l:) BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF iicnrg 133, Sage 1891 .y^.;l.^3'/.^/. y^^/Zd:. 6896-1 Date Due jA W ' 8 t:lg59Kt| - Jfim. ..ftH-M^:1?'?*?^ **- ^^ ^^'^-Mm-fi"^- Qt0^>1!ill S^^^ CORNELL UNIVERSITY .LIBRARY 3 1924 092 298 466 f Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924092298466 THE LETTERS OF JOHN STUART MILL WORKS BY JOHN STUART MILL AUTOBIOGRAPHY. With Photogravure Por- trait, from a Painting by G. F. Watts. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. net. Popular Edition (without Portrait). Paper cover, 6d. POLITICAL ECONOMY. Library Edition. 2 vols. 8vo, 30s. ' Silver Library ' Edition. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. New Edition, with an Introduction by W. J. Ashley, M.A. ,M.Com. Crown 8vo, 5s. A SYSTEM OF LOGIC. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. HANDBOOK TO MILL'S SYSTEM OF LOGIC. By Rev. A. H. KiLLiCK, M.A. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. ON LIBERTY. Crown 8vo, is. 4d. CONSIDERATIONS ON REPRESENTA- TIVE GOVERNMENT. Crown 8vo, 2S. UTILITARIANISM. 8vo, 2s. 6d. EXAMINATION OF SIR WILLIAM HAMIL- TON'S PHILOSOPHY. 8vo, i6s. NATURE, THE UTILITY OF RELIGION, AND THEISM. Three Essays. 8vo, 5s. INAUGURAL ADDRESS AT ST. ANDREWS. Crown 8vo, is, THE SUBJECTION OF WOMEN. Edited, with Introductory Analysis, by Stanton Coit, Ph.D. Crown 8vo, 3s. net. Popular Edition, paper covers, 6d. net. LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. LONDON, NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA ^fo/iii cftuccrt c /ft// Jroni tJut fjurtra.U by ^/ ^V --ic rt tf^ THE LETTERS OF JOHN STUART MILL EDITED, WITH AN INTRODUCTION, BY HUGH S. R. ELLIOT WITH A NOTE ON MILL'S PRIVATE LIFE, BY MARY TAYLOR VOL. II WITH PORTRAITS LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA 1910 All rights reserved ^.U-A-b' \ -V \ CONTENTS IX. 1864-1865 . X. 1866-1867 . XL 1868 . XII. 1869 . XIII. 1870 . XIV. 1871 . XV. 1872-1873 . Appendix A Appendix B Index . 51 106 169 233 291 326 357 387 397 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS JOHN STUART MILL {Photo^avure) . . Frontispiece From a Photograph by Frederick Hollyer of a painting by G. F. Watts. HELEN TAYLOR ... . To face p. 51 From a Silhouette. JOHN STUART MILL . . ... ,,233 From a Cameo. THE LETTERS OF JOHN STUART MILL CHAPTER IX 1864-1865 To W. E. Gladstone, on the Alabama case. St. V^ran, 22nd January 1864. My dear Sir, — When I took the hberty of sending jgg^ you Mr. Loring's pamphlet, nothing was further from my — thoughts than to engage you in a controversy of any sort. Aetat. 57. I am much honoured by your having spared time to write to me so fully on the subject, and am very glad to find, in the view you take of it, nothing from which I differ in principle. I did not mean to identify myself with all Mr. Loring's sentiments ; I think him decidedly unjust to our Government, which has shown itself throughout in a far more favourable light than the predominant portion of our public. But he seemed to me to be often right, and when wrong, only in a manner in which it is most natural and scarcely unreasonable that an American should be so. I thought that his statement would interest you, and that your being acquainted with it might perhaps be of use. In addition to the two important points touched on in your letter, it seems to me that several others are raised by Mr. Loring. I pass over those which are evidently untenable, or which have a moral but not a jurisprudential value. But he argues — ist. That a State which, professing itself neutral, does VOL. n. A Aetat. 57. 2 TO W. E. GLADSTONE 1864 not make all reasonable exertions to enforce the obliga- tions of neutrality upon its own subjects, gives to the belligerent who is prejudiced by their acts just ground of complaint, and in certain cases lays itself open to a demand of indemnity, and that the Government of the United States has faithfully acted on this principle at times when we were belligerents and they were neutrals. 2nd. That the use of neutral territory as a place where an expedition may be fitted out, and from which it may issue and execute warlike operations without having ac- quired the right to do so in the country of the belligerent whom it serves, is, by international law, not a commercial operation but a hostile act. 3rd. That the Alabama, &c., in burning their prizes before condemnation by any prize court, are acting in a manner forbidden by international law, and which deprives them of any claim to the privileges or immunities which distinguish regularly commissioned cruisers from pirates. 4th. That those cruisers have made use of the British flag in a manner which brings them within the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 17 and 18 Vict., chap. 104. As to the argument which Mr. Loring founds on the fact that the ships were built by contract, his reason for insisting so strongly on that point probably is that it makes the precedent of the Santisima Trinidad so far inapplicable. He would no doubt be very glad to get rid of that case altogether, and to have it ruled that ships of war must not be sold at all by a neutral country to a belligerent. This opinion — which I hope I am not mistaken in thinking that you are not far from agreeing in — is forcibly maintained in an article by Professor Cairnes in Macmillan's Magazine for the present month, which seems to me one of the ablest and most valuable papers which this controversy has called forth. But to return to Mr. Loring. He regards the building by con- tract as intrinsically important simply as evidence of intent. You think that the intent of the Confederate agents may admit of proof, but not that of the builder. Doubtless it is in general neither provable nor probable TO ALEXANDER BAIN 3 that the motive of the builder was one of hostility or was 1864 any other than the profit of the transaction, but his — intention, I apprehend, depends only upon whether or "^^'-SA not he knew that he was selling the ship to an agent of a belligerent. I presume that on the general principles of law any one would be held to have intended all such consequences of his actions as he foreknew or expected. I should be much to blame in replying to your letter by so long a one as this did I not add my sincere hope that you will not consider it necessary to make the smallest answer to it. I thank you heartily for your kind invitation to your breakfasts, and I promise myself to make use of the privilege. I do not expect to be in England for the first two months after Easter, but shall be there in June. — I am, my dear sir, very truly yours, J. S. Mill. To Alexander Bain. Blackheath Park, i^th March 1864. Dear Bain, — I was much delighted by receiving your new edition.i You must have worked very hard to get it out so soon. I have not yet come to much of the new matter as I am reading the book regularly through from the beginning, but the remaining portion of my task with Hamilton will soon be plain sailing. I am very glad the additions are considerable, as they will all tend to the clearing up of difficulties. I have read your Grammar with considerable care and attention. It is a great improvement on any other grammar that I have seen, and as far as I can judge, I think you right on all the questions of theory. Nobody has so completely got to the bottom of shall and will. As to minute details, I found myself every now and then differing from you — chiefly, though not always, in cases where you seemed to me to draw grammatical principles too tight, to the exclusion of modes of speech which have a real raison d'etre. But all these are points open to 1 [Of " The Senses and the Intellect."] 4 TO ALEXANDER BAIN 1864 discussion, and I should not have such confidence in — my own impressions if you did not agree with them when etat. 57- g^a^g^j^ j j^^^g j-jq^ written them down, but I have made references by which I can recall them if wanted. In consequence mainly of your last letter, I have been reading Spencer's "First Principles" over again. On the whole I like it less than the first time. He is so good that he ought to be better. His a priori system is more consistent than Hamilton's, but quite as fundamentally absurd ; in fact, there is the same erroneous assumption at the bottom of both. And most of his general prin- ciples strike me as being little more than verbal or at most empirical generalisations, with no warrant for their being considered laws. As you truly say, his doctrine that the Persistence of Force is a datum of Consciousness is exactly Hamilton's strange theory of Causation. But how weak his proof of it. We cannot, he says, conceive a beginning, because all consciousness is consciousness of difference, and when the true terms of the comparison are Something and Nothing, one of the two is not a possible object of consciousness at all. This is merely a play on the word Nothing, very like one which Hamilton shows up in his discussion of the different theories of Causation. " Nothing " cannot be an object of consciousness, but the absence of Something may be. We can be conscious of x, and conscious of the universe minus x, and of ourselves minus x, and the difference between these two states is the difference required by the law of Consciousness. Neither does Spencer, any more than Tyndall, remove any of my difficulties about the Conservation of Force. The law of Conservation, as exhibited in the cases which go farthest to prove it, consists in this, that one form of force only ceases to manifest itself when a force equivalent in quantity, but of a different form, manifests itself instead. When a ball strikes another ball, the force which the first ball loses does not become latent ; the motion lost is either transferred entire to the other ball, or, if any of it is lost sight of, the corresponding amount of force re- TO ALEXANDER BAIN 5 appears in an increase of temperature. As, however, we 1864 know that there is latent heat, I can conceive that force — in general might become latent and remain unmanifested "^ ^ • 57- even for many geological periods, reappearing identical in quantity at their close. But I have not seen the formulae of the theory so expressed as to place such a fact as this in a rational and comprehensive light. I require a great many explanations respecting the mole- cular motion which is supposed to be the material antecedent of the phenomenon heat. Force may be latent, but what is the meaning of latent motion ? Is the molecular motion supposed to continue during the period of latency ? When an object is at a fixed temperature, is there a fixed degree of molecular motion always taking place in it ? Spencer's doctrine, as a connected theory, fails entirely if there is not. Yet surely all that can be proved is that a molecular motion takes place at every change of temperature, and surely it is contrary to all our knowledge of material forces to suppose that a motion either of bodies or of particles can be perpetually going on for a cycle of ages in a resisting medium without diminution. With regard to the theory as a whole, difficulties multiply round me the longer I consider it. Spencer says, " Just that amount of gravitation force which the sun's heat overcame in raising the atoms of water is given out again in the fall of those atoms to the same level," thus implying that the force of gravity is not acting all the while and kept in equilibrium by a counter force, in the cessation of which it again manifests itself, of course neither increased nor diminished in amount ; but is actually (so to speak) absorbed and again restored by the annihila- tion of an equivalent quantity of heat. Now, if this be so, none of the heat can be expended as heat, for if the agent which destroys the heat has its own temperature raised by the process (which it surely has), there remains so much the less heat to be reconverted into gravitation, and the body will not fall, as I apprehend it does, with a force exactly equal to that which was overcome in raising it. Again, Spencer says, " The investigations of Dulong, 6 TO ALEXANDER BAIN 1864 Petit, and Neumann have proved a relation in amount . between the affinities of combining bodies and the heat evolved during their combination." I should much like to know the numerical law of this relation, as it could not fail to enlarge our conception of the meaning of the negative sign. It would be interesting to know what strength of the affinity corresponds to the " heat evolved " by a freezing mixture. Again, I do not understand how the theory adjusts itself to the ordinary phenomenon of accelerating force. If the earth were falling into the sun it would, when it had passed through half the distance, be acted upon by four times the original force to begin with, and, in addition, by the enormous momentum generated by the acquired velocity. In what antecedent form did this enormous additional force exist ? Is it all acquired at the expense of heat ? and would its development be attended by an inconceivably great amount of diminution of temperature ? If these are not difficulties to you, their being so to me can only arise from my ignorance of the subject ; but as I desire very much to understand it, I warn you of the demand which will be made upon your didactic faculties when we have the opportunity of discussing it together. . . . To Alexander Bain. Blackheath Park, 10th April 1864. ... I have finished your new edition.^ I have not compared it minutely with the old, but I think you have greatly improved the book ; both as to the thoughts and the mode of exposition. The only point on which I find much matter for comment is the account you give of Association by Contrast. No doubt, the relativity of all Consciousness (in your sense of relativity, which is not the same as Hamilton's) accounts for part of the pheno- mena, and seems to be the real explanation of some cases which you have very successfully analysed. But I do not > [Of " The Senses and the Intellect."] Aetat. 57. TO ALEXANDER BAIN 7 think it will do as a general explanation, nor do I think it 1864 fits your leading instances. According to the law of re- lativity the correlative which should be suggested by large is not small but ordinary. If a thing is only large rela- tively to what is small we do not call it large simply. I am myself inclined (I speak under correction) to solve the question of Contrast as a source of Association by denying its existence. I cannot find in myself that pre- sent suffering has any tendency to recall my idea of former happiness. On the contrary, it tends, I think, as one might suppose beforehand, in the way of obstruc- tive association, to exclude that idea. What is real in the case is, I think, that during the state of suffering the idea of previous enjoyment may be recalled by something which is associated with it in the way of resemblance or contiguity, and that then the clashing of the two simul- taneous emotions arrests the attention upon them, intensi- fies the consciousness of them both, suggests the additional idea of change or vicissitude, and the painful one of change for the worse, and all this being intimately mixed up with the state of present suffering, people fancy it is the suffer- ing which suggested the remembrance when, in truth, it was an obstacle to it. I have also read through Spencer's " Principles of Psy- chology," which is as much better than I thought as the " First Principles " are less good. He is, no doubt, a great deal too certain of many things, and on some he is clearly wrong, but much less so than I fancied (barring the Uni- versal Postulate, on which he now tells me that my difference from him is chiefly verbal, but I do not think so). He has a great mastery over the obscurer applications of the associative principle. As you say, he is particularly good on the subject of resistance and extension. Still, his argu- ment against Hamilton does not thoroughly satisfy me. There seems to be an occult petitio principii in it. He argues that we cannot acquire the idea of extension from sight alone, because that idea involves muscular feelings, which last is just the point to be proved. Of course the idea such as we now have it involves muscular feelings, and any idea 8 TO EARL GREY 1864 we could have got from sight must have been very unlike . ~ our present notion of extension ; but that distinction is perfectly well drawn by Reid, in his " Geometry of Visibles." What I want to know is, exactly what idea of one thing as outside another we could have obtained by sight ; whether merely the vague feeling of two simultaneous objects, or what more than this. A similar question arises as to touch : if two distinct parts of the skin came simultane- ously into passive contact with objects, should we, apart from other experience, distinguish two sensations or only one mass of sensation ; and if we should distinguish two simultaneous sensations, is this simultaneous conscious- ness of a plurality of sensations what we mean by outness ; as if so, we might acquire that idea from the simultaneity of a taste or a smell. I cannot quite make out why you advised me to read the Fichte. I find nothing at all in it. It is a fanciful theory to account for imaginary facts. I do not see how his preconscious states can have had the merit even of suggesting to you or Spencer the first germ of what both of you have written, with a real science and philo- sophy to connect our conscious with our purely organic states. . . . To Earl Grey, on his "Essay on Parliamentary Government with Reference to Reform." St. Veran, 13M May 1864. My dear Lord, — I am much obliged by the oppor- tunity you have given me of reading the new chapters of your "Essay on Parliamentary Government" in the pre- sent stage of their progress. As you have added to the honour of a very flattering mention of what I have written on the subject, that of inviting any remark which occurs to me, I readily avail myself of the invitation, though much of what I have to say has probably presented itself to your own mind. You already know, as well as I could state, and better Aetat. 57. TO EARL GREY 9 than I could state in few words, in what respects we agree 1864 and differ on the general principles of the question. I presume that my principles being such as you are aware of, what you are desirous of knowing in the present case is the impression made on me by your practical sugges- tions. I entirely agree with you that Parliamentary Reform is a subject which can only be usefully considered as a whole ; since the unobvious consequences of political changes being still more important than the obvious ones, a change in only one part of a political system, though in itself desirable, may do as much harm as good, while several changes made at once, and well adapted to one another, may secure all the good and guard against the harm. In your various proposals you have been guided by this just idea, and it seems to me that they have been suggested by a more enlarged conception than is at all common among politicians, both of the evils which exist, and of those which there might be danger of introducing by the remedies. To some of your proposals I attach great importance. The first place among these I give to the representation of minorities, which would be obtained, to a very useful extent, by the cumulative vote. Mr. Hare's plan, however, seems to me vastly superior both in the direct and in the indirect benefits it would produce ; and the supposed difficulty of working it would, I am almost certain, in a great measure disappear after a little experience. The plan has been several times discussed in the legis- latures of the two principal Australian colonies ; and, though not yet adopted, I have been struck by the proof given in the debates how perfectly the great majority of the speakers, both Conservative and Radical, understood it, and how generally the best of them on both sides sup- ported it. I feel confident that it would require nothing for success but a real desire in the public to make it suc- ceed. This does not yet exist in England, but in a colony there is less prejudice against novelties. In Australia, Con- servatives favour the plan as a check to the absolute power of numerical majorities, and Democrats because it is a direct and obvious corollary from the democratic principle. 10 TO EARL GREY 1864 Your proposal for allowing the House of Commons to join to itself by co-optation a certain number of members I am more doubtful about, though quite alive to the incon- venience which it is intended to meet, that of governments with so small a majority that they cannot carry and dare not propose anything disliked by even a very small number of their supporters. But it does not seem likely that a plan, even if adopted, would be permanent, of which the avowed object would be that a government or a policy might have a considerable majority in the House for the remainder of a Parliament, though it had ceased to have a majority in the constituencies. This would scarcely, I think, be accepted unless combined with a great reduction in the duration of Parliaments — perhaps even to annual. But there is another mode of co-optation which, though it would not attain so completely the particular object, would pro- bably attain it partially, and would be much less objection- able in other respects : viz., that the House should elect a certain number of members, not by lists, but by a modifica- tion of Mr. Hare's principle, in the mode which I have recommended for a portion of the House of Lords, and which you yourself propose in another case. This would add a very valuable class of members to the House, while it would effect the object you have in mind in your pro- posal for the election by Parliameiit of fifteen life members ; a proposal open to objections both apparent and real which cannot have escaped your notice. The objections I have urged against two stages of election are certainly considerably weakened (though not removed) by your suggestion, that the election of electors should take place in the regular course of affairs without waiting till Parliament is dissolved, or a vacancy occurs in the representation. But if there is to be indirect election, an idea occurs to me which may be worth bringing under your consideration. I attach great importance to giving a vote of some sort to every person who comes up to such an educational standard as can be made accessible to all. But as long as manual labourers are a separate class I do not wish them to have the complete command of the TO ALEXANDER BAIN ii House. You, again, think it desirable to admit that class 1864 to a considerable, though not a preponderant, influence. — Might not these desirable conditions be all realised, at least for some time to come, by such an arrangement as this ? The present electoral qualification, with the improve- ments it admits of, to remain in force for direct votes, but all non-electors who can read, write, and calculate to be allowed to choose electors, say one in ten or one in five of their number, who should form, along with the direct electors, the Parliamentary constituency ? By this plan the working classes would obtain a substantial power in Parliament but not the complete control, and this is per- haps the only shape in which the attaching of unequal value to the votes of different electors, which I have proposed in the form of plural voting, would have much chance of being adopted. The only remark of a non-practical character which I will make on any part of your two chapters is that, though there are many great faults in the working of democratic institutions in America (some of which the salutary shock that the American mind is now undergoing will have a ten- dency to correct), I do not think that the protective tariffs can justly be laid to the charge of democracy, for I believe that Protectionism is the creed in America of the majority, both of the wealthy and of the literary classes, involving even the political economists ; and though I am far from thinking that they are in the right, there are some things to be said for their opinion in the circumstances of America which are inapplicable to the old countries of Europe. To Alexander Bain St. Veran, 2nd December 1864. . . . When I last wrote to you I believe I had not yet read Professor Tait's articles on the Conservation of Force. They have made some parts of the theory much clearer to me than before. I now understand better what is meant by potential energy, and how the force may be said to be constantly preserved even when not acting in its usual way; Aetat. 