawn up, and was not good English . . . .
I am sorry to say that I shall not be able to join you at Chepstowe or anywhere else, as my father has not yet returned, & I do not like during his absence to be away for more than a day or two—& for several other reasons. I should have enjoyed exceedingly the Wye and meeting with you—however it cannot be helped.Edition: current; Page: 
I am very glad that Cornwall has fulfilled your expectations. I think you would have admired Falmouth as much as I did, if I had not praised it so much beforehand—& you had perhaps seen, as I had not, the parts about St. Blazey, and Tregony, & also Fowey harbour.2
Grant is still in the vale of Festinniog (or ffestinniog, is it?) but has had, it seems, quantities of rain. We have not had any here, for more than a fortnight, until the last three days. If you have been as lucky you have had the finest weather possible in the finest places.
Did you see anything of Buller while you were at Looe?
Vous voyez par la lettre de Wilson, quelles sont les conditions pécuniaires de la correspondance du Globe, et quel en est le genre de correspondance qu’il faut à ces messieurs.2 Je ne sais si cela vous convient; tout ce que je sais, c’est que vous êtes l’homme en France le plus propre à une correspondance quelconque entre les deux pays, dans un journal quelconque, soit français, soit anglais.
Dans le cas où cela ne vous convînt pas, je voudrais bien que cela pût convenir à Dussard.3 Je sais combien il serait au-dessous de vous pour une pareille tâche; mais il en a besoin et il vaudrait mieux que les correspondans actuels des journaux anglais.Edition: current; Page: 
Je ne veux plus bore you par rapport à la Niobé;4 j’ai donné cette commission à un voyageur anglais.
Carrel s’occupe à apprendre l’anglais;5 les Buller l’ont invité à leur faire visite en Cornwall, je l’ai conseillé d’accepter, s’il doit rester encore quelque temps en angleterre. Il n’y a presque personne à Londres qui parle français.
Donnez-moi de vos nouvelles quand vous en aurez le temps et croyez que je suis toujours
We have discovered an agreement with Scindia respecting the Contingent,2 posterior to that which you allude to. I send you a copy of it, together with copies of paragraphs which will refer you to subsequent reductions in the strength of the Contingent,3 by the act of the British Government alone. Should you wish the paragraphs from India to be copied also, I shall have great pleasure in ordering it to be done.
The grounds, on which in PC 1411, the distinction is made between the British Levy & the remainder of Scindia’s Contingent, are solely those which appear in the Collection. Of their sufficiency or otherwise you can judge. I do not distinctly recollect them.
The Ajmere Engagement2 shall be looked at.
Mr J.S. Mill presents compliments to Mr Alves, and by desire of the Chairman & Deputy Chairman,2 transmits in duplicate Draft of a proposed reply to various paras. of the Political Letters from Bengal, dated the 13 March, 10 July, & 13 November 1834, relative to the North Eastern & Eastern Frontiers.3
15 collections, in 1327 pages, accompany the Draft.
H.S. Alves, Esq &c &c &c
Some months ago, by the desire of the then Chairman,2 I had the honour of placing myself in communication with you with a view to obtain your valuable aid in procuring a person qualified to superintend the Anglo Indian College & to be the principal teacher in that Institution, and you kindly consented to look out for a fit person. The Managers of the Institution have since withdrawn their application, stating that they have now no doubt of being able to select a competent person in India and I am consequently directed by the Revenue & Judicial Committee to apprise you that any further continuance of your endeavours to procure a person in this country will be unnecessary.
Having thus fulfilled my instructions, permit me in my individual capacity to say how much pleasure I have derived from your letter in this month’s Asiatic Journal.3 The Government of India in their recent conduct have gone directly in the teeth of the instructions they have received from this country—as well as violated the most obvious rules of policy & common prudence.
Thanks for letting me know when there was an opportunity of writing. How are you? & how “is” Mr Austin? I wish much to know—as for me I am much the same Edition: current; Page:  as when I last wrote neither better nor worse—& I do not find that I get better—however the medical men think it is a very trifling ailment.2 While it lasts, however, it cripples me for many things. My father also is in statu quo or nearly so—& will not get rid of the remains of his complaint till the warm weather.3 My brother James goes to Deal tonight to join his ship in the Downs.4 News of any other sort I have none as to anybody in whom you take interest. Nor is there anything doing by anybody—except indeed in India—where Cameron is going on very satisfactorily & there is a prospect of his being able to do some good.5 I send you a copy of the review.6 Now that Von Raumer is done (which by the bye I have asked Buller to review) could not you do something for it?7
You have heard I suppose from Bickersteth all the circumstances attending his appointment8—which is worth all other things put together that the Whigs have done—though they ought to have done it long before.
Henry Taylor is printing a little book on Statesmanship in which I have no doubt there will be good things, & I should think some weak ones.9
I hardly ever go out now—so you will not wonder that I have so little to tell.
En passant par Paris trop vîte pour aller voir mes amis, je vous écris à la hâte un petit mot de réponse à votre lettre. L’Histoire Parlementaire aura bientôt un article dans le London Review, article fait par un de mes amis qui a beaucoup étudié la Révolution française et qui fait très grand cas de cet ouvrage.2 L’espace seul a manqué à l’Examiner pour en rendre compte il y a déjà longtemps. J’ai pris des démarches pour qu’il soit parlé dans quelques journaux anglais de votre traduction de l’excellent ouvrage de Ritter, et je ferai de mon mieux pour les autres ouvrages, notamment pour celui de M. Fauriel.3
Comme la revue n’a pas d’abonnés en france il serait inutile qu’elle persiste à faire les frais d’une agence parisienne. Si donc vous voulez bien écrire à M. Falconer en vous servant de mon nom et l’indiquer ce qui nous reste à payer, nous terminerons à la fin du mois courant l’arrangement que nous avons fait ensemble il y a quelque temps.
Quel funeste evenement, mon cher M. Paulin, que la mort de Carrel—la france perd en lui le plus grand de ses hommes politiques et la cause populaire son plus noble défenseur.4 J’ai peu joui de l’avantage immense de son intimité—malgré Edition: current; Page:  cela j’ai senti sa perte comme celle d’un père.5
Under the circumstances you mention I should wish to have the longer passage omitted entirely. The shorter one may stand as it is, except that instead of “indispensable to insure confidence abroad” I would rather say “the most effectual means of insuring” etc.2
In the PC herewith forwarded on the subject of Baroda affairs, you will find that orders are given for the removal of Mr Williams from the Office of the Commissioner & Resident.2 Similar Orders were inserted by the Board in the P.C. recently returned on the subject of Myhee Caunta—but the Chairman did not think that so good an occasion as the present one & consequently the P.C. has been laid before the Committee recently as it originally stood. It seems more just & less embarrassing in its consequences to remove Mr Williams for general unfitness as Edition: current; Page:  proved by the general state of affairs at the Court to which he is accredited, than for specific instances of misconduct of which his superiors (the Bombay Government of the time) must share the blame & which the home authorities when they first animadverted on them, did not deem worthy of so serious a punishment, for you will observe that the misconduct of Mr Williams in regard to the Myhee Caunta was as fully known to the Court when they sent out their last dispatch on that subject as it is now.
The Board have also inserted in the PC on the Myhee Caunta, an order for the removal of Mr Erskine from Kattywar.3 This seems very severe treatment for an error of judgment which in him was comparatively venial. He had never since he was in India been under any proper superintendance; his superior was Mr Williams, who, as well as the Government to whom they naturally looked for instructions, for years countenanced & approved all he did. If this does not render an error of judgment excusable, would it not at least be hard to ruin the entire prospects of a young man for errors committed under such circumstances.
I trouble you with this to explain the reason why the alterations have not been adopted.
With reference to Political Draft No 487, in which the Board have inserted a paragraph they inserted before in the PC, relating to the inexpediency of including a multiplicity of subjects in the same letter—the Court I dare say will not make any remonstrance—but the reason why the paragraph was struck out, was, that the substance of it was embodied in an additional paragraph to a previous P.C. & thereby reached India earlier than it would have done if left in the P.C. in which the Board originally inserted it. With reference to the subject generally it seems to me very important that any instructions given to the Govt of India to matters in their separate letters, they should be warned at the same time not to discontinue the Edition: current; Page:  practice of sending quarterly General letters embracing all subjects not already reported on separately. The necessity of this appears from the conduct of the Bombay Government which ever since it has written none but separate letters has made a practice of having a great part of its proceedings unreported for years together & obliging us occasionally to take up subjects from the Consultations alone. The natural tendency of the system of separate letters seems to be to leaving subjects unnoticed until either some grave event happens, or a considerable quantity of matters has accumulated or the attention of Govt or the Court is drawn to the fact that there has been no report for a long time & the only check to this tendency seems to be making obligatory on somebody to look through a whole quarter’s or half year’s proceedings & report everything of any moment.
If you should agree in these views you will no doubt use your influence with the Board in support of them. As it is, we are writing as often & as vigorously to Bombay to demand General letters, as to Bengal to do what looks very like demanding their discontinuance or at least might admit of that interpretation.
I send you a letter from Col. Napier for your consideration. If you think what he proposes will do, I am quite willing to acquiesce.2
I left at Reynell,3 the whole of “Caricatures” except the one page herewith enclosed, which I have omitted because (while it makes no gap) I cannot at present see what is the merit you ascribe to Gilray’s idea or in what you consider it to Edition: current; Page:  resemble & surpass Hogarth’s.4 Of course reinsertion in the proof is practicable if desirable.
I send Adams’ article: he has done all we desired & inserted a splendid joke about Anthracite in p. 31.5 It will do very well now, only I am not certain about pp. 4 to 7. If you think they do not come in well, put them in somewhere as a note, or omit part of them or the whole, just as you like.
I would come to you tonight—but must work at Palmyra6—I will come as soon as I can.
The paragraphs respecting Col. Alves2 were omitted in the Draft to which you allude, because the Committee considered that the only reason for releasing the other Madras officers from the retrenchment,3 was its being retrospective & that if an officer had been retrenched without hardship of a refund, and in obedience to Edition: current; Page:  the regulations of the service he had no claim to the restoration of the money. If the money were repaid to Col. Alves, the Committee thought that the Bengal officers would ask for it & on the whole it appeared to them that if Col. Alves thought himself aggrieved he would memorialize the Govt or the Court & the question might then be decided with a knowledge of the sentiments of the Govt.
These, as far as I could collect from the discussions in Committee, were the reasons which led to striking out the paragraph respecting Col. Alves.
From a PC herewith forwarded on the Affairs of Oude, you will perceive that the death of the King of that country2 has not, in the opinion of the Chairs,3 obviated the necessity of taking into consideration the great principles of general policy laid down in the Resolutions of Govt which contemplated the removal of that prince from the throne.
It was to these general principles only, that any allusion was intended in the Hyderabad P.C. & the Chairman, with reference to the nature of the paragraphs now submitted, does not see any necessity for the remodelling of the concluding part of the Hyderabad paragraphs. If the President4 after reading the Oude P.C. should continue of his former opinion I should be much obliged to you if you would suggest to me the sort of modification which would best meet the President’s views. In the mean time the Hyderabad paragraphs will be kept in abeyance.
With reference to your note of the 31st ulto, I have caused search to be made for any documents respecting the amount of crime in the Guicowar’s territory,2 but none can be found, nor do I well understand how any such can exist. The great amount of crime in our own territories the authors of which find refuge in the Guicowar’s, will appear from the Collection to the P.C. in the affairs of the Guicowar, herewith sent.
I am also directed by the Chairman3 to call your attention to the observations respecting Mr Williams,4 (to a similar effect with those inserted by the Board in Draft 50) which are contained in the present P.C. 2095 & which were reserved for it instead of being put into Draft 50, because when the original P.C. was divided & the portions of it which related to the general government separated from those which touched upon special points, the remarks on Mr Williams’ conduct seemed to belong rather to the former division. This is still the view entertained by the Chairs, & they are on that account, desirous that the insertion in Draft 50 may be withdrawn, for which an application will probably be made in the regular form.
I am obliged to send this article back to you; I never had so unmanageable a one in my life.2 Not only is it often quite impossible for me to make out what you mean, Edition: current; Page:  but there is not one sentence in the whole article in its proper place. I wish you would rewrite it or rearrange it, on the principle of proving only one thing at a time & not jumping from one point to another & back again several times in a page. The article is utterly unmanageable by me—it can only be disentangled by the hand that entangled it—but the material is all excellent.
You must lose no time if it is to be in this number.
With reference to your note of yesterday’s date which has just been handed to me by Mr Peacock;2 I have to state that Draft No 70, respecting the family of Wittul Rao3 formed (with a slight exception) a part of P.C. 2002 on the affairs of Baroda which was returned by the Board (so far as that portion of it was concerned) unaltered.
With reference to the alteration in PC 2072 (Affairs of Kattywar) just returned; I Edition: current; Page:  do not clearly understand in what manner the Joonaghur chief is to continue his responsibility for the Babrias, when he is specifically interdicted from interfering with them. It strikes me that a clearer statement of the Board’s intentions would be desirable2 & would facilitate the passing of the Draft through the Court.
With reference to Mr Gordon’s letter of this day’s date respecting Colonel Gowan,2 & the desirableness of requiring from the Indian Govt their reasons for the appointment you may perhaps not be aware what those reasons may very naturally be presumed to be, viz. that Col. Gowan is a connexion by marriage of Mr Ross in whose gift as Lieutenant Governor of Agra3 the appointment was.
Can you give me any idea whether P.C. 2133, sent to the Board on the 19th March, is likely to be soon returned? It reviews the proceedings of the Agra Lieutenant-Governor2 from April to June 1836, & as several subsequent Agra P.C.s have been returned, which being full of references to P.C. 2133 are kept waiting by it, I would venture to suggest that in case any point or points should require prolonged consideration or are likely to give rise to correspondence, the paras relating to them might perhaps be detached & made into a separate P.C. & the rest proceeded with. I wish the same course had been adopted in this office respecting Draft 3, one point of which (that relating to the tomb of the Persian ambassador)3 is still under discussion between the Board and the Court, during which time all the other parts of the Draft (some of which have been referred to in subsequent dispatches being signed & sent off) are detained in this country.
The enclosed paper has been given to me by some of my Italian friends in this Edition: current; Page:  country, who knew of no better means of forwarding it to its destination.2 It appears to be intended as a sort of Memorial to the Colonial Department & is, as you will see, signed by the party in whose name it is made out & who is a Sicilian refugee at Malta—but it has been very long on its way hither, & the friends of the party are in complete ignorance whether his case has been decided or not. I know nothing whatever personally of the man, but I am informed, that his removal from Malta would be ruinous to his circumstances, & that his conduct while there has never incurred the slightest censure from the authorities.
With many apologies for adopting this mode of communication which I do from not knowing the proper one,
Mr Mill presents his compliments to Mr Gordon,2 & although unable to refer him at once to any authority, he believes Mr Gordon will find that the provision in question of the Canon Law (which it need not be observed is founded on the Roman Catholic religion) was the occasion of the famous Nolumus leges Angliae mutari.3 The barons, in that instance, were resisting the attempt to introduce into English law the legitimatio per subsequens matrimonium of the Canon Law. Edition: current; Page:  Wherever the municipal laws of the nations of Europe are of Roman origin, Mr Mill believes that this rule will be found to prevail—& he would instance Scotland & France.
I received your two letters both together today, not from any negligence of mine in asking for them, but from the carelessness of the Post office people in telling me there was nothing for me. Many thanks for the trouble you have taken. The packet containing the first part of the report2 is not worth paying 12½ piastres for, or one piastre, as I have already seen the whole document here in a newspaper, & can have as many copies of it as I like in England, where alone they can be of any use, therefore pray do not trouble yourself any further about the packet. I will give the 17 carlini3 to Sterling or to somebody else who may be going to Naples, as there appears to be some fear that Dr Calvert’s4 health may prevent Sterling from going there—he will at any rate not stay more than ten days, as he will set out if at all about the 1st of April & return about the 15th with a brother of his who is bringing home a sick wife from Corfu.5 Your messages shall be given to him. I believe he knows Severn—Wolff6 I have not heard him speak about.
The two other parts of the Report reached me duly. I am really concerned that you have had so much more trouble about a matter of such small consequence, than I expected, or than I should ever have dreamed of imposing upon you.Edition: current; Page: 
One of the letters which you forwarded tells me what you probably have heard from your brother direct, that the whole edition of his History is sold, except a few copies.7 He was well & in spirits.
I have attended to your advice about riding, but have not found it possible to ride so much or so often as I intended, on account of a pain in my side which invariably comes on after I have ridden a very short time. I do not find myself at all better, or getting better, & have renounced the hope of any considerable benefit from this journey or climate. I still adhere to my macaroni diet which I find as pleasant & as least as wholesome as any other.
Pray command my services to the utmost for anything you may wish done here or in the way to England. I have for sundry reasons given up all thought of Sicily.
Excuse this trumpery affair of a letter which I write only to thank you for your kindness & believe me
I am here—so please send me my papers by bearer.
Your very kind letter increases my mistification at what has happened.Edition: current; Page: 
I was aware that you valued the book highly as a gift from a friend, & as not easy to be replaced; but I was quite unaware that it was (or that as a Prospectus of an unpublished work it was likely to be) in such request or of such value in the market, as could make it an object with any one to become possessed of it by dishonest means.2
I have no clue whatever to trace it by, but if you would have the kindness to give me the exact title, I will set my bookseller to look out for it. I fear there is little chance of success since whoever got possession of it most probably desired to keep it rather than to sell it—or if to sell it, intended to sell it immediately, having some customer in view.
With regard to the Saumaise papers your directions shall be attended to. Perhaps if you have time you would write a letter to the Trustees of the Museum for me to send with the papers—which would increase their value both to the institution & to posterity.3
Perhaps a former slight acquaintance with you, which I always look back to with pleasure, may be a sufficient excuse for my troubling you with this note on a subject in which you also are interested though not so directly as myself. I have been for some time engaged in carrying on a review, from which various reasons now conspire to make me desirous of disconnecting myself. Though its circulation is steady, it is not sufficient to cover the expenses; & the deficit would be still greater unless I were to continue devoting an amount of my own time & exertion to the review which is not convenient to a person who has other pursuits, & is not justified by any amount of good likely to be produced in the existing state of the public mind by a person of my particular cast of opinions & general mental qualifications, at least through the channel of a periodical work. Now your review Edition: current; Page:  has the same difficulties to struggle against, & if there are any two reviews which more particularly stand in each other’s way it is the British & Foreign & the London & Westminster. The proprietor of the British & Foreign2 has shewn an honorable perseverance in carrying on a review which cannot hitherto have been prosperous as a mere pecuniary speculation, in which quality I should be very glad to imitate him if I had his resources & his consequent means of obtaining the best help.
Now therefore what I should wish to know is, whether it is probable that he would be willing to become a purchaser of the L. & W. & I prefer asking your opinion on the matter in this way, because if you think that he certainly or almost certainly would not, I should proceed no farther in the business. I am aware of no one to whom the acquisition of the review would be so advantageous, no one else indeed to whom in a pecuniary sense there would be much likelihood of its being at all advantageous, unless possibly to some bookseller as an instrument of puffing & to such I should not chuse to be the means of consigning it. Some one might perhaps be found who would undertake it from higher motives & whose circumstances would enable him to be indifferent to the very moderate pecuniary loss at present incurred. But I should very willingly see it united to your review, since the only individualizing character which it has possessed in all its avatars & which therefore it ought not to part with, & live, is that of an organ of radicalism, & the article on the State of the Nation, in your last number but one, rather surpasses in point of radicalism, than falls short of, my limits.3
I have seen Robertson once since he saw you.2 We separated with a half Edition: current; Page:  intention of calling on you when he comes again to town this week. He seemed to me to be neither for nor against the plan, but to await my decision. Now my decision, if I consider myself only, will be, whatever becomes of the review, to withdraw myself from it. I have not yet received any answer from Beaumont, but I cannot be much longer without it: if I do not come to terms with him, I will make up my mind once for all. I should like best, in that case, that your schemes should proceed, with some other person than myself as the proprietor.
As I see a question of mine stands first for the P.E. Club I think it right to let you know beforehand that I shall not be there this time. I hope to be at the February meeting, & the subsequent ones to the end of the season.
Perhaps Merivale, or you, who stand next, will bring on your questions.2
N.W. Senior Esq.
Let us have Milnes’ article at all events to see & judge of, since it is written. I dare say it will suit the review very well.2
I have read “Chartism” with renewed pleasure but only found out one new passage.3
According to your request I send the Secret Letter of 7th November with its enclosures, as a supplement to the Joudpore Collection. I do not think that the information contained in these papers, is likely to occasion any alteration in the PC though it may require the addition of a sentence or two, chiefly respecting the restoration of the Joudpore share of Sambur.2
. . . sum you mention—the more especially as circumstances at present render me unable to make any arrangements with respect to any number of the review but the forthcoming one. I hope I may rely upon having, for the present number, . . . prefer
The additional matter in para 7 of Draft 61 was inserted in the Political Committee on the proposition of a Director & I presume he cannot have adverted to the passages in the Collection, to which you have now been so obliging as to refer me. (If I had remembered their existence I would have pointed them out to him.) His object was to discourage the Government from embarrassing themselves with the domestic disputes of stipendiaries.
Pray come or send your answer to the printer’s,2 where I shall be for some time. Edition: current; Page:  If you do not, I shall return here. I am pressing because there must be an announcement in the present number which must be printed tonight.3
I have had an offer from the other quarter I alluded to in my note4—& if you are willing to carry it on our agreement must be conditional on the very probable event of my refusing that.
The responsibility thus devolving wholly on me I must take till Monday to consider. But I will be prepared to give you an answer positively on that day.2
On my return here2 your note of the 19th ulto respecting P.C. 2674 was shewn to me.
The reasons for keeping the paragraphs respecting the Institution Fee in the Political Department are, first, that the former correspondence on the subject has been in that Department. Secondly that the question to be at present decided is a Mysore question exclusively & it was not the intention of the Chairs3 that the decision should be considered as prejudging in any degree the question respecting the abolition of the Institution Fee in our own territories—which would in some measure at least apparently be the case if these paragraphs were sent to India in the Legislative or Judicial Departments.
For my own part, believing that an Institution Fee is everywhere objectionable & that the arguments in Cameron’s admirable report4 are conclusive everywhere I should be happy to see the abolition made general but the Court, at present, are certainly not prepared for such a measure.
I have hitherto kept in view the physiological maxim inculcated in the Edition: current; Page:  conclusion of your note to me, & I should probably have allowed myself a few more days of gestation if I had not wished to ask your opinion as to a certain matter. I had arranged with the undertaker, McDowell,2 that the grave should be built up to a certain height above the ground: that being done, an iron railing round it would have been unnecessary & expensive.3 On the very morning of the funeral McDowell informed me that the rector would not allow the grave to be built up as high as we had intended—& when I saw it, I found the gravestone quite on a level with the surface of the earth. Had I known this previously I would have had an upright, not a flat gravestone: but the mischief being done, I wrote to McDowell to express my wish to erect an iron railing round the grave, to which he replies that the rector objects to that too, & he recommends my writing to Mr Coope himself.4—Now it is on this that I wish to ask your advice, viz. as this Coope seems a queer customer, whether there is any use in applying to him at all & if so, what is the best mode of doing so—whether directly by letter, or in any more circuitous mode: & whether any of my friends at Falmouth would be likely to mend the matter by interesting themselves in it.
We are again all assembled here, & all tolerably well. I have written once to Sterling since I arrived,5 but have not heard from him, as indeed I did not expect. I have a “pretty considerable” quantity of business on my hands here at present & my head is rather confused, which must account for my writing so trumpery a letter—
I hear good accounts of Cunningham’s performance from the Foxes as well as from you.6 There is no hurry about sending it. I have remitted the ten guineas for him to Mr Robert Fox, as I had forgotten C.’s christian name & feared the bankers might not know to whom to pay it. Bullmore is paid.7
First, let me thank you for taking so much trouble about the affair with Coope.2 We have finally determined that the thing had better remain as it is; although McDowell is much to blame for having told me positively that the matter could be arranged as we at first ordered it; but for which assurance, I should have chosen one of the numerous other spots in the burial ground the choice of which he offered me & in respect to some of which the objection derived from the necessity of passing over the place to get beyond it would not have had existence. But it is too late to remedy this now. A headstone would be absurd unless for the purpose of an inscription; & an inscription twice over would be almost equally so.
Sterling is here, as you know, & I have seen as much of him as his engagements allowed. We do not think he is so well as when he was at Falmouth, but there seems no decided change for the worse. He still coughs more than one likes to see. I dined along with him on Tuesday, with the Sterling Club,3 where I saw for the first time your friends Samuel and Robert Wilberforce,4—with whom, especially the latter, Sterling had a controversy touching the purposes of Christianity, the essential Christianship of whosoever acknowledges in Christ the model-man, & the bad effect upon most minds of dwelling more upon any set of means than upon the end, viz. individual holiness, very beautiful to hear, & very edifying to the rest of us, & to me particularly valuable as helping me to a clearer knowledge of what is in such minds as those of the Wilberforces on such subjects. This discussion went off into one as to whether philosophy tended—or should tend to make men believe more, or less, W. maintaining the former & S. the latter view; the Wilberforces both contending that philosophy enables one to give credit not only to all the Bible miracles but to a considerable scantling of the legends of saints & even of the Pagan prodigies besides.
You said in one of your letters to me, that Sterling’s departure & mine had closed your philosophical season. I might almost say that the loss of Sterling & you had suspended mine, for till now when I have him again for a few days I have Edition: current; Page:  thought but little on any of the topics on which we used to converse. I have indeed written no small number of pages on subjects of great importance viz. the “affairs of the Guicowar” and the “disputes between the Rao of Cutch and certain Wagur chiefs”5—with one considerable advantage over the more speculative topics which I have sometimes written about, that I can foresee much more exactly the effects with which my lucubrations will be attended. It would be vastly more agreeable if in writing on Bentham or Coleridge to a host of review readers6 one could adopt the “Do this” style, with a prospect of being obeyed. (At this crisis I have made a great blot lower down the page, which I hope you will impute to the liveliness of my feelings.) My evenings have been employed in the tedious task of revising old review articles for republication7—taking the sharpness, or rather tartness, out of some of them, & alas! sacrificing some splendid passages because I find they are ignorant nonsense! but what goes to my heart most of all is, spoiling the music of some of my most rhythmical periods by the painful necessity of substituting one foot of truth for two of error or exaggeration: while the feelings which inspired the sentences being clean gone, any attempt to re-modulate them would only give rise to choice specimens of lumbering affectation. But as Swift would say, “as the old saying is, an ounce of sense is better than a pound of sound.”8
A propos of review articles, if it comes in your way do read Stephen’s review (in the last Edinburgh) of the writings of Isaac Taylor of Ongar, author of the “Natural History of Enthusiasm.”9 It is in great part made up of two verae historiae, viz. first a supposed Biography of the author, written twenty years hence, & next a supposed Autobiography by him, relating the particulars of his posthumous existence, & how he gets on in the sun, which it appears is to be the scene of our Edition: current; Page:  next stage of existence. Our souls no doubt continue to gravitate, while the centrifugal force perishes with our material integuments.