58, 12 TO ALEXANDER BAIN 1864 but I am not sure that my way of comprehending it fits all the cases. When air is compressed a reaction equal to the compressed force exists in the form of pressure against the sides of the vessel ; when a projectile is thrown into the air, the force of gravity which ultimately brings it to the ground exists all the while though counteracted, for it shows itself in retarding and finally stopping the upward motion before it begins to determine the downward one, and it is calcul- ably the same amount of force all the time. But the force said to be latent in coal, being that which would be gener- ated by its chemical combination with oxygen, does not manifest itself by any pressure, or tendency to motion, or neutralisation of counter force for ages on ages. Still, if it can be shown that a force was lost, or used up, in making coal out of the carbonic acid gas of the atmosphere, equal to that which is generated by the reconversion of an equal quantity of coal with carbonic acid gas, I admit that there is a virtual conservation of force, though as force it was non-existent during the long interval : but so, you will say, is the latent heat of the water in the ocean, and of the gases comprising the atmosphere ; therefore, though I do not know how the equality of the force lost and that repro- duced is in this case ascertained, I can understand that it may be so. But I complain of a great want in Tait as well as in Tyndall, of proper clearness in making out what it is that is conserved. They speak as if the case of the com- pressed air or the projectile were exactly like that of the coal, when in reality it is extremely different. They would probably say that the force in the coal is alive all the time, creating molecular motion. But this unprovable hypo- thesis is just the part of the theory which I cannot swallow. There is a difficulty, to my comprehension, in the old theory of heat, which I have long intended to mention to you, but have always forgotten, and I do not know whether the new theory takes it away. It relates to the common mode of explaining the law by which objects of unequal temperature tend to equalise their temperature by radiation. The theory is, namely, that all bodies are constantly radi- ating heat, and, if of equal temperature, radiate it in equal TO ALEXANDER BAIN 13 quantity ; but every body radiates in proportion to its 1864 temperature, so that, all bodies constantly exchanging heat, — the hotter give more than they receive, and the colder ^'^'' ^^' receive more than they give. On this theory it seems to me that if two bodies at the temperature of the atmosphere are placed in the foci of opposite parabolic mirrors they ought both to rise in temperature ; for there is nothing to make them give out less heat than previously, and they certainly receive more. Even if one of the bodies is a lump of ice it ought even then to raise the temperature of the other body instead of cooling it, as it does, for even the ice sends out some heat which would not have reached the other focus if it had not been collected and concentrated by the mirrors. There is probably an answer to this, but none given in the usual explanation of the apparent radiation of cold. The Association Psychology is decidedly getting into France. Seeing a short newspaper article of an "Etude sur I'Association des Idees," by a writer named P. M. Mervoyer, written as a thesis for the degree of Docteur es Lettres, we sent for the book and found that it was in great *^ part composed of translated extracts from your writings, for which he professes warm admiration, and has very well mastered a great many of the thoughts. He is a complete disciple of yours, and I may say also of mine, and will do good, though not apparently a person of great vigour of mind, his own part of the exposition contrasting not advan- tageously, in clearness and precision, with his translations from us, which are very well done. I wish it may come into his mind to translate you into French. I will bring the book with me to England, as you will, I think, be inte- rested, as I have been by it. The writer in the North American Review has followed up his article on " Time and Space '' by one on Hamilton, the most severe one I have seen, but a striking contrast to my controversy with him, being a judgment of him from the opposite point of view ; wherever Hamilton is right the reviewer contrives to be wrong, and when Hamilton is wrong, he is still more wrong himself. I am glad you are to lecture at the Royal Institution, 14 TO ROBERT HARRISON 1864 though your time of lecturing will probably fall during our — absence. The managers of the Institution seem laudably ^ ^ ■ ^ ■ desirous of recruiting their staff with fresh notabilities. They have invited over Jules Simon to lecture, fortunately not on metaphysics. . . . To Robert Harrison, concerning John Black, former editor of the Morning Chronicle. St. Veran, \2th December 1864. Dear Sir, — Your estimate of Black's character is true to the letter, and such as all who were intimate with him would confirm. I do not know how soon after his coming to London he knew my father. I was a child at the time, and up to the beginning of 1814 my father lived so far from the north- east side of London that I suppose they did not often meet. All I know is that when Black became editor of the Chronicle, in the autumn, I think, of 1821, they were already old friends. After that time he constantly frequented my father, and no doubt often expressed opinions imbibed from him ; but he was far from being a mere follower of any one. As an example of this, Black, as I well remember, changed the opinion of some of the leading political econo- mists, particularly my father's, respecting Poor Laws, by the articles he wrote in the Chronicle in favour of a Poor Law for Ireland. He met their objections by maintaining that a Poor Law did not necessarily encourage over-popu- lation, but might be so worked as to be a considerable check to it, and he convinced them that he was in the right. I have always considered Black as the first journalist who carried criticism and the spirit of reform into the details of English institutions. Those who are not old enough to remember those times can hardly believe what the state of public discussion then was. People now and then attacked the constitution and the boroughmongers, but none thought of censuring the law or the courts of TO ROBERT HARRISON 15 justice ; and to say a word against the unpaid magistracy 1864 was a sort of blasphemy. Black was the writer who carried — the warfare into these subjects, and introduced Bentham's ^'^'' ^ ' opinions on legal and judicial reform into newspaper dis- cussion. And by doing this he broke the spell. Very early in his editorship he fought a great battle for the freedom of reporting the Parliamentary investigations of the police courts, in which Fonblanque, who just at that time began to become known, occasionally helped him, but he had little other help. He carried his point, and the victory was permanent. Another subject on which his writings were of the greatest service was the freedom of the press in matters of religion. His first years as editor of the Chronicle coincided with the prosecutions of Carlile and his shop- men, and Black kept up the fight against those prosecu- tions with great spirit and power. All these subjects were Black's own. Parliamentary Reform, Catholic Emancipa- tion, Free Trade, &c., were the Liberal topics of the day, and on all of these he wrote frequently, as you will see by any file of the Chronicle. One of the remarkable things is that nearly all the leading articles, at least in those early years, were his own writing. He now and then had an article sent to him by a friend, but there was, I believe, for a long time no one regularly associated with him as a writer of leaders. This, I believe, is not generally known. He was constantly bringing into his articles curious passages and scraps of recondite information from old books which people thought must have been furnished by a host of friends behind him ; but they all came from his own great miscellaneous reading. He used to walk about London, stopping at all the bookstalls, and got together a large collection of books not generally known, from which he had a knack of picking out and using whatever they con- tained that was interesting or instructive. Why Cobbett attacked him I do not remember, and it is scarcely worth knowing. Somebody said of Cobbett, very truly, that there were two sorts of people he could not endure, those who differed from him and those who agreed with him. These last had always stolen his ideas. I do I 6 TO MAX KYLLMAN 1864 not know that he selected Black for a very special object of — attack. If he had a controversy with him about anything '^^ ' ^ • he was sure to load him with comical abuse. I shall be happy to give you any further information I have, and to answer to the best of my ability any questions, but the real source of the information you want is the Chronicle itself. He poured out his whole mind into it, as indeed he had much need to do considering how many volumes yearly he wrote in it. To Max Kyllman, of Manchester. Blackheath, lt,th February 1865. 1865 Dear Sir, — It is pleasant to hear from you again. — Your letters, besides being interesting on your own account, almost always contain some valuable piece of intelligence. What you tell me about the progress of Mr. Hare's system among the working classes of Man- chester is pre-eminently so. I know very well to whose indefatigable exertions it is owing. But it confirms me in the opinion that the working classes will see the true char- acter and the importance of Mr. Hare's principle much sooner than their Parliamentary allies. The speeches made by these to their constituents lately have very much disgusted me. The proverb " II vaut mieux avoir affaire a Dieu qu'a ses saints " is true of the demagogues and the Demos. The demagogues never dare admit anything which implies a doubt of the infallibility of the majority. The Demos itself makes no such pretensions, and can see the utility of taking precautions against its own mistakes. I shall make use of your letter to convince some of the dress-coated democrats that there is no need to be " plus royalistes que le roi." With regard to the other subject of your letter ; I quite agree with you that no Reform Bill which we are likely to see for some time to come will be worth moving hand or foot for. But with respect to the manhood suffrage move- ment, and the question of my taking part in it, I have long been determined that I would on no account whatever aid TO MAX KYLLMAN 17 any attempt to make the suffrage universal to men, unless 1865 the inclusion of women were distinctly and openly pro- — claimed as a substantive part of the design. There are only two things worth working for — a practical result or a principle ; if a practical result, it should be one which is attainable ; if a principle, not to go the whole length of it is to sacrifice it. I look upon agitation for manhood, as distinguished from universal suffrage, as decidedly mischievous. The exceptionally enlightened leaders men- tioned in your letter may not intend, in claiming half, to deny the whole ; but such is the power of words, that every time the phrase " manhood suffrage " is publicly pro- nounced, save in contempt or execration, an additional rivet is added to the chain of half the human species. It is to be remembered, too, that universal suffrage was the expression formerly used by all Radicals, and it was with- drawn and manhood suffrage substituted precisely because the wider expression had been criticised as including women. To adopt a phrase which has no other reason of existence than that it excludes them, would be, in my opinion, to betray the principle, and, at the same time, to make a retrograde step. When any portion or body of the working classes chooses as its programme a reading and writing (or rather writing and ciphering) qualification, adult instead of manhood suffrage, and Hare's system, I will gladly give to such a noble scheme all the help I possibly can. Do not suppose that my opinion about plural voting would be any obstacle. I put that in abeyance, first be- cause I would accept universal suffrage, and gladly, too, without it (though not without Hare's system), and next because Buxton has smashed plural voting for years to come by associating it with property, a thing I have ' always protested against and would on no account con- sent to. Plural voting by right of education I should not mind defending to any assemblage of working men in the kingdom. But though I would always speak my mind on it, it would be no bar to my co-operating. But on adult suffrage I can make no compromise. VOL. II. B i8 TO JAMES BEAL 1865 I must therefore defer the pleasure of an introduction — to Mrs. Kyllman till she or you happen to be in London, ^'^'' ^ ' when it will increase the pleasure I am sure of having from seeing yourself. The Baden minister whom I referred to must be well known to you — Professor Mohl of Heidelburg, who advo- cated Hare's plan by articles in the Zeit of Frankfort. Mr. Hare has the papers. The two French authorities whom I mentioned are Louis Blanc (of course) and Laboulaye. P.S. — I have the greatest regard and respect for Louis Blanc, but I think it would be fatal to the success of any political movement in this country to put him forward in it, as his name is associated in the vulgar English mind with everything that can be made a bugbear of. To James Beal, in reply to a letter asking whether Mill would allow himself to be nominated as Parliamentary candidate for Westminster, if a circular to the electors should bring to light a general desire on their part for his nomination. Blackheath Park, Tth March 1865. Dear Sir, — Your note, I am sorry to say, did not reach me till yesterday evening owing to a mistake at the post-office. To be the representative of Westminster is an honour to which no one can be insensible, and to have been selected as worthy of that honour by a body like that in whose name you write, not only without solicitation, but without my being personally known to them either in a public or private capacity, is a very signal one indeed. While it must ever command my sincere gratitude, it is a proceeding which nothing but the truest public spirit could have dictated. And the mode in which you propose to ascertain the sense of the electors cannot be too highly applauded. It is an example deserving to be imitated by Aetat. s8. TO JAMES BEAL 19 all popular constituencies, and worthy of the rank which 1865 belongs historically to Westminster as the head and front of the Reform party. In answer, therefore, to your question, I assent to having my name submitted to the electors in the proposed manner, if, after the explanations which it is now my duty to give, the committee should still adhere to their intention. I have no personal object to be promoted by a seat in Parliament. All private considerations are against my accepting it. The only motive that could make me desire it would be the hope of being useful ; and being untried in any similar position, it is as yet quite uncertain whether I am as capable of rendering public service in the House of Commons as I may be in the more tranquil occupation of a writer. It is, however, certain that if I can be of any use in Parliament, it could only be by devoting myself there to the same subjects which have employed my habitual thoughts out of Parliament. I therefore could not under- take the charge of any of your local business ; and as this, in so important a constituency, must necessarily be heavy, it is not impossible that my inability to undertake it may in itself amount to a disqualification for being your representative. Again, my only object in Parliament would be to pro- mote my opinions ; and what these are, on nearly all the political questions in which the public feel any interest, is before the world : and until I am convinced that they are wrong, these, and no others, are the opinions that I must act on. I am ready to give any further explanation of them that might be wished for, and should I be elected I would freely state to my constituents, whenever desired, the votes I intend to give, and my reasons for them. But I could give no other pledge. If the electors are sufficiently satisfied with my opinions as they are, to be willing to give me a trial, I would do ray best to serve those opinions, and would in no case disguise my intentions or my motives from those to whom I should be indebted for the opportunity. 20 TO JAMES BEAL 1865 Lastly, it is neither suitable to my circumstances nor AetaT ^s consistent with my principles to spend money for my election. Without necessarily condemning those who do, when it is not expended in corruption, I am deeply con- vinced that there can be no Parliamentary reform worthy of the name so long as a seat in Parliament is only attain- able by rich men, or by those who have rich men at their back. It is the interest of the constituencies to be served by men who are not aiming at personal objects, either pecuniary, official, or social, but consenting to undertake gratuitously an onerous duty to the public. That such persons should be made to pay for permission to do hard and difficult work for the general advantage, is neither worthy of a free people, nor is it the way to induce the best men to come forward. In my own case, I must even decline to offer myself to the electors in any manner ; because, proud as I should be of their suffrages, and though I would endeavour to fulfil to the best of my ability the duty to which they might think fit to elect me, yet I have no wish to quit my present occupations for the House of Commons, unless called upon to do so by my fellow-citizens. That the electors of Westminster have even thought of my name in this conjuncture is a source of deep gratification to me, and if I were to be elected I should wish to owe every step in my election, as I should already owe my nomination, to their spon- taneous and flattering judgment of the labour of my life. Whatever be the result as regards myself, allow me to express the hope that your recommendation to the electors will not be limited to two names. To obtain the best representative, and even if only to ensure success against the powerful local influence which is already in the field, it seems plainly desirable to give the electors the widest possible choice among all persons willing to serve, who would worthily represent the advanced Liberal and reform- ing party. Several eminent persons have been mentioned, whom it would be highly desirable to give the electors an opportunity of selecting if they please. Sir J. Romilly is in the number of these, and would, in every way, do TO THE PLATE-LOCK MANUFACTORY 21 honour to your choice. Mr. Chadwick would be one of 1865 the most valuable members who could be chosen by any — constituency ; and besides the many important public questions on which he is one of the first authorities, he is peculiarly qualified to render those services in con- nection with your local business which it would not, in general, be possible for me to perform. The admirable mode of selection which you have adopted will not have fair play unless you bring before the consideration of the electors the whole range of choice, among really good candidates, which lies within their reach. It will not be inferred from your placing any particular person on the list that you consider him the best. Some will prefer one and some another, and those who are preferred by the greatest number of electors would alone be nominated. In requesting you to lay this matter before the com- mittee, I beg to assure yourself and them that, whatever may be their decision, I shall never cease to feel the proposal they have made to me as one of the greatest compliments I have ever received. — 1 am, dear Sir, very sincerely and respectfully yours, J. S. Mill. To the Secretary of the Co-operative Plate- Lock Manufactory, Wolverhampton. Blackheath Park, 22nd March 1865. Sir, — I beg to enclose a subscription of ^^lo to aid, as far as such a sum can do it, in the struggle which the Co-operative Plate-Lock Makers of Wolverhampton are maintaining against unfair competition on the part of the masters in the trade. Against fair competition I have no desire to shield them. Co-operative production carried on by persons whose hearts are in the cause, and who are capable of the energy and self-denial always necessary in its early stages, ought to be able to hold its ground against private establishments — and persons who have not those qualities had better not attempt it. But to carry on busi- ness at a loss in order to ruin competitors is not fair com- 22 TO JAMES BEAL 1865 petition. In such a contest, if prolonged, the competitors — who have the smallest means, though they may have every other element of success, must necessarily be crushed through no fault of their own. Having the strongest sympathy with your vigorous attempt to make head against what in such a case may justly be called the tyranny of capital, I beg you to send me a dozen copies of your printed appeal, to assist me in making the case known to such persons as it may interest in your favour. To James Beal, in which Mill makes a declaration of his political opinions, on receiving official intimation from Beal that he had been adopted as candidate for West- minster. \^th April lZ6s. Dear Sir, — I beg leave to acknowledge your com- munication of the 12th inst., informing me that at a meet- ing of Westminster electors it has been resolved to adopt me as a candidate on the terms of my letter of 7th March, and to invite subscriptions to defray the expenses of my election. On the subject of this resolution it would not become me to say anything, except what might equally be said by one who had no personal interest in the matter : that if the electors of Westminster return to Parliament as their representative any one, either myself or another, who has no claim whatever on them except their opinion of his fitness for the trust, and if on that sole ground they elect him without 'personal solicitation and without expense, they will do what is as eminently honourable to them- selves as to the object of their choice, will set an example worthy to be, and likely to be, imitated by other great con- stituencies, and will signally raise the character of the popular party and advance the cause of Reform. On this part of the subject, I have only to express the earnest hope, that in accepting me on the terms of my TO JAMES BEAL 23 letter, the meeting intended to include in their adhesion 1865 the principle of an individual appeal by circular to every — elector, laying other names before him as well as mine, and requesting him to select from among them or from any others the person or persons whom he would wish to be brought forward as candidates. I am also invited to state, for the more full information of the electors, my opinions on various political questions of general interest. Such a call can only be properly answered by the most complete openness. I hold decided opinions on all the subjects on which my sentiments are asked, and whether those opinions may serve or injure me in the estimation of the electors it is equally incumbent on me to state them plainly. 1. With regard to Reform Bills : I should vote at once both for Mr. Baines' bill and for Mr. Locke King's, and for measures going far beyond either of them. I would open the suffrage to all grown persons, both men and women, who can read, write, and perform a sum in the rule of three, and who have not, within some small number of years, received parish relief. I would not vote for giving the suffrage in such a measure that any class, even though it be the most numerous, could swamp all other classes taken together. In the first place, I think that all con- siderable minorities in the country or in a locality should be represented in proportion to their numbers. What other adjustments of the electoral system to an universal or nearly universal suffrage might prove practically the best adapted to secure to every portion of the community its just share of influence, while preventing any class from acquiring an unjust degree of preponderance either by means of property or of numbers, is a question which may be answered in many different ways, and which will require much sifting and public discussion before the best can be selected. In the meanwhile I should be prepared to sup- port a measure which would give to the labouring classes a clear half of the national representation. 2. I prefer a mixed system of direct and indirect taxa- tion to either alone. If the attempt were made to raise so Aetat. 58, 24 TO JAMES BEAL 1865 large a revenue, as ours, after all due retrenchments, would still be, exclusively by direct taxation, I do not know of any taxes, in themselves just, which, under such strong pecuni- ary temptation, would not be successfully evaded : the evasions of the Income Tax are already a disgrace to the national morality. I would in no case tax any of the necessaries of life ; but if even a working man expends in luxuries for himself, and especially in stimulants, what is required by the necessities of his family, I think it per- fectly just that he should be taxed on such expenditure. 3. Every civilised country is entitled to settle its internal affairs in its own way, and no other country ought to interfere with its discretion, because one country, even with the best intentions, has no chance of properly under- standing the internal affairs of another. But when this indefeasible Hberty of an independent country has already been interfered with ; when it is kept in subjection by a foreign power, either directly, or by assistance given to its native tyrants, I hold that any nation whatever may right- fully interfere to protect the country against this wrongful interference. I therefore approve the interposition of France in 1859 to free Italy from the Austrian yoke, but disapprove the intervention of the former country in 1849 to compel the Pope's subjects to take back the bad govern- ment they had cast off. It is not, however, a necessary consequence that because a thing might rightfully be done, it is always expedient to do it. I would not have voted for a war in behalf either of Poland or of Denmark, because on any probable view of consequences I should have ex- pected more evil than good from our doing what, never- theless, if done, would not have been, in my opinion, any violation of international duty. 4. Respecting the disabilities of Dissenters, my answer may be brief. There ought to be no disabilities whatever on account of religion. 5. Voting for a member of Parliament is a public and political act, which concerns not solely the elector's in- dividual preferences, but the most important interests of the other electors, and even of posterity ; and my con- TO JAMES BEAL 25 viction is that in a free country all such acts should be 1865 done in the face of and subject to the comments and criticisms of the entire public. I wish that the elector should feel an honourable shame in voting contrary to his known opinions, and in not being able to give for his vote a reason which he can avow. The publicity which lets in these salutary influences admits also, unfortunately, some noxious ones ; and if I believed that these were now the strongest — if I thought that the electors of this country were in such a state of hopeless and slavish dependence on particular landlords, employers, or customers, that the bad influences are more than a match for the good ones, and that there is no other means of removing them — I should be, as I once was, a supporter of the ballot. But the voters are not now in this degraded condition ; they need nothing to protect them against electoral intimidation but the spirit and courage to defy it. In an age when the most dependent class of all, the labouring class, is proving itself capable of maintaining by combination an equal struggle with the combined power of the masters, I cannot admit that farmers or shopkeepers, if they stand by one another, need despair of protecting themselves against any abuse now possible of the power of landed or other wealth. 6. As regards retrenchment, it is certain that chiefly through unskilful management great sums of public money are now squandered for which the country receives no equivalent in the efficiency of its establishments, and that we might have a more useful army and navy than we possess at a considerably less expense. I expect little improvement in this respect until the increased influence of the smaller taxpayers on the Government, through a large extension of the suffrage, shall have produced a stricter control over the details of public expenditure. But I cannot think that it would be right for us to dis- arm in the presence of the great military despotisms of Europe, which regard our freedom, through its influence on the minds of their own subjects, as the greatest danger as well as reproach to themselves, and might be tempted Aetat. 58. Aetat. 58 26 TO JAMES BEAL 1865 to pick a quarrel with us, even without any prospect of ultimate success, in the mere hope of reviving the national antipathies which so long kept apart the best minds of England and the Continent. 7. I am decidedly of opinion that landed property should be subject to the Probate Duty, and that property in settlement should pay succession duty on its full value, and not, as at present, only on the value of the life interest. 8. Purchase is the very worst way but one, in which commissions in the army could possibly be appropriated. The one, which is still worse, is jobbing and favouritism. I would support any mode in which the one evil can be got rid of without replacing it by the other. That there is such a mode I am fully satisfied, and that it would put an end to what is justly called in your letter, the monopoly by certain classes of the posts of emolument. 9. I am entirely opposed to flogging, either in the army or out of it, except for crimes of brutality. In some of those it seems to me a very appropriate punishment. 10. The differences between employers and workpeople which give rise to strikes are, it appears to me, a subject which wholly escapes the control of legislation. I see nothing which law can do in the matter, except to protect from violation the equal liberty of all to combine or to refrain from combining. After a sufficient trial of each other's strength, both sides will probably be willing to refer their disputes to arbitration ; but even then I do not think that the arbitrators should have power to enforce their decisions by law ; because, in such cases as they would usually have to decide, it is impossible to lay down rules of justice and equity which would suit all cases, or would obtain universal assent, and the adjustments must generally be of the nature of compromises, not acting on fixed prin- ciples, but each side giving up something for the sake of peace. I do not presume to say that a better rule may not be arrived at in time, but it would be quite premature to act as if it had been already arrived at. TO W. E. HICKSON 27 To W. E. HicKSON, the educational writer, on the death of Cobden. St. Veran, 2^th April 1865. . . . Death has indeed been busy lately, and one is 1865 continually reminded, if at our age we needed reminding, ^^~ „ of our own mortality. Cobden was perhaps the most perfectly honest man among all English politicians of his time and of anything like his celebrity, for he meant every word that he said. . . . To Henry Soden, of Melbourne ; making clear Mill's position on the subject of Pro- tection in young countries. Avignon, znd May 1865. Dear Sir, — I have just received your letter, dated 2Sth February. It is a great compliment to me that my supposed opinions should have had the influence you ascribe to them in Australia. But there seems to have been a considerable degree of misunderstanding about what they are. The fault probably lies with myself, in not having explained them sufficiently. I have entered rather more fully into the subject in the new editions published this spring. But, not to give you the trouble of referring to them, I can have no difficulty in saying that I never for a moment thought of recommending or countenancing, in a new colony more than elsewhere, a general protective policy, or a system of duties on imported commodities, such as that which has recently passed the representative assembly of your colony. What I had in view was this. If there is some particular branch of industry, not hitherto carried on in the country, but which individuals or associations, possessed of the necessary capital, are ready and desirous to naturalise ; and if these persons can satisfy the legis- lature that after their workpeople are fully trained, and the difficulties of the first introduction surmounted, they shall 28 TO W. E. HICKSON 1865 probably be able to produce the article as cheap, or cheaper, than the price at which it can be imported, but ^^ ' ^ ■ that they cannot do so without the temporary aid either of a subsidy from the Government or of a protecting duty : then it may sometimes be a good calculation for the future interests of the country to make a temporary sacrifice by granting a moderate protecting duty for a certain limited number of years, say ten, or at the very most twenty, during the latter part of which the duty should be on a gradually diminishing scale, and at the end of which it should expire. You see how far this doctrine is from supporting the fabric of Protectionist doctrine, in behalf of which its aid has been invoked. You are at full liberty to make any use you please of this letter. To W. E. HicKSON, on the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. St. Veran, ird May 1865. Dear Hickson, — The universality of the feeling occa- sioned by Lincoln's catastrophe is a good sign of our common humanity — for it is, in most cases, genuine feeling of the bitterness of losing such a man. He himself may be considered happy in his death — quite otherwise than if he had died before the decisive triumph. There cannot be a more glorious fate than to die so mourned by a whole people — to have become so dear to them through the best part of their character exclusively. I agree with you in having no fear of public mischief from his loss. It will perhaps, on the contrary, prevent a great deal of weak indulgence towards the slaveholding class, whose power it is necessary should be completely and permanently broken at all costs. Meanwhile the effect is admirable in Continental Europe (England does not need that particular lesson) of the example of power passing by course of law, without a dream of opposition, in the freest country in the world. . . . Aetat, 58. TO J. F. D. MAURICE 29 To J. F. D. Maurice, in reply to a letter acknowledging a presentation copy of the " Examination of Hamilton." St. Veran, wth May 1865. Dear Mr. Maurice, — I was already so well aware of 1865 your kind feelings towards me, that even such a letter as I have just received from you hardly increases my sense of them. I most sincerely feel towards you and your work in life, the full equivalent of all which you so kindly express. I never voluntarily leave unread any of your writings, and if I have not more frequently offered you any of mine, it was because I seldom felt confident that what you would approve in them, would outweigh what you would dis- approve. I knew, however, that there was much in my new book with which you would fully sympathise, greatly as I know you differ from the metaphysical doctrines con- tained in it. You were continually in my thoughts when I wrote the chapter against Mansel, and your controversy with him contributed much towards stirring me up to write the book. I sympathise with the feeling of (if I may so call it) mental loneliness, which shows itself in your letter and sometimes in your published writings. In our age and country every person with any mental power at all, who both thinks for himself and has a conscience, must feel himself, to a very great degree, alone. I should think you have decidedly more people who are in real communion of thoughts, feelings, and purposes with you than I have. I am in this supremely happy, that I have had, and even now have, that communion in the fullest degree where it is most valuable of all, in my own home. But I have it no- where else ; and if people did but know how much more precious to me is the faintest approach to it, than all the noisy eulogiums in the world ! The sole value to me of these is that they dispose a greater number of people to listen to what I am able to say to them ; and they are an admonition to me to make as much of that kind of hay as I 30 TO EMILE LITTR^ 1865 can before the sun gives over shining. What is happening just now is the coming to the surface of a good deal of ^ ^ ■ ^ ■ influence which I had been insensibly acquiring without knowing it ; and there are to me many signs that you are exercising a very considerable influence of the same kind, though you yourself seem to think the contrary. To Emile Littre. St. Veran, le II mai 1865. Cher Monsieur, — La second partie de mon travail sur M. Comte ne sera publi^e que le \^'^ juillet, mais on m'a promis de me donner bientot les exemplaires s6par6s. II vous en sera exp6di6 cinq, destindss comme auparavant pour vous-meme, pour le traducteur, pour Mme Comte, pour M. de Blignieres et pour M. Taine. 11 est tres naturel que vous n'appronviez pas sans reserve tout ce que j'ai dit dans la premiere partie. Ce que votre livre a montre d'accord entre nos jugements est encore plus que je n'osais esperer. Une critique de ma critique, faite de votre point de vue, m'int^resserait grandement, et ce serait une bonne fortune pour moi si vous pouviez avoir le temps de vous en occuper. Quant au livre sur Hamilton c'est en grande partie une oeuvre de circonstance, comme le doit etre tout livre de poldmique, mais avec quelques chapitres de psychologie positive. Ce que ce livre a de mieux c'est qu'il porte la guerre dans le camp ennemi. Aussi je crois que les m^taphysiciens de I'ecole ^clectique et allemande ne me pardonneront pas. Si un journal a dit que je sollicite des 6Iecteurs, ce journal se trompe ; ce sont des 61ecteurs qui m'ont solli- cite ; on m'a porte candidat presque malgr^ moi. J'ai refuse de rien faire de ce que font ordinairement chez nous les candidats. Je n'ai fait que ce qu'ils ne font guere, c'est a dire, une profession de foi parfaitement sincere. Au reste je pense avec M. Comte que, sauf des circonstances exceptionnelles et transitives, la place des philosophes n'est pas dans le gouvernement ; et malgr^ mes 35 ans de fonc- TO PARKE GODWIN 31 tions administratives je ne me regarde pas comme une 1865 exception. Vous savez que dans I'idte que je me fais des — assemblies d6lib6rantes, elles doivent ^tre un lieu de dis- ^^'"'^ ^^' cussion plutot que d'action, et si je consentais a y singer, ce serait pour n'y exercer qu'un pouvoir spirituel. P. L. Courier disait que, presque seul parmi les Frangais, il ne voulait pas etre roi : si Ton me nommait a la chambre, j'y serais probablement le seul depute qui ne voudrait pas etre ministre. To Parke Godwin, on the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and the end of the American civil war. Avignon, is^'A May 1865. Dear Sir, — I had scarcely received your note of 8th April, so full of calm joy in the splendid prospect now opening to your country and through it to the world, when the news came that an atrocious crime had struck down the great citizen who had afforded so noble an example of the qualities befitting the first magistrate of a free people, and who in the most trying circumstances had gradually won not only the admiration, but almost the personal affec- tion of all who love freedom and appreciate simplicity and uprightness. But the loss is ours, not his. It was impos- sible to have wished him a better end than to add the crown of martyrdom to his other fionours, and to live in the memory of a great nation as those only live who have not only laboured for their country but died for it. And he did live to see the cause triumphant and the contest virtually over. How different would our feelings now be if this fate had overtaken him, as it might so easily have done, a month sooner ! In England, horror at the crime and sympathy with your loss seem to be almost universal, even among those who have disgraced their country by wishing success to the slaveholders. I hope manifestations which were in- stantaneously made there in almost every quarter may be received in America as some kind of atonement or peace- 32 TO PARKE GODWIN i86s offering. I have never believed that there was any real — danger of a quarrel between the two countries, but it is of ^ ^*' * ■ immense importance that we should be firm friends. And this is our natural state ; for though there is a portion of the higher and middle classes of Great Britain who so dread and hate democracy that they cannot wish prosperity or power to a democratic people, I firmly believe that this feeling is not general even in our privileged classes. Most of the dislike and suspicion which have existed towards the United States were the effect of pure ignorance ; igno- rance of your history, and ignorance of your feelings and disposition as a people. It is difficult for you to believe that this ignorance could be as dense as it really was. But the late events have begun to dissipate it, and if your Government and people act as I fully believe they will, in regard to the important questions which now await them, there will be no fear of their being ever again so grossly misunderstood, at least in the lives of the present generation. As to the mode of dealing with these great questions, it does not become a foreigner to advise those who know the exigencies of the case so much better than he does. But as so many of my countrymen are volunteering advice to you at this crisis, perhaps I may be forgiven if I offer mine the contrary way. Every one is vaguely inculcating gentleness, and only gentleness, as if you had shown any signs of disposition to take a savage revenge. I have always been afraid of one thing only, that you would be too gentle. I should be sorry to see any life taken after the war is over (except those of the assassins), or any evil inflicted in mere vengeance ; but one thing I hope will be I considered absolutely necessary, to break altogether the power of the slaveholding caste. Unless this is done, the abolition of slavery will be merely nominal. If an aris- tocracy of ex-slaveholders remain masters of the State legis- latures they will be able effectually to nullify a great part of the result which has been so dearly bought by the blood of the Free States. They and their dependents must be effectually outnumbered at the polling-places, which can only be effected by the concession of full equality of TO EDWIN CHADWICK 33 political rights to negroes and by a large immigration of 1865 settlers from the North, both of them being made inde- a .