Sterling tells me you have been seen to eat “a potatoe”—if that is the cause of your not being in force, those are right who say that potatoes are poison, as is natural to the plants of the genus Solanum, natural family Solanaceae &c. &c.10 I presume you add to your potatoe what Carlyle speaks of as “an unknown condiment named Point.”11 If you go to Penzance pray go to Lemorna Cove, the Logan stone, the Land’s End, & St Just & pray do not go to Kynance, for I do not want to be the only person who has not been there. It will be very pleasant to see you in town.
In the Political PC 2695 which either has been or will immediately be sent to you from the Court in the official form, you will find two material variations from the paragraphs which were originally sent to you. One is on the subject of the proposed reform of the Jyepore Army by the substitution for the greater part of it of a force under British officers:2 this the Court are disposed to encourage provided it can be done without an abuse of our superior power; & on the whole I may say the Court are much more favourable than they had been until recently to Lord Auckland’s view on the subject of bringing the armies of the native states under our control as Edition: current; Page:  opportunities offer,3 provided we avoid what would have been the effect of the proposed Oude Treaty viz. to make a prince pay a second time for what he had paid the full value for already.
The second alteration is in the paragraph respecting a misstatement by Moosherraf Begum of Joura affecting the character of Major Borthwick.4 I enclose Copy of a Memorandum by Sir H. Willock,5 concurred in by Mr Edmonstone, which will explain to you the reason of the alteration or rather omission in this instance.
I have read all the notices, & if certain corrections are made which I have suggested I think none of them will be any discredit to the review. Whether they will be of any use to it is a matter on which I retain my original opinion.2
Can you & Mrs Carlyle2 come to Kensington on Wednesday? not to dinner if you would rather not, but as early in the evening as you can. Barclay Fox & his father & mother & sisters will probably come at some time or other in the evening but I hope you will come whether they do or not.
I am requested by Mr Edmonstone to send you a second memorandum on the Rohilla jageer of Rampore,2 which he has prepared in conformity to the desire expressed in your note to Mr Melvill3 of the 27th ulto. He also desires me to say that it would have been prepared sooner, but that other business claimed his prior attention.
I have just discovered to my great mortification that by some gross & untraceable blunder in this office, the Guicowar PC which was borrowed in consequence of the last arrivals was sent to the Board again verbatim the same as before, instead of a greatly altered PC which I prepared & which the Chairs2 sanctioned. Nothing can now be done but to send at once the altered paragraphs to you, which ought to have been sent a month ago, & I apologize for the needless trouble occasioned to you by one of the absurdest pieces of official negligence I have ever known of.
Nichol bids me “tell Mr Fox that he will do me a great service by taking the construction of that instrument entirely into his own hands & making it what he thinks it ought to be. I do not at all care for a few pounds.”2
Calvert is staying near Sevenoaks with his convalescent sister,3 & bids me tell you that his absence there prevents his calling upon you.
Mr Hickson will be very happy to receive your article, & it will reach him if addressed W.E. Hickson Esq. care of Mr Lunford, East Temple Chambers, Whitefriars Street.2
The Rampore papers will be taken into consideration immediately. The Governor General2 takes Mr Edmonstone’s view as to the expediency of continuing the Jageer in the Rohilla family3 but has adopted, apparently without much examination, a different opinion from Mr Edmonstone as to the eventual rights of the Oude State.
The reference has been made to the Company’s Counsel and the Queen’s Edition: current; Page:  Advocate General,2 but as yet we have not received their answer. It was not supposed that the paragraph would be affected by it & any additional instructions can be sent hereafter if required.
While I am writing I will say one word respecting the Board’s addition to paragraph 64 of PC 2810, respecting the Bhonsla’s villages in the Nizam’s country.3 It strikes me that the plan suggested by the Board would never answer. We could manage the villages of a native prince & pay over the revenues to him, because he can trust us—besides he must. But they never trust one another, & there is no instance among them I believe of a joint property in which the agents of both sharers do not exercise a right of joint management. It must end therefore in our managing the villages for both governments; which neither would like.
Would it not be better to refer to the Govt of India as a general question, the possibility of negotiating an arrangement by which the double Revenue agency might be avoided?
With reference to the India Political P.C. 2810, & to the paragraphs in it which relate to the Bhonsla’s Deshmooky rights in the Nizam’s territory;2 in addition to the remarks which I took the liberty of privately communicating to you on the subject of the proposed commutation of those rights, it may be added that no such commutation could possibly satisfy the Nagpore Raja.3 It is not the money, but the tenure, as an ancient family possession, that he is solicitous about; & no money grant would compensate for the cession of a privilege venerated for its antiquity.
There is another alteration made by the Board in the same P.C. which appears founded on a misapprehension; I allude to the subject of the Title offered by Shah Edition: current; Page:  Shooja to Sir C. Wade4 which it would seem the Board conceive to be of the nature of those honours which can only be accepted by express permission of the Sovereign. This applies to Orders, Decorations etc but not to Titles, which have been very often conferred upon Company’s Servants without any other mention than that of their own Government at Calcutta. The King of Delhi5 used to create, almost as a matter of course, the officer who was the organ of communication with him, a something ool Moolk or ood Dowla etc etc.
With reference to your note dated this day2 respecting para 8 of PC 2954; I had not overlooked the opinion of Mr Sutherland3 which you mention; but it appeared to me that the reasons originally given for transferring the Kunkraj Zillah to the charge of the Agent at Pahlunpore,4 were strong, & the only valid reason against it seemed to be that mentioned by Capt Lang5 in p. 34 of the Colln, which is of a temporary nature and depending upon the fact the Pahlunpore Agent is at present virtual manager of the Pahlunpore country.
I hope you will come to the Kensington Anti Corn Law meeting at the King’s Arms on Tuesday evening at half past five.2
Mr Mill presents his compliments to Mr Bentley and has the pleasure of inclosing a letter which he has just received from Professor Nichol on the subject of the proposition which he made some time ago through Mr Mill respecting the copyright of his astronomical & other writings.2
I answer your questions respecting Draft 356 under considerable disadvantages from not having the Collection to refer to. But I think I can answer them tolerably correctly.
The reason why I draw a distinction between the Myhee Caunta division & the other ceded possessions is that Capt. Carnac then Rest at Baroda who negotiated the treaty2 says expressly in his letter of 16th August 18173 “The cession does not include any part of the dues from the Myhee Caunta division including Pahlunpore & Ballasmore which remain with the Guicowar under his accession to the late Treaty with H.H. the Paishwa.”4 The Ghans Dana from the M.C. division must therefore be deemed to have been distinctly & purposely withheld from us. It appears however that under the Partition Treaty between the Guicowar & the Peshwa the G. never had really any right to this Ghans Dana & therefore his not waiving a claim which was never well grounded, did not constitute any reason for our paying him the exactions in question. Still, we have paid them & are therefore estopped from disputing the right.
But in regard to the other ceded possessions the G. did not himself claim to have any right to Ghans Dana subsequently to the Treaty, & if he had any clearly alienated it in our favour by the Treaty. If therefore we had ever paid Ghans Dana (which we did not) it would be no disputable point but a manifest oversight & would not therefore, I conceive, have been binding upon us after we found out that he had expressly renounced the claim.
I find scarcely anybody is going tomorrow whom you would probably care to see, except Peacock & Dr Royle.2
As you were doubtful before, this will probably decide you, & it therefore decides me—in the negative.
If you have not engaged your name to any visitor for the Pol. Ec. club next Thursday will you give it to Charles Buller & me for Monckton Milnes?
On further consideration of the suggestion I threw out in my last note to you, on the subject of gratis copies of the book on Logic, I do not think it would be quite fair to you in the shape in which it first occurred to me.2 What I am now inclined to propose is that whatever copies I wish to give away may be debited to me at trade price, & in the event of there being any profit, that the half profit which you so liberally offer may be set against those copies, & if there be a balance against me I shall be happy to pay it. If there should fortunately be a balance on the other side of the account I have no desire to receive it, but am perfectly ready without any such Edition: current; Page:  condition to engage that if there be another edition you shall have the refusal of it on the terms you propose.
What time will suit you best for beginning to print?
The page2 will I think do very well, except that there is not quite margin enough for the quantity of letterpress, but that I suppose will be amended.
I have returned the proof to your office, corrected, & shall be able to go on steadily.
I have been requested by two gentlemen to have the sheets sent to them: the one wishes to translate the book into French,3 the other is under engagement to review it in the Edinburgh Review.4 As they are both living abroad I can only send to them as opportunities occur & as I also wish to have the sheets for myself as they are struck off, I shall be much obliged if you will direct three sets to be sent to me regularly.
If you are still of the same mind in regard to Mr Potter’s article on Socrates, would you be kind enough to leave it at the publisher’s for him?2
I send what I can, viz. Bentham, my father, Brougham, & four others, which you can send if you think Varnhagen will care for them, viz. Ram Mohun Roy, Sir Alex. Burnes, Lords Lansdowne & Palmerston.2
When I requested the Editor of the Ed. Review to insert a contradiction of the assertions in the article on Bentham in the October number, I did not ground my request on relationship, nor did I use the terms father & “son”—the word father, where it occurs in the letter, was inserted by Mr Napier2—I was actuated solely by a sense of justice, & your polite acknowledgment of regret for any pain you have caused me in no degree alters my opinion of the merits of the article in question.
With reference to Mr Stark’s letter to me on the subject of PC 41942 (respecting the proposed Pension Fund for the Nizam’s local officers) it seems to me there is a misapprehension respecting the nature of the proposition which is now before the Court.
There will not, in the present plan, be any annual subscriptions from the Edition: current; Page:  officers, no more than there are to the Civil Annuity Fund in Bengal,3 which is the model that has been followed in the proposed arrangements. The fund will be formed by the Nizam’s annual contribution & its interest, together with the payment which each officer will make on accepting the annuity viz one half its computed value.
In reality the plan is simply one by which the Nizam’s Govt would grant pensions to the local officers, not gratuitously but on payment of one half their value4 computed at 9 per cent interest which is a very low rate compared with that which the Nizam’s Govt habitually pays:5 & even at that rate it could only cost the Nizam (according to the McGriffith Davies calculations) a few hundred rupees a year over & above the 12000 RS which his Govt has already expressed willingness to pay.6
I apprehend that there would be in the nature of the case an implied guarantee on the part of the British Govt to the intent, that if the Nizam promised this boon to the officers he would not afterwards break his promise without a breach of faith with us. But the engagement would be so little onerous that there would be small temptation to break it.7
I certify that the education of George Grote Mill2 has been under my exclusive Edition: current; Page:  superintendance during the last seven years, with the exception of short intervals: that his conduct & character have always been excellent & that his acquirements considerably surpass the average of well educated youths.
I accept very thankfully the additional time which you give me.2
Masson is I think a young man of great promise & even the faults of his stile are not of a discouraging kind—but he is not yet out of his apprenticeship. If you return his article I will offer to edite it for him & make it if possible admissible.3
I have some, but a very slight knowledge of Thommerel,4 but I do not know where he is to be found at present. Four years ago his address at Paris was 34 Rue des Postes.
J.M. Kemble Esq
I have been hoping for some time to hear from you finally about the pecuniary Edition: current; Page:  matter & get it finally settled, & I have thought it might be facilitated by my sending you a statement of the various receipts & disbursements in case the principle you adopt for fixing the Interest should require them. [See other side]2
(The rest of the letter regards some of the items & does not require to be copied.)
|22 July ’36||3791.||6.||7||22 July 36||100.||0.||0|
|10 Jany ’37||47.||2.||6||28||1.||7.||9|
|5 Feby||312.||9.||6||18 Nov.||17.||11.||8|
|25 May ’38||95.||5.||0||3 Jny 37||1.||9.||0|
|18 Dr.||94.||12.||0||2 Mar.||4.||4.||2|
|5 July ’39||16.||16.||0||27||9.|
|22 Nov.||94.||12.||0||29 July||21.||0.||0|
|20 Jny ’40||47.||2.||6||8 Aug.||13.||10.||0|
|30 Apr||5.||0.||0||7 Nov.||41.||16.||0|
|8 Aug.||47.||2.||6||14 Dec.||81.||15.||2|
|3 July ’41||47.||2.||6||12 Jny ’38||80.||5.||6|
|26 July||47.||2.||6||18 June||2.||0.||4|
|10 July ’42||47.||2.||6||17 Oct.||7.||15.||0|
|18 July||47.||15.||1||19 Dec.||14.||0.||0|
|20 July ’43||45.||15.||1||5 July ’39||5.||5.||1|
|17 July ’44||45.||15.||1||19 Oct.||7.||16.||0|
|21 Aug.||94.||12.||0||9 Jny ’40||1.||1.||6|
|21 Nov.||13.||10.||0||5 May||1.||10.||0|
|Still to be rec’d||89.||7.||7||22 June||2.||10.||6|
|3 Feby ’41||20.||4.||9|
|10 Jny ’42||10.||14.||0|
|19 Feby ’42||10.||16.||0|
|10 Feby ’43||6.||0.||0|
|6 Feby ’44||2.||0.||0|
After my interview with you I have never felt much doubt as to what Kindersley’s2 opinion would be; but I should like to know why the Interest is fixed at 4 per Cent, a rate which certainly cd not have been obtained in the 3 per cents, since it implies their price to be 75. When as you are aware they have been during the whole period varying only from about 90 to 100, their present price.
It is necessary also to determine how the Interest is to be calculated. Is it to be made up to the end of each year & added to the principal, i.e. is compound Interest to be given? or, is Interest to be charged upon each item from the date of its receipt? Is a balance in hand to be allowed &c. &c.
An elderly lady2 from whom I once submitted to you some manuscripts for publication, which did not suit you, having heard of your new Magazine has asked me to offer to you the inclosed papers for it.3 I have not read them but I know her to be a meritorious person & very much in want of anything, however small, which she might be able to earn by her pen.
Having just returned to town I have found your note—written I know not how long ago, as there is no date or postmark. Will you be kind enough to inform me whether the letter you ask me to write will still be useful.
I have quite given up dining out, but I hope to see both you & Beaumont2 at the India House.
I am afraid the letter which will be written to the Govt of India about Capt. Taylor will be virtually this—“do as you please, on your own responsibility. We praised Capt Taylor but we did not mean you to keep him unless you like.”3 However as his removal is suspended, I do not think there is much danger of its taking effect.
Mr Mill presents his compliments to Mr Hutchinson, & begs to mention that he is much obliged by his interesting work having been transmitted to him, but that Mr Mill’s department being wholly unconnected with the subject, Mr Mill did not Edition: current; Page:  immediately direct his attention to Mr Hutchinson’s communication for which he begs that he will have the goodness to excuse him.
Not having received any answer to my note of the 27th of last month, I suppose it must have miscarried. If you have received it, I must request an immediate answer to it.
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your pamphlet on the Poor Laws, & of the very flattering letter which accompanied it.2 I am much gratified that you should have found in my Political Economy, or in my other writings, anything which appeared to you to deserve being so spoken of.
Your pamphlet, and particularly the concluding letter of the series, contains much in which I heartily concur, & which I think likely to be very useful.3 Of all contained in it, the thing which seems to me especially valuable is the strong recognition of the very early & very low state of advancement in which civilized society now is, compared with what may one day be realized, & may already be reasonably aimed at. It is probable that a greater amount of alteration in existing opinions & institutions, than you contemplate, would be included in my idea of Edition: current; Page:  this possible & desirable improvement; but I am happy to find that we completely agree in thinking that neither individuals nor classes can expect permanently to retain any power or influence except by taking a lead in promoting this great object.
On the more especial subject of the pamphlet, I sympathize entirely in the feelings which make you desire that the conditions of relief should be made less onerous to those who wish to maintain themselves, but cannot, than to those who can, but will not.4 But in regard to the ablebodied I can see at present no means of sifting the one class from the other, except by making the conditions such that no one will accept relief who can possibly do without it. I suspect that the present poor law is the best possible, as a mere poor law; that any nearer approach to abstract justice is not to be had in a poor law, & must wait for a revision of social arrangements more fundamental than poor laws. I think it likely that society will ultimately take the increase of the human race under a more direct controul than is consistent with present ideas; in which case an unlimited “droit au travail”5 for all who are born, as well as many other things, would not be the chimeras which they seem to be in the present state of opinion & feeling.
I delayed sending you the notice you asked for because I rather fancied Edition: current; Page:  (erroneously as it now appears) that its anonymousness might be inconsistent with the intentions you had in asking for it.
Mr Mill presents his compliments to Mr Stark & by desire of the Chairman & Deputy Chairman2 transmits in P.C. a draft in duplicate of a Report by the Political & Military Committee respecting the case of Mr Alexander Maclean.3 I collection containing 49 pages accompanies the Draft.
In Maclean’s Case, the Chairman thinks that the course which the Court have taken, is a middle course—in as much as Mr Maclean’s position in being compelled to resign, and retire with disgrace, although not a rich but a ruined man, is very different from that of a servant retiring on an independence at his own choice. The annuity, if he gets it, will, I fancy, benefit nobody but his creditors. No other middle course seemed possible, except to dismiss him, and give him a pension from the Court—which could not have been charged on the Annuity Fund, and this was deemed objectionable.
I regarded your insertion of an attack on an article which had appeared in Fraser,2 as a favour done to me rather than as the opposite, & I think it quite unfair that I should be paid for it—I therefore return the cheque with thanks & am
I was not aware that you wished for a letter today & have not had time to write one, but I will send a few lines tomorrow.2 I am
The beginning of the session2 seems so little likely to afford materials or an Edition: current; Page:  occasion for writing on general politics before the time when anything intended for your next number must go to press, that I have given up for the present all thought of the article I spoke to you about.3 I write as soon as possible after making up my mind, that there may be no chance of putting you to any inconvenience.
I am much obliged to you for the lists of Cooperative Associations. What amount of foundation is there for the statements in Lechevalier’s pamphlet, which tend to throw doubt on the indication which the number of Associations appears to give, of a corresponding amount of progress in the Cooperative cause?2
Do you possess any information respecting the French associations of later date than that in Feugueray’s book?3 I have none at all recent, & it would take a considerable time to obtain any which I could rely on.
Votre lettre du 26 Octobre et votre Traité des opérations de banque2 me sont parvenus à mon retour d’Italie, près de trois mois après leur envoi. Veuillez n’attribuer qu’à cet absence le retard que j’ai mis à témoigner mes remerciements à un écrivain que j’avais appris à connaître et à estimer par ses nombreux articles dans le journal La République, et qui a fait beaucoup d’honneur à mon Traité d’Ec. Pol. en s’occupant de le traduire.3
C’est bien aujourdhui le temps de lire et de penser pendant qu’il n’est plus possible d’agir; et puisque le pays dont l’Europe attend des leçons d’amélioration sociale se trouve momentanément frappé d’impuissance pratique, il est à désirer que les bons esprits s’y occupent comme vous de perfectionner les théories. Je trouve dans votre livre des vues très éclairées sur le crédit. Vous en signalez bien sa véritable importance, tandis que vous réduisez à une juste mesure les notions vagues et exagérées sur sa puissance créatrice qui ont été la partie la plus faible de plusieurs systèmes socialistes. Vous établissez ensuite contrairement aux idées reçues la supériorité d’un régime de liberté. Il y a bien quelques questions sur lesquelles je ne suis pas d’accord avec vous, mais connaissant mon Ec. Pol. vous n’avez pas besoin que je vous les indique du reste. Ce caractère en quelque sorte professionel de votre ouvrage devant lui donner de nombreux lecteurs parmi les hommes d’affaires, il me semble très propre à former une opinion publique éclairée sur une classe d’intérêts très débattus aujourdhui et jusqu’ici peu compris.
Agréez Monsr l’expression de ma plus haute considération amicale.
I know that some years ago in consequence of Mr Finlaison’s calculations & other considerations which were so fully set forth in your article on Life Annuities2 the Govt made some alterations in their system on that subject. Can you inform me where I can obtain the most recent account of their regulations & of the terms on which annuities are now granted on lives?
The number of the Officers employed in conducting the correspondence in this Office having by the Court’s resolution of the 28th ult been increased by one, and there being at present no room in which the additional Officer can be accommodated, I respectfully request the sanction of your Honorable Committee to some arrangement by which an additional room may be provided.
I take this opportunity of bringing to the notice of your Honorable Committee the inconvenience occasioned by the want of a waiting room or other vacant room in the office. It frequently happens that permission is granted by the Chairman to gentlemen in the Honorable Company’s Service or others, to consult the official records either for public or private purposes, and there is at present no place in Edition: current; Page:  which they can make use of such permission except the compound of the Clerks in the Office.
One of the two extra offices not having been included in the general order for painting the rooms and Offices of this Department passed by your Honorable Committee on the 29th of August last, and the present being a convenient opportunity for putting that Office into the same condition with the other offices, I have requested the Clerk of Works to prepare an Estimate for that purpose, and I respectfully recommend that it may receive the sanction of your Honorable Committee.
I beg most respectfully to lay before you a letter which has been addressed to me by the Registrar of the Book Office2 reporting the death, on the 19th instant, of John Howell, one of the messengers in that Department, and to state that I consider it necessary that the vacancy should be filled up.Edition: current; Page: 
I most respectfully have to represent that the new room ordered by the Honorable Committee for Mr Kaye2 is now completed, and to solicit that provision of the necessary furniture may be sanctioned.
I most respectfully solicit your attention to the accompanying letter which has been addressed to me by Mr Waud the Registrar, respecting the completion of the basement floor of the House for the reception of the Honorable Company’s records under his charge, and asking the sanction of the Committee in his suggestions connected with the removal and final arrangement of the books.
I most respectfully beg leave to lay before you a letter addressed to Mr Waud by A. Howell requesting that the salary of his late father,2 who died on the 19th Instant may be continued to the widow for the current quarter.
In obedience to the instructions given in the Minute of your Honorable Committee dated the 4th instant, I have the honor to report that the following parties have been selected to assist in moving and arranging the portion of the Records, intended to be deposited in the basement floor viz
Writer: Mr Wharton Rundall,2 who has been employed before.
|Philip Slater, }||Warehouse pensioners|
|Francis Brown, }|
|Charles Chedzoy, }|
|John Young, }|
|George Mitchell, pensioner messenger|
|Edd Rock, Assistt fire-lighter|
|Thos McKennie . . . do . . .|
In obedience to the orders of your Honorable Committee of the 26th March 1845, requiring a report of the cases of such of the Extra Clerks and Writers as are employed either on duties formerly discharged by established clerks or on duties distinct from copying, I have the honor respectfully to state that since the last report made by the Examiner on the subject, dated the 9th June 1845, Mr Charles Bell and Mr Frederick Charles Danvers have been employed in the manner above specified, the former in the Judicial Department since the year 1847; and the latter in the Public and Public Works Departments since the year 1853;2 and I respectfully request that the employment of Messrs Bell and Danvers as now reported, may be sanctioned by the Honorable Committee.
I have laid before the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors2 Mr Danby Seymour’s letter of the 20th ultimo,3 with its enclosure from the Under Secretary of State for the Foreign Department,4 communicating the modified proposal of the Edition: current; Page:  French Government, of which Captain Pigeard is the bearer,5 with respect to exchanges of territory in India; and desiring to be informed of the opinion of the Secret Committee on that proposal.
The arrangement which was understood to have been accepted by the French Government in 18556 provided for the cession of all the French possessions in India except Pondicherry, as well as of such part of the territory attached to that settlement as lies outside a certain proposed boundary; Her Majesty making over to France all British territory lying within that boundary, and the nation which should be a gainer in revenue by the double transfer making to the other a pecuniary compensation calculated at twenty years purchase.
The French Government now disavows the assent which it was supposed to have been given to this arrangement, and desires to limit its cessions to the Pondicherry villages outside the proposed boundary, together with the settlements of Chandernagore and Yanoon, and the French Establishments at Calicut and Masulipatam; retaining the valuable possessions of Maké and Karical, and the factories at Surat, Patna, Cossimbazar, Dacca, Balasore and Jugdea. And these more limited transfers the French Government proposes that Her Majesty should receive as a full equivalent for the cession of the British territory within the proposed Pondicherry boundary, no pecuniary compensation being made payable as in the former Draft from the gaining to the losing nation.
As a reason for omitting this last stipulation, it is affirmed by Captain Pigeard that the possessions which the French Government proposes to cede would be worth more to the British Government than the amount of the revenue which those possessions at present yield to France. While the Secret Committee admit that to a certain, though a moderate extent, this estimate may be well founded, they must observe that the French Government also would derive from the acquisition of villages inconveniently intermixed with its territory a benefit far exceeding the mere revenues of those villages: and it appears from Lord Cowley’s letter to Lord J. Russell dated 31st January 1852,7 that the French Colonial Minister at that time8 even expressed his willingness “to accept less than he gives, because he shall receive a compensation in the suppression of the expenses of the French outlying establishments.”
The Committee consider the question of an interchange of Indian possessions to be one which is more important to French than to British interests. Nevertheless, Edition: current; Page:  and although the French Government withdraws the most valuable part of the cessions originally contemplated, the opinion of the Committee is in favor of accepting those which are now offered, if the French Government will consent to receive in exchange territories of equivalent pecuniary value in the neighbourhood of Pondicherry; but the Committee are decidedly adverse to purchasing those transfers by cessions of greater value, because they do not consider the acquisition as of sufficient political importance to be worth any sacrifice of revenue; and also because by making over to France all the territory which she desires for the consolidation of her Pondicherry possessions and the rectification of her boundary, the British Government would lose the power of hereafter offering an equivalent likely to be accepted for the cessions, formerly contemplated, but now withheld.