^ g pendent by the ownership of land. With these things in addition to the constitutional amendment (which will enable the Supreme Court to set aside any State legislation tending to bring back slavery in disguise) the cause of freedom is safe, and the opening words of the Declaration of Inde- pendence will cease to be a reproach to the nation founded by its authors. To Edwin Chadwick, on the Westminster election campaign. St. ViRAN, 15^ May 1865. Dear Chadwick, — I have been so very busy, and have had besides so many letters to write, that I am very tardy in replying to your interesting letter of 29th April. We were greatly amused by the election humours which it communicates, and by the comments you report on the injudiciousness of my second letter. I do not wonder that people should think it injudicious if they suppose that my grand object in the whole matter is to get myself elected. But as the only purpose for which I care to be elected is to get my opinions listened to, it would have been very injudicious in me to forego so good an oppor- tunity of that, for fear that it should damage my election. I have gained this by it, that what are thought the most out-of-the-way of all my opinions, have been and are discussed and canvassed from one end of the country to the other, and some of them (especially women's voting) are obtaining many unexpected adhesions. I reckon this a good stroke of practicality, whether I am elected for Parliament or not. As to the election itself, I had much rather you were elected than I ; and if I could transfer my supporters in a body to you I would do so instantly. I suspect, however, that the thing will be taken out of our hands. The appear- ance in the field of the illustrious man whom the Tories have put forward as the representative of the intelligent VOL. II. C 34 TO EDWIN CHADWICK i86s classes against popular ignorance as embodied in me, will probably produce a general demand that one of the pro- fessedly Liberal candidates should be withdrawn ; and perhaps the appeal to the individual elector by circular, which we have contended for, will be made for the inferior purpose of ascertaining who ought to retire. I do not think the Tories expect their man to come in ; otherwise some more considerable person would have started in that interest. But they are glad when anybody with money to spend is willing to venture it on the chance. I feel for Sir Edward Lytton,i who expected to get some credit from my friends by the expression of his good wishes (which were very likely sincere), but found he had come across a man who had the peculiarity of expecting that people should act up to what they say. I should have thought more highly of him if he had said plainly, " These are my private sentiments, but I must go in with my party," a feeling which, as men go, is very excusable. Lord Amberley, I am glad to see, has a higher standard. It is really a fine thing in him to have withdrawn from Grosvenor's committee and come over to me. It is an agreeable surprise to me that Mr. Westerton has been so favourably impressed by the " Liberty." I give him very great credit for it. It shows that his view of religion is a much higher and better one than is at all common. Had I listened to common-sense notions of " practicality " I should never have published that book, yet its publication does not seem to do me any practical harm. As to the application you have received about having my likeness taken for publication, I have a real difficulty about it, owing to having refused my photograph to friends who much wished for it. If it should be necessary, how- ever, there is a cameo likeness of me from which a copy could be taken, but it cannot be till we return. P.S. — I have just received your packet of printed docu- ments. The list of the committee is very good : there are some names on it which I am glad to see, but was afraid would be wanting. ' [Bulwer-Lytton.] Aetat. 59. TO EDWIN L. GODKIN 35 To Edwin L. Godkin, of New York, acknowledging a copy of the North American Review, containing an article by him on "Aristocratic Opinions of Democracy." Avignon, 24M May 1865. Dear Sir, — I thank you very sincerely for your article 1865 in the North American Review — not merely for sending it to me, but for writing it. I consider it a very important contribution to the philosophy of the subject — a correc- tion from one point of view of what was excessive in Tocqueville's theory of democracy as my review of him was from another. You have fully made out that the pecu- liar character of society in the Western States, the mental type formed by the position and habits of the pioneers, is, at least in part, accountable for many American pheno- mena which have been ascribed to democracy. This is a most consoling belief, since it refers the unfavourable side of American social existence (which you set forth with a fulness of candour that ought to shame the detractors of American literature and thought) to causes naturally declining, rather than to one which tends to increase. But if any encouragement was required by those who hope the best from American institutions, the New Eng- land States, as they now are, would be encouragement enough. If Tocqueville had lived to know what those States have become thirty years after he saw them, he would, I think, have acknowledged that much of the unfavourable part of his anticipations had not been realised. Democracy has been no leveller there as to intellect and education, or respect for true personal superiority. Nor has 'it stereotyped a particular cast of thought ; as is proved by so many really original writers, yourself being one. Finally, New England has now the : immortal glory of having destroyed slavery ; to do which ' has required an amount of high principle, courage, and energy, which few other communities, either monarchical or republican, have ever displayed. And the great con- 36 TO DR. WHEWELL 1865 cussion which has taken place in the American mind must "~ have loosened the foundations of all prejudices, and secured ' a fair hearing for impartial reason on all subjects such as it might not otherwise have had for many generations. It is a happiness to have lived to see such a termination of the greatest and most corrupting of all social iniquities which, more than all other causes together, lowered the tone of the national, and especially the political, mind of the United States. It now rests with the intellect and high aspirations of the Eastern States, and the energy and straightforward honesty of the Western, to make the best use of the occasion. And I have no misgiving as to the result. Do not trouble yourself to send me the North American Review, as I already subscribe to it. But I shall always be glad to be informed of any article in it which is of your writing, and to have your opinion on any American question. To Dr. Whewell, in reply to a letter from him acknowledging a gift by Mill of his " Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy." Avignon, 24M May 1865. Dear Sir, — It gave me great pleasure to receive your note of 15th May. It was, in the first place, very agree- able to hear that you go along with my book, so far as it is directed against Sir W. Hamilton ; which is fully as much approbation as I could hope for ; and it was pleasant to be told that there are other points which could have been made against Sir W. Hamilton, but which I had omitted — fearful as I was of being charged, on the contrary, with having pursued him d toute outrance. But a still greater cause of satisfaction to me from receiving your note, is that it gives me an opportunity on which, without impertinent intrusion, I may express to you, how strongly I have felt drawn to you by what I have heard of your sentiments respecting the American struggle (now TO EDWIN CHADWICK 37 drawing to a close) between freedom and slavery, and 1865 between legal government and rebellion without justifica- — tion or excuse. No question of our time has been such a ^ * • 59- touchstone of men, has so tested their sterling qualities of mind and heart as this one, and I shall all my life feel united by a sort of special tie with those, whether person- ally known to me or not, who have been faithful when so many were faithless. To Edwin Chadwick, on the Westminster election campaign. St. Veran, 28M May 1865. Dear Chadwick, — You have indeed a fine list of occu- pations for anyone to carry on pari passu with his election to Parliament. But your power of work seems unlimited. The request of the committee places me in a consider- able embarrassment. What they propose is in itself per- fectly reasonable, and anyone who comes forward and proposes himself as a candidate ought to be willing to meet the committee and the electors in the way they propose, as often as they think desirable. But I have never from the beginning been in the position of one who offers himself as a candidate. In my first letter I disclaimed doing so ; I said that my personal inclination was against going into Parliament ; but that if the electors of Westminster, never- theless, did me the great honour of choosing me, I would do my best to serve them, and in the meantime would answer unreservedly any number of questions respecting my political opinions which might be put to me by or in behalf of any body of electors. My candidature went forth to the public on this footing, and this declaration seemed to be one of the causes of the feeling so widely expressed in favour of the candidature. If I have now to attend meetings and make speeches to the electors in the usual, and, in most cases, very proper manner, it would seem as if there had been no truth in my declaration that I did not per- sonally ask to be in Parliament ; as if I had merely been Aetat. 59, 38 TO EDWIN CHADWICK 1865 finessing to get myself elected without trouble and expense, and having found more difficulty than I expected, had at last shown myself in my true colours rather than run the risk of losing the election. If you will kindly represent these things to the com- mittee they will, I hope, enter into the difficulty I feel. If they think that any further explanation of my opinions would be desirable they have only to ask for it. If Mr. Beal, or Mr. Westerton, or any other member of the com- mittee will write to me asking my opinion on any new points, or the reasons and justification of my opinion on any of those on which it has been already asked and given, I shall have the greatest pleasure in satisfying them. In the same manner I shall be happy to reprint any of my articles which the committee may propose. I cannot, however, remember any that would be much to the purpose, as the political articles are mostly on gone-by politics. I should be very happy to reprint the article on " Enfran- chisement of Women," but it must be as my wife's, not as mine. I am glad to hear what you tell me concerning Mr. Maclean. In addition to his very handsome subscription he has lately sent me two polite invitations in his capacity of president of the Institute of Civil Engineers, and I was desirous to know how I had acquired so much of his goodwill. Any writing by Tories, nominally in my favour, is of no consequence. The Tories prefer anybody to a regular Government man, as they suppose Grosvenor to be. Any- one who is not a pledged member of the Ministerial party, they hope may now and then give them a stray vote. But if I were elected I should hope to be a much greater thorn in their side than a member of the old Whig connection can be. This letter, of course, is not for publication, but it may be shown to any members of the committee. TO MAX KYLLMAN 39 To Max Kyllman, of Manchester St. VSran, 30M May 1865. Dear Sir, — I have not written to you since I came 1865 here, having from various causes been so overwhelmed with — letter-writing that I was obliged to adjourn all of it that ^^'^'' ^^' admitted of postponement. I now write though I have not anything very particular to say, except that I am going to leave Avignon for a tour in the Cevennes and Auvergne, and though letters will be sent to me from here they will not reach me so soon or so certainly as at present. It seems to me that discussion on the fundamental points of representative government, and especially on the points raised in my Westminster letters, is going on very satisfac- torily at present. Numbers of country papers are sent to me in which Hare's system, representation of minorities, in all its shapes, and women's suffrage are mooted — sometimes with approbation, and often (especially as to women's suffrage) with much less hostility than was to be expected. You have probably seen Mr. Hughes' declaration in favour of Hare's system, and Francis Newman's commendation of me for adhering to it. The cheap editions also are going off at a wonderful rate, and even the dear ones are increas- ing in sale. These are substantial advantages derived from the Westminster contest, whether it succeeds or not. I think it hardly possible that it should succeed. Though it has brought to light a most unexpected amount of good feeling by isolated individuals towards me personally, there is no set of political men who wish to have me in Parlia- ment ; neither Whigs nor Tories, nor the Bright Radicals (though I hear that Bright himself speaks in my favour), nor any other set of Radicals, except perhaps the co- operative section of the working classes. Look at the list of subscribers for the election expenses ; next to none of them are representative men. They are people from here, there, and everywhere who have happened to like my books. Many even who for personal reasons might have subscribed, hold back, evidently because their sets are 40 TO THE HON. AND REV. W. H. LYTTLETON 1865 hostile to me. This is what I always said would be the case. As Comte says, "tout ce qui est aujourd'hui class6 " ^ ^ is sure to be hostile to really new ideas — a little shuffling of the cards is all they want. But enough of this. I am full of joy and spirits for the glorious future of America. The catastrophe of Lincoln, though it was a great shock, does not cloud the prospect. How could one have wished him a happier death ? He died almost unconsciously in the fulness of success, and martyrdom in so great a cause consecrates his name through all history. Such a death is the crown of a noble life. To the Hon. and Rev. W. H. Lyttelton, in reply to a letter from him thanking Mill for that portion of the "Examination of Hamilton" in which he attacks Mansel's doctrine that there is a difference in kind between human and divine morality. Blackheath Park, list July 1865. Dear Sir, — I thank you most sincerely for your tract, which I have read with very great pleasure and sympathy. Though I had read several papers belonging to the same series, and was well acquainted with your name and char- acter, I had not happened to see this tract. You had a strong case, and you have stated it well and effectively, and, above all, like one who feels its importance. I cannot conceive how any other view than that which you take of the question raised by Mr. Mansel, can be deemed religious or Christian ; and I felt sure that in maintaining, from my own point of view, the same conception of religious duty, I should be in complete sympathy with the best part of the religious world, using that phrase in its literal and not in its slang acceptation. Accordingly, the manner in which so many of the greatest ornaments of the Church of England lately came forward to share the responsibility TO A CORRESPONDENT 41 of a doctrine which, coming from me, was called atheistic 1865 and Satanic, did not cause me half as much pleasure from . ~ ., . ^ .~ Aetat. 59. its connection with myself as because it so fully justified the perfect confidence I had in their high feelings and principles. It causes me no surprise, but additional plea- sure, that you so fully participate in the same convictions and sentiments. I return, as desired, your letter in the Guardian, with thanks for the pleasure it has given me. To a Correspondent, on a point raised in the " Liberty." Blackheath Park, 2\stjuly 1865. Dear Sir, — I have been prevented by much occupation from sooner acknowledging your letter dated the 14th. The difficulty which you feel I understand to be this : How is the opinion that Christianity might have been extinguished by persecution compatible with the belief that God intended and pre-ordained that Christianity should subsist ? I conceive there is no inconsistency between the two opinions. If Christianity would have perished had it been persecuted in a certain manner, and if God had pre-ordained that it should not perish, the reasonable inference is that God pre-ordained that it should not be persecuted in that manner. The preser- vation of Christianity thus brought about would be no "accident," but part of the Divine plan. The relation between means and ends is quite com- patible with a providential government of human affairs. It is only necessary to suppose that God, when he willed the end, willed the means necessary to its accomplishment. If the Maker of all things intended that a certain thing should come to pass, it is reasonable to suppose that provision was made in the general arrangements of the universe for its coming to pass consistently with these arrangements. 42 TO RICHARD CONGREVE To Richard Congreve, on Mill's book on Comte. Blackhbath Park, Zth August 1865. 1865 Dear Sir, — It is precisely because I consider M. Comte , ~7 to have been a great thinker that I regard it as a duty to balance the strong and deeply felt admiration which I express for what I deem the fundamental parts of his philosophy by an equally emphatic expression of the opposite feelings I entertain towards other parts. It is M. Comte himself who, in my judgment, has thrown ridi- cule on his own philosophy by the extravagances of his later writings ; and since he has done so, I conceive that the mischief can only be corrected if those who desire to separate the first from the last show that they are as much alive to the ridiculous side of his character and specula- tions as those are who are unable to appreciate his great- ■ ness. Unless this separation can be effected, either the absurdities will weigh down the merits, or the merits will float the absurdities, since many of those last are, in my estimation, of such a kind that, if it were impossible to laugh at them, it would be necessary to denounce them seriously and severely. I am glad that the former side of the alternative is possible. Forgive the freedom with which I express what I know must appear to you not only error and prejudice, but want of due modesty and reverence. But any weaker terms would not put you in full possession of what I feel in the matter, on which feel- ing must rest the justification of the tone of the article. In saying that the offence I feared I might give would be unintentional I did not mean that it would be unforeseen, but only that such a consequence of my free speaking on the subject would be one which I should sincerely regret. I earnestly disclaimed, near the beginning of the second article, any feeling but that of respect towards M. Comte's persistent disciples, and I am bound to acknowledge the ex- treme courtesy of your letter in circumstances which would have excused in my eyes some vehemence of language. TO PROFESSOR T. H. HUXLEY 43 To Professor T. H. Huxley, in reply to a letter in which he invited Mill to join an educational society, promoted for the pur- pose of creating "a system of education in which Modern Literature and Science on the one hand, and Theology on the other, shall occupy their proper places." Blackheath Park, i8tA August 1865. Dear Sir, — From what you say of the projected school 1865 I feel no doubt that it will be a good thing, and deserving — of support, but I do not see how, with my opinions, I could ^^^^' ^'' publicly associate myself as a special supporter and re- commender with any school in which theology is part of the course ; for assuredly I do not think that theology ought to be taught in any school ; and there are even at present schools (the Birkbeck schools) in which none is taught, though I am not aware of any schools of that sort for the higher and middle classes, unless it be the London University College School, which is, I believe, only a day school. It might be useless in the present state of the public mind to propose such schools, and it may be quite right to support others, but I do not feel that that justifies me in holding myself forth as appearing, and partly founding, schools in which a principle I wholly condemn is even partly recognised and acted on. I must wait therefore to know more of the actual plan of the institution in this respect before I can judge how far and in what way I can join in promoting its establishment. When I said that our educational system needs other modifications still more than it needs the due introduction of modern languages and physical science, what I had strongly in view was improvements in the mode of teach- ing. It is disgraceful to human nature and society that the whole of boyhood should be spent in pretending to learn certain things without learning them. With proper 44 TO J. BOYD KINNEAR 1S65 methods and good teachers boys might really learn Greek and Latin instead of making believe to learn them, and might have ample time besides for science, and for as much of modern languages as there is any use in teaching to them while at school. And if science were taught as badly as Greek and Latin are taught, it would not do their minds more good. To J. Boyd Kinnear, in acknowledgment of his book, " Principles of Reform, Political and Legal." Blackheath Park, 19M August 1865. . . . The chief points on which I differ from you are — ist, I think you ascribe too great influence to differences of race and too little to historical differences, and to accidents as causes of the diversities of character existing among mankind. 2nd, I cannot join with you (glad as I should be to do so) in thinking that the wages-receiving class, if uni- versally enfranchised, would have no class feelings or class opinions as such. The fact that the operative classes are divided on many questions of politics and legislation is equally true of the higher or the middle class of landholders or of capitalists, and is as consist- ent in the one case as in the other with their holding together as a compact body in cases in which their joint interest is or seems to be involved, or in which any bias arising from their common social position is liable to operate. I am heartily glad to welcome you as an adherent of a reading and writing qualification. We agree in thinking that this, combined with independence of public charity, should entitle to a vote. I do not find any notice in your book of the principle of representation of minorities, or rather, representation of all instead of a number of local majorities. I cannot help wishing that your attention TO J. BOYD KINNEAR 45 were drawn to a principle which, besides its inherent 1865 justice and manifold expediency, would be the most im- portant corrective, as I think, of the inconveniences liable to arise from universal suffrage even subject to the condi- tion of reading and writing. . . . To J. Boyd Kin near, a further letter on the same subject. Munich, 25/^ September 1865. Dear Sir, — Many thanks for your long and interesting letter. It is well that those who agree as much as we do should occasionally discover their points of difference, if only for the sake of suggesting to each other matter for further thought. I will therefore add a few words by way of rejoinder, confining myself at present to your third point, the extension of the suffrage. My experience agrees with yours as to the greater mental honesty, and amenability to reason, of the better part of the working-classes, compared with the average of either the higher or middle. But may not this reason- ably be ascribed to the fact that they have not yet, like the others, been corrupted by power ? The English working classes have had no encouragement to think themselves better than, or as good as, those who are more educated than themselves. But once let them become the ascendant power, and a class of base adventurers in the character of professional politicians will be constantly addressing them with all possible instigations to think their own crude notions better than the theories and refinements of thinking people, and I do not deem so highly of any numerous portion of the human race as to believe that it is not corruptible by the flattery which is always addressed to power. The vertical divisions of opinion which you speak of seem to me to belong to the past, and to be almost wholly the effect of bad laws, now mostly removed. Who ever thinks of opposition of interests or feeling between the agricultural and the trading classes now that Aetat. 59. 46 TO A CORRESPONDENT 1865 the Corn Laws have been repealed ? But the division between labourers and employers of labour seems to me to be increasing in importance, and gradually swallowing up all others, and I believe it will always be widening and deepening unless, or until, the growth of Co-operation practically merges both classes into one. And if either of the two powers is strong enough to prevail without the help of an enlightened minority of the opposite class, it seems to me contrary to all experience of human nature to suppose that it will not abuse its power. There is no considerable opposition of apparent interest among the different kinds of manual labourers. Even if there be any kind of them whose wages do not admit of being raised, which I for one do not believe (much less would they), they would still, I apprehend, vote for a law which they thought would raise the wages of others, since the rise would not be at their expense. Neither is it only on the question of wages, or hours of labour, that the poorest and most numerous class would feel a common interest as against the propertied classes ; might they not be tempted to throw all taxes on property — or even on realised property — and to make the taxes hea-vy, in order, by their outlay, to benefit, as they might think, trade and labour ? Does anyone think them sufficiently enlightened to have outgrown these fallacies ? I am expressing all this very crudely for want of time and space, but " I speak as to wise men — judge ye what I speak." . . . To a Correspondent in Southport, Connecticut, in reply to a letter from him, indulging in very vulgar abuse of the British people. Avignon, 25//^ October :865. Dear Sir, — Your letter dated 29th September has been forwarded to me here. For the good opinion and good will which it expresses as regards myself I am duly thank- ful. You will scarcely be surprised that the bitter hostility it declares against my country and (with a few individual Aetat. 59. TO A CORRESPONDENT 47 exceptions) against the whole of my countrymen, pro- 1865 duces in me a very different sentiment. No one disapproves more, or is in the habit of express- ing his disapprobation more strongly than I do, of the narrow, exclusive patriotism of former ages, which made the good of the whole human race a subordinate con- sideration to the good, or worse still, to the mere power and external importance, of the country of one's birth. I believe that the good of no country can be obtained by any means but such as tend to that of all countries, nor ought to be sought otherwise, even if obtainable. If my country were peopled, as you seem to think, by the scum of the earth, and if its existence were a standing nuisance to all other nations, I for one would shake the dust from my feet, and seek a better country elsewhere. But, speak- ing as one who has never kept any terms with national vanity, nor ever hesitated to tell his countrymen of their faults, and who has especially censured the feelings and conduct of an influential portion of them on the occasion of your late glorious contest, I do not admit the charges brought against them in your letter. England is to the populations of Europe the representative, by no means perfect but still the representative, of the same prin- ciples of social and political freedom which Americans so justly cherish. Any weakening of her influence would be simply so much additional discouragement to popular institutions and to liberty of thought, speech, and action throughout the old continents, and strengthening of the hands of despotism, temporal and spiritual, all over the world. A war between Great Britain and the United States, were such a calamity possible, would give a new lease to tyranny and bigotry wherever they exist, and would throw back the progress of mankind for generations. Let me remind you that what you say about the grasping disposi- tion and aggressive spirit of the English Government and people, is exactly and literally what the ignorant and pre- judiced part of the higher and middle classes of Great Britain sincerely think and say concerning America. In 48 TO A SCHOOLBOY OF FOURTEEN 1865 neither of the two cases is the accusation true ; but the — profound ignorance of each other which it exhibits in both e'at. 59. countries, is a most serious danger and evil to the world, which all who wish well to mankind must earnestly desire to cure, and which can only be aggravated by the indul- gence of such feelings as you express. To a Schoolboy of Fourteen, in reply to a letter asking Mill's opinion on the question, "Is flogging good or bad for boys ? " Avignon, \lth Noveviber 1865. Sir, — To give a proper answer to your question would be to write the essay which you are intending to write. But if you wish for a mere opinion, expressed in few words, I would say — 1. Severe punishments of some kind are often neces- sary for boys, but only when they have been negligently or ill brought up and allowed to acquire bad habits. 2. Assuming severe punishments to be necessary, any other method of punishment that would be effectual is preferable to flogging. In the case, however, of certain grave moral delinquencies, chiefly those which are either of a cowardly or brutal character, corporal punishment in that or some equivalent form may be admissible. To Dr. MacCormac, of Belfast, on restrictions on marriage. Avignon, 6,th December 1865. Dear Sir, — In answer to your letter of 29th November, I would say, that restrictions on marriage, or on any other human action, when so conducted as to be directly injurious to others than the agents themselves, do not appear to me objectionable on the principle of liberty. For all our actions which affect the interests of other people I hold that we are morally, and may without violation of principle TO HORACE WHITE 49 be made legally, responsible. I have, however, expressly 1865 guarded myself against being understood to mean that — legal restrictions on marriage are expedient. That is an ^ ^ ' altogether different question, to which I conceive no universal and peremptory answer can be given, and in deciding which for any particular case due weight ought to be given to the probability of consequences of the kind you mention, as well as of any other kinds. I am glad that you agree with me on the subject (much more urgent in this country) of compulsory education. To Horace White, editor of the Chicago Tribune, in reply to a letter from him. Avignon, i^th December 1865. I hardly know any point in Political Economy which it is more difficult to treat popularly, and so as to carry per- suasion to those who have not studied the subject, than that one, of the influence of high and low wages on foreign trade. To understand the matter it is necessary to realise the fact that all trade is in reality barter — that the question is not whether the home capitalist shall produce or not, but whether he shall produce one thing or another — cotton fabrics, for instance, or wheat ; and that the high wages which must equally be paid in either case, cannot place one of these two modes of employing his capital at any disadvantage by the side of the other. If it was only in cotton-spinning that American wages were higher than English, while in agriculture they were equal, then indeed the high wages being peculiar to one employment would really make it more difficult, and perhaps impossible, to carry it on without a protecting duty. But in that case it would clearly be an employment unsuited to the country, since labour employed in it would require to be remunerated more highly than the general rate of wages in the country. It is very difficult to make this argument popular. What one might do is to ask, If high wages are sufficient VOL. II. D so TO HORACE WHITE ■865 to make the American cotton manufacturer unable to com- Aetat^ .. pete with the English, how is it that the same high wages do not prevent the American farmer from underselling the English, unless because farming is an industry suited to the country and cotton-spinning not ? HELEN TAYLOR CHAPTER X 1866-1867 From this date onwards, Mill received much assist- ance from Helen Taylor in the transaction of his correspondence. In many cases his letters were written entirely by Helen Taylor ; and occasionally by Helen Taylor and Mill together: but in every case the letter was subsequently copied by Mill, and despatched in his name, with no indication of its true authorship. Wherever Helen Taylor was either the sole or the part author of a letter, I have notified the fact at the head of the letter. To Henry Fawcett, acknowledging his book, " Economic Position of the British Labourer." St. Vekan, \st January 1866. Dear Mr. Fawcett, — I have delayed long to thank 1866 you for your book, having been very busy writing, and ^ "7 unable to read it with proper attention until within these few days. I think the essays must have been very interesting as lectures, and will be very useful as a book. The subject of the land laws and laws of inheritance is very well treated, and is one of which few feel the importance. You have broken ground very usefully on it. The considerations you have brought forward will be much needed in the discussions we shall soon have on Irish affairs, and the whole subject will become much more practical after Aetat. 59. 52 TO HENRY FAWCETT 1866 any considerable Parliamentary reform. One of the most important consequences of giving a share in the govern- ment to the working classes is that there will then be some members of the House with whom it will no longer be a maxim that human society exists for the sake of property in land — a grovelling superstition which is still in full force among the higher classes. I need hardly say how highly I approve your chapter on Co-operation, and the restatement of the ideas of your Westminster Review article respecting strikes. On all these subjects you have strengthened yourself by new thoughts and illustrations ; and the speculations in the concluding chapter, on the possibilities of the future, open a class of considerations both new and very necessary to be thought of. The chapter which, on the whole, I least like is the one on wages, though it will probably be more praised than any of the rest : but I think I could show that an increase of wages at the expense of profits would not be an im- practicability on the true principles of political economy. It might doubtless send capital to other countries, but we must recollect that the movement for higher wages and shorter working hours is now common to all the industrious nations. There is one mistake in a matter of fact which I saw with regret in the book, and which I hope a new edition may soon give you an opportunity of correcting. You have entirely misunderstood the ateliers nationaux. They were not advances to co-operative societies, but direct payment of wages for work mostly nominal, from the public purse ; and so far were they from having any connection with Louis Blanc or his opinions, that he has always bitterly complained of them, as having been set up not for but against him and his plans. The member of the Provisional Government principally re- sponsible for them was, he says, M. Marie. The advances to associations of workmen were quite another matter, and did none of the harm which the ateliers nationaux did probably even some good ; at all events the Government TO JUDGE CHAPMAN 53 could not have refused such experimental aid when the 1866 associations thought that they could not get on without it. I am not certain that such advances (resembling those the Credit Mobilier makes to a richer class) would not sometimes be useful even now, though it is one of the lessons of the experience of that time that in most cases the associations which did without subsidies pros- pered the most. We shall now soon meet on our common field of battle. The two great topics of this year will be Jamaica and Reform, and there will be an immensity to be said and done on both subjects. I have just seen with great pleasure that Lord Hobart has come out decidedly (in Macmillan s Magazine) for Hare's system. It is gradually taking hold of one after another of the thinking men, of whom Lord Hobart is decidedly one. I shall perhaps invoke your aid on the metropolitan government question, of the burthen of which I shall probably have to take a considerable share. To Judge Chapman, who had left Australia for New Zealand, where he was now acting as Judge of the Supreme Court. Avignon, I th January 1866. Dear Chapman, — Your letter of i8th June reached me just before leaving England for Avignon, where I have been during the whole time which, as you mentioned, Mrs. Chapman and your younger children were to pass in London. I consequently have not seen them, but I shall hope to see your son who is to remain in England, as well as his brother who was already there. I have had less intercourse with your eldest son than I had hoped and intended to have, owing to the great engrossment of my time when in England by occupations which you can well appreciate — and now there is more on my hands than ever, and I have so many calls upon every moment 54 TO JUDGE CHAPMAN 1866 of time that I am obliged to seem negligent of old . ~ friends and almost to avoid making new ones. But I Aetat. 59. & am not the less desirous to be of use to any one con- nected with you, and if I seem inattentive it is not owing to indifference. It must be very interesting to you to renew your know- ledge of British New Zealand after an interval which bears so considerable a proportion to its short history. England has heard much of New Zealand these few years — and in a manner far from agreeable. Thoughtful people have found it hard to make up their minds on the New Zealand aspect of the universal colonial question — what to do with the aborigines. It was hoped that this would be a less desperate difficulty in New Zealand than elsewhere, on account of the higher qualities and more civilisable character of the Maoris. But the eternal source of quarrel, the demand of the colonists for land, has de- feated these hopes, and it seems as if, unless or until the progressive decline of the Maori population ends in their extinction, the country would be divided between two races always hostile in mind, if not always in actual war- fare. Here then is the burthen on the conscience of legislators at home. Can they give up the Maoris to the mercy of the more powerful and constantly increasing section of the population ? Knowing what the English are when they are left alone with what they think an inferior race, I cannot reconcile myself to this. But again, is it possible for England to maintain an authority there for the purpose of preventing unjust treatment of the Maoris, and at the same time allow self-government to the British colonists in every other respect ? How is that one subject to be kept separate, and how is the governor to be in other things a mere ornamental frontispiece to a government of the colony by a colonial cabinet and legislature, and to assume a will and responsibility of his own, overruling his cabinet and legislature whenever the Maoris are concerned ? If the condition of colonial government is to keep well with the colonial population and its representatives, there is no hindering the colonists TO JUDGE CHAPMAN 55 from making their co-operation depend on compliance igee with their wishes as to the Maoris. I do not see my way — through these difficulties. Nor do I feel able to judge ^^'"^'^ 59- what would be the consequence of leaving the colonists without the aid of Queen's troops, to settle the main difficulty in their own way. Perhaps the proofs which the Maoris have given that they can be formidable enemies may have produced towards them in the colo- nists a different state of mind from the overbearing and insolent disregard of the rights and feelings of inferiors which is the common characteristic of John Bull when he thinks he cannot be resisted. On all these questions I am now under a special public obligation to make up my mind, and I hope to be helped to do so by your knowledge and experience. The information your letters are always full of will be often valuable to me now. Your account of the Middle Island and its impassable range of high Alps is very attractive to me, and if New Zealand were an island in the Northern Atlantic would speedily send me on a visit there. The very idea of anything impassable and impenetrable is almost too charming now when every nook and corner of our planet has got or is getting opened to the full light of day. One of the many causes which make the age we are living in so very important in the life of the human race — almost, indeed, the turning-point of it — is that so many things combine to make it the era of a great change in the conceptions and feelings of mankind as to the world of which they form a part. There is now almost no place left on our own planet that is mysterious to us, and we are brought within sight of the practical questions which will have to be faced when the multiplied human race shall have taken full possession of the earth (and exhausted its principal fuel). Meanwhile we are also acquiring scientific convictions as to the future destina- tion of suns and stars and the whole visible universe. These things must have ultimately a very great effect on human character. You have read Buckle's remarks on Aetat. 59, 56 TO COMMONS PRESERVATION SOCIETY 1866 the effect of the aspects of nature in different parts of the earth upon the moral characteristics and thence on the social development of the different nations. One begins to see a long vista of effects of analogous origin, but of very different kind, on the future generations of mankind. Even without looking to anything so distant, or going beyond the proximate effects of social and commercial causes already in operation, some thinkers are beginning to speculate on what will happen when the agricultural labourers of England shall have followed those of Ireland to America, and are asking themselves whether we shall have to import Chinese to supply the vacancy. The most certain result that I foresee from all this is that English statesmanship will have to assume a new character and to look in a more direct way than before to the interests of posterity. We are now, I think, standing in the very boundary line between this new statesmanship and the old, and the next generation will be accustomed to a very different set of political arguments and topics from those of the present and past. To the Secretary of the Commons Preservation Society, on the formation of that body. Avignon, 22nd January 1866. Dear Sir, — I regret that the extreme proximity of the date at which the meeting of the Commons Preservation Society is to be held makes it impossible for me to be present. I have all my life been strongly impressed with the importance of preserving as much as possible of such free space for healthful exercise and for the enjoyment of natural beauty as the growth of population and cultiva- tion has still left to us. The desire to engross the whole surface of the earth in the mere production of the greatest possible quantity of food and the materials of manufac- ture, I consider to be founded on a mischievously narrow conception of the requirements of human nature. I there- fore highly applaud the formation of the Commons Aetat. 59. TO THE SPEAKER'S SECRETARY 57 Preservation Society, and am prepared to co-operate in 1866 the promotion of its objects in any manner which lies in my power. To the Speaker's Secretary. By Helen Taylor and Mill. 22nd February 1866. Sir, — I have had the honour of receiving an invitation to dine with the Right Hon. the Speaker on Wednesday next, 28th February, but beg that I may be allowed to excuse myself from accepting it, as I think it desirable that those members of the House of Commons who do not approve of the regulations in respect to dress at present in force should make their objection known to the Speaker, who, I do not doubt, will give to it whatever weight is justly due. I sincerely hope that in taking this mode of expressing the objection which I entertain to the practice hitherto followed, I shall not be considered to be wanting in that respect and deference to the Right Hon. the Speaker which it is as much my wish as my duty invariably to observe. To F. MiLNES Edge, London representative of the Chicago Tribune, on Protectionism in the United States. Blackheath Park, 26th February 1866. Dear Sir, — I have to acknowledge a letter from you dated 15th February, asking me to explain a passage of my " Principles of Political Economy " in which I express the opinion that a protecting duty, for a limited space of time, may be defensible in a new country as a means of naturalising a branch of industry in itself suited to the country, but which would be unable to establish itself there without some form of temporary assistance from the State. This passage, you say, has been made use of 58 TO JOHN CAMPBELL 1866 by American protectionists as the testimony of an Eng- lish writer on political economy to the inapplicability to America of the general principle of free trade. The passage has been used for a similar purpose in the Australian colonies, erroneously in my opinion, but cer- tainly with more plausibility than can be the case in the United States, for Australia really is a new country whose capabilities for carrying on manufactures cannot yet be said to have been tested ; but the manufacturing parts of the United States, New England and Pennsylvania, are no longer new countries ; they have carried on manufactures on a large scale and with the benefit of high protecting duties for at least two generations, and their operations have had full time to acquire the manu- facturing skill in which those of England had preceded them ; there has been ample experience to prove that the inability of their manufactures to compete in the American market with those of Great Britain does not arise merely from the more recent date of their establish- ment, but from the fact that American labour and capital can in the present circumstances of America be employed with greater return and greater advantage to the national wealth in the production of other articles. I have never for a moment recommended or countenanced any protect- ing duty except for the purpose of enabling the protected branch of industry in a very moderate time to become independent of protection. That moderate time in the United States has been exceeded, and if the cottons or iron of America still need protection against those of the other hemisphere it is in my eyes a complete proof that they ought not to have it, and that the longer it is con- tinued the greater the injustice and the waste of national revenues will be. . . . To John Campbell, of Liverpool. Avignon, 4M April 1866. Dear Sir, — The supposition that I approve of the Bill empowering Government to make loans for the improve- Aetat. 