I have the honor to lay before you a letter from Mr Waud, the Registrar, enclosing a Petition to your Honorable Committee from the four Messengers attached to the Registrar’s Department (Henry Thomas Drew, James Tarrant, John Lee Turner, and Edwin Norris) praying to be granted a gratuity to remunerate them for the extra-work imposed on them by the recent re-arrangement of a considerable portion of the Company’s Records, together with the expenses they have incurred. Mr Waud bears testimony to the severe labour entailed on the Petitioners, to the extra-time during which they have been employed, to the extra expenses entailed on them, to the strenuous exertions made by each man to assist in carrying out the arrangement, and recommends the prayer of the Petitioners to favorable consideration.
I beg leave respectfully to support the recommendations of Mr Waud, and humbly submit that the indulgences solicited may be granted to the Petitioners.
I most respectfully lay before you a Memorandum prepared by Mr Prideaux2 in obedience to the Chairman’s3 commands, in which he submits his opinion of the merits and services of Mr Wm Peters, a writer in this office, and recommends his case for favorable consideration.
And in consequence of the representations made to me of the zeal, intelligence and ability with which Mr Peters has discharged his official duties, I beg leave to express my concurrence in the views of Mr Prideaux.
Will you write and fix a day when you will come down to Blackheath and dine and stay the night, when we shall have an opportunity of talking over the subject of the Logic.2 If you will call on me at the India House (Examiner’s Office) before four o’clock we can go down by the railway together.Edition: current; Page: 
Are you acquainted with Dr. Arnold Ruge, who is now living at Brighton?5
I shall be disengaged tomorrow, at any time you like to come and shall be very glad to see you. There are trains, hourly, which stop at the Blackheath station.
If tomorrow should not suit you, Friday, or any other day (except Saturday afternoon) will be equally convenient to us.
If equally convenient to you, will you allow me to fix Monday instead of tomorrow?
I have desired Messrs Parker to send to you in Finsbury Square the new edition of the Logic which contains some additions likely to interest you.2 I had ordered it to be sent to Vienna, but was fortunately in time to stop it.
I beg most respectfully to represent to you that the great pressure of business in this office has brought about an accumulation of work which, in spite of every exertion, cannot be got through without some increase to the present strength of the Extra Department. Under these circumstances I submit to you the propriety of authorizing the employment, as a temporary measure, of two extra writers in this office for a period of six months;2 in order to form a judgment at the expiration of that time, whether any and what permanent addition to the number of Writers may be required.
I have had the honor to receive and lay before the Secret Committee your letter dated the 22nd instant,2 enclosing copies of letters from Captains Ring and Green offering to proceed on service to Herat,3 and I am desired by the Secret Committee to state in reply that three officers having already received orders to proceed to Herat, the Committee do not think it at present advisable to add to the number.
I have had the honor to receive and lay before the Secret Committee your letter dated the 10th instant,2 transmitting for any observations which the Committee might desire to make, a copy of a letter in which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs3 expresses the opinion of Her Majesty’s Government that it might be advisable to take possession of Mohummerah for the purpose of increasing the pressure upon Persia.4
Since receiving your letter the Secret Committee have endeavored to procure the best information within their reach bearing on the question therein adverted to. The information which they have been enabled to obtain is comprised in the following documents, copies of which I have the honor to annex.
A Memorandum by Lieutenant Colonel Hennell, formerly Resident in the Persian Gulf.5
A Chart of the Korun river prepared from actual Survey by Lieutenant W.B. Selby of the Indian Navy,6 and transmitted to this country by the Bombay Government as an inclosure in their letter to the Secret Committee dated 10th June (No. 45) 1845.
A Memorandum by Sir W.F. Williams of Kars, Bart.7 who as Commissioner for the settlement of the boundary between Turkey and Persia, resided for a considerable time at Mohummerah and in its vicinity.
Having thus put the Board and through them Her Majesty’s Government in possession of all the information they themselves possess, the Committee refrain from expressing any opinion on the course which it may be most expedient to adopt.
As connected with Lieutenant Colonel Hennell’s Memorandum I am directed to transmit two copies of a Sketch made by that Officer from Memory, of the country Edition: current; Page:  adjoining Bushire on the South side.
In reply to Sir George Clerk’s letter of the 14th instant,2 requesting the opinion of the Secret Committee on a modified proposal of territorial exchanges with the French Government,3 I am directed by the Secret Committee to state that they are not in possession of information enabling them to judge to what extent the financial result of the territorial arrangement in question would differ from that of the arrangements formerly contemplated. As far however as the Committee possess the means of forming an opinion, they are disposed to think that the unreserved relinquishment of all the French possessions in India with the exception of Pondicherry and its districts, would be an object worth purchasing by the cession to France of the additional territory near Pondicherry, included within the widest of the boundary lines marked in the Map; which according to the desire of the Board is returned herewith.
I have laid before the Secret Committee your letter of the 21st instant2 Edition: current; Page:  requesting to be informed whether the Committee would object to a proposal considered likely to be made by the French Government, that the value of the addition to be made to the district round Pondicherry shall be one eighth or one sixth of the value of the addition which would have been made to that district under the Convention formerly proposed to France.3
I am directed by the Committee to observe in reply that the annual revenue of the British Villages which would have been ceded to France by the Convention formerly proposed was (as pointed out in their letter of 27th June 1855)4 Rupees 1,30,485.9.3 but that the Committee were not then, and are not now acquainted with the value of the French Villages which, by the same Convention would have been ceded to Great Britain. Unless that value be such as to be a considerable set off against the large amount of revenue which it was proposed to cede, the Committee are disposed to think that the addition of one sixth, or even of one eighth, to the cession, would render very doubtful the expediency, in a financial point of view, of the exchange.
The Committee moreover are disinclined to extend any farther the area laid down in the last proposal of the French Agent, as shewn in the Map.
I beg to submit to the favorable consideration of your Honorable Committee a Medical Certificate and a letter from Mr Morgan, the father of Mr H. Morgan, a Writer in this Office, applying for further leave of absence in consequence of continued indisposition.
Your Honorable Committee is aware that systematic arrangements are now in force under all or most of the Indian Governments for the destruction of useless records. I venture to suggest that a similar arrangement is highly desirable with regard to that portion of the records of this office which consists of Duplicate Collections.
The transmission of Collections from India commenced in 1831, and they have always been transmitted in duplicate: one copy of each Collection, after their subjects have been disposed of by Despatches to India, remaining with the Board of Commissioners. The duplicate Collections are very serviceable until the arrival of the Books of Consultations, which are often considerably in arrear. They are also useful, though in a less degree, for some time longer, by saving the trouble of searching the Indexes, or the delay of borrowing the original Collections from the Board. But after a certain lapse of time, references to them become infrequent, and while their rapidly increasing mass is an encumbrance to the office, they answer no useful purpose except occasionally to save the delay and expense of transcription when papers of old date are required for the Honorable Court of Proprietors, or called for by the Houses of Parliament.
I beg therefore to propose that measures be taken for the destruction, (with the exception to be presently stated) of all duplicate Collections bearing an earlier date than that of the 1st January 1852; and that hereafter, at the end of each year one year’s duplicate Collections be disposed of in a similar manner so that only those of the five years last expired may at any time remain.
The only exception which it seems necessary to make from this destruction, is in the case of papers which may appear likely to be required at some future period by Parliament or the Proprietors: and I recommend accordingly that the Chief Clerk in each of the several Departments of this Office be directed to take such general cognizance of the Collections previously to their destruction as may enable him under instructions from the Examiner to select for preservation such of them as may seem worth retaining for that use.
In the early part of the present year, the Court was pleased to add one to the number of the Assistants to the Examiner,2 in consequence of a necessity created chiefly by the extraordinary growth of the business devolving upon the Assistant in charge of the Public Department.
Since that time the Department has been divided into two branches, one of which retains the original name, and the other is the Public Works Department3 each being under the charge of a separate Assistant. No addition however was at that time made to the number of Clerks in the office, nor was any separation effected between the Clerks attached to the two branches: and the business of both continues to be carried on by the same Clerks who formed the Establishment of the Department before it was divided.
I beg to represent to your Honorable Committee that the business which had outgrown the powers of a single Assistant Examiner, equally exceeds those of the number of Clerks which was sufficient under circumstances entirely different from the present; and that in consequence, notwithstanding the great efficiency of the gentlemen who conduct the correspondence of the two Departments, the business of both still remains considerably in arrears.
I therefore respectfully submit for consideration that such provision be made for the increased business devolving on the Clerks in the Departments, as your Honorable Committee may deem advisable. The subjoined statement exhibits the present distribution of Clerks among the several Departments of the office.
Having laid before the Secret Committee your letter of this day’s date,2 I have received their instructions to acquaint you in reply for communication to the Commissioners for the Affairs of India, that the Secret Committee are of opinion that the Government of Madras will be able to place one Regiment of Native Infantry at the disposal of Her Majesty’s Government for immediate service at Hong Kong,3 on receiving an emergent requisition to that effect. In the event of this requisition being sent the Committee would suggest that the Government of Madras may be apprised that the Regiment will be brought back to Madras as soon as the necessity for their employment on Foreign Service has ceased.
The Secret Committee understand that the whole of the expenses attending this re-inforcement will be borne by Her Majesty’s Government.
T.N. Waterfield Esqre.
&ca &ca &ca
I have had the honor to receive and lay before the Secret Committee your letter dated the 22nd instant, enclosing a letter from Mr Hammond dated the 21st instant, on the subject of the postal communications with the Persian Gulf during the present War with Persia;2 and I am desired to state in reply that the Committee Edition: current; Page:  concur with Lord Clarendon in opinion that, the best postal communication for Government purposes will be from Bagdad viâ Constantinople, and that Lieutenant General Sir James Outram3 will therefore be apprised of the arrangement and instructed to send to Her Majesty’s Ambassador4 a short summary of any important intelligence, which could be put into cypher at the Embassy and so forwarded by telegraph, while on the other hand any similar communication which it might be wished to send from England to overtake the dispatches, could be sent from the India Board to the Foreign Office, where it would be put into cypher and addressed to Her Majesty’s Ambassador, who would then forward it by the Tatar proceeding with the dispatches.
I am also desired to suggest that Captain Kemball5 should be instructed to forward by Tatar to Constantinople all despatches from Lieutenant General Sir James Outram on receipt.
Mr. Mill presents his compliments to Mr. Waterfield, and transmits to him a copy of Mr. Andrew’s “Memorandum on the establishment of Postal Communications between England and the Persian Gulf,” dated January the 23rd 1857,2 received from Sir Jas Melvill K.C.B.3 on the 24th instant.
I am instructed by the Secret Committee to acknowledge your letter of the 27th instant,2 transmitting for any observations which the Committee may wish to make, a copy of a letter from the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies,3 requesting that a Vessel of the Indian Navy may be sent to the Kooria Mooria Islands for the purpose of protecting the persons to whom the Queen has granted permission to take Guano from these islands.4
I am directed by the Committee to suggest in reply that the contents of Brigadier Coghlan’s letter of the 19th of December last, No. 23, be communicated to Mr. Labouchere.5
The Board is aware from that letter that in the opinion of the Officer most likely to be well informed on the subject, the cession of these Islands to Her Majesty by the Imaum of Muscat is a nullity,6 as they were not his to dispose of. At all events, the beneficial enjoyment of them, and of the Guano produced in them, has resided from time immemorial in the Arabs of the Coast; whose rights whether acknowledged or not, it would, the Committee submit, be neither politic nor just to overrule by force, while Brigadier Coghlan appears to anticipate little difficulty in obtaining an amicable cession of them.
I am directed to request attention to the injurious consequences which the Brigadier predicts from any renewal of the attempt to take forcible possession of these islands, and in conclusion I am desired to observe, that the same causes which, in Mr Labouchere’s opinion, make it inconvenient to employ one of Her Majesty’s Ships of War on the proposed service, are applicable in an equal degree to the Indian Navy, and there is every reason to believe that in consequence of the Edition: current; Page:  Persian Expedition it would be impracticable for the Bombay Government to detach a Vessel for the purpose desired by Mr. Labouchere.
I am commanded by the Secret Committee to acknowledge the receipt of Mr Waterfield’s letter of the 22nd instant,2 forwarding for their consideration, copies of certain documents on the subject of the stipulations to be made with the Shah of Persia at the cessation of the present hostilities.3
The only remarks which it appears necessary for the Committee to make refer to the second Article of the proposed Commercial Treaty.4 It is suggested by Sir Justin Sheil that there may be “in India various commodities which are classed as contraband and the importation of which is prohibited; such, perhaps, as Opium.”5 I am directed to state that there are no prohibitions of the description referred to in the Customs laws of British India, and that it does not therefore seem requisite, on that account, to modify the language of the Article in question, in the manner proposed in the letter from the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, dated the 22nd instant.
The Secret Committee concur in the view taken by the Lords of the Committee for Trade in respect to the omission from the same Article of the word “European,” as applied to the “most favored nation,”—if such omission would, as stated by Sir Justin Sheil, have the effect of admitting goods imported into Persia by British Merchants at the lower rate of 4 per cent, at which goods imported by Turkish traders are admitted under Treaty; but the Committee are not aware why Turkey is less to be regarded as a European power than Russia, both countries, although Edition: current; Page:  possessing large territories in Asia, having their respective seats of Government in Europe.6
In October last year your Honorable Committee were pleased to authorize the employment of two extra writers in this office for a period of six months.
That period will expire this day;—but as the business of the extra office still continues without material diminution, I respectfully submit the propriety of retaining the services of the same two writers, Messrs Rundall & Upton,2—for a further period of six months,—their conduct during the past period having been unexceptionable.
I have had the honor of receiving and laying before the Secret Committee2 your Edition: current; Page:  letter of the 2nd instant,3 enclosing a paper by Captain Pigeard4 conveying what the Board consider the ultimatum of the French Government as to the contemplated exchange of British and French possessions, and requesting the opinion of the Committee on the expediency of accepting the proposition as therein stated.
The present proposal differs from the one which immediately preceded it, in relinquishing a triangular piece of land, (of the extent or value of which the Committee have no information) which in the former proposal formed part of the territory to be ceded by the British Government.
The Committee observe that in M. Pigeard’s paper, the cessions to be made by France are stated to be Chandernagore, Yanoon and Maha, with the factories of Masulipatam and Calicut, while M. Pigeard also states that the French Establishments in India would be reduced to two; (viz Pondicherry and Karical). M. Pigeard appears to overlook the possession by France of several other factories, at Surat, Patna, Cossimbaza, Dacca, Balasore and Jugdea, and possibly elsewhere. The Committee have always regarded the relinquishment by France of all such outlying possessions as a sine qua non of the proposed exchange.
Assuming that these factories are to be included in the cession, and that the French possessions in India will really be limited to Pondicherry and Karical, the Committee are of opinion that the proposal made by M. Pigeard might be accepted provided that on a reference to the Government of India no objection should be made to it by that authority.
The enclosures in your letter are herewith returned.
I am directed by the Secret Committee to request, that you will be pleased to obtain the consent of the Right Honorable the Commissioners for the Affairs of India to the employment, in the Secret Department, of Mr John Henry Willock and Edition: current; Page:  Mr Thomas Alexander Riddell, Clerks in the Examiner’s Office, on their taking the prescribed Oath.
T.N. Waterfield Esqre
I am instructed by the Secret Committee to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated the 29th ultimo2 requesting the opinion of the Secret Committee on the suggestion by Lieutenant Burton, in a letter addressed by him to the Geographical Society for the establishment of a British Agency at Berbera.3
I am directed to observe that this suggestion had already been made, in a more legitimate manner, by Lieutenant Burton, in his report on Berbera addressed to the Political Agent at Aden4 on the 22nd February 1855, and was examined by the Governor of Bombay5 in a Minute dated the 19th March following. Lord Elphinstone for reasons which appear conclusive to the Committee, considered every mode of accomplishing the object proposed by Lieutenant Burton, inadmissible, except one which he described as equivalent to “taking possession of the place”; and it is hardly necessary to say that the Committee would consider any attempt to establish a political, and as its necessary accompaniment, a Military Station, on the African Coast, as in the highest degree objectionable.
I am commanded to add, that the Articles of Peace and Friendship concluded with the Somalis in November 1856, and quoted in your letter,6 oppose an additional obstacle to the entertainment of the proposal. For inasmuch as those Edition: current; Page:  Articles stipulate that we shall have the power to send an Agent to reside at Berbera during the fair, for the purpose of seeing that the provisions of the Agreement are observed, they by necessary implication preclude us from maintaining an Agent there at any other period, or for any other purpose.
The Committee, I am directed to add, entirely agree in the observation of the Board respecting the impropriety of Lieutenant Burton’s conduct in addressing to the Geographical Society criticisms on the political measures of the Government of India.
I most respectfully request that your Honorable Committee will be pleased to grant the temporary assistance of a labourer during the usual leave of absence granted the Messengers attached to this Department.
I have the honor to report the following circumstances which have occurred in connection with John Whatmough a Messenger under the Assistant Registrar in the Book Office2 attached to this Department.Edition: current; Page: 
About six months since Whatmough, who was carrying a bundle, was stopped by a Detective Officer at 6 o’Clock on a Sunday morning; and the bundle being examined, was found to contain “old books torn up.” In consequence, however, of the explanation Whatmough gave, the Officer allowed him to “pass on.”
On Saturday the 1st of August, Whatmough was again met by the same Detective who had met him on the former occasion. He had, on this occasion, in his possession “a parcel wrapped up in brown paper.” Having asserted that the paper was given to him by Mr Atkins, he was confronted with that gentleman who denied the statement. He was thereon taken before the sitting Magistrate at Guildhall, examined, and remanded.3 On a subsequent occasion he was again brought up, and, on the re-hearing of the charge against him, he was committed for trial at the ensuing Sessions and is now awaiting his trial.
With reference to the Order of the Honorable Court dated the 18th of February 1857 for the destruction of old and useless duplicate Collections,2 I now lay before your Honorable Committee a report from the Chief Clerk in this Department shewing that effect has been given to the Court’s instructions.
In laying before your Honorable Committee a letter from Mr Atkins, Assistant Registrar under this Office, representing the necessity of whitewashing the rooms occupied by his Department, and of effecting some minor improvements I have the honor to state that from personal inspection I can confirm Mr Atkins’ representations, and I beg to recommend that his proposals be carried into effect.
In reply to your letter dated the 19th instant, I am directed by the Secret Committee to state that they have no objection to the adoption of Mr Murray’s2 proposal for conferring an honorary step of rank on Major Taylor and Lieutenants Clerk and Hardy3 while employed on a Mission to Herat.4 I am, Sir,
Sir George Clerk
&ca &ca &ca
On receiving your letter of the 30th September I made enquiry as to the conditions of eligibility to the medical service of the East India Company, and I regret to say that no foreigner can be admitted into it unless he is first naturalized. I confess I do not see why this restriction should exist in the medical service. In the civil and military services there are obvious reasons for it. The restriction does not exist in the educational service, and several of your countrymen (among others a son of the great Liebig)2 are Professors in the Government Colleges in India. If an appointment of that kind would suit your friend’s3 qualifications and wishes, he might perhaps succeed in obtaining one, as the education department is in a state of rapid growth, and good teachers of science are continually wanted.
Accept our condolences on the loss of your father.4 We hope your sister,5 who was ill when we last saw you, is now better. I am much interested in what you say of your literary undertakings, and should be glad to hear more about the philological articles you mention.6 Do they contain the speculation you told me of, connecting Protagoras with the authorship of one of the Hippocratic treatises?7 aI have nearly finished an Essay “on Liberty” which I hope to publish next winter.8 As the Liberty it treats of is moral and intellectual rather than political, it is not so much needed in Germany as it is here.aEdition: current; Page: 
If you visit England in spring we shall be happy to see you, and to renew our interesting conversations.
In April last your Honorable Committee were pleased to authorize the re-employment of two extra writers in this Office for a period of six months.
That period will expire on the 22d instant: but as the business of the extra Office still requires their assistance, I respectfully submit to you the expediency of retaining the Services of the same two writers, Messrs Rundall & Upton,2 for a further period of six months,—their conduct during the past period having been unexceptionable.
It being necessary for the discharge of the duties of the Public and Ecclesiastical Departments that a Writer should be appointed to assist the Established Clerk in the Office duties of those Departments, in place of Mr. Alexander Ward now retired from the Service, I beg respectfully to request that Mr. John Downton may be Edition: current; Page:  relieved from the copying duties hitherto performed by him and appointed to the duties hitherto discharged by Mr. Ward, on the allowances usual in such cases.
I beg to submit for the favourable consideration of your Honorable Committee, a letter which has been addressed to me by Mr Hawkins,2 one of the Assistant Examiners, enclosing an application from Mr Charles Bell,3 one of the Writers in this Office who perform the duties of Established Clerks, to be either placed on the Establishment on his present allowances, or to have his allowances consolidated, as has been done in several cases of a nature similar to his own.
The letter appended to the application will prove to your Honorable Committee, what I can also state from my personal knowledge, that Mr Hill,4 under whom Mr Bell served for nine years, considered his services to be highly valuable, and his qualification to be of a superior order; and I join with Mr Hawkins in regarding Mr Bell as well worthy of any mark of consideration which may be bestowed on him by the Honorable Court.
I am directed by the Secret Committee to request, that you will be pleased to obtain the consent of the Right Honorable the Commissioners for the Affairs of India to the employment, in the Secret Department, of Mr John Stewart Oliphant, a Clerk in the Secretary’s Office, and of Mr Frank Mangles, a Clerk, and Mr Richard Upton, a Writer, in the Examiner’s Office, on their taking the prescribed oath.
T.N. Waterfield Esqre
In October last your Honorable Committee were pleased to authorize the reemployment of two extra writers in this office, for a period of six months.
In December last, one of the two extra writers, Mr. W.I. Upton,2 was appointed a permanent Writer in another Office,—and for some time, one temporary writer only was employed. Mr. Richard Upton, one of the regular Writers, having been subsequently removed from the body of the office to the Secret department, a second temporary writer was again urgently required, and Mr. W.C. Fidler was engaged for the unexpired term already sanctioned. That period will expire on the 22nd instant, and as the business of the office still requires their assistance, I respectfully submit to you the expediency of retaining their Services for such further period as may be required.
I have laid before the Secret Committee of the East India Company2 Sir George Clerk’s letter of the 20th instant,3 inviting the observations of the Committee on the letter from the Government of India dated the 8th ultimo,4 respecting the proposed exchange of territory in India between the British and French Governments: and I am directed to state in reply that the Committee entirely concur in the opinions expressed by the Government of India, and in their recommendation that the proposed Convention should be concluded, with the slight modification suggested in paragraph 2 of the letter from the Government of India, and the verbal correction indicated in para 3. I am, Sir,
I beg to lay before your Honorable Committee the accompanying Petition which has been placed in my hands by the Messengers in the Book Office.
I have received and laid before the Secret Committee your letter dated the 28th ultimô forwarding for any remarks the Committee might desire to make, a letter from Her Majesty’s Minister at the Court of Persia2 respecting the composition and the allowances of the Commission about to proceed to Herat, and I am directed to state in reply that the Committee have no objection to make to any of the arrangements recommended by Sir James Outram.3
T.N. Waterfield Esqre
I have the honor to submit, for the favorable consideration of your Honrble Committee, a Memorandum placed in my hands by Mr Prideaux, Assistant Examiner of India Correspondence, bringing to notice the Services rendered, in addition to those required from him in the discharge of his ordinary Official Duty, by Mr William Peters, an Established Clerk in the Revenue Department of this Office. Under an Order of the House of Commons, he has been, for a considerable time, employed in selecting from a vast mass of correspondence, documents illustrative of the measures taken by the East India Company for increasing the Edition: current; Page:  quantity or improving the quality, of the supply of Cotton from India,2 for the use of manufacturers in this Country.
In order that the Return to the requisition of the House of Commons should be made as extensively useful as possible, to those who were likely to consult it, Mr Peters has devoted much time and labour to the arrangement, under distinct heads, of the matters treated of in the papers; so as to render them easy of reference;—and he has, moreover, carefully corrected the proof sheets, during their passage through the Press.
I desire to add that I concur in Mr Prideaux’s testimony in favor of Mr Peters.
Examiner of India Correspondence
I beg to lay before your Honorable Committee an application from Mr Atkins, Deputy Registrar in the Book Office, to be allowed to retain the services of William Spence, an Assistant Messenger in his Department, who has been called on to take the duties of Messenger, but whose knowledge of his present duties renders him more useful in his existing position than in that to which he would be transferred. I therefore submit the request of Mr Atkins to the favorable consideration of your Honorable Committee.
aI bhave received your letter of the 21st,2 andb have been interested by the information as to your papers in the Rhenish Museum.3 I was disappointed however at your not saying anything of your historical work on Greek philosophy,4 which I expect will be very valuable, not only by throwing new light on historical points, of which there are always a great number to be cleared up by any competent enquirer, but also by exhibiting the speculations of the ancients from the point of view of the experience philosophy, a thing hardly yet attempted, and least of all in your country.
I have no objection to your annexing to the Logic any part of the controversy with Whewell5 which you think likely to be useful. There are not many defences extant of the ethics of utility, and I have sometimes thought of reprinting this and other papers I have written on the same as well as on other subjects.a6
We were glad to hear of the improvement in your sister’s health.7 With regard to my own, which you kindly enquire about, there is nothing alarming in it, but I require a long recruiting, not so much from work, as from the confinement of an office, which has made it advisable for me to decline the position offered me in the new government of India.8 I am Dr Sir
Having been absent, I only received your note two days ago. I am at present little capable, and little disposed, to apply my mind to such subjects. But I owe you an acknowledgment, as your note shews that you have entered intelligently into a train of reasoning which it is impossible to make anything of without a real capacity for these enquiries, and a real application of mind to them. It is always a satisfaction to a writer on any scientific subject to find such readers. As to the particular point on which we differ,2 it makes, as you justly remark, no difference in the result, as the conditions of the international demand finally decide the terms of international exchange, whatever may be the effect of the improvement in the first instance. But I still think I was right, as the result of an improvement in any article brought to a given market must surely be, in the beginning, to cheapen it relatively to all articles previously sold in that market. I am Sir
Your note has only just reached me. If my doing so can be of any use to you, I cannot possibly have any objection to state, that from such consideration as I had time to give to your Analysis of my Logic,2 it appeared to me not merely well, but Edition: current; Page:  extraordinarily well done. I was surprised to find so much of the meaning so well packed into so few words. I am
About the 1st of February a copy of the little book2 was sent to the friend mentioned by you,3 but I unluckily omitted writing to let you know. Perhaps you will kindly inform me by letter addressed à Saint Véran près Avignon, Vaucluse, France, whether it has reached you. If not, another copy shall be sent, in any way you direct.