59. FROM J. A. ROEBUCK TO E. CHADWICK 59 ment of the dwellings of the working classes is quite 1866 correct. If I thought that such a measure would injure the independence of the working classes or encourage their im- providence, I should strenuously oppose it. But the case seems to me to be one of a class of cases in which people require artificial help, to enable them afterwards to help themselves. The taste for better house accommodation has still to be created ; and until it is created, private specula- tion will not find its account in supplying that improved accommodation. The aid of Government is often useful and sometimes necessary to staii improved systems which, once started, are able to keep themselves going without further help. I support loans from the public for the purpose in question (which is still more important morally than even physically), as I would support similar loans for the purpose of creating peasant proprietors, or (if necessary for the purpose) in aid of colonisation. I think, however, that the loans ought not to be accessible only to Town Councils, but also to building companies or private capi- talists under strict conditions and on proper security ; and the Bill introduced by the Government gives, I believe, the power of making such advances. From J. A. Roebuck to Edwin Chadwick, stating the impression made in the House of Com- mons by Mill's maiden speech, on the Reform Bill. 19 Ashley Place, i6,th April 1866. My dear Chadwick, — Thinking you would like to hear from me the fortune of Mill last night, I write you my opinion of his speech ; and I can give you not only my own estimate of its worth, but that also of Mr. Speaker, who asked me to send Mill to him, so that he (the Speaker) might be able to express to him personally his high ad- miration of his address. And assuredly that address did deserve all the eulogy which the Speaker bestowed on it — it settled for ever the position Mill is to hold in the House, and I beHeve lays open to him the highest offices in the Aetat. 59. 60 TO MRS. CAROLINE LIDDELL 1866 administration of the country. Bulwer-Lytton spoke im mediately before Mill, and never was there a more remark- able contrast than that offered by the two speakers. Lytton's was a mere House of Commons party ad captanduvt oration — full of House of Commons wit and sparkle, telling epigrams and personal thrusts, but as to instruction nothing ; there was no deep thought, no high and exalting feeling. But this was just what distinguished Mill's address — so much so, that I consider this speech an epoch in Parliamentary oratory. It was the outpouring of a great, honest, yet modest mind ; the vigorous ex- pression of well-considered and accurate thought. The manner, too, was attractive ; as regards his voice, he seems to have taken and well used my hints. A very little pains and exercise will give him confidence and power, and make him one of the great speakers in Parliament. I hardly know whether the suggestion I am about to make is wise or useful — that will depend very much on his habit of composition and thought. I myself never use a note, but this has been brought about by long training expressly to that end ; but it seems to me, that if he made the very slightest skeleton of his intended speech and put the heads on a card, which card he might openly hold in his hand, he would find his memory aided, his confidence increased, and (now don't laugh) the carriage of his body improved. He has a habit of joining his hands behind him, and rolling from side to side, looking like a schoolboy saying his lesson. Now I would suggest to him, to stand for some minutes every day before a cheval glass, with a card in his hand ; to make a little speech, and watch carefully his own demeanour. Now I think you must be tired of me and my advice, so I will end. — Yours very truly, J. A. R. To Mrs. Caroline Liddell, in reply to a letter from her advocating Women's Suffrage, but saying that she was " no strong-minded Aetat. 59. TO MRS. CAROLINE LIDDELL 6i female, and should never dream of going to the hustings." By Helen Taylor. (>th May 1866. Madam, — I am happy to hear that you and other ladies 1866 are disposed to assert your just claim to be represented in the body that taxes you, and I recommend to you to lose no opportunity of doing so. When men who wish to remove the invidious distinctions under which you labour offer arguments founded on the evident justice of your cause, we are constantly met by the reply that ladies them- selves see no hardship in it, and do not care enough for the franchise to ask for it. I am glad to be able to say that I know several members of Parliament who wish to grant the franchise without distinction of sex, but I know many more who would be ashamed to refuse it if it were quietly and steadily demanded by women themselves. I am sorry to find that you disclaim being strong-minded, because I believe strength of mind to be one of the noblest gifts that any rational creature, male or female, can possess, and the best measure of our degree of efficiency for working in the cause of truth. But such mental powers and energies as we any of us do possess, ought to be employed in striving to remove the evils with wfiich circumstances have made us acquainted ; and a woman who is a taxpayer is the most natural and most suitable advocate of the political enfranchisement of women. I hope, therefore, that you will endeavour to strengthen the hands of those (and I know more than one) who have devoted their lives to working in your cause, by protesting against the injustice you suffer, whenever and wherever you can, both in society, and when occasion offers in public. If you could yourself write a petition (almost in the terms of your letter to me), and procure as many signatures to it as you can, I should be happy to present it to Parliament. Aetat. 60, 62 TO DARBY GRIFFITH, M.P. To Darby Griffith, M.P. Blackheath Park, f)th [une 1866. 1866 Dear Sir, — I am happy that, as I infer from your note of yesterday's date, you are not indisposed towards the extension of the electoral franchise to women within the limits expressed in the petition. The notice which I gave in the House yesterday goes as far as I think it prudent to go, on this subject, in the present session. As there is no chance that we can succeed in getting a clause for admitting women to the suffrage introduced with the present Reform Bill, it seems to me and to other friends of such a proposal desirable merely to open the subject this year, without taking up the time of the House and increasing the accusation of obstructiveness by forcing on a discussion which cannot lead to a practical result. What we are now doing will lay the foundation of a further movement when advisable, and will prepare for that movement a much greater amount of support in the country than we should have if we attempted it at present. To the Rev. James Martineau, in reply to a letter in which he requested Mill's support of his candidature for the chair of Mental Philosophy and Logic in University College. Blackheath Park, 6th July 1866. Dear Sir, — It would be very discreditable to any Englishman who watches the progress of opinion, and is capable of understanding the vast importance of specula- tive philosophy, to have remained ignorant of your con- tributions to it, or of the influence you have exercised over the mode of thought of a considerable proportion of the few and scattered metaphysical students in this country. It would always give me much pleasure to bear testimony to your knowledge, both special and general, TO ROBERT PHARAZYN 63 your abilities, and your candid appreciation of opponents, 1866 of which I have had a striking instance in my own case. — Unfortunately, however, if I were to volunteer that testimony on the occasion of the vacancy in University College, and if when given it were of any value to you, it could only be so by being prejudicial to another candidate who, though I have no reason to think his claims superior to yours in any other respect, would certainly teach doctrines much nearer than yours to those which I myself hold on the great philosophical questions. Now, though this in itself is far from being a paramount consideration with me, the opportunities are so few and unfrequent of obtaining for opinions similar to my own their fair share of influence in the public teaching of this country, that if I myself had a vote in the disposal of the professorship, I should think my- self bound, in the general interest of philosophical thought no less than of my own form of it, to give the preference to a candidate otherwise sufficiently qualified, who would teach my own opinions, in one of the very few chairs from which those opinions would not be a peremptory exclusion. You are perfectly capable of entering into this feeling even if you do not approve of it, and I can only add that I do not think I have ever in any instance regretted so much my inability to support a similar candidature. To Robert Pharazyn, of New Zealand. St. ViRAN, 21 si August 1866. Sir, — The great occupation of my time in the latter part of the session has prevented me from more promptly acknowledging your letter of 14th' April. I am glad to find that a student and thinker, such as you evidently are, finds so much in common between me and himself. The author of the article in the Westminster Review from which you quote (who is not, as you suppose, Mr. Lucas) is quite right in saying that I have thrown no light on the difficulty of reconciling the belief in a perfectly good God with the actual constitution of Nature. It was not my business to 64 TO MR. JOHN MORLEY 1866 do so, but if I had given any opinion on the point it would ^ "7 g have been that there is no mode of reconciling them except the hypothesis that the Creator is a Being of limited power. Either he is not all-powerful or he is not good, and what I said was, that unless he is good I will not call him so nor worship him. The appearances, however, of contrivance in the universe, whatever amount of weight we attach to them, seem rather to point to a benevolent design limited by obstacles than to a malevolent or tyrannical character in the designer, and I therefore think that the mind which cherishes devotion to a Principle of Good in the universe, leans in the direction in which the evidence, though I can- not think it conclusive, nevertheless points. I therefore do not discourage this leaning, though I think it important that people should know that the foundation it rests on is a hypothesis, not an ascertained fact. This is the principal limitation which I would apply to your position, that we should encourage ourselves to believe as to the unknowable what it is best for mankind that we should believe. I do not think it can even be best for mankind to believe what there is not evidence of, but I think that, as mankind im- prove, they will much more recognise two independent mental provinces, the province of belief and the province of imaginative conjecture, that they will become capable of keeping them distinct, and while they unite their belief to the evidence, will think it allowable to let their imaginative anticipations go forth, not carrying belief in their train, in the direction which experience and study of human nature shows to be the most improving to the character and most exalting and consoling to the individual feelings. . . . To Mr. John Morley, on an article written by him in the Fortnightly Revieiv condemning the annexation of Mysore. 26th September 1866. Dear Sir, — I am much obliged to you for your article though I do not altogether agree with it. I presented the Aetat. 60. TO MR. JOHN MORLEY 65 petition, not because I concurred in its sentiments, but 1866 because it came from people who were entitled to be heard, and on the last day of the session they could not find any other member whom they thought suitable. I approved of all Lord Dalhousie's annexations except that of Kerauli, which never took effect, having been at once disallowed from home, and indeed Lord Dalhousie himself gave it up before he knew of its having been negatived. My principle was this. Wherever there are really Native States, with a nationality and historical traditions and feelings, which is emphatically the case (for example) with the Rajpoot States, there I would on no account take advantage of any failure of heirs to put an end to them. But all the Mahomedan (Rampore excepted) and most of the Mahratta kingdoms are not of home growth, but created by conquest not a century ago, and the military chiefs and office-holders who carry on the government and form the ruling class are almost as much foreigners to the mass of the people as we ourselves are. The Scindia and Holkar families in Central India are foreign dynasties, and of low caste too. The home of the Mahrattas is in the South, and there is no really native Mahratta kingdom now standing except Kola- pore. In these modern states created by conquest I would make the continuance of the dynasty by adoption not a right nor a general rule, but a reward to be earned by good government and as such I would grant it freely. All this, however, was changed by Lord Canning's pro- mise, which I thought at the time and still think most ill-advised. And even if right otherwise, I think it ought to have excepted States actually created by our gift, as Mysore was. In such cases we are by right the sole inter- preters of our own deed of gift. All arguments grounded on vague phrases of that most plausible and successful of political humbugs, Lord Wellesley, count with me for nothing. He would have taken the whole country out- right had he dared, but Parliament had then very recently made a solemn declaration against territorial acquisitions in India, and his object was to throw dust in the eyes of Parliament and take the country as far as it could be VOL. II. E 66 TO C. GAVAN DUFFY 1866 done while pretending not to do it. The only practical AetaTeo l^^^^ioii "with me is, Does Lord Canning's promise to the native princes which revived our right of escheat, fairly and reasonably include this particular case ? Opinions among experienced Indians are divided on the point, and I have not yet thoroughly examined the documents. I there- fore have not made up my mind, though I much fear our faith is committed beyond recall. In one thing I fully agree with you, that whenever we sanction an adoption we ought to undertake the education of the young successor and train him to public business under a judicious and experienced resident. This has been done in a good many instances and often with very considerable success. Travancore, which you mention, is only one of a number of cases in point (if we did educate the chief himself, which I forget) ; and though the princes so trained usually degenerate more or less in the lapse of years, they almost always remain much better than the miserable creatures brought up in the zenana. To C. Gavan Duffy, in reply to a question as to how far it is justifiable in politics to compromise on minor matters, in order to secure victory on matters of greater importance. Sr. Veran, 2nd October 1866. Dear Sir, — I feel it a very high compliment that you should wish to know my opinion on a point of conscience, and still more so that you should think that opinion likely to be of any assistance to you in the guidance of your own political conduct. The point mentioned in your letter is one which I have often and carefully considered, for though my own course in public matters has been one which did not often call on me to co-operate with anybody, I have reflected much on the conditions of co-operation among the requisites of practical public life. The conclusion which I have long come to is one which seems rather obvious when one has Aetat. 60. TO C. GAVAN DUFFY 67 got at it, but it is so seldom acted on that apparently most 1866 people find it difficult to practise. It seems to me, in the first place, that a conscientious person whose turn of mind and outward circumstances combine to make practical political life his line of greatest usefulness, may, and often ought to be, willing to put his opinion in abeyance on a political question which he deems to be, in the circum- stances of the time and place, of secondary importance ; which may be the case with any question that does not in one's own judgment involve any fundamental principle of morality. But in consenting to waive his opinion, it seems to me an indispensable condition that he should not dis- guise it. He should say to his constituents or to the world exactly what he really thinks about the matter. Insincere professions are the one cardinal sin in a representative government. If an Australian politician wishes to be in the Assembly for the sake of questions which he thinks much more important, for the time being, than that of protection, I should hold him justified in saying to a constituency, " I think protection altogether a mistake, but since it is a sine qua non with you, and the opposite is not a sine qua non with me, if you elect me I will not oppose it." If he conscientiously thought that the strong feeling of the public in its favour gave them a right, or made it expedient to have it practically tried, I should not think him wrong in promising to support it ; though it is not a thing I should lightly or willingly do. He might even, for adequate public reasons, consent to join a protectionist ministry, but only on condition that protection should be an open question, and that he should be at liberty to speak his mind publicly on the subject. The question of expediency in these matters each must decide for himself. The expediencies vary with all sorts of personal considerations. For instance, if he has con- siderable popular influence, and is, in all other respects than this, the favourite candidate, it will often be his most virtuous course to insist on entire freedom of action, and make the electors feel that they cannot have a represen- tative of his quality without acquiescing in his voting Aetat. 60. 68 TO DAVID URQUHART 1866 against some of their opinions. The only absolute rule I would lay down is, not to consent to the smallest hypocrisy. The rest is matter of practical judgment on which all that can be said is, Weigh all the considerations and act for the best. To David Urquhart, the diplomatist, in reply to a letter from him supporting Mill's action in the prosecution of Governor Eyre ; and enclosing subscriptions from various persons, to assist in that object. St. Vi;RAN, d,th October 1866. My dear Urquhart, — I am really obliged to you for the sight of Mrs. Urquhart's letter, I wish it were read by every person in the British Isles. Let me also beg you to thank your two friends, if they are still with you, both for their subscriptions and for their letters. I feel a real respect for men who not only have a conscience, but whose conscience makes them feel that they are personally responsible for their actions, and cannot shift off that responsibility upon the shoulders of superiors. It is a real pleasure to me to find you and myself in thorough and hearty co-operation, even were it only on one subject. But the principle which actuates both of us on that subject is progressively important, and extends far beyond the particular case. You approve of my speech because you see that I am not on this occasion standing up for the negroes, or for liberty, deeply as both are interested in the subject — but for the first necessity of human society, law. One would have thought that when this was the matter in question, all political parties might be expected to be unanimous. But my eyes were first opened to the moral condition of the English nation (I except in these matters the working classes) by the atrocities perpetrated in the Indian Mutiny, and the feelings which supported them at home. Then came the sympathy with the lawless rebellion of the Southern Americans in defence of an insti- Aetat. 60. TO DAVID URQUHART 69 tution which is the sum of all lawlessness, as Wesley said it 1866 was of all villainy — and finally came this Jamaica business, the authors of which, from the first day I knew of it, I determined that I would do all in my power to bring to justice if there was not another man in Parliament to stand by me. You rightly judge that there is no danger of my sacrificing such a purpose to any personal advancement. I hope I should not be so base even if I cared for personal advancement, but, as it happens, I do not. . . . To David Urquhart St. V^ran, 26th October 1 866. My dear Urquhart, — I thank you sincerely for your letter. The actual experience of one who has had so much of it, and of so unusual a sort, is sure to be worth having, and worth meditating on. Your letter makes me wish to give you an equally explicit statement of my own way of thinking, so far as it is different from yours. And I think I can trust myself sufficiently not to be afraid that my having done so will raise any obstacle of amour propre in my own mind to prevent me from changing any part of that way of thinking which can be shown to be wrong. I feel as strongly as you the absence of control over the executive in matters of foreign policy, and the absolute inutility and nullity, as far as that is con- cerned, of any change of Ministers. I should never dream of telling the working or any vinrepresented classes that they have no power unless they can get the suffrage, and I do not ascribe the prodigious superiority of their moral sentiments on such matters as Eyre, the Indian Mutiny, &c., over the classes socially above them, to any intrinsic superiority of moral excellence. But I do not believe that the bad feelings, or absence of good feelings, in the others, arises from their having votes. I ascribe it to the sympathy of officials with officials, and of the classes from whom officials are selected with officials of all sorts. I ascribe it also to the sympathy with authority and power, generated Aetat. 60. 