We4 shall be at Avignon for some time,a and shall probably remain abroad at least a year. bI hope to hear from you sometimes at that place, as I am very desirous to know how your various literary projects go on.b I am
The subject of the diminution of the value of gold is not one on which I feel disposed to write, as it requires a minute investigation of details with which I am Edition: current; Page:  not at present well acquainted, and I have not access here to the sources of information. The best paper I have seen on the subject was in the Journal of the Statistical Society of Dublin, and was written by Mr Cairnes, the Whately Professor of Pol. Economy at Dublin University.2 Perhaps he might be induced to write again on the subject for Fraser.3
I thank you for the inclosures you sent which I was well pleased to see, though none of them proved very important or interesting.
If you should think there is sufficient demand for the pamphlet to warrant a second edition, I should like the part of the article in Fraser which relates to Hare’s book, subjoined by way of Appendix.4 I should not like simply to reprint the pamphlet as I wrote it before I had seen Hare’s book; while it would be troublesome to recast it as completely as would be necessary to incorporate Hare’s ideas. If you should at any time be disposed to adopt this plan, I will send you a few words of preface.
Your correspondent Mr Smythe’s5 original suggestion is as old as the hills.
I am now at the above address and shall be here for some time to come; and as the war between France and Austria2 makes it uncertain whether any letters will be forwarded, the only sure way I have of corresponding with you is through my Edition: current; Page:  publishers, Messrs J.W. Parker and Son, 445 West Strand, to whom please address any letter you may favour me with. aI am rather anxious to hear from you, not knowing whether you have received the sheets of the little book, and in case you have, whether you still have any idea of translating it. I should much prefer you to any other translator who is likely to offer, but I have always thought it probable that you might have good reasons against undertaking it, and that some other part of Germany might be more suitable for bringing the book3 before the German public. In addition to an offer which was made through Messrs Parker, I have lately received one under the signature of Eduard John, Justizrath, at Marienwerdera in Prussia,4 bwhob writes like a competent person, and chas sent me a portion of a translation actually executed; but as it is in the German Manuscript character, which I do not read fluently, I am not at present able to judge of its merits.c Do you know anything of this gentleman, and would you advise me, in case the undertaking should not suit yourself, to close with his offer?
dI could write much about politics, but think it more prudent to wait for some better opportunity; though I certainly do not side with France in this miserable war, which I condemn as strongly as any Austrian can.d
aI sincerely condole with you on the unhappy events which have caused you so much pain and disturbance of mind. The delay in answering my letter has occasioned no inconvenience, and since you are willing to translate the little book,2 or rather have by this time actually done so, I desire nothing better than to Edition: current; Page:  leave it in your hands, and certainly should not think of giving the preference to any other translator. I have no objection to the omission of any part or the whole of the note to which you refer, nor of the sentence binb page 9,3 though in the latter case I have not been able to discover what there is which renders it more unsuitable for publication than all the rest of the chapter. Perhapsa you think csome words in it may be understood as a declaration against Kingly government, but nothing of the sort was intended, nor did it occur to me that any one dwouldd think so. The only opinion expressed or implied is in favour of free political institutions, and even that is but incidental. But I do not think the retention of the sentence of any importance.c
When you next do me the favour to write, it would interest me to hear something of your other literary projects. I am Dear Sir
Je vous remercie beaucoup de votre aimable lettre. L’échantillon du Myosotis n’était pas, en effet, suffisant pour reconnaître l’espèce, à moins qu’elle ne vous fût déjà très bien connue. Maintenant j’envoie un meilleur échantillon et je serai bien aise si, par un hasard heureux, je puis vous offrir une plante que vous ne possédiez pas. Cela ne pourrait être que si vous n’avez jamais herborisé à Panticose,2 car je trouvai la plante dans le village même, à côté de la route.
L’ami à qui je compte m’adresser pour le catalogue des plantes britanniques ne Edition: current; Page:  sera à Londres que dans quinze jours.3 Je lui écrirai sans délai pour le prier de vous l’expédier.
If your letter of November 28 had reached me before, instead of long after, that of December 2, I could have done nothing better than to have referred you to Mr Kaye as the fittest person to write such a biographical sketch of Mr Elphinstone as you required.2
I was glad to hear that you have a share in the editorship of “Once a Week.” It is a good literary connexion, and may lead to other things. With regard however to your proposal on the subject of writing for it, I have so many calls on my time, and I have so much in hand which tasks to the utmost all my capacity of writing, that I cannot hold out any prospect of my being able to do what you suggest.
I have not the smallest objection to your making the use you propose of my name, or indeed any other use.2 I considered my consent to that as included in becoming a subscriber. The names in your note are very good ones & I hope you will have many more of the same high character.
Je viens de recevoir votre lettre du 28 avril, dans laquelle vous m’avertissez que l’Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques de l’Institut m’a nommé un de ces correspondants pour la section d’Economie Politique en remplacement de mon excellent ami M. Tooke.2
Veuillez, Monsieur, servir d’interprète auprès de l’Académie, à mes sentiments de respectueuse reconnaissance. De tous les honneurs qui pourraient m’arriver, il n’y en a pas un auquel je pourrais être plus sensible qu’à celui qui m’associe au plus illustre de tous les corps savants. Ce sera pour moi un nouveau motif d’essayer de me montrer de plus en plus digne de cette distinction, en continuant de travailler consciencieusement aux sciences dont l’Académie s’occupe, et qui aujourdhui Edition: current; Page:  importent encore plus que les sciences physiques à l’amélioration et même au bien-être matériel de l’humanité.
Permettez-moi enfin, Monsieur, de profiter de cette occasion pour vous témoigner, à vous personnellement, la haute estime que je professe depuis longtemps pour vos écrits et pour votre caractère.3
Je suis au moment de publier un Traité du Gouvernement Représentatif,2 dont un exemplaire vous sera promptement expédié, avec prière de le soumettre à l’Académie.
Je n’ose croire que l’ensemble des opinions exposées dans cet ouvrage obtiendra l’assentiment général de l’Académie. Mais j’espère qu’elle m’accordera sa sympathie, que je suis beaucoup plus sûr de mériter; et quel que puisse être son jugement sur l’ouvrage, j’ose dire qu’elle y trouvera un désir vrai d’envisager les questions de tous les côtés, sans parti pris de part ou d’autre.
J’ai l’honneur d’être, Monsieur, avec les sentiments les plus distingués,
I am sorry to say I have mislaid the address you gave me, and I am afraid this Edition: current; Page:  note may not reach you. If you receive it, will you kindly let me know how to address you in future, and in particular how to send you a copy of a volume I have just published on Representative Government.2
I was much surprised a short time ago to learn from a review which was sent to me, that a translation of the “Liberty” has been published in Germany.3 I know nothing of the translator, who neither had, nor asked for, any authority from me.
In the uncertainty whether what I write will reach you, I say no more at present.
I am Dear Sir
I propose remaining here till the beginning of June.
As far as I have power over the paper by Tocqueville in the London and Westminster (if I have any such power) I most willingly consent to its being made use of in the manner you propose.2 I believe however it will be found that the article, though in itself of very great interest, is superseded by the volume “L’ancien régime et la révolution,”3 of which it may be said to be, as far as it goes, the first draft.
If we could but have your volumes of Tocqueville’s conversations! Some time or other, doubtless, they will be published.4
I am very desirous to read your book on Education, which I suppose is the separate report Chadwick told me of, and I am glad it has the dimensions of a book.5 Please send it, not here, but to Blackheath Park, as I expect to be there early Edition: current; Page:  in June. My full address here is Saint-Véran, près Avignon, Vaucluse, but your letter came duly, though directed simply Avignon, France.
About three months ago I published a volume on Representative Government of which one of the first copies would have been sent to you, had I not unfortunately forgotten and mislaid your address.2 I wrote to you from Avignon a note directed only to Herr Theodor Gomperz, in Wien, on the bare chance that it might reach you, but I suppose it did not. On returning from the South I have for the first time been able to make a regular search for the address you gave me, and have fortunately found it. I have therefore directed my publisher to send you a copy without delay.
I was vexed to find, from a German Review which was sent to me, that a translation has been made into German, I know not by whom, of the little volume on Liberty.3 Had my consent been asked, I should not have given it, unless I had heard from you that you had abandoned the intention you at one time had of translating the book. But as I made no reservation of the right of translation, my consent was not necessary. Indeed I do not even know that England has any convention on the subject with the German States.
I should much like to hear from you respecting yourself, and your literary and other doings and projects. I am Dear Sir
Quand j’eus l’honneur de vous voir à la réunion de la Société d’Economie Politique,2 vous avez eu la bonté de m’offrir des renseignements sur l’état actuel des associations ouvrières. Je tiens beaucoup à être bien informé sur ce sujet, d’autant plus que je m’occupe actuellement de la révision de mon traité d’Economie Politique pour une édition nouvelle;3 et comme nul autre en France n’est plus compétent, je crois même que nul n’est aussi compétent que vous en cette matière, ce serait une véritable obligation que je vous aurais si vous vouliez bien me donner les renseignemens en question, ou m’indiquer le moyen de me les procurer.
Ne sachant pas votre adresse, je vous écris par l’intermédiaire de M. Guillaumin.4
Veuillez agréer, Monsieur, l’expression de mes sentiments les plus distingués.
I received your letter at this place, but the pamphlet you did me the favour to send has not been forwarded, and I do not expect to see it until I return to England.2 Edition: current; Page:  I therefore suggest your making other arrangements for sending the pamphlets to Mr Helps and Mr Buckle;3 neither can I, in general, undertake to forward papers. I have read your letters in the Adelaide newspaper,4 and found them a very clear and useful statement of Mr Hare’s plan and its merits. You will be glad to hear, if you have not already heard it from himself, that Mr Hare thinks very favourably of your pamphlet. It is much to be desired that the attempt to bring the plan before your House of Assembly, should be repeated.5 The question is sure to be advanced by discussion. It is decidedly making progress in many other parts of the world besides England and Australia.
I was not aware that, as you say, the association with my name is likely to bring discredit on the plan in South Australia, and I am sorry to hear that you think so: if it is so, however, you do judiciously to avoid it. I suppose I am to understand the sentence in your letter which includes giving the suffrage to women in the category of “absurdities” as ironical.
I had the honour of receiving at this place, your letter of November 1st: but as the book you were kind enough to send,2 does not seem to have found its way to my Edition: current; Page:  publishers, Messrs Parker, along with the letter, I am as yet ignorant even of its subject. But I cannot doubt that one who expresses so strong an interest in the memory of her whom I have lost, is a participator in her and my opinions, at least on the one point which, with us both, was and is the most fundamental of all. You ask for information respecting her. About two years ago, in reprinting from the Westminster Review her article headed “Enfranchisement of Women,” to be included with some of my own writings in a collection entitled “Dissertations and Discussions,” I prefixed a few paragraphs, containing what I felt prompted to say, and as much as I thought suitable to be said, to those who were personally strangers to her.3 Only those who knew her can appreciate how vain it would be to attempt to convey in words an impression of a character so rich and various as hers. It is the object of my life to express in my writings as much as I can render of the thoughts and sentiments which she inspired.
J’apprends de M. Dupont-White que sa traduction va paraître très prochainement.2 Outre l’exemplaire que je vous ai prié d’envoyer, pour mon compte, à M. Auguste Picard3 je vous prie de vouloir bien en envoyer un autre à M. le capitaine d’artillerie Célestin de Blignières,4 Rue de Madame, 40.
Je vous ai expédié, il y a quelques semaines, par mandat de poste, avec le prix de plusieurs livres, le montant de mon abonnement au Journal des Economistes pour Edition: current; Page:  l’année suivante. Le numéro du 15 janvier ne m’est pourtant pas encore parvenu. Je pars le 29 janvier pour voyager en Grèce, mais comptant revenir ici avant de passer en Angleterre, je vous engage à envoyer toujours le Journal à Saint-Véran comme auparavant.
Ma fille se recommande aux souvenirs amicaux de Mademoiselle Guillaumin,5 et je vous prie, mon cher Monsieur, d’agréer mes salutations amicales.
M. Littré a écrit pour le Journal des Débats des articles sur mon livre et sur les livres de M. Dupont-White.6 Oserai-je vous prier, lorsqu’ils auront paru, de m’envoyer les numéros qui les contiennent? Adressés Poste Restante à Athènes, ils me trouveraient jusqu’au milieu ou à la fin de mai. Je vous en rembourserai à la première occasion.
Many thanks for the cheque, and for your attention to my wishes about the separate copies.2 We shall not be able to leave till the 30th, so that I can have a day’s more proofs.3 Anything posted on Tuesday will reach me before I start. And anything sent so as to be delivered here by the 12th (to make sure of which, it would have to be posted not later than the 9th if a letter, or the 8th if anything printed) will reach Athens by a private hand, as soon as I shall myself. I should therefore like the February Fraser to be sent here in the usual manner. The separate copies may remain with you for the present, as I may perhaps think of some more Edition: current; Page:  persons to whom I should wish copies sent. Newspapers from Australia, and the Séances et Travaux de l’Académie,4 may wait for the present.
After the 9th, please direct Poste Restante, Athens, till further notice. Any letters with “to be forwarded” written on them, I should wish sent there. Any others may be sent here, to wait for my return. If there is a book post to Athens, I should be obliged by your sending the March and April numbers of Fraser by it: if not, please send them here as usual.
I inclose the list of persons whom I wish to receive copies of the new editions of the Logic and Political Economy;5 all expenses of carriage to be at my charge. Please remember to have “from the author” written in all of them. I am, Dear Sir
Professor Villari, of the University of Pisa, a very valued friend of mine,2 is in England on a mission from the Italian Government to collect information useful to Italy on the subject of public education. He is particularly interested in the question of competitive examination, which has been mooted in Italy also, with a practical object. The manner in which you have laboured in that cause,3 and the inestimable obligations which it owes to you, have emboldened me to think that an opportunity of serving it further might be agreeable to you, and that I might venture to give Mr Villari an introduction to you. You will find him a highly favourable specimen of a country in which all liberal Englishmen now feel so deep an interest; and there are, Edition: current; Page:  I should think, few persons whose opinions on Italian affairs are better worth having, as well as on many other subjects. Among other writings of merit, Mr Villari is the author of an interesting and valuable life of Savonarola.4
I am my dear Sir Charles
My daughter and I have been travelling in Greece and purpose to take Pesth and Vienna in our way back. I should be very sorry to be in your neighbourhood without seeing you, and you would much oblige me if you would write a line to me, directed Poste Restante Constantinople (where we shall be in a month from this time, and perhaps sooner) to tell me whether you expect to be in Vienna, or where else, during the month of August. Hoping for the pleasure of seeing and conversing with you at that time, I am Dear Sir
aWe have now been more than a fortnight in this quiet harbour, after our blongb journey, and are fully enjoying its peacefulness. We did not see so much of the Alps as we expected after leaving Ischla: the ascent of the Schaffberg the next day was very pleasant, but the rain which set in on that very evening kept us three days within doors at Salzburg, and then only intermitted long enough to enable us to see Edition: current; Page:  Berchtesgaden and the Königsee, which came up to our highest expectations. By the time we reached Gastein, the rain had come again, and the place being quite full, we did not remain. Had we done so, we could not have made a single excursion, so rainy did the weather become, and we had no more fine weather, except one day at Innsbrück. What is more, we have found rainy weather here also, which usually does not set in till the latter half of October. cI am doing little at present but reading up the French and English reviews. But since I arrived I have written and sent off an article on the American question (à propos of Mr Cairnes’ book) which will be in the Westminster Review next month.2 A very interesting series of notes on America and on the war have been published this summer in an English periodical (Macmillan’s Magazine) and are, I see, lately reprinted as a volume, under the title of “Six Months in the Federal States”: the author is a Mr Dicey, who had within the last two years published a book on Rome and Italy.3 He writes very judiciously, as well as with right feeling, on the whole subject, and what he says respecting the people of the North, being evidently a faithful transcript of what he has seen and heard, ought to have some influence. The Times, as might be expected, is as bad as ever, and even more undisguised in the expression of its bad wishes. It let out, however, a curious admission the other day—that whatever might be in other respects the issue of this war, it must lead to the destruction of Slavery.4 This will be true if the North succeeds; but if the South should be successful, I expect the very reverse. In Europe things appear to be going on well, as far at least as mental progress is concerned. This is very visible in the higher order of writers in France; among whom I invariably remark that what is bad in thought or sentiment is found chiefly in the publicists who had made themselves known before 1848, and that the dgeneral toned of those who have risen into notice since that time is both higher in morality, and more philosophic ine intellect. The Garibaldi affair is very painful, but it has ended as little mischievously as perhaps it could have done.5 It has at least given Louis Napoleon no pretext for intervention, Edition: current; Page:  and less excuse than ever for keeping his troops in Rome;6 while Garibaldi, it is to be hoped, is still reserved for better times. If it also destroys Rattazzi,7 that will be another benefit arising from it.c
P.S. I had written the preceding before I received yours.f We have, as you see, arrived safely, and hI should have written before, had I thought you would have felt any such anxiety as you mention on our account.9 It will always be a pleasure to me to hear from you: let me know what you are doing and thinking, and how the political affairs of your country are proceeding. I can assure you that however little expression I may habitually give to such a feeling you are one of the few persons whose friendship I value, and whom I would gladly see asserting an influence on the current of public affairs.h
aI am here, and in good health, anda I will not wait for the further letter which you promise, before saying how glad I shall be to see you in January, and thanking you Edition: current; Page:  as well for the kind and friendly feelings shewn in your letter as for the very interesting information contained in it. I am particularly glad of what you have been doing on the subject of the Principle of Contradiction, as I have commenced writing something2 to which a full understanding of that subject is indispensable, and I do not feel that I have yet thoroughly mastered it. Your account of Austrian politics is very valuable, and I thank you for the American news, which, as you anticipated, was entirely unknown to me. The paper giving an account of my article in Fraser reached me duly.3 I am much gratified that you thought the article worth so full an abstract even for Germany, though I am almost ashamed of the very flattering terms in which you spoke of it and of me.
I am very glad that you are so far advanced with the Logic, and I return your paper of questions duly filled up. I am much interested also with your Herculanean speculations. bEn attendant your further letter I am, Dear Sir
1. Will you kindly allow me to apply to you even now for such information and advice, as I am unable to get from any other quarter and also to signify this fact, the assistance given me by you both on the title-page by calling the translation executed: Mit Genehmigung und unter Mitwirkung,4 of the Author, and in the preface, where this cooperation is to be more strictly defined and limited to what it really is?
2. The fallacies of Simple Inspection5 have always been a stumbling block to me, not the thing but the name you have chosen to designate them. I had translated the words by “Trugschlüsse der einfachen Wahrnehmung,” but this word, the equivalent of Perception has too special a meaning to be used in so wide a sense. Would it falsify or distort your meaning to call them “Trugschlüsse des unmittelbaren Bewusstseins,” that is “Fallacies of Consciousness”? If being the distinctive property of this tribe of fallacies is to be—wrong—inferences which are mistaken for self-evident or intuitive truths, this designation might perhaps fit them?
The description seems a good one, and in any case you are the best judge.Edition: current; Page: 
3. You will probably not object to my omitting the note at the foot of I, p. 36 and for other reasons the foot-notes I p. 108-9 and I p. 343-4?6 I confess, I ask such questions as these chiefly in order that I may be able to declare, without untruth, that no note has been omitted without your express permission. In the text nothing has been omitted, except untranslateable passages, viz. those which refer to peculiarities of the English language or of single terms and their acceptations.
All these suppressions are very proper.
4. I p. 4, l. 15 fr. bel. “sanctioned by high authorities”7 refers to the term, not to “an extension of the term”?
To “an extension of the term.”
5. I p. 308, l. 17 fr. bel. “an assertion involved in the meaning of terms”8 = concerned with the meaning &c, not = implied in the meaning &c? In other words I am not quite sure whether that expression is an equivalent of “an identical proposition” or of “a mode of defining” &c which follows.
A definition is, in my sense of the terms, an “identical proposition.” But it is of no consequence which of the phrases is used as either will fit my idea.
The statistics you refer me to would be of great use to me. How are the “Miscellaneous Statistics of the United Kingdom for 1862” to be got?2 Are they on sale anywhere,
La prospérité et le bonheur de la Grèce seront assurés du jour que son peuple saura imposer à ses hommes politiques l’obligation de s’occuper des intérêts matériaux et moraux de la nation.
I think it is as well to send you at once an introduction to Mr Grote, which can be presented whenever it happens to be convenient. If he should not be at his town residence when you call, you could leave the note with your card and address, when he would probably write to let you know when he would be disengaged. I am, Dear Sir
Mr J.S. Mill presents his compliments to the Editor of the Spectator, and Edition: current; Page:  encloses for any use which the Editor may be able to make of it, some valuable remarks on Austrian politics, extracted from a letter which he lately received from a very able, highly cultivated, and high principled Austrian.2
Mr Mill cannot omit the opportunity of expressing the very high estimation, both moral and intellectual, in which he holds the Spectator, under its present management.3
Many thanks for your kind invitation, but I am quite unable to spare time for the visit you propose.2
The extension of the middle class examinations to both sexes would indeed be an important improvement.3
The system of farming which you mention4 differs from the metayer system in its characteristic feature, the division of the produce. That the landlord should provide the stock and implements is a matter of necessity in a state of things in which the tenant cannot; unless, as in Ireland, both parties are willing to dispense with anything which can be called stock or implements at all. In this point of view, the beginning and ending of the system you mention must be among the landmarks in the progress of society in England.
I yesterday sent you a list of persons to whom I wish to have copies sent, in my name, of the Utilitarianism,2 and I now write to request that you will also send to Max Kyllmann Esq. Manchester3 twelve copies of the second edition of “Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform.”
I am glad that the editorship of the National Review is in what you consider competent hands2 though want of time and the greater urgency of other claims have obliged me to decline Mr Pearson’s proposal.
I do not like to ask my friends to come to this distance for the very little time I can spare to them, but if you should happen to be coming into this neighbourhood I should at any time be happy to see you.
I think very favourably of the National Review, and consider it and its writers as an important element in the mental progress of this country; but I have so many other calls on me and so little time at my disposal to meet them, that it is quite impossible for me to undertake the article you propose, or to come under any new literary engagement whatever.
Periodical writing of any kind is with me only an exception.
C.H. Pearson Esq.
J’ai chargé mon éditeur de vous adresser par la poste un petit volume sur la morale de l’utilité,2 dont je vous prie de vouloir bien faire hommage en mon nom à l’Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques de l’Institut.
Je sais, Monsieur, que les opinions énoncées dans cet opuscule ont peu ou point d’approbateurs dans l’Académie, et que le seul genre de succès qu’il me soit permis d’espérer pour lui auprès de cet illustre corps, est celui d’être regardé comme ayant une certaine valeur en qualité de simple discussion. Mais je sais aussi que les membres de l’Académie sont trop éclairés pour ne pas reconnaître que la discussion conscientieuse et réfléchie des grandes questions de l’humanité fait toujours jaillir quelque lumière.
Agréez, Monsieur, l’expression de ma haute et sincère estime, et de ma considération la plus respectueuse.
Mr Fawcett,2 who is going to the meeting tomorrow,3 undertakes to get an admission for you; so if you will come here and take your dinner with us we will go together afterwards to the meeting, calling on Mr Fawcett by the way.
If anything should prevent you from coming here, Mr Fawcett’s address is 16 Spring Gardens Charing Cross and if you will go there at half past seven I will meet you there. But I hope to see you here.
You have done very rightly and judiciously, and I am glad to be spared the crowd and turmoil of the present occasion. I should be a little ashamed, too, as well as surprised, at being thought sufficiently orthodox when Kingsley is not.2
I think with you that both American and French affairs look more hopeful. The French elections must startle the wise journalists and others who have been affirming for years that the French like and demand despotism, though they knew all the while that the French had no means (except a general election) of publicly shewing dislike to it.3
In America the pertinacity of the Free States gives me great confidence in their ultimate success, and I have always thought that this war and all its circumstances were very likely to elevate the national character, as well as to stir up thought in the more cultivated minds, in a way that there seemed little hope of before. I am Dear Sir
Allow me to thank you for the present of game which you have been kind enough to send.
All the recent American news is most cheering, and there now seems little ground of fear for the future. I wish I could see signs of a corresponding improvement in English opinion on the subject. It is still the working classes and Edition: current; Page:  the greater as well as better part of the literary class, against all other classes, with comparatively few noble individual exceptions. The Union and Emancipation Society counts a great number of these among its promoters, and it has done excellent service by its interesting and important publications.2 If the Society wants, or whenever it does want, a renewal of subscriptions, I beg you to let me know, and I will again send my mite. I am, Dear Sir
T.B. Potter Esq.
aPardonnez-moi de n’avoir fait jusqu’ici aucune réponse directe à la lettre que vous avez bien voulu m’écrire.2 Je croyais mieux remplir votre désir en écrivant à celui qui est, à juste titre, l’objet de notre commune sollicitude. J’écrivis sans délai, mais comme depuis lors je n’ai pas eu de ses nouvelles, je n’ose presque pas lui écrire de nouveau sans avoir préalablement demandé à vous ou à M. Wessel dans quel état d’esprit il se trouve maintenant. En même temps je remplis le devoir de vous assurer directement à quel point nous partageons votre peine et votre inquiétude. Vous vous êtes servie, Madame, dans votre lettre d’expressions de reconnaissance très au-delà de mon droit. Je serais trop heureux de pouvoir les mériter, mais jusqu’ici je ne vois presque rien que j’aie fait pour lui. S’il y a quelque chose que j’aurais pu faire, c’eût été peut-être de lui donner, par des preuves d’estime, la confiance qui lui manquait en lui-même. Ces preuves d’estime, il les a eues, non seulement de moi mais de M. Grote, et je le crois sincèrement, de tous ceux qui l’ont connu ici. Cela n’a servi bdeb rien quant à présent, mais il faut croire que cela ne sera pas perdu dans l’avenir. J’ai reconnu cdansc lui, dès le commencement, une haute capacité intellectuelle: cette Edition: current; Page:  impression est allée toujours en s’accroissant, tandis qu’une connaissance plus intime y a ajouté une véritable estime morale. Ce n’est que plus tard que j’ai reconnu chez lui cette extrême sensibilité aux impressions pénibles, qui le rend en même temps très susceptible de souffrance et peu accessible aux consolations. En lui écrivant je m’efforce toujours dded le décider à en chercher dans les hauts travaux intellectuels dont il est si capable, et dans la carrière utile et honorable qu’il peut remplir dans le monde de l’intelligence comme dans celui des intérêts sociaux. Si j’ai quelque pouvoir sur son esprit, je ne me lasserai pas de l’exercer dans ce sens: et, ses autres amis aidant, nous finirons peutêtre par réussir.a
Je dois à M. Wessel des remerciments dont je vous prie, Madame, d’être l’interprète auprès de lui. eS’il est encore avec vous je lui aurai une véritable obligation toutes les fois qu’il voudra bien nous donner des nouvelles de son ami.e Nous partons incessamment pour Avignon, où nous resterons jusqu’au commencement de l’année prochaine.
Veuillez, Madame, agréer l’hommage de mes sentiments les plus distingués.
aLet me begin by saying how much I rejoice to hear that you are better both in health and in spirits, and are vigorously at work, with a result satisfactory even to yourself, which is always the most difficult thing to a good writer.
Let me next thank you, which I do bveryb sincerely, for telling me frankly what you have conc your mind against me. The only way to clear up misunderstandings is to speak plainly about them, and some of the impressions which seem to have been made upon you are such as if you had not told them to me, I certainly should never have guessed. I feel as strongly as you do the ludicrousness of your having to ask me what I have seen to make me entertain I know not what mean opinion of you, and I wonder that what you feel to be so ridiculous, you should nevertheless have thought to be probable. I may in my turn ask you, what you have seen in me Edition: current; Page:  which made it likely that, absolutely without cause, I should have formed an unfavourable opinion of one for whom I have professed, and continue to profess, so much esteem and regard? As to the idea that any intimate friend of mine, or any person deriving information from me, has spread any reports or communicated any impressions disadvantageous to you, I am sure, since you say it, that you yourself fully believe it, but I tell you with the same frankness you have used to me, that I disbelieve it totally.
Surely, too, I may well be surprised that you should think anything of a bad joke about Vienna, which I have not the smallest recollection of making, but which, I am quite sure, had not the slightest reference to you? I can only have meant, that the next time we went to Vienna there would perhaps be something new to be seen there.
My letter from Avignon2 was quite another thing, and knowing as I now do the state of your feelings, I can well understand your being pained by it. But you must recollect that I did not dthen knowd what I know now,3 and it never entered into my head that your object in coming was to say anything particular, which you thought you had not had an opportunity of saying before. I thought that you simply desired to see the place and to see us, and in so doing I neither thought you obtrusive, nor imagined that you expected anything but what your knowledge of our friendship for you perfectly entitled you to expect. But knowing that my time was much occupied, I feared you might be disappointed; and it seemed right to let you know that I could not give you so full and free an invitation to come whenever it might be convenient to you, as I had done in England; and to tell you so before you had undertaken so long a journey under what might have been a mistaken impression that I had more leisure for seeing friends here than in England. I thought I was using a freedom which I could not have taken with a mere acquaintance, but which I ewase even bound to use with a friend.a
To speak now of a pleasanter subject; your publisher4 has no need to take any steps for obtaining authority to publish a translation of the Utilitarianism. I am the sole owner of the copy right, and neither I nor my publisher has made any reservation of the right of translating that or any other of my works. But as you wish for a declaration that you have my concurrence and sanction for translating it, I give you such a declaration with much pleasure. As you have not told me in what language it should be written, I write it in English, but will repeat it in French if Edition: current; Page:  desired. I expect both pleasure and benefit from the essay of your own which you intend prefixing to it.5
With our kind regards to your sister and to Mr. Wessel, I am, Dear Sir
I thank you for your two letters, and their various inclosures, by which I have been much interested. I hope that your connection with the Sydney Morning Herald2 will continue as satisfactorily as it has begun. I have read all your articles in the Penny Newsman3 some of which I liked very much and I have little doubt that I shall like your Essay on Colonies; but I will, as you desire, criticize it freely.4 I do not, any more than you, agree entirely with Mr Goldwin Smith.5 I think that a Edition: current; Page:  sort of modified federation between a mother country and colonies may be usefully maintained as long as neither party desires to separate.
Do not send anything more to this address at present, as we return to England in a fortnight.6 I need hardly say that we shall be glad to see you at Blackheath when you are in town and it is convenient to you to come.
With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer, I am,
I have just seen in a newspaper a piece of intelligence which I earnestly hope is not true, but which is stated so circumstantially that I fear there must be some foundation for it.2 The statement is, that the Royal Horticultural Society intends offering three prizes for the three best herbaria of every county in England, and three additional prizes, for the best of these best. If this most inconsiderate resolution has really been taken, I am sure it must have been in the absence of those members of the Council who have any real sympathy with British Botany. If it be carried into effect, the present year 1864 will be marked in our botanical annals as the date of the extinction of nearly all the rare species in our already so scanty flora. If the extirpation of these rarities had been the direct object of the Society, they could have done nothing more effectual than by inviting, not simply three botanists in every county, but all the dabblers in plant collecting, a race whose selfish rapacity certainly needs no additional stimulation, and all of whom may think they have a chance of one of these prizes, and holding out to them a positive inducement to hunt out all the rare plants in every part of the country and to carry off all they find, or destroy what they do not carry off, in order that not only they may themselves possess the plants, but that their competitors may not. Already our rare Edition: current; Page:  plants are becoming scarcer every year. You are, no doubt, aware how rapidly, for example, the rare Kentish Orchids are disappearing. The Royal Horticultural Society is proposing to treat rare plants as King Alfred treated wolves,3 and this under the profession of encouraging local botany—as if local botany could be encouraged by destroying that on which it feeds, or as if anyone were likely to begin studying the science in hopes of collecting a good local flora in a single summer. All local botanists will be thrown into consternation by this project, and, if it is not yet too late, I am sure they would all join in entreating you to use your good influence towards stopping so destructive a scheme.4
I inclose a copy of M. Barrère’s printed testimonials.2 They will shew you how successful he is considered to have been as a teacher; which must tend greatly to make his judgment a good one as to the questions which test acquirements.
He is one of the very few French teachers in England who are teachers by profession and not from accidental circumstances; and the Society of French Teachers in London has shewn its opinion of him by putting him first on the list of its Vice Presidents, M. Cassal, your late Examiner, being President.3
With our kind regards to Mrs Grote—I am yrs ever truly,
Mr J.S. Mill presents his compliments to Mr Masters and if Mr Masters is disposed to join in the accompanying representation to the Council of the Horticultural Society,2 and has not already signed another copy, requests the favour of his signing and returning it either to the undermentioned address or to Professor Babington, Cambridge.3
Many of the most distinguished botanists have already either given or promised their signature.
You have put to me a question which it is very difficult, or rather impossible, to answer satisfactorily. There is no one living of whom I would venture to affirm beforehand that he might be expected to write such a treatise on the fundamental problems of religion & morals that it would be good for him to give up a profession he likes & change his plans of life rather than not write it. I should expect confidently that if you threw your whole mind into writing such a book, or indeed any other book which you are at all likely to write, it would, at the least, contain a great deal that would be valuable. But it deserves consideration whether even the best book that could be written in our day, on morals & religion Edition: current; Page:  generally, would do more good than may be done by the continual illustration & discussion of the leading points of those subjects, in connection with particular speculative or practical questions. For such discussion you have a decided talent, & it would afford the materials of many books as well as periodical writings. However this may be, the question is one which no one but yourself can decide. It is my creed that any one who can do anything, of an intellectual kind, well, is usually a better judge than other people what he can do best, & what it is of most use for him to attempt.
We leave for Avignon before next Sunday, but after our return I shall be happy to have any discussions you may desire with you.
I have delayed writing, in hopes that I should, long before this, have heard from you of your intended publication;2 but aI have now been so long without news of any kind from you, that I much wish to know how you are in health, and how you are going on in all respects.3 You would be very much mistaken if you thought that I feel less interested in you, or less desirous to hear from you, than before the painful circumstances which were the subject of our latest correspondence. If these circumstances make any difference, it is the contrary way. And, besides my interest in you, I feel a strong interest in what you do. I believe you to be capable, as few are, of doing important things both in philosophy and in erudition—the former of a kind specially required at the present time, and perhaps even more so in Germany than elsewhere: and I am anxious that such a capacity should be turned, as much as possible, to the benefit of the world.
I have little to tellb which regards us. Our life has been going on in the usual manner. I have been working hard at my book on Hamilton,4 and it is now well Edition: current; Page:  advanced towards completion. You are one of the most competent judges of such a book, and one of those whose approbation of it I most desire.
I lately saw M. Littré5 at Paris, and in conversing with him on the state of German philosophy, I mentioned your name. I was glad to find that he is in correspondence with you, and to the extent of his opportunities, appreciates you justly.a
I thank you for the volume on Brazil.2 I am far too deeply interested in the slavery question not to have attended to what is going on respecting it in Brazil as far as I had the means. I have read all the letters signed C (not doubting that they were yours)3 as well as all those of your antagonist,4 and the comparison has strengthened the impression I already had that you are entirely in the right. But there is a strong party in England now who will always give slaveholders their good word in spite of all evidence. It is no wonder you have against you those who are again trying to induce England to renounce the attempt to check the African slave trade.5 But the Daily News ought not to join with them, and, I am convinced, would not, if better informed.Edition: current; Page: 
You are very usefully doing what you can to inform it better. I am
Be pleased to receive my quarterly payment from the India Office due today, and oblige
Messrs Prescott, Grote & Co
I send you the letter from my friend Mr Kyllmann2 which I mentioned to you the other day. Since the receipt of it, I have received another, which I also enclose, because I think it alters the aspect of matters considerably and I doubt altogether whether Mr Kyllmann’s plans will be carried out for some time to come. But they are for the future: and I think you will be interested in seeing that there is a considerable following for them among the younger leaders of the working men.
As you will see that I was asked to take an active part in the intended movement, it may be well to say that I have refused to join in demanding the suffrage for all men, to the exclusion of women, and required also a writing and cyphering qualification, and Hare’s system.3 I am, Dear Lord Amberley
aI have delayed thanking you for the first number of your Herculanean series,2 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 cannot 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.a In the same letter you promised me a longer one, which I hope will not be much longer delayed; though, by my own delay in writing to you, I have almost lost the right to say so.
bI 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.3 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.4 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 cannot, 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.b
With our kind remembrances to your sister and to Mr Wessel, believe me ever
I did receive, and thought that I had acknowledged, the copy you were kind enough to send of your work on Logic.2 I read it attentively, and the only knowledge I have of Prof. Boole’s system is derived from it.3 My impression was, that there is great ingenuity and power of consecutive thought, both in the system itself, and in your modification of it. But you are quite right in supposing that I do not see, in the result attained, any value commensurate with the mental effort. I look upon it as I do upon Mr De Morgan’s elaborate system of numerically definite propositions and syllogisms: as a remarkable feat of mental gymnastics, capable of being very useful in the way of a scholastic exercise, but of no considerable utility for any other purpose.4
I did not make any mention of Mr Boole in my book on Hamilton, the book being quite long enough as it was. But if you, or any other of Mr Boole’s admirers,5 should make the book an occasion for raising any discussion on the point, I shall be very well pleased.
Of the articles you mention, the only ones I distinctly recollect are those on Newman and Merivale, and of those I well remember that I thought highly.2 What points there were, if any, on which I differed from you, I could not say from present recollection. But I should suppose that the amount of thought, not of a commonplace kind, which they contain, and their applicability to existing and important controversies, would quite warrant their republication. I will however look at them again. I have most of the numbers of Fraser for the last few years, and could probably turn to all the articles you mention.3
I am glad that you have thoughts of standing at the election, and should be much pleased by your success.4
I hope to see you at the Club on the 7th,5 when we may perhaps be able to arrange a walk or a talk before you go on circuit.
I arrived here yesterday quite unexpectedly, finding it impossible any longer to resist the pressure put upon me by the Westminster Committee to shew myself to my supporters, and to the electors generally.2 In consequence I find occupation cut out for me for almost every evening up to Friday,3 and the remainder of my time will not be more than enough for preparation. I might perhaps manage to have a walk with you in the Park on Tuesday afternoon if convenient to you: otherwise I shall be obliged to put off seeing you till Friday, by which time I hope my troubles will be over. We hope you and Mrs Bain4 will dine with us on Sunday the 9th at six. During the week following I shall be more at leisure, for the election is to be on Tuesday the 11th.
I received your letter, and the volume of the British Controversialist long after date, being absent from Avignon at the time, and it was still longer before I had Edition: current; Page:  time to examine the notices relating to myself,2 or to answer your letter. There are in the notices a greater amount of authentic details than I could at all have expected, mixed however with some considerable inaccuracies which I should have been glad to correct, had I not been prevented from doing so in time for the number of the Controversialist which you designated for receiving the correction.
I have hitherto thought that my System of Logic is not of a sufficiently popular character to call for a popular edition.3 The subject, however, is open to consideration. I am, Sir
I thank you for your congratulations and will endeavour to send enough of the Logic2 to begin printing from at the earliest time possible.
My dislike of the majority of the photographs is no disparagement to the Edition: current; Page:  photographer, as I am much pleased with those I think successful.2
I am leaving town very soon,3 and am so extremely busy that I cannot possibly find time for another sitting during the interval. But is there any hindrance to taking a fresh photograph of the photographs themselves? It is surely often done from engravings.
If it would be any accommodation to you I can dispense with some of the 200 copies. Fifty of each will be quite enough for the present, and I can order others when I want them; going without, in case they are not to be had. You are also welcome to take as many as you like from the cameo.
I will return both the framed portraits, as I do not desire to keep the one in profile, though I quite approve of it.
I thank you for the likeness of Mr Hughes.4
John Watkins, Esq.
I have now the pleasure of inclosing a few photographs,2 of which I request your acceptance for yourself and any friends who have done me the honour to take interest in the election and to whom you may think fit to offer them.
I have only just received your note of the 7th inst. I am very desirous of promoting the abolition of the remaining exclusions of evidence, and will certainly support in Parliament any movement for that purpose.2 But it is out of my power to attend the approaching meeting of the Social Science Association3 or to write a paper on the question, nor can I even, at present, think of any person to whom I could advise you to apply.4 Very few persons except lawyers have turned their attention to the question. I am, Dear Sir
A.J. Williams, Esq.
Your letter has been forwarded to me here, but without the Oration2 and the other works which you have been so kind as to send,3 and which I shall doubtless Edition: current; Page:  find at Blackheath when I return there. I am much obliged to you for them, and will not fail to read them as soon as time permits.
You will have found in Comte a broad enough statement, certainly, of the negative doctrine respecting Final Causes,4 but very little argument, for he seemed to imagine that the question had been set at rest by others before him.
Je vous remercie de bon coeur d’avoir bien voulu m’envoyer votre rapport,2 que je trouverai sans doute à mon retour en Angleterre pour l’ouverture très prochaine du parlement, et que je lirai avec le plus vif intérêt. Cet intérêt sera vivement partagé par M. Hare l’auteur réel de la grande et féconde idée3 qui a porté tant de lumières dans mon intelligence comme dans la vôtre. Sans exagération, cette idée a relevé mes espérances et dissipé mes principales craintes pour l’avenir du genre humain.
Je savais déjà, Monsieur, que je n’avais pas l’avantage d’être d’accord avec vous en matière de philosophie. Je n’en mets que plus de prix à l’accord qui existe entre nous sur l’une des plus graves questions de la science politique. Je me flatte d’ailleurs que si nous différons sur quelques-uns des principes les plus généraux, nous tirons souvent peut-être de nos principes différents les mêmes conclusions. Depuis longtemps je pense et je dis que la pratique dépend bien moins de la philosophie première que de la seconde—des axiomata media de Bacon:4 et il Edition: current; Page:  m’arrive souvent d’avoir un grand nombre de ceux-ci en commun avec des philosophes qui les acceptent d’intuition tandis que j’y arrive par raisonnement.
Agréez, Monsieur, l’expression de ma haute estime et de mon sincère dévouement.
I enclose one of the photographs for which you do me the honour to express a wish; and in reply to your other request, [breaks off].
I am, Dear Sir
Thomas Havlin Esq.
It is a very tempting offer to place the great circulation of the Daily Telegraph at my disposal for so important a purpose as the one you mention. As a mark of confidence in me, it deserves my thankful acknowledgment, and I cannot be supposed to be ill affected to a journal which gave me such able and powerful support at the Westminster election. But it is totally impossible for me to have any personal connexion with a paper which takes the part the Telegraph does on the Jamaica question.2 Not only every principle I have, but the honour and character of England for generations to come, are at stake in the condign punishment of the Edition: current; Page:  atrocities of which, by their own not confession, but boast, the Jamaica authorities have been guilty; and I cannot, while that question is pending, select as my official organ on another subject, a paper with which, in a matter of such transcendant importance, I am at open war.3
Edwin Arnold Esq.
I return the article from the Scotsman2 which is excellent.
Do you know what are Neate’s3 opinions on the subject? If they are right, he would be a very fit man to make the first move.
Mr Mill presents his compliments to Mr Osborne and incloses a gallery order for Monday next, having given his order for every day this week.
I have had the honour of receiving your note of yesterday’s date, but considering the great pressure of applications for admission for the Speaker’s gallery, which on all occasions of interest are much more numerous than can possibly be complied with,2 I am afraid I cannot undertake to make an application in favour of a gentleman who is neither a personal acquaintance nor a constituent.
I thank you and Mrs W. Longman for your kind invitation, but I find it Edition: current; Page:  absolutely necessary at present to decline all evening engagements.
I am much obliged to you for the promptitude of your answer on the subject of Count Gurowski’s work.2
3I should be glad to have copies of the Political Economy, Liberty, and Representative Government4 (Library Editions) sent, free of charge, to the “Durham Cooperative Institute” No 6, Claypath, Durham.
William Longman Esq.
I have had the honour of receiving your note inviting me on the part of the Sheriffs of London to dine with them in the House tomorrow (Friday) and I will with much pleasure avail myself of their kind invitation.
William Corrie Esq.
I have a small packet of books and documents2 which I am desirous of sending to the Hon. S.S. Cox, Senator now or lately for Ohio, at an address in New York. Would it be convenient to you to forward it? or would you kindly suggest to me the best mode of doing so?
Such of Mr. Jevons’s writings as I am acquainted with give evidence of decided originality, much knowledge and mental vigour, and an unusual degree of precision of thought and investigation.
His essay on the Gold Question2 was the first starting point of the important series of discussions which has changed, and, it may now almost be said, settled the opinions of instructed men on the subject.Edition: current; Page: 
The merit of his investigation of the “Coal Question” can hardly be rated too highly.3
His “Logic of Quality”4 showed extraordinary familiarity with and power over Formal Logic, and if I had a fault to find, it would be that the expenditure of power was greater than any result to be obtained by that mode of employing it would sufficiently remunerate.
Of Mr. Jevons’s teaching powers I can say nothing; of these, however, the authorities of Owens College can judge from their own experience. But as regards his knowledge both of Logic and of Political Economy, so far as the whole can be judged from a part, I should form a very high estimate of it.
No subject connected with the representation is of greater practical importance than bribery and election expenses, and I hope that a great and united effort will be made by reformers on the subject.2 But Gladstone, in introducing the Franchise Bill, was understood to give an express promise to take up this subject when he has done with the other, and he certainly shewed a very strong feeling of its importance.3 It seems to me, therefore, that the time which he indicated for himself, is the best time for us; and it is probable that he will then be willing and desirous to listen to any suggestions on the matter from persons whom he respects.Edition: current; Page: 
If the grouping of boroughs has the effect you apprehend, it will still further strengthen our argument. But as far as I am able to foresee, I rather expect from it a contrary effect.
I am sorry you are not member for Cambridge, but I hope you will find another seat after the Reform Bill passes if not before.4 I am, Dear Sir
W.D. Christie Esq.
Although very much occupied I have, with difficulty, found time to read the pamphlet which I am indebted to you for sending me. It has not, however, persuaded me to agree with you; but I cannot possibly undertake to discuss so intricate a subject with you in a letter.
I do not know to what article on Money your letter refers as I have never published any article with that title.
G. Harvey Esq.
It is unlucky that you are engaged on the days on which I am free. The best proposal I can now make for any day previous to the 8th would be, for you to come to the dinner of the Political Economy Club next Friday, June 1. There will be Edition: current; Page:  several persons there whom you may like to see, and I hope to be able to leave the House for a part of the evening to go there.2 If you will come to the House of Commons soon after ½ past 5, we will go together, or, if I am prevented, my friend Professor Fawcett will be happy to go with you to the Club. Please let me know in the course of Thursday whether you will come. I am, Dear Sir
Thank you for your note. I am aware that in this country and in all others whose laws were originally founded on the feudal principle, landed possessions were held subject to, and even as a provision for, public duties, and that the idea of absolute property in land is essentially modern. You, however, as a Constitutional lawyer, know infinitely more on the subject than I do, and I shall be very glad to have the opportunity of consulting you when I again have occasion to touch on the point.
The other fact you mention, that the expenses of elections were once a public charge, is new to me, and will be a most telling point to bring forward when that subject is before Parliament, which it is sure, very shortly, to be.2 When that time comes, I should be very glad indeed to be able to produce a copy of the writ and read parts of it to the House.
Toulmin Smith Esq.
I inclose an introduction to Mr Herbert Spencer, and am only sorry that you are not able to meet him at my house.2
I hope that we shall dine together at the House of Commons, if not on Tuesday, on some other day before you go.3
Mr Hickson would like before he gives evidence, to see the evidence which has already been given.2 As he will be one of our most valuable witnesses, and as I have no second copy of the evidence, I should be glad if possible to send him the copy, a portion of which you have. Would you therefore, if not using it, be kind enough to send that portion either to me at the House, or addressed to himself “care of housekeeper, East Temple Chambers, 2 Whitefriars Street”—in the latter case giving me a note of the numbers you have sent, that I may know if I supply him with all the remainder.
We are doing little good in Ayrton’s Committee.3 Vestry clerks and chairmen Edition: current; Page:  are coming up one after another to celebrate the admirable working of their own system, and we want people who from their own knowledge can testify to the contrary.
I wish I could have been at the discussion in your Committee4 on Thursday, but the time (in the middle of a Reform debate with a division possible at any moment) made it impracticable.5 I have had some talk with Mr. Beggs6 which I hope to be able to supplement by some talk with you.
James Beal Esq.
On returning home yesterday evening, I heard that you had had the trouble of calling. I shall be engaged all tomorrow forenoon, but if you could come to the House of Commons about five oclock, I have no doubt I should be able to see you. If you cannot do this, perhaps you would be so good as to write.
Rev. Joseph Crompton.
Monsieur Barrère, a much esteemed and valued friend of mine, is a candidate for the headship of the International School which is to be founded at Paris, by the Committee of which you are a member.2 Monsieur Barrère’s attainments, his great experience as a teacher both in France and in England, and his general character and disposition, all of which can be most amply vouched for, would render him, I should think, a highly fit person for conducting such a school, and a most likely person to make it succeed. M. Barrère would be happy to give you in a personal interview, all possible information respecting his antecedents, and his qualifications for the post.
Dr William Smith.
I duly received your remittance and the accounts—with which I have great reason to be satisfied.
If any thing should occur to me which I wish to say to you before you go, I will either write or call on you.
It is quite possible that occasions may at some time or other arise when I might be glad to have the pages of the Working Man open to me for the purpose of addressing things directly to the working classes; but it is impossible for me to make any promise or hold out any prospect of my doing so; for the quantity of work devolving upon me, even independently of Parliament, is already much greater than I can do with complete satisfaction to myself. The work awaiting me for the approaching recess is enough to occupy the whole of my time, and I cannot at present look forward to any period when I shall have leisure for any new engagements.
I am Dear Sir
G.J. Holyoake Esq.
I am glad that there is to be a discussion at the meeting of the Social Science Association respecting Extradition Treaties, and I think the opinions and feelings which such a discussion is likely to evoke may have a useful influence on the decision of Parliament next year.2 But it is quite as much out of my power to write a Edition: current; Page:  paper on the subject as it is to attend the discussion, having work to do which must be done before the reassembling of Parliament and which will require all the intervening time.3 I am Dear Sir
Rev. W.L. Clay.
I wish every possible success to the Working Women’s College; but, independently of my absence from England, it would be quite incompatible with other very pressing occupations for me to attend and take part in the proceedings at the Meeting on the 19th; much more to prepare so important a thing as an inaugural address.2 Regretting my inability to give a more satisfactory answer, I am, Dear Madam
Mrs F. Malleson.
If you are not engaged tomorrow, we shall be very glad to see you. We dine at five, and there is a train from Charing Cross at four. I am,
Mr Mill presents his compliments to the Reporter of the Glasgow Herald, has received his note dated the 19th, and will take care that a printed copy of his Address reaches the Herald on the 1st of February.2
As far as I have any voice in the matter, I think it not only unobjectionable, but Edition: current; Page:  most desirable, that you should help Mr Scott to put into a proper shape his very enlightened views on the reform of the municipal government of London.2 I will take an opportunity of speaking to Mr Beal on the subject, but I think there can be little doubt of his assent. I am, Dear Sir
J.M. Ludlow Esq.
Since I wrote to you, I have seen Mr Beal, and he not only entirely approves of your giving your assistance to Mr Scott, but greatly desires that you would do so. I am, Dear Sir
J.M. Ludlow Esq.
I beg to apologize for having so long delayed to express my thanks to yourself and to the Chairman of the Library for the gift of your excellent Catalogue.2 I have desired my publishers to send two or three of my books which are not already in the Edition: current; Page:  Library and of which I request its acceptance.3 There are others which I shall have the pleasure of sending as soon as they are reprinted.4 I am, Dear Sir
I will with the greatest pleasure do what you request.2
With regard to my not going into what is called society, I should not do so even if I had time for it, for as it is neither duty nor pleasure, neither work nor recreation, there is no reason why I should. But seeing you is quite another thing, and would be a real pleasure. Unfortunately the work I am now overladen with, is not like writing a book or an article, but is made up of bits and scraps, and cannot be done in the way you kindly offer, so that I do not see my way to being able to accept your invitation.
I am glad you are going to retire while you have good work in you, and the power of enjoying it. I have always regretted that capacities like yours should have been wholly engrossed by duties which did not require the highest of them.3
I inclose a note to my old and excellent friend M. d’Eichthal, the best friend I have left at Paris after the many whom death has taken away.2 He has access to most people that could help you and to most things that would interest you and I am sure of his hearty good will to any friend of mine.