70 TO DAVID URQUHART 1866 in our higher and upper middle classes by the feeling of being specially privileged to exercise them, and by living in a constant dread of the encroachment of the class beneath, which makes it one of their strongest feelings that resistance to authority must be put down per fas et nefas. I do not believe that feelings of these kinds would exist where there was no privileged class, and where no one had more political influence of a direct kind than his mere vote gave him. There is much in American politics that is regrettable enough, but I do not observe that there is a particle of the English upper-class policy that authority (meaning the persons in authority) must be supported at all costs ; and American foreign policy is all above-board and in broad daylight. So, I believe, would that of England be, if the working classes had votes. I am no worshipper of those classes, and they know it. I have written and pub- lished harsh truths of them, which were brought up against me in meetings of the working classes during my election, and I never was so much applauded by them as when I stood to what I had written and defended it. They are not yet politically corrupted by power. I doubt not that they would be corrupted like other classes by becoming the paramount power in the country, though probably in a less degree, because in a multitude the general feelings of human nature are usually more powerful and class feelings pro- portionately less so than in a small body. But I do not want to make them predominant. I see the country under the leadership of a higher and a middle class who, by very disuse of attempting or wishing to do their duty as managers of the national affairs, have become incapable of doing it, and I am hopeless of any improvement but by letting in a powerful influence from those who are the great sufferers by whatever evil is done or is left uncorrected at home, and who have no personal or class interests or feelings con- cerned either in oppressing dependencies, or in doing or conniving at wrong to foreign countries. I could write at great length on all this, but it is not my object to defend my view of existing English politics ; my object is to enable you, whom I respect, to understand the source from which TO GEORGE GROTE 71 that view proceeds in my own mind. As for those whom 1866 I do not respect, a category which includes the great majority of public men and public writers, I should never take the trouble to give any other explanation of myself to them, than that which I hope my conduct will give. To George Grote, in which Mill declines a proposal to allow himself to be nominated for the Senate of London University. St. V^ran, \2th November 1866. It is very desirable that there should be some one in the Senate who would give you a more effective backing than you have at present. But there are others besides me who could do this. Bain being unattainable, have you ever thought of Herbert Spencer ? He is as anti- clergymanish as possible ; he goes as far as the farthest of us in explaining psychological phenomena by association and the " experience hypothesis " ; he has a considerable and growing reputation, much zeal and public spirit, and is not, I should think, more suspect on the subject of religion than I am. I think he would be of great use in the Senate on the subjects on which you most need to be supported, and a very valuable acquisition otherwise. I do not know whether the duty would be agreeable to him, but from the little I know of his tastes and habits I should expect that rather than the contrary. . . . To George Grote, concerning the suggested nomination of Herbert Spencer for the Senate of London University. St. Veran, 2nd December 1866. My dear Grote, — I am very happy that you think my objection to being proposed for the Senate fair and reasonable. With regard to Spencer, Bain's judgment will 72 TO EDWIN CHADWICK 1866 be a great help to you in the matter. I have not seen — very much of Spencer, but what I have seen adds to the ■ favourable side of the impression his writings make on me. I am not inclined, from anything I know, to consider him as on the whole disposed to magnify his differences from others whose philosophical opinions are allied to his own. He did so in the case of Comte, whom he knew very imperfectly. But in his controversies with me it is rather I who have magnified the differences, and he who has extenuated them. With regard to his reputation, no doubt it has not yet reached its height, but it is constantly growing. His is the rising philoso- phical name at the present, and will probably stand very high ten years hence ; and it is rather with a view to the future than to the present that additional thought is wanted in the Senate. . . . To Edwin Chadwick. St. Veran, 29M December 1866. ... I have, as you know, always agreed with you as to the importance of introducing military drill into schools, though I should be a little frightened at it if I thought it would do what in your present paper you say it some- times does — make the majority of the boys wish to be soldiers. There can be no doubt also that by this means the purposes of an efficient reserve would be attained without either the expense or the loss of productive power or any other of the evil consequences of increased arma- ments. But for that very reason it will not be listened to by any of the Continental governments, except possibly Italy. Those governments do not want a real defensive force ; they want an aggressive force ; they want to have the very largest body of adult soldiers ready for service anywhere whom they can afford to pay, and your argu- ments will be of no avail, except to the French and Prussian Liberals to use against their governments. In that respect they may be very useful. . . . The idea of employing the soldiers in civil work is not new in France Aetat. 60. TO H. S. BRANDRETH 73 and it has been much discussed ; you will find many minds 1866 prepared for it. I do not at present see any service that I can be of in the matter, at least by writing. I do not understand military subjects, and can carry no authority upon them. But I will most willingly move for your paper, and may take that opportunity of speaking my mind on the matter as a question of education. To H. S. Brandreth, on the utilitarian basis for veracity. Blackheath Park, <)th February 1867. Dear Sir, — Your question respecting the obligation of 1867 veracity on the utilitarian view of ethics seems, if I under- stand it rightly, to proceed on a misapprehension of the utilitarian standard. The test of right as the happiness principle is not the pleasure of doing the act which is declared to be right, but the pleasurable or painful con- sequences to mankind which would follow if such acts were done ; and these, in the case you put, could not be enunciated as any general rule, because they depend on varying circumstances. There are cases in which martyr- dom is a useless self-sacrifice, and a sacrifice of other means of doing good. There are other cases in which the importance of it to the good of mankind is so great as to make it a positive duty, like the act of a soldier who gives his life in the performance of what is assigned to him. There are cases again where, without being so necessary as to be on the utilitarian ground an absolute duty, it is yet so useful as to constitute an act of virtue, which then ought to receive the praise and honours of heroism. The duty of truth as a positive duty is also to be considered on the ground of whether more good or harm would follow to mankind in general if it were gener- ally disregarded, and not merely whether good or harm would follow in a particular case. Aetat. 60. 74 TO THE REV. T. W. TOWLE To the Rev. T. W. Towle, in reply to a letter asking Mill's opinion on the subject of teaching the Bible in schools. Blackheath Park, gth February 1867. 1867 Dear Sir, — I agree entirely with the general principles and spirit of your letter received yesterday. I think it highly desirable that the New Testament, and those parts of the Old which are either poetical or properly historical, should be taught as history in places of education ; and so far my only difference with you would be that nearly all teachers, both churchmen and dissenters, being as yet far short of the enlightened views which you entertain on the subject, would at present be sure to teach and inculcate all that is contained in those books not as matter of history but of positive religious belief. There are, however, other parts of the Old Testament, viz., those which scientific knowledge or historical criticism have shown not to be, in any proper sense of the word, historical, the book of Genesis for example ; and I do not think it right to teach these in schools even as history, unless it were avowedly as merely what the Hebrews believed respecting their own origin and the early history of the world. To Dr. W. G. Ward, concerning an article by him in the Dublin Review. Blackheath Park, \4th February 1867. Dear Sir, — I have read your article with very great interest. You are the clearest thinker I have met with for a long time who has written on your side of these great questions. And I quite admit that your theory of divine premovement is not, on the face of it, inadmissible. Your illustration of the mice inside the piano is excellent. The uniform sequences which the mice might discover between the hands and the phenomena inside would not negative the player without. But you only put back the collision TO DR. W. G. WARD 75 between the two theories for a certain distance. It comes 1867 at last. At whatever part in the upward series the unfore- — seeable will of the divine musician comes in, there the ^^^^^' ^°' uniformity of physical sequence fails ; the chain has been traced to its beginning ; a physical phenomenon has taken place without any antecedent physical conditions. Now what would be asserted on the other side of the question is, that the facts always admit of, and render highly pro- bable, the supposition that there were such antecedent physical conditions, and that there has been no ultimate beginning to that series of facts, short of whatever beginning there was to the whole history of the universe. We do not pretend that we can disprove divine inter- ference in events, and direct guidance of them. All our evidence is only negative. We say that as far as known to mankind everything takes place as it would do if there were no such divine guidance. We think that every event is abstractedly capable of being predicted, because man- kind are in such case as near to being able actually to predict what happens as could be expected, regard being had to the degree of accessibility of the data, and the com- plexity of the conditions of the problem. I cannot perceive in your article any errors in physics. But I am not a safe authority on matters of physical science. Astronomers now think that they can predict much more than eclipses and the return of comets, and their predictions reach even to the dissipation of the sun's heat and the heaping up of the solar system in one dead mass of congelation. But I hold all this to be at present nothing more than scientific conjecture. All that is required by your argument is, that the possibility of absolute and categorical prediction should be as yet con- fined to cosmic phenomena. This, I believe, all men of science admit, and I' endorse everything on that subject which is said by Mansel in your note. Scientific predic- tion in other physical sciences is not absolute but con- ditional. We know certainly that oxygen and hydrogen brought together in a particular way will produce water, but we cannot predict with certainty that oxygen and Aetat. 60. 76 TO DR. W. G. WARD 1867 hydrogen will come together in that way unless brought together by human agency. The human power of prediction at present extends only to effects which depend on a very small number of causes, and consequently can be predicted. Most other physical phenomena can be predicted with the same certainty, provided we are able to limit the causes in operation to a very small number. This power of pre- diction you have not, I think, allowed for in your Essay. Yet it surely is all-important. For if the effect of any single cause, or of any pair or triad of causes, can be calculated, the joint effect of a myriad of such causes is abstractedly capable of calculation. That we are unable practically to calculate it is no more than might be expected, at least in the present state of our knowledge, however calculable it may in itself be. With regard to free will, you have not said much that affects my argument : I am not aware of having ever said that preknowledge is inconsistent with free will. That knotty metaphysical question I have avoided entering into, and in my " Logic " I have even built upon the admission of the free-will philosophers that our freedom may be real though God preknows our actions. You simplify the main question very much by your luminous distinction between the spontaneous impulse of the will, which you regard as strictly dependent on pre-existing mental dispositions and external solicitations, and what the man may himself do to oppose or alter that spontaneous impulse. The distinction has important practical consequences, but I see no philo- sophical bearing that it has on free will ; for it seems to me that the same degree of knowledge of a person's character which will enable us to judge with tolerable assurance what his spontaneous impulse will be, will also enable us to judge with almost an equal degree of assurance whether he will make any effort, and (in a general way) how much effort he is likely to make, to control that impulse. Our foresight in this matter cannot be certain, because we never can be really in possession of sufficient data. But it is not more uncertain than the insufficiency and uncertainty of the data suffice to account for. Aetat. 60. TO W. R. CREMER 77 To W. R. Cremer, in which Mill withdraws his support from the Reform League, on account of some inflammatory speeches made by representatives of the League. Blackheath Pakk, 1st March 1867. Dear Sir, — I am sorry to say that the proceedings at 1867 the meeting of delegates reported in the Star of 28th February, a meeting promoted by the Reform League, and at which members of its Council were the chief speakers, make it necessary for me to withdraw the paper which I had expressed my willingness to sign ; because I can no longer say with sincerity that an agitation conducted in the manner proposed at that meeting could be beneficial to the cause of Reform. The speeches delivered at the meeting were characterised by two things ; a determined rejection beforehand of all compromise on the Reform question, even if proposed by the public men in whose sincerity and zeal as reformers you have repeatedly expressed the fullest confidence ; and a readiness to proceed at once to a trial of physical force if any opposition is made either to your demands or to the particular mode, even though illegal, which you may select for the expression of them. It is best that I should express my opinion plainly and unreservedly on both these points. My conviction is that any Reform Bill capable of being passed at present and for some time to come must be more or less of a com- promise. I have hitherto thought that the leading minds among the working classes recognised this, and though frankly declaring that nothing less than the whole of what they think required by justice will finally satisfy them, were aware that such ultimate success can only in this country be obtained by a succession of steps, and that a large por- tion of the middle and some portion of the higher classes may be carried with them in the first step, and perhaps in every successive step, but would certainly resist a passage Aetat. 60. 78 TO W. R. CREMER 1867 all at once from the present distribution of political power to one exactly the reverse, the effects of which they feel quite unable to foresee. All this the speakers at the meeting on Thursday either forgot or entirely disregarded. But even if I thought them right on this point I should think them utterly and fatally wrong in the course they adopted, of directly instigating the mass of reformers to seek the attain- ment of their object by physical violence. One of the lead- ing speakers proclaimed superiority of physical force as constituting right, and as justifying the people in " riding down the ministers of the law " ; and the speaker who followed him emphatically expressed concurrence in his treatment. I do not impute to the meeting the monstrous doctrine of these two speakers. But unless misreported, the general tone was that of a direct appeal to revolutionary expedients. Now, it is my deep conviction that there are only two things which justify an attempt at revolution. One is personal oppression and tyranny and consequent personal suffering of such intensity, that to put an imme- diate stop to it is worth almost any amount of present evil and future danger. The other is when either the system of government does not permit the redress of grievances to be sought by peaceable and legal means, or when those means have been perseveringly exerted to the utmost for a long series of years, and their inefficacy has been demon- strated by experiment. No one will say that any of these justifications for revolution exist in the present case. Yet unless the language used was mere bravado, the speakers appear to have meant to say that the time has already come for revolution. I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of these things ; I believe them to be the result of feelings of irrita- tion, for which there has been ample provocation and abundant excuse. But however natural irritation it may be, things done or said under its influence are very likely to be repented of afterwards. This is human — it is for you to judge of. I do not claim the smallest right of offering advice to you or to the League ; but you have asked me to express, in a written document, approbation of the general TO R. RUSSELL 79 character and efforts of your agitation, and as it is impos- 1867 sible for me to do this when it has assumed a character — of which I decidedly disapprove, I have thought it best to explain candidly the reasons why I must now decline to comply with your request. To R. Russell, on Woman Suffrage. By Helen Taylor. 6/A Marck 1867. Dear Sir, — I do not see that the fact that it may be- come expedient at some future time to admit women to the House of Representatives can be any bar to admitting their claim at present to be electors. Any objections to the meeting of persons of both sexes for the purposes of legislation are such as naturally tend to diminish with a higher state of civilisation. In some countries the sexes are still separated at church ; in the East the influence of sex is so strong that even family life is rendered impossible by it, and brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, are separated, and men and women can only associate together in the single relation of husband and wife. But we have proved by experience that exactly in proportion as men and women associate publicly together in a variety of relations not founded on sex, their doing so becomes safe and beneficial, and raises the tone of public morality. I am disposed to think that no legislation is needed to pre- vent women from becoming members of Parliament, for that before any woman is likely to be chosen by a sufficient number of electors, public opinion will ensure sufficient propriety of sentiment in the House of Commons to make her presence there perfectly harmless. As to the objection that men and women might on some occasions differ collectively, and that the women might have their own way, it has much less force than the similar objection to the working classes, because men and women are much more likely to be evenly balanced in number 8o TO R. RUSSELL 1867 than the poor and the rich. I cannot see how arranging AetaTeo ^^^^ "^^" shsll always have their own way in everything can in justice be the proper way to prevent women from occasionally having theirs. There is a more even balance between men and women than between any other two classes, and therefore the attainment of justice through equal representation may be more easily trusted to the reason and right feeling of the best among each, acting as a check to violence or party feeling on either side. I should object to the plan of a subordinate house of representatives for women just as I should object to any such plan for working men, and just as I should object to placing the House of Commons in any such subordination to the House of Lords. I dislike all merely class repre- sentation, and I still more disapprove of all class subordina- tion. Moreover, one of the useful functions of a House of Representatives is discussion, and the representation of women's point of view, whether through male or female re- presentatives, is part of what would be gained by admitting women to the suffrage. And it is not merely in the House of Commons, but also even in the tone of electioneering and popular politics, that the admission of new elements to the national life is of importance. New topics get dis- cussed, and old ones from new points of view. Dififerent classes of electors are aroused to interest, and to influence one another. Shutting their representatives up separately, even if with equal powers, would be to weaken the educa- tional influence of political contests, and at the same time to intensify their bitterness. To R. Russell. By Helen Taylor. 'i.nd April 1867. Dear Sir, — I am glad to find that you agree with me in thinking that there is no sufficient evidence that women are morally or intellectually or essentially inferior to men. But in that case I am afraid I no longer think your theory reasonable so far as it goes and complete in itself. TO ARCHDEACON JOHN ALLEN 8i I do not think it indisputable that the physically 1867 strongest must necessarily be dominant over the physically weaker in civilised society, since I look upon it as the fundamental purpose of civilisation to redress as much as possible all such natural inequalities, and I think the degree to which they have been redressed one of the best tests of civilisation. Nor is superior physical strength invariably even at present the ground of political supremacy, for I suppose there can be little doubt that negroes are physically stronger than white men. But superiority whether of physical strength or of intelligence, having once given any sub-division of humanity an advantage over another, it is always difficult for the dominant class to see that their own particular superiority does not justly entitle them to limit the freedom or check the development of those who chance to be inferior to themselves in some respects. To see this it is necessary to admit in some form or other the law of justice or of the general good as the final test ; but I do not at all despair of mankind as a whole becoming capable of recognising it as such, as I understand you yourself to do. I must beg you to excuse the brevity with which I am obliged to write. To Archdeacon John Allen, on Woman Suffrage. Blackheath Pakk, 27^/2 May 1867. Dear Sir, — I do not anticipate that women would be made less valuable in the home by having their minds directed to the great concerns of mankind, but quite the contrary wherever men's minds are employed as much as they ought to be on those great concerns. Neither do I think that the adaptation of the work of each person to his or her special endowments and position is a thing to be preappointed by society. I believe that perfect freedom will adjust these things far better than any general regulation can. VOL. n. F 82 TO G. W. SHARP 1867 Perhaps I do not differ so much from you as you A suppose as to what is likely to be permanently the main Aetat. 