I am sorry that I did not receive your note before leaving England, but as soon as I get back I will send you the minutes of evidence, and there need not be any hurry about returning them.2 The Committee will meet on Tuesday the 30th to consider the Resolutions and it is probable that they will only report Resolutions instead of making a regular Report.3 So much the better, as Ayrton4 is not likely to make the Edition: current; Page:  Report we want. I shall be prepared to move for leave to bring in your Bills as soon as they are ready.5 I am, Dear Sir
James Beal Esq.
Mr Mill presents his Compliments to the Honorary Secretary of the Artists’ General Benevolent Institution, and regrets his inability to accept the invitation with which he has been honoured to attend the Anniversary Festival.2
Many thanks for your kind invitation. I should really like to look in upon you any evening, but I do not like rushing in just at dinner time and leaving almost before dinner is over. I am afraid the new arrangements in the House for Tuesdays and Fridays will make it more than ever difficult to come to your nine o’clock reception, as that will be the time when the House will resume its sittings and get at once to its principal business.Edition: current; Page: 
The division was a great triumph, and especially Mr Bright’s voting with us.2 We should have had near 100 votes if all had been present who have told me that they would have voted with us if they had not paired, or been too late. I am, Dear Lady Amberley
In answer to your note, received yesterday evening, I beg to say, that while I am most sensible to the honour of having been thought of to represent so enlightened a body as the University of London, yet as long as the electors of Westminster wish to retain me as their representative, I should not think of leaving them for any other constituency.2
Alfred W. Burnett Esq
Many thanks for your note. I shall give my notice tomorrow for Tuesday week.2 Edition: current; Page:  I was only waiting to be sure that I should have all the necessary materials before that date.
I shall feel obliged to reinsert the clause providing for the election of the Chamberlain &c. by the Common Council of London and not by the Common Hall of the City. I also propose to insert, among the officers so elected, the Common Sergeant.3
I am sorry the Draft of the Bill was given (by Mr Beal) to the Star without ampler warning. The article in the Star was well meant,4 but indiscreet as to the City, and its ascribing your note (notwithstanding the initials) to me, was hardly excusable even by the haste with which leading articles are written. I have been thinking of writing to Chesson to correct the blunder.5 Do you think that desirable or not?
Adhesions seem to multiply in all quarters. I am Dear Sir
J.M. Ludlow Esq.
I think you are right as to the inexpediency of writing to Chesson.2
Mr Beal did not get his copy of the Draft Bill from me. I suppose he must have got it from the Chamberlain.3 The copy you gave me has not been out of my possession. The one which was sent to the papers was the Draft as altered by the Chamberlain, by the omission of a clause which, as I mentioned to you, I intend to restore.
I have received from Beal a proof of the Memorandum.4 It is marked “Confidential” and shall not go out of my hands. I am Dear Sir
J.M. Ludlow Esq.
I have only just heard that you are a member of the constituency of the London University.2 Some of the electors especially those interested in sanitary and in educational questions, are desirous of proposing Mr Chadwick as a candidate.3 I have long been very desirous that he should be in Parliament as his great knowledge of many difficult administrative questions and his fertility of practical resource, combined with his great industry and public spirit, would make him useful in a way much wanted, and in which few, if any, are capable of being equally so. I am anxious that you should have an opportunity of considering his claims, if possible before making up your mind to support any of the other candidates. I hope to be allowed to say more on the subject when I meet you at the House. I am Dear Sir
M.E. Grant Duff Esq. M.P.
The questions mooted in your letter of July 28 are very important, and extremely difficult if not impossible to decide by a general rule, without many allowances for Edition: current; Page:  differences of position which point out to different persons different paths of usefulness. As you say, it is absurd to refer each man to his individual conscience since the very question is, what his conscience ought to prescribe. While I sympathize fully in your perplexities, I do not know when I should be able to fix a time for discussing them at length, either viva voce or in writing: but I would endeavour to find time for reading the statement you speak of, and for giving some sort of opinion respecting it. I am, Dear Sir
Henry Sidgwick Esq.
Veuillez excuser, Monsieur, le retard involontaire de ma réponse à votre trop flatteuse lettre du 17 juillet. Le mouvement d’opinion qui a donné lieu à la formation de la Ligue Internationale de la Paix a toutes mes sympathies.2 Il appartenait à la France de prendre l’initiative d’un pareil mouvement. J’applaudis de tout mon coeur aux efforts des hommes éminents qui ont fondé la Ligue, et je me félicite de l’honneur qu’ils me font en désirant mon adhésion. Cette adhésion leur est toute acquise, et je vous engage, Monsieur, de vouloir bien inscrire mon nom au nombre des Sociétaires.
Veuillez agréer, Monsieur, l’hommage de ma très haute et très respectueuse considération.
It is scarcely possible for me to appoint any interviews at present with certainty of being able to keep the engagement, but if it is convenient to you to call on me at the House of Commons on Thursday or Friday while the House is sitting, I should be happy to see you. I am, Dear Sir
E.C. Booth Esq.
Excuse the delay in acknowledging your valuable letter of July 29. Your report, and that of Mr Webb,2 are not encouraging as to the immediate prospects of the Women’s Suffrage movement in Dublin; but though it may not be yet time to organise a Society there, it is all the more desirable to obtain as many adherents as possible from Ireland to the Society of which I have the pleasure of inclosing the papers. Besides the Executive Committee of ladies whose names you will see,3 the Edition: current; Page:  Society consists of a General Committee who are the constituency and subscribe a guinea a year, and of ordinary members subscribing a shilling. If the Society might have the benefit of your name and Mrs Haslam’s in either capacity, it would give me very great pleasure.
Several Irish Liberal members of Parliament have already joined the General Committee, among other Messrs Maguire, Blake, O’Beirne, Sir John Gray, and Mr Pollard Urquhart.4
I am well acquainted with your pamphlet,5 which is very good as it is, though I have no doubt that any addition or alteration which you would now make would still further improve it. I regret extremely that the state of your health is such as you mention, and I hope that rest and abstinence from unnecessary nervous and cerebral excitement will in time reestablish it.
T.J. Haslam Esq.
Absence from England and accident combined prevented me from receiving your letter of Sept. 7 until two or three days ago, much too late to enable me to be of any use with reference to the appointment of a Professor on the 5th of October.2
Had I received your letter in time, I would willingly have given you a statement Edition: current; Page:  in writing that though my view of philosophy is extremely different from yours, you appear to me qualified to state your own with clearness, comprehensiveness, and force, and with candour towards adversaries, and that I think your translation and commentary on Kuno Fischer’s book a valuable addition to the literature of philosophy.3 I am, Dear Sir
I should be glad to see a good Working Men’s College established, either in South London or anywhere else,2 but I should not like to connect my name with any particular project of the kind unless I knew and had well considered its plan of teaching and scheme of management, and unless my occupations permitted me to take part in, or at least to keep myself well informed as to the mode in which it was carried on.3 I am, Dear Sir
Wm Rossiter Esq.
Owing to absence from England I did not receive your paper on Tests2 until long after it was sent, and had to wait much longer before I could give it proper attention. I think it an exceedingly fair and clear statement of many of the considerations and counter considerations which really exist in the minds of conscientious men and influence their personal behaviour in the matter of Tests. And I agree with you in thinking that an ethical theory—a fixed moral principle, or set of principles—respecting the bindingness of the obligation of a test, would be very desirable. But it seems to me that such fixed principles cannot be laid down for the case of Tests by itself; that the question requires to be taken up at an earlier stage, and dealt with as part of the much larger question, What, on the principles of a morality founded on the general good, are the limits to the obligation of veracity? What ought to be the exceptions (for that there ought to be some, however few, exceptions seems to be admitted) to the general duty of truth? This larger question has never yet been treated in a way at once rational and comprehensive, partly because people have been afraid to meddle with it, and partly because mankind have never yet generally admitted that the effect which actions tend to produce on human happiness is what constitutes them right or wrong. I would suggest that you should turn your thoughts to this more comprehensive subject. You possess several, far from common, qualifications for dealing with it: a strong conscientious interest in it, and the power of representing to yourself clearly and distinctly, without prejudice or partiality, the pro’s and con’s of a moral question. There is therefore good reason to hope that your meditations on the subject would not be unfruitful. Apart from this more general subject of consideration, there would be little use in any remarks that I could make on the special question of Tests; the discussion of which, in the way in which you have treated it, cannot perhaps be carried, with any useful result, much further than you have done. I am Dear Sir
Henry Sidgwick Esq.
I have no doubt of the sufficiency of your reasons for postponing the translation of my Address, and had not the smallest notion of complaining of it. With regard to your Preface, you are at full liberty, so far as I am concerned, to put anything you please into it; and criticisms on the German Universities as tried by the standard laid down in the Address, would be very appropriate. The faults of the German Universities are not comparable in badness to those of the English, but that they have many grave faults I am quite prepared to believe, and there can scarcely be a more useful service than to point them out. And just because the German Universities are more learned and more scientific than the English, they are likely to be more imbued with the prejudices of commonplace learned and scientific men, who are generally quite ignorant of everything out of their particular Fach, and are almost as insensible to the value of large general ideas as the practical men of common life. I am, Dear Sir
I have received the inclosed letter relating to Heligoland,2 but my hands are so Edition: current; Page:  full that it is impossible for me to enquire into the subject, and ascertain what ground exists for the complaints, which, however, on the shewing of the letter, have a just claim to be heard. It occurs to me that with your extensive knowledge of continental affairs, you may possibly know something about the condition and government of Heligoland, or that you may not be indisposed to look into the matter. It would be a kindness to the Heligoland people if you would do so; for these small dependencies have seldom any one in Parliament who has any connexion with them, or feels at all concerned in their being justly treated.
M.E. Grant Duff Esq. M.P.
I thank you, both for myself and the Heligoland people, for your willingness to look into their case. I have written to them to the effect of your letter, and have given them your address, an[d] I shall be very happy to communicate with you on the subject whenever you think it may be useful. I am, Dear Sir
M.E. Grant Duff Esq. M.P.
J’ai, en effet, reçu la brochure que vous avez eu la bonté de m’envoyer,2 et je l’ai lue avec la plus vive satisfaction. Je ne l’ai pas lue dans un esprit de critique, et comme il y a déjà quelque temps de là, je ne saurais dire si j’y ai remarqué, ou non, Edition: current; Page:  des choses susceptibles de dissentiment, mais je puis assurer que s’il y en a, elles ne sont pas importantes, qu’elles ne touchent à rien d’essentiel dans la question, et ne sont pas de nature à attérir l’admiration que j’éprouve pour la manière dont vous soutenez cette grande et importante lutte.
La formation d’une association à Zurich est très importante. L’adhésion d’un ci-devant vice-roi du Caucase3 est intéressante comme hommage à la verité des principes que nous soutenons; bien qu’on ne voie guère de quelle manière on pourrait en faire l’application aux institutions de la Russie.
La nouvelle idée fait des progrès ici comme ailleurs, et elle ne manquera pas de profiter des discussions qui seront nécessairement soulevées par l’application imparfaite et bornée qu’on a faite de la représentation des minorités dans la loi de Réforme.4 Le principe est si évidemment juste et raisonnable dans tous les systèmes politiques, que pour être accueilli il n’a vraiment besoin que d’être discuté.
Agréez, Monsieur, l’assurance de ma haute et respectueuse estime et de mes sentiments amicaux.
There is a great want of any means of obtaining a complete view of the progress of the Cooperative System in this country, and I often do not myself know where to go for the latest information. The person that I know of, who has taken the most pains to get together a connected view of the cooperative system both in this country and others, and who, I believe, is in possession of the most general information on the subject, is my friend Mr W.T. Thornton (23 Queen’s Gardens, Hyde Park, London)2 who, I do not doubt, would be willing to communicate with you on any points on which you may desire information. If he is not able to do so, the only other persons that I can think of who might be of use to you in your enquiries are Mr Henry Pitman, editor of the Cooperator, and Mr E.O. Greening, Edition: current; Page:  editor of the Industrial Partnership Record.3 I am Dear Sir
Dr G. Cöhn.
When I got your former letter on my pamphlet,2 I imagined it to refer more particularly to the copy I had directed to be sent to you by the publisher; but from your note just received I am doubtful whether it has been sent to you. Will you kindly inform me whether you received it, that I may make a complaint to Longman if he has omitted to send it.
A copy was also ordered to be sent to Mr Haslam.
I am obliged to you for the report of the Conference.3 The Dublin Corporation, like most other Corporations, seems to require much looking after.
R.D. Webb Esq.
Je suis très flatté de l’approbation que vous avez bien voulu accorder à ma Edition: current; Page:  brochure sur l’Irlande, et j’accepte avec plaisir votre proposition de la traduire en français.2 Je n’ai aucune condition à faire, ne désirant en tirer aucun bénéfice pécuniaire. S’il vous plaisait de me faire voir votre traduction avant de la faire imprimer, j’y jeterais volontiers un coup d’oeil.
Agréez, Monsieur, l’expression de ma considération très distinguée.
Monsieur R. Henry Tabouelle
I thank you for the notices,2 but beg you not to take the trouble of sending any more. I had already seen all those you sent. I am
The adjournment of the House defeats our scheme of having a Bribery meeting on Monday, but I shall be happy to attend one on any day you can arrange, either before or after the assembling of the House.2 I am, Dear Mr Hughes
aIf 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.a And I think that even to mention such virtues as they may possess, without accompanying that mention with an expression of abhorrence of their vices, is to deprave the sentiments and confuse the judgment of the public.
Were I in any way peculiarly called upon personally to aid any one engaged in doing this, I should do it, but I should do it with regret. Were there no one else in this country who shares your opinions, I might think myself personally called upon; but while you say that nine tenths of the English public are of your way of thinking, it seems to me that even had I the pleasure of your personal acquaintance, it would be to those nine tenths that you would justly look for sympathy, which such little aid as it could in any case be in my power to give should be reserved for those who have fewer friends. It is not, therefore, from any want of interest in yourself, or want of sympathy with you as a struggling author, but from my deep sense of the moral value of all literary work, that I felt myself obliged to reply as I have done to your letter: and I am Dear Sir
John A. Elliott Esq
The deputation from Heligoland has arrived, and is at Kroll’s Hotel, America Square. They have probably informed you of their arrival: in any case I have referred them to you. Their names are Payens, Heckens, and Stoldt.2 I am
M.E. Grant Duff Esq. M.P.
I have gone through all the amendments you sent and I like them all.2 Which of them I shall move, and by whom get others moved, I cannot yet determine.
Serjeant Pulling has sent me clauses (apparently identical with those he published in the Law Magazine) providing for an enquiry into every election before the return of the writ.5 It would be difficult to make these enter into the plan Edition: current; Page:  of the Government Bill, but it may be good to put them on the paper and invite a discussion on them.
I hope Aberdeen will get its second member and return you.6
W.D. Christie Esq.
Mr Mill presents his compliments to the Librarian and begs that Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments may be sent to him here without delay if it is not out.2
I should like to be present at Mr Plummer’s lecture,2 but on Monday evening Edition: current; Page:  between 8 and 9 the House will probably be in the middle of the proceedings in Committee on the Scotch Reform Bill with divisions constantly impending,3 and it is therefore unlikely that I can attend, and certain that I cannot take the chair. I am most happy to hear of the success of the Institution and particularly of the School.4 I am Dear Sir
Wm Rossiter Esq.
I am happy to hear that Mr Plummer’s lecture, which I regret not to have been able to attend, went off so successfully.2
I am much gratified by your wish to be on the Election Committee. I have sent your note to Dr Brewer, who is taking an active part in organising the Committee.3 You are aware that I do not myself take any part in the arrangements.
I send by Book Post a copy of my pamphlet on Ireland,4 which I perceive that Messrs Longman have omitted from the books which I desired them to send for the College. I am Dear Sir
W. Rossiter Esq.
Nothing could be more fortunate than that Alderman Lusk has influence at Greenock.2 One of the subjects which he takes greatest interest in, is the Diplomatic Service, and I had only to tell him of the great use you would be of on that subject, to secure his warm support for your candidature. He knows most of the people of importance at Greenwich on the liberal side, and has promised to give me on Monday a letter to be given by yourself to his brother,3 which will ensure your being introduced to them. It would, I think, be well if I were to introduce you personally to him, which I can do at almost any time you like to come to the House as he is a very constant attendant.
From your note, I suppose what I had better say to Mr Gladstone is simply to express a hope that no rival candidate will be put up for Greenock.4
It is now pretty certain that the Bribery Bill will not be abandoned. Some of the advanced Liberals have been in communication with the Government and have offered a deputation of liberal members to Disraeli if it would help him: and if there is one, I think it will be a very strong one.5 Nobody whom I have asked has refused to join in it.
I am Dear Mr Christie
W.D. Christie Esq.
I inclose a letter which will interest you, and which can be best answered either by yourself or by the Provisional Committee in course of appointment.
I am obliged to go off to Stansfeld who is ill at home, to consult respecting the extradition report which is to be considered in Committee tomorrow.2 I have not been able to get a pair3 and must therefore return here before going to the Edition: current; Page:  Committee. Will you kindly apologise for me to the Committee4 and ask them to go on to business without me and I will come as soon as I can.
I beg to acknowledge your letter of Aug. 2.2
Mr Charles Austin was an early friend of mine3 but I have for a long time past seen so little of him, that I could not undertake to say what Mr Austin’s political opinions now are; nor, since I understand that he is reluctant to come forward as a candidate for Parliament, should I feel entitled to urge him to do so, even if I had more knowledge than I have of his present opinions. I am, Dear Sir
I regret that your letter was not received at my house until after I had left England for the Continent.2 I wish that my acquaintance with distinguished men of your Edition: current; Page:  profession were such as to give me greater means than I have of promoting the objects for which you have come to Europe. What little I am able to do is to send you the two inclosed letters of introduction. One is to Mr Tite, M.P., by profession an architect (he built the Royal Exchange) but who is an important member of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and can give you full information about their drainage and other operations.3 The other is to my particular friend Mr Thornton, the Secretary in the Public Works Department of the India Office, who knows everything that is doing in India in the way of public works, and can place you in communication with the chief authorities on the subject as connected with India, and probably with others. I have written privately to Mr Thornton and I am sure you will find him most desirous to give you every assistance in his power. I am Dear Sir
Henry Mitchell Esq.
I do not know Mr Tite’s private address, but you can find it in the Court Guide or the Post Office Directory.4
I beg to acknowledge your communication of the 12th inst. requesting me to become a member of Mr Baxter Langley’s Committee with a view to his being returned for Greenwich if a vacancy should be created by Mr Gladstone’s being elected for that borough but not requiring the seat.2
I warmly applaud Mr Baxter Langley’s public spirited conduct in withdrawing in favour of Mr Gladstone; but, while the present election is pending, and I am a Edition: current; Page:  member of Mr Gladstone’s Committee, I prefer not to join the Committee of any other candidate. I am, Dear Sir
J.H. Hodges Esq
I am not able to join your deputation,2 but I thank you for your pamphlet3 and for your valuable efforts to improve the very defective jail management of India. You will no doubt be listened to [line torn off in MS] same respect and attention which you have so justly met with from the local Governments.
I do not know of any book on the Employment of Women except one of Mrs Jameson’s entitled Communion of Labour.2 The line of argument most relevant to the subject, is the advantage to women of developing their faculties, and to the Edition: current; Page:  world of getting all that women can do; and the resemblance of the system of restricting particular occupations to one sex, to the old caste and guild systems which restricted them to certain classes and families. One of the American advocates of women’s rights has put the case strongly and well by saying that the present system endeavours to do the whole intellectual work of the world with only half its brains.3 I am
I thank you most heartily for taking the trouble to procure so much precise information respecting the Birkbeck Schools.2 I hope to have many occasions for making good use of it.
I heard yesterday from Helen:3 she is well and in spirits.
Many thanks for your kind present and for your kind enquiries about my cold. I Edition: current; Page:  am glad to say it is much better, and will probably be gone by tomorrow. I am very thankful for your very friendly invitation, but I have so many things to do just at the last, before going away for a longer time than I expected2 that I hope you will excuse me if I deny myself the pleasure of passing an evening with you.
Your letter gives me very great pleasure, for it is doubly an honour to receive such expressions of interest and sympathy from one of your country. You have gone through a harder fight than we are likely to face here, and the heroism with which it was fought by the noble minded men of America through all the long years of danger and difficulty, and finally through the sharp crisis of the war, makes the Liberals of all other nations look up to the advanced party in America with respectful admiration. Like yourself I was somewhat surprised and a little hurt at the line the Daily News thought fit to take, but there are reasons to suspect that there may have been personal causes for this, for I thought it my duty to support in one place a candidate who was the rival of a gentleman who, I am given to understand, has influence with the Daily News, and this may have aroused a little unpleasant feeling, which, as I have no reason to suppose it is shared by many persons connected with the paper, we must hope will blow over when the election excitement is past.2 For my own part, my regret was only at seeing a paper which Edition: current; Page:  had stood so bravely by the advanced cause in so many great questions, shewing on this occasion less generosity of spirit than the Daily Telegraph, or even perhaps, the Times. I am, Dear Sir
G.W. Smalley Esq
I think it of very great importance to free and enlightened thought in politics and philosophy, that the Westminster Review should be maintained in existence, and without any change in its long established character as an organ always open to the thoughts of the most advanced thinkers, and training the minds of the younger men to appreciate new ideas. During the whole term of its existence, now 45 years, it has fulfilled this office. Its disappearance would leave a sad blank in our periodical literature, and would be a severe blow to advanced thought and to the education of future thinkers. With regard to the management of the Review by its present proprietor and editor, knowing as I do the great difficulties it has had to struggle with, and the inferiority, as compared with many other reviews, of the inducements it could hold out to writers, I have been as much surprised as pleased at the high level of merit it has been able to maintain. This could only have been effected by a devotion of time and energy to the purpose, on the part of the editor, which does great honour to his public spirit, and establishes on his part a strong claim to the gratitude of the friends of advanced opinions and independent thoughts, and after the proofs he has given, for a number of years and under great difficulties, of his fitness to conduct such an organ, I hope that he may find such assistance as may enable him still to carry it on, and may afford him an ultimate prospect of some recompense for his sacrifices, other than the consciousness of having made them. I am, Dear Sir
I hear from the Mauritius sad details of the distress there,2 with which I do not doubt you are very much better acquainted than I am. Perhaps you may not be as well aware that among a portion at least of the English there, there is a feeling of uneasiness as to the probable action of the local Government in case of disturbances, which seem very probable. The disturbances at Réunion3 may add to the probabilities of something of the sort at the Mauritius, and the example set by the Government in the one place is not a salutary one for the Government in the other. The inhabitants of the Mauritius are understood to be peculiarly peaceable, and very manageable by gentle means: but there seems to be a sort of apprehension lest the Government should not take as gentle means as might be desired in case any difficulties should arise. When I remember the reiterated warnings which were received at the Colonial Office before the events in Jamaica,4 and that a hint from home to the Government might have saved such a quantity of suffering, of disgrace, and of embarrassment to everybody concerned, I venture to trouble you with these few lines to say that whether these apprehensions with regard to the Mauritius are well or ill grounded (which I do not know) I know them to be entertained by Englishmen in a respectable and responsible position.
I cannot conclude without expressing the pleasure it gave me to see you appointed to a post where there is so much opportunity of exercising useful influence.5 I am, Dear Mr Grant Duff
M.E. Grant Duff Esq. M.P.
It would be a very superficial view that could suppose that the permanent improvement of the social, industrial, and economic condition of women can be altogether separated from their claim to political rights. At all times political rights have been the only real security for the permanence of progress in social, industrial, and economical matters: and in the present age, the grant of political rights to any class, or even the demand for their admission to those rights, is the most effectual way of securing better consideration for their interests in all other respects. It does not, however, follow from this that it is equally the duty of every one who desires to improve the condition of women, to engage specially in the task of claiming political rights for them: and therefore, although I could not concur with Dr von Hetzendorf2 in considering the political enfranchisement of women as of but little consequence (if indeed he does consider it so) the advice he gives appears to me, with one exception, exceedingly judicious. aI am of opinion that every kind of effort, whether social or political, in favour of women, should be encouraged, so long as it is earnest and genuine; and I am persuaded that those who are in earnest will inevitably be led by experience to see the absolute necessity of political enfranchisement as both the foundation and the safeguard of human worth and happiness.a As regards the details, the earnest minds of each nation are the best judges for that nation. They have but to be in earnest, and to work with all their hearts, and they cannot do wrong. The one point to which I have referred as that on which I differ from Dr von Hetzendorf, is the suggestion to subordinate the whole organisation of the Vereine to one centre. This is the French system, in too many things: England and Germany have progressed by leaving freer play to the varieties of local character and circumstances. What is judicious for Berlin may not be so for Leipzig or Vienna. It is better that the zeal, the earnestness, and the sense of responsibility, of the enlightened persons of each locality, should exhaust itself in doing to the very uttermost all that lies to its own hand to do, and that it should not waste its energy in guiding the hands of others. I am Dear Madam
aI am not sure whether, when I last wrote to you, I mentioned the work in which I was engaged, of preparing a new edition of my father’s “Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind” with notes,2 bringing up the subject to the latest improvements in psychology. This is now complete, and the notes, to which Mr Grote has contributed, and in which Mr Bain has given, in a condensed form, the most important thoughts of his systematic treatises,3 form, I think, a very valuable addition to the original work. I hope you have received the copy I directed the publisher to send.a
I do not think that my portion of the notes4 can well be included in the collected German edition, as they would seldom be intelligible if separated from the work to which they belong.
bHow is the editionc proceeding?b I have just received an agreeable evidence of the demand for it, in the shape of a proposal from a Dr Bingmann,5 encouraged, as he says, by two professors of Moral Philosophy in the Universities of Tübingen and Berlin, to translate “Utilitarianism,” and after that, the Logic and others of my writings. I have informed Dr. Bingmann of the edition in progress (which he did not seem to have heard of) and have told him that there is no opening for another translator, unless you should be disappointed in some of your arrangements.
When you write to me, which I hope will be soon, I beg you to give me news of your sister, whose sad loss we were so grieved to hear of.6 I am, Dear Mr. Gomperz
I am very glad to hear that you will be able to help the petitioning in favour of Women’s Suffrage so greatly. I have mentioned the fact to Mrs Peter A. Taylor, Aubrey House, Notting Hill,2 and I am sure that if you will kindly put yourself in communication with her, she will be very glad of your help in extending the operations of the Women’s Suffrage Society in new directions.3 I am, Dear Sir
Charles Bradlaugh Esq.
I am very glad to hear that you intend to answer Lecky on Utilitarianism.2 It is a subject which finds an active & doughty champion in you. From what I hear it seems that Lecky’s ideas on it are both superficial & confused. He has been so useful in popularizing some good ideas that it is a pity he is not only commonplace but even of an antiquated form of commonplace in others; unluckily he is not the only useful & clever man I know in this predicament.
I am not surprised that you do not find time to read the Analysis.3 I am often Edition: current; Page:  surprised at the great industry you exhibit but I shd like to see a review of the Analysis by yourself & the book as originally written without the aid of the notes is almost a necessary foundation for efficient thought both in law & politics, for which the doctrine of the Assn of Ideas as there developed is all-important.
I shall be in England early in July & shall be happy to see you if you think you can derive either pleasure or profit from the society of such very decided believers in progress.4
I thank you sincerely for your remarks on my “Examination of Hamilton” and I will not fail, in any further revision of the book, to give them the attention they deserve. The confusion between the two meanings of inconceivable is almost universal, and Hamilton is certainly not free from it.2 I may, therefore, very possibly have been misled by it in my interpretation of some passages of his writings. But I think my argument against Whewell holds good in either sense.3
The concluding paragraph of your letter gives me great pleasure, especially your agreement with my opinions on the great question discussed in my new book.4 There is, I am convinced, no subject now under discussion on which the improvement of the human race more essentially depends.
Your letter has been forwarded to me here, and I beg to thank you for your kind intentions in regard to reviewing my book. What you have seen announced is not a Congress, but a meeting of the London Women’s Suffrage Society, at which only members will be present. I am, Dear Madam
I regret that there should be so much delay in bringing out the German edition of my entire writings, and I give my full consent to your publishing the translation, as soon as you please; merely reserving the right of the publishers of the complete edition to include it (or another translation) afterwards in their series.2 I am, Dear Sir
Dr Anton Dohrn
I have had the pleasure of receiving your note; and your paper on the Irish land question2 has been one of the first things I have read after my return here.3 I need hardly say that I agree with all your principles, and (as far as I can judge) with your details too. Englishmen who know India are the men who can understand and interpret the social ideas and economic relations of Ireland. They are not the slaves of English technicalities, and they know that the English form of property in land is neither a law of the universe nor an immutable principle of morality. The Cobden Club could not have done a more sensible thing than to ask you to give them the benefit of your Indian experience;4 and I wish they would publish this very instructive paper also. In any case, I trust it will be published.
You seem to think that there is some difference of opinion between us on the subject, but I can see none. You think that my proposal would give more to the landlords than the value of their property: but what I proposed was, that there should be a Commission to adjudicate what the present income and future prospects of the estates was really worth to the landlords, in order to give them that; not a farthing more.5
Will you excuse my suggesting the omission of one word (p. 43, last line) the word “woman”?6 This would be but justice, for women are often most energetic and successful managers of estates in India. I am Dear Sir
George Campbell Esq.
I am much honoured by the wish of the Directors of the Glasgow Athenaeum to include me in their arrangements for the delivery of Lectures, but I regret that my occupations do not admit of my sparing the time necessary for the preparation of a lecture. I am, Dear Sir
Henry Johnston Esq
I am quite willing that my approbation of Parks for the children of the poor should be made known anywhere;2 but I would rather not be announced as receiving subscriptions, if for no other reason than that I am often absent from England. I am, Dear Sir
Wm Rossiter Esq.
Can you come down and dine with us on Sunday Aug. 15 at five o’clock?
W.F. Rae Esq
This letter will be given to you by my friend Mr W.F. Rae,2 who, as warmly interested in the political and social questions of our time, and a frequent and valuable writer respecting them,3 on the side of advanced opinions, has many great points of common interest with you. Mr Rae goes to America for the double purpose of acquiring information respecting the practical working of your Patent Laws, in order to help towards improving ours, and of adding to his general knowledge of America; and any aid that can be given him for either object will not fail to be useful to the public. I am, Dear Sir
Henry Villard Esq.
You are welcome to make any use you like of my letter to you,2 but I do not feel that what the Duke said,3 which I repeated to you in my letter to the best of my memory verbally, was sufficiently explicit to amount, to my mind, to a promise, and therefore I should not like to write to the Chief on such an assumption. I agree with you most cordially as to the welcome that the Chief and the Ranee4 ought to receive here, and will lose no opportunity of using any influence I have to secure it. If the Duke of Argyll was more explicit to you than to me, or if what he said to me appears to you explicit I am very happy to hear it, and think you cannot do better than convey it to the Chief. But as the Chief can scarcely so well judge of the exact meaning of the terms used as we can, the responsibility of the precise interpretation to be put upon the Duke’s words rests witha bus: and I own that to me they do not seem quite as decisive as might be desirable, seeing how important it is that the Chief and the Ranee should not come over here under a mistaken impression.
If it is your wish, and you are quite sure that it would be the wish of the Chief and the Ranee, I will write to the Duke, and ask him whether what he has said may be reported to them as a promise.
My daughter begs to be kindly remembered, and I am, Dear Miss Carpenter
In answer to your letter of Aug. 28 I beg to say that I should be happy to become an annual subscriber to the projected Magazine.2 I am
E.B. Nicholson Esq.
You are aware of the favour with which the majority of the popular party in Great Britain regard the vote by ballot at parliamentary elections, as a means of restraining bribery and intimidation and the increased interest which this question has assumed through the recent extension of the suffrage.2 The writer of the inclosed letter3 and some of his friends are anxious to obtain information that can be depended on, respecting the practical working of vote by ballot in the countries in which it exists by law. Their own opinion, like mine, is unfavourable to it; but their desire is to find the truth, whatever it may be; and the vague impressions current in Europe give no real knowledge of the ballot in America even as it exists by law, much less of the mode in which it is actually conducted, and the advantages and disadvantages which are found in practice to attend it. You would oblige me very much, and would do some public service, if you could kindly Edition: current; Page:  supply my correspondent with any of the information which he desires, or refer him to any sources from which he could procure it. I am Dear Sir
Henry Villard Esq.
I am late in thanking you for the gift of your volume on Ireland,2 because it came to me a short time ago in a parcel from England, and owing to the pressure of other occupations I have only just finished reading it. I wish it was in the hands of everybody who will have any voice in the decision of the Irish Land question, for I have read nothing that comes near it in the fullness and clearness of the knowledge it communicates of the real “situation” in Ireland. There is nothing like Indian experience for enabling men to understand Ireland. Those writers in the newspapers who have some understanding of the Irish question are those who, like one of the editors of the Spectator,3 know something of India. My own official knowledge of Indian matters has greatly helped me to put the right interpretation on Irish phenomena. I wonder how long it will take the English people to find out, that the Indian service is their best, or rather their only, good school for administrators; and to make the use they might make of that service for difficult work in other parts of the empire. Lord Metcalfe and Sir J.P. Grant4 are already cases in point.
I am not so clear about the details of your proposed measure, though I agree fully in its principles, and think it quite reasonable that lands which are at present administered on the English system, the landlord making the improvements, and no tenant right or claim to compensation for loss of occupancy being ever Edition: current; Page:  recognised—where, in fact, the coproprietorship of the tenant never existed, or has been extinguished—should remain as they are, on the footing of contract only.5 But I have great doubts of the possibility of meeting the justice of each separate case by the award of a Commission,6 even with the aid of the general instructions laid down in your letter of Nov. 29.7 I should fear that a decision as to what had or had not been the “ordinary practice of any district, locality, or estate”8 would continually fail to give satisfaction; first, on account of the difficulty of settling what amounts to “ordinary practice”, and next, because a very large proportion of the discontent of the tenantry is on the part of those who have not yet succeeded in establishing any custom in their favour; and these, if your plan is adopted, will find themselves cut off from hope. I am not shaken in my belief that the land difficulty is a knot which cannot be untied, and will have to be cut.—By the way, your principal objection to the plan I proposed rests on a mistake.9 I proposed giving the landlords more than their present net rent, but not more than the present selling value of their estates, since that includes allowance for prospective increase as well as for present income.10 I never dreamed of giving them a larger compensation than the amount of consols equivalent to that selling value. No wonder you disapprove of the proposal, when you think it would enable landlords to obtain from the State double the present value of their property.
George Campbell Esq.
It gives me great pleasure to find that, after due explanations, your opinion and mine differ so little, indeed, as far as I perceive, not at all. I have no doubt that your plan would work to the ends you intend by it, if the Commission were an entirely Edition: current; Page:  unprejudiced one. But all the probabilities are that it will be a Landlords’ Commission. All Englishmen of the higher ranks who have not learnt better things in Ireland or India, have their prepossessions strongly on the side of landlordism. The best that is to be hoped is that the Commission would represent liberal landlordism: but you know how little that amounts to, Lord Dufferin is considered a liberal landlord.2
It will give me pleasure to talk over these matters with you, and Indian matters too, after my return to England, which will be in March. I have not forgotten the kind offer you made when I was in the House of Commons, to furnish me with information, an offer of which, coming from you, I was well able to appreciate the value: and though I am no longer in the House, I can still make profitable use of facts that I can rely on, whether about India or Ireland. I am3
Your letter2 was forwarded to me from England. I received it the day before yesterday, and should have answered it before, but I have been incapacitated from work by a very bad cold.
I think you not only perfectly fit for the office of Registrar of Friendly Societies but probably superior to any one likely to be a candidate.3 The office is one for which your knowledge of the working classes and of their Associations is a valuable preparation. And as to practical ability, no one who goes carefully through the Municipal Bills would think that the man who drew them can be deficient in it.4 In all the conversations and discussions I had with you respecting those Bills, the part you took was that of a careful, cautious, foreseeing practical mind. If my saying as much in a letter for the purpose could be of any use to you, I should be most happy to do it. But I greatly doubt not only its being of any use, but Edition: current; Page:  its not being positively detrimental to you. I must in frankness admit that I fully agree in your impression that Mr Lowe probably looks upon you as a sentimentalist.5 I do not doubt it. But I think you are under a mistake if you do not think he looks upon me as a sentimentalist of quite as deep a dye; if indeed he thinks there can be anything to choose between different degrees of such imbecility. I am afraid that a testimonial from me to your practicality would be to him a testimonial from a blind man in favour of a man with one eye. Nor would it be much better if I gave testimony to your powers as a metaphysician or political economist. None of these are matters on which Mr Lowe would think me capable of aiding his judgment. I only know one man whose testimony in your favour would have much weight with Mr Lowe, and that man is Mr Lowe. Although I doubt whether there exists the man whose judgment would have any intellectual weight with Mr Lowe, it is just possible that some practical influence might be exerted by influential members of the electoral body of the London University, or by his superiors in the Cabinet. I think Mr Lowe would give an office to a competent man if he could find one; but seeing that it is a thousand chances to one that he thinks none of the candidates fit, such trifles as parliamentary or electoral or cabinet influence might decide him where he thinks there is very little to choose. I am, Dear Mr Ludlow
J.M. Ludlow Esq.
I saw the article in the Daily News on the case of Policeman Smith, and felt very much obliged to you for getting the subject noticed.2 I understand that the Home Edition: current; Page:  Office is inquiring into the case. If the result be favourable, the article in the Daily News and other notices in the press will have greatly contributed to it. In any case, a considerable degree of public approbation has been deservedly directed against the magistrate and his dictum.
I am glad that, while you still continue to write for the Daily News, there is at the same time a prospect of your being relieved from the mere drudgery of the occupation, and obtaining leisure for other pursuits.
Your account of Cairnes is cheering, and accords with others which we have received.3 He himself never takes a sanguine view of his condition, but there is ample proof how much of his health and strength he must have recovered, in his ability not only to deliver his lectures, but to write such an article as that in the Fortnightly, which, independently of its merits in point of thought, seems to me quite a model of philosophic stile and expository talent.4
I have read, I believe, all Rae’s letters,5 for the Daily News generally reaches us at some time or other; but ever since the pretence began of not examining foreign newspapers,6 we do not get them till after ridiculous delays, and not unfrequently a later newspaper before an earlier. The exact reason I do not know, but it is certain that an announcement that a thing will not be done is generally, in France, followed by its being done more than before; as an announcement that it will be done is, in like manner, followed by neglect to do it. I do not know how much depends on the higher authorities, and how much on the subordinates; for in every system of arbitrary government the chiefs find it necessary or convenient to give the underlings their full share of the arbitrary power, and indeed cannot well enforce on them, duties to the public which they themselves habitually violate. One has only to live in a country arbitrarily governed (as France has been under all its governments) to know how utterly mistaken is the idea that a despotic government is a vigorous one.
F.H. Hill Esq
I thank you very much for the present of your Adam Smith.2 I have read the Preface, but have not yet made myself acquainted with your notes, which, though they do not occupy much space, seem to go over a good deal of ground. I rather think that I differ from you on some important points; but the old generalisations of political economy are now found to require so much modification, that our opinions may possibly draw nearer together when duly compared.
Thanks for your invitation to visit Oxford. There is no place which at present interests me more, or which seems to be undergoing a more salutary transformation. But I have seen only just enough of it in the body, to have been much impressed by its beauty and imposingness. I certainly did not write any of my books there, nor did I ever take up my abode in Oxford for more than a day or two at a time. I am, Dear Mr Rogers
In reply to your communication of May 18 I beg to say that my occupations do not admit of my undertaking to examine & give an opinion & advice respecting manuscripts intended for publication.2
“highly pleased with the address.2 There was not one word in it that ought not to be there; it could not have been done with fewer words.”
I have received your letter of July 16,2 and I sympathise in the opposition to an impost which the legislature has plainly declared its purpose of abolishing:3 but it is impossible for me to contribute pecuniarily to every public object in which I sympathise, and I would recommend that application should be made to some of those who took the lead in the popular movement against Church Rates. I am Dear Sir
Wm Trant Esq.
Since you ask my opinion as to whether it is most advisable that your nephew Robert2 should go up again for examination, or that he should join his father and brother and commence at once the practical study of his intended profession under the advantageous circumstances of being directly under his father; so far as I am able to judge, this last appears to me greatly preferable. Should he even succeed at the examination, this success if attained in a single year, could probably be only the result of strenuous cramming, and the time so occupied would be almost lost time in respect to his real mental development. Many youths fail at examinations, as examinations are commonly conducted, merely because they are not quick in catching up and recollecting detached points, and cannot give themselves the appearance of knowing a subject unless they know it thoroughly. This may be Robert’s case, and if so, he cannot too soon begin to learn that which it is necessary he should know thoroughly, and his knowledge of which can be tested by results instead of by questions on a paper: and if he begins at once, he will probably enter with strong interest upon the new kind of work, and take it up with spirit and vigour. If, on the contrary, he goes up for examination again and should unfortunately suffer a second defeat, the discouragement may be such as to paralyse his energies for a long time to come: while, if he succeeds, the moral consequences may not be at all desirable; for if he is a steady thoughtful youth, he may know very well that he has only succeeded by coaching, and may have learnt a lesson not at all conducive to thoroughness and earnestness in the work of life. If the real intellectual advantages of the University education are desired, I am of opinion that several years should be given to attaining them; so that the successful passing through the examination may prove, not readiness of wit, nor power to burthen the memory with a mass of matter for a short time, but thorough and familiar acquaintance with the subjects of the examinations. To have passed the examination is, to my mind, and, I know, in the opinion of many of the examiners, far from a conclusive test of having passed through the really useful discipline of education. The examiners may do what they can to make it so, and yet fail, if parents encourage the system of forcing youths hurriedly on. A thorough and well grounded professional education is of more value to the habits of mind than a hasty and superficial university one. Of course when there is time for both, it is well to Edition: current; Page:  have both; but I think a superficial training of any sort is a distinct disadvantage both to the moral and intellectual progress of a growing mind: and when I speak of hurried and superficial, it must be borne in mind that that which might not be hurried for one character may easily be so for another. I am, Dear Miss Lindley
I beg to acknowledge your letter of Aug. 19.
The object of the People’s Garden Company2 is excellent, but I abstain on principle from connecting my name with any enterprise, either philanthropic or pecuniary, the conduct of which, for want of time to attend to it, I am unable to be responsible for. I am, Dear Sir
I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 13th instant.2
I feel much interested by what you tell me respecting the Liverpool Institute, and highly honoured by the wish of the Directors that I should take the Chair at their Edition: current; Page:  annual meeting in November next.3 But the demands on my time and exertions have made it necessary for me, as a rule, to decline invitations of that nature. I am Dear Sir
Charles Sharp Esq.
I am much obliged to you for the opportunity of reading your Memoranda.2 I am glad to find that the Sanitary Commission are likely to report in favour of a comprehensive measure; though I doubt whether the Poor Law Administration should be included in the duties of a Minister of Public Health, as it seems to me quite sufficient in itself to occupy a ministerial department.
I never was more astonished at anything I have read in print about myself, than when I saw the writer against Poor Laws in Macmillan not only claiming me as of his way of thinking, but actually putting forth his proposition for abolishing the Poor Law as taken from me.3 I am entirely of the opinion expressed in my Political Economy, that a Poor Law, giving the destitute a right to relief (on terms more onerous than the condition of the independent labourer) is a necessary part of a good public administration.4 I have even been strengthened in this opinion by all Edition: current; Page:  that has come to my knowledge concerning the effects of the public charities in a country where there is no legal right to relief, and where most of the evils produced by our poor law administration when at its worst, flourish exuberantly without the accompanying benefits. I am, Dear Sir
Je ne saurais trop vous remercier pour M. Cairnes et pour moi-même.
Si j’avais eu avec moi mes numéros de la Revue des Deux Mondes, je n’aurais pas eu besoin de m’adresser à votre complaisance; mais malheureusement ces numéros sont à Avignon.2
Je vous remercie également de vos renseignements sur les sources à consulter, dont j’ai fait part à M. Cairnes.3
Je n’ai pas connaissance du nouveau projet du Cobden Club. Je présume que le Club se propose de publier un volume d’Essais sur les moyens d’empêcher la guerre dans l’état actuel du monde. Sans rien préjuger sur ce qu’il y aurait à dire sur cette question, il me semble qu’elle est loin d’avoir été suffisamment approfondie; et qu’un écrivain qui a étudié autant que vous l’histoire moderne et la politique générale pourrait remplir très utilement le cadre que le Club vous propose.4
Agréez, cher Monsieur, l’expression de mon estime et de mon dévouement.
Should you be able to send me the letter which appeared in the Bury Times?2 I should then be able to tell you explicitly whether I wrote the letter, and under what circumstances. I am, Dear Sir
The letter which you have sent to me, from the Bury Times, was written by me, on the 9th of November last;2 and is correctly printed, with the exception of the substitution of the word even for ever in the fourth line; which does not, however, substantially alter the sense. Having referred to the letter from Mr. King to which mine was an answer,3 I find it says, that the writer had several times, of late, in public meetings, heard my name, and the names of other persons, “Lord Amberley and others,” associated with the “Elements of Social Science,”4 and referred to as Edition: current; Page:  commending it: and he then asked, whether, when he again heard my name thus used, he should be at liberty to say that the representation is incorrect.
This is the only information I have received that I am represented as commending the book; and I have never heard either yourself or any other person mentioned, either expressly or by implication, as having so represented me. I am, Dear Sir
Charles Bradlaugh Esq.
I am much obliged by your kind offer of a copy of your book,2 and have read with pleasure the pages you have sent. I should be happy to see you, but I have so many demands on my time that I do not find it possible at present to fix a time for our meeting. I am Dear Sir
W. Rossiter Esq.
I do not know whether you may have already received a copy of the inclosed protest;2 but I should be much gratified by being the means of procuring your Edition: current; Page:  signature to it. It is particularly wished to obtain the signatures of ministers of religion, and of members of the medical profession; and in the former case, it is desirable to add to the signatures the statement of the denomination to which those signing it belong. If I am under a mistaken impression in believing that your sympathies in this matter are on the same side as my own, I must beg you to excuse the trouble to which I have put you. I am Dear Sir
Rev. B. Waugh
The Committee for the Scott Centenary had already done me the honour of asking me to be present at the celebration,2 but I have been obliged to answer them that my occupations and engagements do not allow me to avail myself of the invitation. I am, Dear Mr McLaren
I have not myself taken any part in editing Mr Buckle’s posthumous works, nor have I written, nor do I intend to write, any Memoir of him. His posthumous works Edition: current; Page:  however are being prepared for the press by my step daughter, Miss Helen Taylor, and will probably be published, with a short Memoir, in the course of next year.2 The publishers will be Messrs Longmans, Green, and Co, who, we understand, have made arrangements with an American publisher.3 I am, Dear Sir
J’espère arriver à Avignon en quelques jours d’ici et j’ai alors besoin d’un médicament dont je vous envoie copie de l’ordonnance. N’ayant pu obtenir ce médicament en Suisse où il paraît qu’on ne se sert plus du pareira2 je crains qu’il n’en fut peut-être de même à Avignon et dans ce cas je vous engage à vouloir bien en procurer à Paris ou à Marseille. On m’ordonne d’user de ce remède deux fois par jour pendant un temps considérable.
I am very happy to learn from your testimony that there is already Edition: current; Page:  a widely spread interest among German women for the cause of the political & social equality of the sexes. I am much honoured by your wish that some words of approval from myself should be prefixed to the work you have prepared on “die Zukunft der Deutschen Volksschule,”2 but I have thought it right to lay down to myself as a rule, never to give my public recommendation to any work which I have not read.
I beg to acknowledge your letter of July 27 which owing to my absence from England has only just reached me.
Your desire for an organization to give true information to England & France respecting one another & to correct mutual misapprehensions is very laudable.2 But I believe that the information which it would be possible to supply, especially on the French side, would be, in the vast majority of cases, false information. The monstrous absurdities which have been & still are believed even by highly educated people in France, & the multitude of mere lies which are invented, circulated, & generally credited here respecting what takes place in France itself, would make it impossible for any French Committee to supply England with that authentic information which they themselves would seldom possess. Things are a little better in England, but even if an English Committee were able to lay before the French people the exact truth, no part of it would be believed except what agreed with the national prejudices or party prepossessions of each person. For these reasons, I hope too little from your experiment to be willing to take part in it, though I shd be most highly gratified if it were successful.
Your note of the 17th ulto has been forwarded to me here. I only received while at Luzern one letter which was not intended for you and this I returned personally to the Luzern post office. I shd add that the letter in question did not bear your name on the cover.
I beg to acknowledge your letter of Sept. 28 & your tract on Tenant Right.2 I have read both of them with interest but it is out of the question that I shd make an application to Mr Gladstone tending to procure for you any pecuniary benefit. I have made it a rule not to use influence with any Govt for such a purpose even if I possessed it, & to this rule I could not make you an exception even if I were competent to judge of the inventions referred to in your letter.
I return the pamphlet as I infer from your letter that you have not at present any other copy.
Votre lettre du 18 septembre m’a été envoyée de Londres, mais votre brochure ne m’est pas encore parvenue.2 Je n’ai pourtant pas besoin d’attendre son arrivée pour vous témoigner ma profonde sympathie pour les opinions dont votre lettre m’apprend qu’elle est l’expression. Rien ne me donne plus d’espérance pour l’avenir de la France, que le mouvement qui se montre pour l’autonomie de la personne humaine et pour le gouvernement républicain, fédératif: et je ne doute pas que je ne trouve dans votre brochure, comme j’ai trouvé dans votre lettre, de nouveaux motifs d’encouragement à ce sujet.
J’apprends avec plaisir que vous avez collaboré à la traduction de mes volumes de Mélanges.3 Je vous donne à vous et à M. Boirac4 pleine liberté de vous qualifier de traducteurs autorisés par moi. Seulement je vous prie de vouloir bien avertir le lecteur que je n’ai pas vu la traduction; non pas assurément par méfiance de son mérite, mais parce que, n’ayant pas le loisir de la lire et de l’examiner, je trouve juste d’en laisser l’honneur et la responsabilité à qui de droit.
Agréez, Monsieur, l’assurance de ma considération distinguée et de mes sentiments amicaux.
P.S. as you say that Mr Leverson2 has printed notes of mine by way of testimonials Edition: current; Page:  for the office of President of a College,3 it is well you shd know that I never gave him my permission to do so, & moreover that the notes were all written before the occurrences which led to his leaving England. I have no knowledge of those occurrences, nor have I any opinion as to whether they are at all discreditable to him, but I could not have given him anything of the nature of a recommendation for such an office without knowing more about these transactions than I do.
I thank you for your letter of the 22nd of April last. The information it contains relating to the politics of Victoria is very interesting, as to me much of it was new.
I entirely agree with you that compulsory & secular education is the most important of all questions for Australia. If this can be obtained, & successfully worked, all other questions will, in a country like yours, very soon come right of themselves. It is to be feared that the new ministry, having a Catholic though one of the best of Catholics at its head,2 will do all it can to discourage this movement. As for state-assisted immigration, whether it is desirable or not it clearly ought not to be carried into effect in opposition to the public opinion of the colony. But I have always thought that the unoccupied lands of Australia were prematurely given up to the governments of the several colonies, & ought to have been reserved as the property of the empire at large until much greater progress had been made in peopling them. The renunciation of them was by no means a necessary consequence of the introduction of responsible government. The step, however, cannot be retraced & it is to be hoped that the principle of the State being the sole landlord may be adopted in Australia so far as respects unappropriated land while there still remains a great quantity of land in that condition.
I cannot agree with Mr Higinbotham3 in his idea that the legislature shd consist Edition: current; Page:  of only 40 or 50 members, elected by the whole of the colony as one constituency, & largely remunerated. Forty or fifty are too few for a deliberative assembly, & too many for an administrative board, neither is it desirable that the legislature should administer; & if men are paid two or three thousand a year merely for legislating, they will think themselves bound to earn their salary by legislating a great deal too much. Besides, so long as Hare’s system4 is not adopted, the uniting of the whole electorate as one body would deprive all minorities of even the imperfect representation which the accidents of local opinion give them & the majority alone would be ever heard in the legislature.
As to the question of separation, my conviction is, that it shd rest entirely with the Australian people, & that our Govt & Parlt shd exert no pressure either way. A time will of course come when the Australian colonies, feeling strong enough to defend themselves unassisted against any attack, will think the power of England to involve them in her wars without consulting them, an evil more than equivalent to the advantage of English protection. I confess that I shd reject separation, but I do not think that the federal principle can be worked successfully when the different members of the confederacy are scattered all over the world; & I think the English people would prefer separation to an equal federation.
I hope your university will soon follow the example of the university of Sydney & that of Chicago, in the admission of women.5 At Chicago even the law school has lately been opened to them on exactly the same conditions as to male students.6 Their admission to serve on juries in the Territory of Wyoming has been, according to the testimony of the Chief Justice who had opposed it,7 eminently successful.
I thank you for your pamphlet2 which I have read with great interest & which seems to me both well argued and well written. You have confined yourself to a single item in the large subject of justice to women; but that one item is of very great importance; & you have the advantage in that instance, of making out what seems to be a case of necessity, since from your statements it appears that unless women are admitted to a large share in the work of public teaching, the popular education which is the glory of Germany is in danger not merely of remaining stationary but even of degenerating. I congratulate you cordially on your valuable contribution to the cause both of women & of education & I hope it is not the only one which they are destined to receive from you as a writer.
Il n’y a presque pas de changements dans la dernière (la septième) édition de mes Principes d’Economie Politique.2 Mais la traduction a été faite, si je ne m’y trompe pas, sur la troisième édition, et il a été fait assez de changements depuis lors pour qu’il me semble désirable que le traducteur en tienne compte.3
Ma fille se recommande particulièrement à vos bons souvenirs. Elle a été beaucoup fatiguée, sans quoi elle se serait donné le plaisir d’aller chez vous en passant par Paris.Edition: current; Page: 
Veuillez agréer, Mademoiselle, l’expression de ma considération la plus distinguée.
I have read your letter with warm interest and sympathy, & the practical effect on my mind would be to wish that you would pursue the plan that has suggested itself to you, because it would, whatever its result, be one of those moralizing influences of which there are so few & of which the world wants so many; & also because the fact that it has suggested itself to you makes you the fit person to carry it out.
The only point in which I do not agree with you is the impression that the present time is a time of crisis. I have always felt very strongly the truth of St. Paul’s saying, “Behold now is the acceptable time: behold now is the time of salvation.”2 As every day of our lives is a new year’s day, so the more one reads history & watches one’s own time, does it appear to me that every time is a time of crisis: & perhaps those times in which it appears the most on the surface are the least so in fact; for it is the silent workings in men’s minds which are the true crises of history. Connected with my disagreement, if I have understood you rightly, on this point, is my deep agreement with you on the want now beginning to be felt of new, high, & definite, moral purposes—purposes capable too of inspiring lasting enthusiasm. But I think that it will never be possible to work on any great scale on the minds of the working classes, excepting by the same means & at the same time that we work upon the minds of the earnest & intelligent among other classes. In the present state of education & civilisation, working men of native energy & talent are open to the same influences as other people: & the most lasting effects upon the more commonplace characters in their own rank will be produced by these men, & not by their social superiors, however devoted & earnest.
I look upon it as the great work now to be done, to build up a system of morals capable of inspiring enthusiasm & satisfying the intellect. My own belief is that Edition: current; Page:  this will be a development of Xtianity, properly understood; that it must be a development from the state at which we are now arrived, worked out by many minds, for that it is a task far beyond the powers of any one; & that we are all contributing to it,—bringing stones as it were to the building of the temple, when we attempt to clear up any high point of morals or philosophy or science, inasmuch as truth will be the great object of our new system, & the world is beginning to learn how precious truth is in little things & in great. Thus it seems to me that your plan might do much, as tending both to love of truth & to human sympathy: but that lasting progress in the moral nature of all classes must come by the same means, & that we can only hope for it to come very gradually.
Abonnement au Journal des Economistes pour l’année 1873
M. J.S. Mill prie M. le maître de l’Hotel Windsor2 de lui garder le petit apartement à l’entresol sur la rue pour vendredi soir le 7 février, ou si cet apartement est pris de lui donner un autre appartement sur la rue. M. Mill compte arriver vendredi vers 6½ h du soir et prie qu’il y ait du feu et qu’un diner fut préparé pour son arrivée.
Will you do us the pleasure of dining with us here at seven o’clock on Friday next, March 21st? I am, Dear Mr Courtney
It would have given my daughter and myself great pleasure to have dined with you and Mrs Conway,2 and to have met Mr Emerson and his daughter;3 but we have a long standing engagement to dine with Mr and Mrs Cairnes4 on the 12th. I am, Dear Mr Conway
After seeing you I remembered a prior dinner engagement which in an unfortunate hour I made & should have written to you about it, but that from what Grant told me I concluded there was no chance for this Wednesday.
It is provoking, but pray try to fix some other day.
I presume this2 is printed only for private use. If it were to appear in any newspaper or be otherwise published I should wish my name for various reasons to be struck out.
As it stands, I have no correction to make in what you make me say, as I have no objection to the substance of it & it only purports to be your report of a conversation. If I were speaking for myself I should state my opinion in rather different words, but that, if it is sure not to be published, is immaterial.
I have not shewn it to Peacock or Melvill3 & had rather not to the Edition: current; Page:  latter—therefore I should not save you any trouble by becoming your medium of communication with the former.
If I were you I would for the sake of apparent fairness cite rather than describe the “ambiguous” letter from Hume,2 & I would avoid the words hallucination or monomania. It seems to me that if you also suppressed the whole of the concluding paragraph you would not at all weaken the effect. All which is there said is so completely suggested by the previous paragraph that you do not strengthen the impression by adding anything more.
Perhaps also the short note, which is as it were the “lie direct” had better be omitted.
If the article is to be made up it is I conclude only to save time & not to preclude alterations afterwards. But I shall see all about it today.
It appears that your official frank is of no validity quoad postage to or in India—Even the President of the Board of Control sends his India letters here to be franked by the Chairman, Deputy Chn or Secretary who alone have the power of franking—& whom I hardly like to ask to frank anything larger than a letter since I cannot say that it is for strictly official purposes. Perhaps there may be an opportunity of sending by a private hand.
I have great pleasure in introducing to you Mr Fox, whom I need not say that you ought to know, & that he ought to know you—I am desirous on every account to make him and you acquainted, & should probably have taken another opportunity, if one had not presented itself on which you may possibly be of use to him. He will explain in what way—
I will duly account to Chapman for the cheque.2
I go into town daily at the usual time—about ¼ before 9.3
The L. & W. review will be published about the end of this month. If there is any little thing which you could do for it there is still room, & it would give me much pleasure.
I am extremely sorry to hear that you are unwell—and still more sorry that you sat up waiting for me—especially as I was a little behind my time; I was too late partly by being too early, and partly by making too much haste—according to the old proverb.
I shall leave town for a few weeks on Friday night—if we could finish this matter first it would be better, but if it would task your health or your convenience in the least, we will wait till I return—which I shall regret the less, as it will be somewhat inconvenient to myself to come here tomorrow evening—however I think I could come.
A note addressed to me at the India House, early tomorrow, will reach me in time. I leave at four.
I would come to you tomorrow evening with great pleasure but I am engaged, I am afraid for all the evening.
I will certainly have the pleasure of attending the celebration2 on the 25th July.
Though very busy, I shall be happy to see you and your two friends:2 I shall be in town this afternoon about three, and will have the pleasure of calling on you then if convenient to you. If not I shall be glad to see you here between two and three o’clock on Monday. I am
I very much recommend writing as an occupation of leisure, & as a means of self-improvement, but not as a profession, or in the hope of making money by it. The very best writers have almost always to wait many years before they attain the reputation which procures lucrative literary employment. If you like to send me your essay, I will willingly read it, but however high my opinion of it may be, I cannot recommend it to editors, from which even in the case of personal friends I find it necessary to abstain. I see no objection to a young writer himself offering his writings to editors or publishers. He must expect to be generally unsuccessful, & will do well to persevere in writing & to be content with such chance successes as may offer themselves.
I have received from you an acknowledgment of the receipt of my notice for Policy No. [blank] but no acknowledgment of my Policy No. [blank] & of the fact that you have received the original policies Nos. & all of which came under the same cover as the notice No. [blank] receipt of which you have acknowledged. I shd be obliged therefore by receiving an acknowledgment in form of the original policies of both numbers.
the variant readings below result from a collation of the versions of Mill’s letters to Theodor Gomperz, already published in Vols. XIV-XVII of the Collected Works, and not reprinted above, with copies of the manuscripts in the collection at Kokugakuin University. Differences in salutations and complimentary closings have not been noted. Page and line numbers at the left refer to Collected Works, Vols. XIV-XVII. The reading found there is given first; the manuscript reading follows in square brackets.
238.8 I have the [I have had the]
238.8 20th of July [20th July]
581.7 could give [would give]
589.12 post or [post either in France or]
739.11 Aug. 21 [Aug. 24]
740.8 Avignon where [Avignon (Saint Véran, près Avignon, Vaucluse) where]
861.21 June 6 [5 or 6 June] [5 or written in another hand]
862.11 necessity of [necessity or utility of]
862.12 of excusing [or excusing]
862.14 Nobody [No one]
862.18 could be [would be]
863.5 unchangeable [unchangeably]
863.9 anything [whatever]
863.11 will have [will always have]
863.13 your feelings [your friendly feelings]
865.27 July 5 [July 15]
866.3 & will [and I will]
866.13 pro Archia [pro Archia]
866.14 literature—when [literature. Whether]
866.17 store [stores]
866.25 as makes [as to make]
866.30 chiefly [cheerfully]
874.31 greatest . . . I [gravest . . . I]
1197.13-14 Rien . . . succès [Rien . . . succès]
1197.29 made. It [made: it]
1197.33 this year [the year]
1356.18 Jan. 27 [Jan. 28]
1357.19 were [was]Edition: current; Page: 
1357.24 your publications [your various publications]
1374.34 P[ark] [Park / Kent]
1375.3 of Porphyry [on Porphyry]
1375.7 make sure [take care]
1391.2 P[ark] [Park, Kent]
1391.30 out [down]
1655.22 to yours [with yours]
1655.32 effective [effectual]
1655.33 with either good [with good]
1655.34 cases [case]
1655.37 grateful [thankful]
as examiner of Indian Correspondence in the East India House, Mill served as Clerk to the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors. In this capacity, he frequently wrote to the responsible official of the Board of Control, Thomas N. Waterfield (Senior Clerk in the Secret Department), to request the release of various secret documents. The form letter on these occasions, prepared by a clerk for Mill’s signature, was worded: “I am directed by the Secret Committee to request, that the Right Honorable the Commissioners for the Affairs of India will be pleased to authorize the Committee to communicate to the Court of Directors the undermentioned Secret Papers . . . .” Details of the necessary documents followed.
The list below provides the location of these requests in the India Office Library and Records, the date, and a brief summary of the subject matter of the letter.
|L/P&S/3/52 (347)||4 May, 1857||Persian Expedition|
|/54 (525)||29 June, 1857||Disaffection of Bengal Native Troops|
|(641)||July 1857||Mutinous proceedings of Bengal Native Troops; Application to Lord Elgin (on his way to China) for European troops|
|/55 (1)||1 Aug., 1857||Mutinies of Bengal Native Troops, N.W.P.|
|/56 (211)||19 Oct., 1857||Aspect of Affairs and Military resources in Madras|
|/53 (399)||16 Nov., 1857||Services of Officers employed in Persian Gulf Expedition brought to notice|
|(535)||18 Dec., 1857||Services of Officers employed in Persian Expedition|
|/60 (121)||5 Feb., 1858||Addition of 3 Regiments of European Infantry to the Army in India|
|(129)||6 Feb., 1858||Sentiments of the Sultan respecting the Indian Mutinies; Announcement of Intended Contributions by the Shah of|
|Persia and his Prime Minister to the Indian Relief Fund|
|(173)||19 Feb., 1858||Correspondence between Viscount Canning and the Earl of Elgin on the subject of directing the troops on their way to China to proceed to India|
|(339)||25 Mar., 1858||Services rendered by Maun Singh and others to fugitive Europeans|
|(359)||30 Mar., 1858||Application to the Governor General of Australia for Troops|
|(439)||9 Apr., 1858||Delhi fortifications|
|(463)||14 Apr., 1858||Annexation of Dhar; Services rendered by Maun Singh to fugitive Europeans|
|(501)||24 Apr., 1858||Policy to be pursued with regard to Mutineers and others|
|(529)||20 May, 1858||Affairs of Oude|
|(545)||27 May, 1858||Annexation of Dhar|
|(565)||31 May, 1858||Disarming in Guzerat, etc.|
|/61 (13)||8 June, 1858||Disarming in Guzerat|
|(103)||21 June, 1858||Disarming of the Population of Guzerat|
|(119)||6 July, 1858||Services of Maharajah Jung Bahadoor and Nepaul Troops|
|(275)||22 July, 1858||Services of the Guickwar|
|(295)||23 July, 1858||Case of Mr. Hudson, Agent of the Rajah of Joudpoor|
|(375)||3 Aug., 1858||Lord Harding’s Minute on Corporal Punishment; Oudh Proclamation|
|(411)||6 Aug., 1858||Disarming in Guzerat|
|(525)||23 Aug., 1858||Approval to make the 25th Bombay Native Infantry [a] Light Infantry Regiment|
one opening of MSS Eur B405 in the India Office Library and Records, the list Mill kept of his Indian Despatches, was unfortunately not recorded in Appendix A of Writings on India, Volume XXX of the Collected Works. The missing six entries, which fall between those there listed as Nos. 925 and 926, are here given numbers 925/1 to 925/6.
925/1 16 Apr., 1834. PC 1236, Dr 207, D 7: E/4/1057, pp. 793-836; L/P&S/6/289, pp. -.
925/2 16 Apr., 1834; affairs of Kathiawar. PC 1215, Dr 176, D 5: E/4/1057, pp. 739-78; L/P&S/6/288, pp. 333-.
925/3 2 July, 1834; affairs of the Gaikwar. PC 1309, Dr 360, D 9: E/4/1058, pp. 9-19; L/P&S/6/290, pp. 425-.
925/4 26 Sept., 1834; Southern Maratha states and jagirdars. PC 1329, Dr 473, D 11: E/4/1058, pp. 295-355; L/P&S/6/291, pp. 5-.
925/5 20 Aug., 1834; Persian Gulf. PC 1339, Dr 435, D 10: E/4/1058, pp. 199-222; L/P&S/6/290, pp. 793-.
925/6 5 Nov., 1834. PC 1353, Dr 524, D 12: E/4/1058, pp. 479-537; L/P&S/6/391, pp. 187-.
Two corrigenda are also necessary:
722X For D 16 of 4 July, 1855, substitute D 26 of 10 Oct., 1855.
920X Affairs of Kathiawar. See full entry at new 925/2 above.
this alphabetical list of those whose letters to Mill are extant gives birth and death dates when known, followed by the dates and the location of the letters in manuscript and printed sources. When all its elements are doubtful, a date is enclosed in square brackets and preceded by a question mark. If only one element is conjectural, the question mark follows that element. If a question mark stands alone, it indicates that no information is available. When non-institutional locations are given, we have used the latest information available, but the phrase “at one time” should be understood. The following abbreviations are used:
|A||Palais du Roure, Avignon; summarized in MNL, XV (Summer 1980)|
|Hayek||F.A. Hayek, John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor: Their Friendship and Subsequent Marriage (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1951)|
|JH||Johns Hopkins University|
|MNL||Mill News Letter|
|MT||Mill-Taylor Collection, British Library of Political and Economic Science|
|NLS||National Library of Scotland|
|UCL||University College London|
Acland, Thomas Dyke (1809-98) / 25 Nov., 1868 / JH
Adams, W.O. / 2 Nov., 1865 / JH
Adcroft, George / 10 June, 1870 / JH
Adderley, Charles Bowyer (1814-1905) / 26 Aug.,  / MT
Allen, Grant (1848-99) / 4 Sept., 1872 / JH
Allen, John (1810-86) / 22 May, 1867 / JH
28 May, 1867 / JH
Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. See Shrives
Amberley. See Russell
American and Continental Literary Agency / 15 May, 1871 (enclosed with Trübner’s of 19 May, 1871) / Y
American Social Science Association. See Villard
Amnesty Committee. See Sherman
Anon. (an American supporter of women’s suffrage) / ? / YEdition: current; Page: 
Appleton & Co. / 28 Mar., 1873 / MT
Argyll. See George Campbell
Arlès-Dufour, François Barthélemy (1797-1872) / 26 Sept., 1870 / JH
15 Nov., 1870 / JH
Arnold, Edwin (1832-1904) / 8 May, 1872 / Y
Arvers (?), Félix / 18 Feb., 1870 / MT
Ashburton. See Baring
Ashworth, Lilias S. (National Society for Women’s Suffrage, Bristol & West of England Branch) / 27 Jan., 1873 / MT
Aspland, Lindsey Middleton (1843-91) / 19 Feb., 1868 / JH
Austin, John (1790-1859) / 27 June, 1842 / MT
25 and 26 Dec., 1844 / Y
Austin, Sarah (1793-1867) / 10 June, 1836 / MT
3 Mar., 1837 / MT
7 Nov., [1839?] / MT
Babbage, Charles (1792-1871) / 27 June, 1864 / BL
Baer, Constantino / 12 May, 1856 / JH
2 Jan., 1872 / Y
5 June, 1872 / JH
26 Sept., 1872 / JH
Bailey, Samuel (1791-1870) / 14 Apr., 1862 / JH
27 Mar., 1863 / JH
Bain, Alexander (1818-1903) / 14 Mar., 1859 / NLS
18 Jan., 1863 / JH
14 May, 1864 / JH
27 Oct., 1867 / JH
30 Nov., 1867 / JH
28 May, 1869 / JH
10 July, 1869 / Y
19 July, 1870 / JH
16 Aug., 1870 / JH
Balard, Antoine Jérôme (1802-76) / all MT; and in MNL, XXII (Summer 1987)
27 June, 1822
4 Apr., 1827
19 Jan., 1831
Baring, William Bingham (Lord Ashburton) (1774-1848) / 26 May, 1851 / Y
Barnard, James Munson (1819-1904) / 8 Aug., 1869 / Y
3 Oct., 1869 / Y
Barnes, A.S., & Co. / 29 Apr., 1873 / MT
Barrett, Thomas Squire (b. 1842) / 8 Feb., 1872 / JH
7 Mar., 1872 / JH
11 Apr., 1872 / JH
14 May, 1872 / JH
Barry, M. Maltman (1842-1909) / 18 May, 1870 / A
(Political Refugee Society) / 20 Apr., 1872 / MT
Barry, William / 27 June, 1872 / MT
Barzelotti, Giacomo / Mar. 1872 / MT
Bates, Frederick / 6 Nov., 1868 / MT; TT, 11 Nov., 1868, 5
Beal, James (1829-91) / 4 Mar., 1865 / JH
12 Apr., 1865 / JH
9 Dec., 1868 / Y
2 Feb., 1869 / JH
Beales, Edmund (1803-81) / 2 Mar., 1867 / JH
Beaumont, Gustave de (1802-66) / 21 Aug., 1835 / MT
Beggs, Thomas (1808-96) / 21 Sept., 1868 / JH
19 Nov., 1868 / JH
Benedetti (?) / 16 Oct., 1870 / MT
Bentham, George (1800-84) / 16 June, 1832 / MT
Bentham, Jeremy (1748-1832) / 5 Apr., 1827 / Y
18 Apr., 1827 / Y
24 Apr., 1827 / Y
24 Apr., 1827 / Y
Bentley, W. / 7 Aug., 1868 / MT
Bernard, Theodore (?) / 30 Oct., 1871 / MT
Bernays, Leopold John (1820-82) / 3 Jan., 1868 / Y
21 Jan., 1868 / Y
Bickley, Joseph / 4 Feb., 1873 / MT
Bird, J.S. / 29 Oct., 1868 / MT
Bisset, Andrew (1803-99) / 31 Mar., 1873 / MT
Black, Euphemia / 29 June, 1867 / MT
Blackwell, Anna (ca. 1817-1900) / 12 Aug., 1851 / JHEdition: current; Page: 
Blanc, Jean Joseph Louis (1811-82) / 3 July, 1858 / JH
1 July, 1864 / Y
28 Mar., 1865 / Y
Bon Pasteur Monastery. See Marie de St. Elie
Booker, Frederick / 30 Oct., 1870 / JH
18 Nov., 1870 / JH
Bourne, Henry Richard Fox (1837-1909) / 7 Jan., 1872 / MT
5 May, 1873 / MT
Bouverie, Edward Pleydell (1818-89) / 26 Sept., 1868 / JH; TT, 16 Oct., 1868, 10
13 Oct., 1868 / JH; TT, 16 Oct., 1868, 10
23 Oct., 1868 / TT, 24 Oct., 1868, 3
Brace, Charles Loring (1826-90) / 30 June, ? / MT
11 Dec., 1870 / JH
4 July, 1871 / JH
Bradford, Gamaliel (1831-1911) / 5 Dec., 1865 / Samuel Jones Loyd, The Correspondence of Lord Overstone, ed. D.P. O’Brien, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971)
Bradlaugh, Charles (1833-91) / 19 Nov., 1868 / JH
Brandes, Georg Morris Cohen (1842-1927) / 9 Jan., 1872 / JH; Correspondance de Georg Brandes, ed. Paul Kruger, 2 vols. (Copenhagen: Rosehilde and Bagger, 1952)
Brandreth, Henry Samuel (1841-1919) / 2 Feb., 1867 / JH
Brentano, Franz Clemens (1838-1917) / 2 Feb., 1871 / H
before 4 Mar., 1872 / Prof. R.M. Chisholm, Brown University
29 Nov., 1872 / H
19 Jan., 1873 / H
3 May, 1873 / MT
Brewer, William (d. 1881) / 8 July, 1865 / MT
Bridges, John Henry (1832-1906) / 10 Nov., 1867 / JH
Broadhurst, Henry (1840-1911) (Labour Representation League) / 17 Mar., 1873 / MT
28 Mar., 1873 / MT
Broadwood, John, & Sons / 21 Feb., 1872 / MT
13 Mar., 1872 / MT
Browning, Oscar (1837-1923) / 14 Oct., 1867 / JH
Brunialti, A. / 6 Aug., 1871 / MT
30 Aug., 1871 / MT
Bryce, James (1838-1922) / 20 Jan.,  / MT
Buckle, John / 31 Dec., 1868 / MT
9 Jan., 1869 / MT
Buller, Charles (1806-48) / 13 Oct., 1838 / Dominion of Canada, Report of the Public Archives for the Year 1928 (Ottawa, 1929), App. F, 74-7
19 Oct., 1838 / MT
Buller, John (1771-1849) / 17 ?, ? / MT
Bundey, William H. / 21 May, 1872 / MT
Bureau de Bienfaisance d’Avignon / 23 May, 1859 / MT
Burnett, E.L. / 26 July, 1870 / MT
Burns, J. Dawson (1828-1909) / 6 Nov., 1868 / TT, 10 Nov., 1868, 4; Falmouth and Penryn Weekly Times, 14 Nov., 1868
Burton, Samuel Warren / 29 Oct., 1868 / Morning Star, 29 Oct., 1868, 2
Cairnes, John Elliott (1823-75) / MS copies in MT unless otherwise noted; some quoted in Mill’s Principles of Political Economy [PPE], CW, III
8 Apr., 1859
14 May, 1861
1 Aug., 1861
25 Aug., 1861
21 Nov., 1861
4 Mar., 1862
8 July, 1862
8 Dec., 1862
18 Dec., 1862
23 Dec., 1862
4 Feb., 1863
10 Sept., 1863
9 Dec., 1863
21 Dec., 1863
13 Oct., 1864 / PPE
29 Nov., 1864 / PPE
6 Dec., 1864 / PPE
23 Dec., 1864 / PPE
25 Dec., 1864 / PPEEdition: current; Page: 
9 Jan., 1865 / PPE
24 Jan., 1865 / PPE
5 Feb., 1865 / PPE
1 Mar., 1865 / PPE
13 Mar., 1865 / PPE
17 Mar., 1865
20 Mar., 1865
27 Mar., 1865 / PPE
2 June, 1865 / PPE
20 Aug., 1865
28 Aug., 1865
9 Jan., 1866
25 Jan., 1866
6 Feb., 1866
10 Feb., 1866
14 Feb., 1866 (2)
29 Mar., 1866
28 June, 1866
7 July, 1866
12 July, 1866
18 July, 1866
20 May, 1867
10 June, 1867
7 July, 1867
26 July, 1867 / JH
29 July, 1867 / Y
2 Aug., 1867
11 Aug., 1867
7 Sept., 1867
15 Feb., 1868
21 May, 1868 / JH
9 Nov., 1868
12 Dec., 1868
13 Apr., 1869
23 May, 1869
9 Nov., 1869 / JH
26 Nov., 1869 / JH
21 Dec., 1869
13 Jan., 1870
28 Feb., 1870
17 Apr., 1870
10 Sept., 1870
22 Sept., 1870
25 Aug., 1871
23 Oct., 1871
24 Dec., 1871
9 Apr., 1872
2 May, 1872 / JH
6 May, 1872
16 June, 1872
20 Dec., 1872
Callerall, P. / 2 Oct., 1868 / JH
Campbell, Alexander D. / 14 Feb., 1870 / JH
3 Mar., 1870 / Y
Campbell, George Douglas (Duke of Argyll) (1823-1900) / 2 Feb., 1864 / Y
Campbell, John (1779-1861) / 31 Mar., 1866 / JH
9 Apr., 1866 / JH
Candlish, John (1815-74) / 27 Nov., 1868 / JH
Capel, George / 3 Nov., 1866 / MT
1 June, 1868 / MT
12 June, 1868 / MT
Capper, Samuel James / 11 Apr., 1873 / MT
Carlyle, Thomas (1795-1881) / MSS in NLS unless otherwise noted; also in Collected Letters of Thomas and Jane Welsh Carlyle, ed. C.R. Sanders, et al. (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1970- ), from which the dates are taken
[5 Oct., 1831]
[? Oct., 1831] / King’s College, Cambridge
[12 Mar., 1832]
18 May, 1832
16 June, 1832
28 Aug., 1832
16 Oct., 1832
19 Nov., 1832
12 Jan., 1833
22 Feb., 1833
21 Mar., 1833
18 Apr., 1833
1 May, 1833
13 June, 1833
18 July, 1833
10 Sept., 1833
24 Sept., 1833
28 Oct., 1833
17 Dec., 1833
24 Dec., 1833
20 Jan., 1834
22 Feb., 1834
18 Apr., 1834
[18 Aug., 1834]Ed