61. '^^ ,. . i • i r 13 i I occupation of a very great majority of women. out 1 do not think that the majority should give laws to the individual action of the minority. I do not undervalue " what teachers of religion can effect," I rate it most highly ; but what they do effect I rate very low. An example of what they might do has been given lately by the Independent Church at Totnes in severely rebuking those of its members who have been implicated in bribing, and only not expelling them from communion because they expressed the deepest penitence and determination never to offend in that manner again. This gave me the rare satisfaction of finding an existing Church, or branch of a Church, who are actually Christians. To G. W. Sharp, who had written to Mill to remonstrate with him on a speech he had made with reference to the Fenians, in which he had laid down the doctrine that revolts were only justified when they had "a reasonable prospect of success." Blackheath Park, \stjune 1867. Sir, — In answer to your letter of 27th May I beg to say that the passage you refer to in my speech at St. James's Hall was correctly reported. And I do not know how anyone could express himself otherwise who believes, as all Englishmen do, that insurrections and revolutions are sometimes justifiable. I will only mention, as cases about which there is in this country scarcely any dispute, the resistance to Charles I., our own Revolution of 1688, the Polish insurrections, and the Italian revolutions by Garibaldi and his friends. I did not mean that all insurrections, if successful, stand exculpated ; the rebellion of the American slave- holders would have been equally guilty and even more detestable if it had succeeded. What I was arguing for Aetat. 6i. TO WILLIAM WOOD 83 was that even those revolutionists who deserve our 1867 sympathy ought yet, for the general good, to be subject to legal punishment if they fail. To William Wood, a working man of Hanley. Mill carried on a corre- spondence with various working men in different parts of the country ; and the following is given as a specimen. Blackheath Park, Jsi June 1867. Dear Sir, — Your letter of 20th May has interested me very much, as the preceding ones did. You seem to have profited much by your really solid reading, and to have made excellent use of your powers of thought, and I shall be most happy to hear from you on the other subjects you mention. My immediate object in writing is to say that though it is very honourable to you to have relinquished your intention of going to the Paris Exhibition, it is really desirable that you should go, as there is much to be learnt in that way also by a thinking person like yourself ; and to make up for the delay it may cause in stocking your bookcase, I would with the greatest pleasure lend you, say for six months at a time, any standard books I have in my library which may be interesting or useful to you, and which I am not immediately using. If you would let me know the subjects which you would like to study at present, I could perhaps recommend to you some of the best books there are in it. To Dr. W. W. Ireland, who had written to thank Mill for his moderate attitude during the Indian Mutiny. Blackheath Park, 22nd June 1867. Dear Sir, — I am very glad to receive so favourable an account of your health, and to know that you fully share the feelings I expressed respecting the monstrous Aetat. 6l. 84 TO A BOND STREET TRADESMAN 1867 excesses committed and the brutal language used during and after the repression of the Indian Mutiny. It is a duty to speak one's mind openly concerning these things when there is a proper opportunity, and the abusive attack made by some of the military officers in the House on a petition which referred in a very mild manner to these horrors, not only gave the opportunity, but would have made the omis- sion to use it a disgraceful piece of cowardice. To a Bond Street tradesman, who had written to ask Mill's support for a move- ment which it was proposed to inaugurate, for the purpose of bringing "to the notice of Her Majesty the social and political evils attending upon her continued retirement from public life." By Helen Taylor. T,rd July 1867. Dear Sir, — I should certainly endeavour to find time for assisting any movement among my constituents which I think of public importance, and with which I am able to sympathise. But any movement for attempting to interfere with the full liberty of the Sovereign in the disposal of her private life, so long as the example given is not mischievous, I should look upon with the very strongest disapproval. I can conceive nothing more likely to be immoral and mischievous in its whole influence on society than any attempt to exact luxurious expenditure as a duty from those placed in high station ; and I believe I am not ex- pecting too much from the morality, the public spirit, and the patriotism of those tradesmen who make an immediate profit from such expenditure, in believing that they will be content to live by ministering to the store of luxury and pleasure which is a strong and universal principle in human nature, without seeking to stimulate artificially what, if not TO THE REV. STEPHEN HAWTREY 85 kept within close bounds, is the ruin of public and private 1867 happiness and morality. "T g I do not hesitate to say that from the point of view of political economy, the notion entertained by many that such artificial stimulus is good for trade, is founded in error. All which it really does is to transfer gains from some dealers and tradesmen to others ; while, by encourag- ing expenditure which is not reproductive, it tends to diminish instead of increasing the employment for labour and the general wealth of the country.^ And even if my convictions on these points were different from what they are, I should still think that the private affections — I will go further, and say the personal tastes — of a constitutional sovereign are entitled to the respectful acquiescence of the people, and ought never to be interfered with until at least they lead to conduct which would excite moral disapprobation, or entail legal penalties on private individuals. To the Rev. Stephen Hawtrey, acknowledging two books which he had written on education. Blackheath Park, lot/i Angtist 1867. Dear Sir, — I thank you for your two little books, and regret that until within the last few days I have been prevented from reading them by mere want of time, and by no means through indifference to their contents. You have not misunderstood my meaning in the St. Andrews address, though the very concise manner in which I was obliged to express everything in that paper may probably have given you a partially incorrect im- pression of my opinions on education generally. There is much in your view of the subject with which I heartily agree. Your strictures on the system of French schools, by which the boys are never for an instant out of the sight or far from the direct control of a master, I entirely agree ' [This paragraph was inserted in Mill's handwriting.] 86 TO R. W. EMERSON 1867 in, and I have long thought that while French schoolboys, AetaTsi °" ^^^ average, are better taught and learn more than English boys, the freer system of the English schools has much to do with the superiority of England over France in the love and practice of personal and political freedom. I also agree to the full in your and Dr. Hook's principle, that real education depends on the contact of human living soul with human living soul. But I am entirely sceptical as to the possibility of accomplishing this in any very considerable degree in a numerous school. Even the family, if it consisted of two hundred or three hundred boys, could not possibly accomplish it. A wise and zealous master may no doubt acquire a certain amount of beneficial moral influence over the boys, and may come into really close contact with the minds and characters of a few among them. In the former of these points, if not in both, St. Mark's School appears to have been singularly successful ; and the principles on which it appears to be conducted are well calculated to attain whatever such success is attainable. But while I applaud both your theory and your practice, I have the less hope of finding my opinion radically altered by them, because you seem to me to regard Eton as a favourable specimen of what a school can do in the way of moral and religious training ; an opinion from which all that I know of the kind of article turned out annually from Eton into the higher walks of life in this country, leads me strongly to dissent. To R. W. Emerson, introducing Lord Amberley. Blackheath Park, iith August 1867. My dear Sir, — I give this letter to my friend Lord Amberley, not so much for his sake, for he would easily obtain abundant introductions to you, as to make use of the privilege of writing to you which was kindly conferred on me by the letter I had the pleasure of receiving from you last year. Few Englishmen, especially few Englishmen TO W. T. THORNTON 87 in political life, are more worthy of the privilege of knowing 1867 you than Lord Amberley, who, while he is one of the very best of our rising politicians, is even more interested in the intellectual movement of mankind than in the political. He is likely to keep always in the front rank of his con- temporaries, and I fully share the general hope of his friends that he will be as useful to the coming generation as his father has been to that which is past. I wish I could share with him the pleasure and benefit of hearing from your lips your commentary on the present state and prospects of mankind. To me it seems that our two countries, on the whole the two most advanced countries of the world, have just successfully emerged from a crisis, essentially similar though by much the gravest and most trying in the United States, which has shaken up and dis- located old prejudices, set the stagnant waters flowing, and the most certain consequence of which is that all the fundamental problems of politics and society, so long smothered by general indolence and apathy, will surge up and demand better solutions than they have ever yet obtained. To those who like me regard stagnation as the greatest of our dangers and the primary source of almost all social evils, this is a very hopeful and promising state of things, but it will make a most serious demand upon the energies of all cultivated minds, to obtain for thoughts which are not obvious at first sight their just share of influence among the crowd of notions plausible but false or only half true. To W. T. Thornton, on an article by him in the Fortnightly Review. Avignon, \^th October 1867. Dear Thornton, — I have just finished reading your chapter in the Fortnightly, and I put down my observations while my mind is full of its contents. In execution I think it excellent, and of good augury for the success of the book, for, beginning with so luminous a statement of principles Aetat. 6l, 88 TO W. T. THORNTON 1867 and going on as it probably will do afterwards to important practical recommendations, it bids fair both to make a more than ordinary impression on those who read it at first, and to be permanently distinguished from other writers on the subject as a systematic treatise. I expect that the sub- sequent chapters will be equally well executed, and that I shall agree with all or most of your practical conclusions. But in its principles the chapter does not carry me with it. I find in it what I always find where a standard is assumed of so-called justice distinct from general utility and sup- posed to be paramount whenever the two conflict, viz., that some other standard might just as well have been assumed. Not only do I not admit any standard of right which does not derive its sole authority from utility, but I remark that in such cases an adversary could always find some other maxim of justice equal in authority but leading to opposite conclusions. A great many rules of morality of everyday application are habitually classed as principles of justice. You have selected one of these ; Loois Blanc, against whom you are arguing, would select others. You say, the rich are not bound to give employment and subsistence to the poor because they had nothing to do with bringing the poor into the world. Louis Blanc would or might say that the riches and often the very subsistence of the rich would not exist for them if the poor had not been brought into the world, and that to return good for good and the product to the producer is a duty of justice. Again, when he says that the raw material of the earth was not given to a few or to one generation but to the human race, you answer : Admitting this, the vast majority of the poor could never have been born if the earth had not been appropriated ; and compensation is only due to them for their share of what the earth could have produced if it had remained un- appropriated. To this Louis Blanc might answer, Compen- sation is due to them not for that only, but for not allowing them to appropriate their share of the soil and to obtain what they by their labour can make that share produce. Again you argue throughout that no question of justice can arise as to the amount for which A hires the labour of B, TO W. T. THORNTON 89 because A is not bound to hire B at all. Is not this assum- 1867 ing that what the jurists call a duty of imperfect obligation, "~" i.e., not owed to an assignable individual, is no duty ? A may not be bound to hire B, but if he is bound to hire or to benefit some person or persons at his choice, the amount of the benefit may be an essential condition to his fulfilment of the duty. You carry your adherence to one particular view of moral obligation so far as to pronounce a person blameless in point of duty (however odious otherwise) who refuses to save the life of another without an exorbitant payment ; I conceive, on the contrary, that it is a serious question whether a person who can save another's life and does not do it even without any hope of reward, ought not to be amenable to the universal law. For these reasons I think that the chapter, though as I said impressive, and though likely to be provocative of thought, will probably not convince a single person. All who did not already agree with you will find maxims of justice equally plausible, and in my estimation quite equally strong, in support of contrary conclusions. What you may perhaps effect is to make some of the poor, or of their friends, think they ought not to be severe on the rich as men for using the advantages which their position gives them. But the more they are persuaded of that the more determined will they be to upset the social system which gives a few persons these advantages. They may say. It is not A's fault that he is rich ; but they will be not the less likely to say, Let us oblige him to divide his riches equally among all and start afresh ; and they will never be persuaded by the principles of justice which you have laid down to think this unjust. They would say, it may have been right to allow appropriation as long as unappropriated land was to be had by all, but when all is appropriated, and some are left without, there ought to be a redivision, the 7^? ai^a8ao-/ito? of the Greeks. Nor can they be met, as far as I see, by any arguments but those of expediency — which, once let in, would open the whole question of the rights of the poor and the obligations of the rich, and would, I think, lead to consequences very Aetat. 6 1 90 TO MR. OSCAR BROWNING 1867 different from those which you draw from your theory of justice, though probably not very different from what you would practically recommend. I have stated strongly the fault I find with your chapter. It would take me a considerable space to set out all the good I find in it. To mention only one thing, the book will be very serviceable in carrying on what may be called the emancipation of political economy — its liberation from the kind of doctrines of the old school (now taken up by well-to-do people) which treat what they call commercial laws, demand and supply for instance, as if they were laws of inanimate matter, not amenable to the will of the human beings from whose feelings, interests, and principles of action they proceed. This is one of the queer mental con- fusions which will be wondered at by-and-by, and you are helping very much in the good work of clearing it up. We arrived here a few days ago, and I am settling down to the winter's work, which will not be political or economical but psychological. I am going to prepare, in concert with Bain, a new edition of my father's "Analysis of the Mind," with notes and supplementary matter. This will be not only very useful but a very great relief, by its extreme un- likeness to Parliamentary work and to Parliamentary semi- work or idleness. I hope your health has greatly benefited by your holiday and goes on improving. To Mr. Oscar Browning. Mill's letter of loth August to the Rev. Stephen Hawtrey was shown by him to Mr. Browning, from whom it called forth a remonstrance. The following is Mill's rejoinder : — Avignon, ^6th October 1867. Dear Sir, — I was glad to receive your letter, because it is important to know what an Eton master (especially one who admits defects in the institution) says in vindica- tion of Eton. Your defence, however, is mainly directed to other points than those which I have attacked. I have TO MR. OSCAR BROWNING 91 never, I believe, expressed any opinion as to the merits 1867 or defects of Eton in comparison with our other public . "7 , schools. As the one of highest pretensions, I took it as the representative of them all. Nor in what I said of moral results had I particularly in view the grosser and more disreputable vices. I look upon the general moral state of the educated classes of Great Britain, taken in the mass, as essentially low and mean — a mean standard, and a contemptible falling short even of their own standard. You will not expect that I should, in such a letter as the present, enter into a discussion as to the truth of this opinion, or show how it is verified in our whole social state and in the manifestations which proceed from those classes on all public occasions on which the moral aspect of the facts is the predominant one. But if this opinion or anything approaching to it is justified by the fact, I cannot be wrong, as you seem to think, in visiting the shortcomings or vices of a class upon the school (or schools) which chiefly educates that class, not as the authors or primary causes of the evil, but as having at least been signally unsuccessful in counteracting it. The teachers, I apprehend, are only entitled to wash their hands of the shortcomings or vices of their pupils when they acknowledge and deplore them and show that their utmost effoi'ts are steadily exerted in the contrary direction. When you say that so many of your best boys go into the Guards, you say what amounts to an acknow- ledgment of utter failure in educating them morally either for the special responsibilities of a governing class or for the universal duties of a man. I am not called on to deny that Eton, as well as other schools, is far more successful in individual specimens than it is in the mass ; and the peculiarities which you mention in its system, the less rigid confinement to a single curriculum and the more intimate association of every boy with his tutor, afford facilities for this, which I have no doubt are often taken good advantage of. But the use made of these facilities depends on what the tutors 92 TO ALEXANDER BAIN 1867 are, and that their general quaUty should be high is hardly AetaTei consistent with what you say in your letter of the nepotism, favouritism, and general unfitness of the body who possess " the patronage " of the chief school appointments. From this evil you call on Parliament to relieve you and on me to do what I can to help, and you may rely on my doing so. The Public Schools Bill has been passed over in the House of Commons in the last two sessions not from neglect, but from the incessant occupation of the House with the Reform Bill, and I look forward to its occupying much of the attention of the House in the session next to come. To Alexander Bain. St. Veran, 4M November 1867. Dear Bain, — I thank you very much for your letter, and for the promise of matter so soon for the edition of the " Analysis." I myself have not begun writing yet, but see my way more and more clearly to the work ; I have been reading through Laromiguiere, and Maudsley. The first I read chiefly to know what he makes of the active department of human nature (that being his strong point) from the psychological side without the physio- logical. On that and on other subjects he is meritorious as far as he goes, but too easily satisfied. In the higher departments he leaves everything unexplained, or smuggles the explicandum into its own explanation. His acute remarks sometimes, however, anticipate the thoughts which others have worked out. I was surprised to find in him a complete anticipation of my father's important remark on the ambiguity of the copula. He also antici- pated Hamilton's view of abstraction as distinct from generalisation, and his notion of the substantial identity of Nominalism and Conceptualism. From Maudsley I have learnt more ; but (as with most of the physiologists) his theories seem to me to go far beyond the evidence. I observe, by the way, that he takes Carpenter's view that ideation is the special function of the cerebral hemi- TO ALEXANDER BAIN 93 spheres, sensation (or rather something ill-defined which 1867 he calls a residuum) being packed up there by nerve force . ~ -- to be manufactured into idea. If I am not mistaken, you consider this to be obsolete and false theory. Is it not so ? A propos, why does Maudsley charge me with disparaging physiology either in itself or in its application to mind ? It is like Matthew Arnold enumerating me among the enemies of culture. Besides these I have been toiling through Stirling's "Secret of Hegel." It is right to learn what Hegel is, and one learns it only too well from Stirling's book. I say only too well, because""! found by actual experience of Hegel that conversancy with him tends to deprave one's intellect. The attempt to unwind an apparently infinite series of self-contradictions not disguised but openly faced, really, if persisted in, impairs the acquired delicacy of perception of false reasoning and false thinking which has been gained by years of careful mental discipline with terms of real meaning. For some time after I had finished the book all such words as reflection, development, evolution, &c., gave me a sort of sickening feeling which I have not yet entirely got rid of. ~)<^ Hansel's article is very poor. It is a satisfaction to know that he could find nothing better to say. It will cost me only a few sentences in another edition. It is tolerably good-tempered, however — much more so than his last. I am obliged to you for discouraging the idea of my lecturing for University College. I have so little time now that I must keep it for the few things which it is my special duty to do before the night cometh when no man can work. I wonder how you find time to do all you do. I look forward to your new book with much pleasure. I am glad that Mr. Hunter has done so well with the article for Chambers. That question is making way in a wonderful manner. In the United States the so-called Radical party seems to be taking up in a body the equality of women as it has that of negroes. At least, all the leaders seem to be doing so. Chief Justice Chase among the rest. The Governor of Kansas is said to be actually 94 TO EDWIN CHADWICK 1867 canvassing the State for the sanction by popular suffrage of the constitutional amendment which has passed both Houses admitting women to the franchise. We are very well, and hope to return three months hence in good condition. To Edwin Chadwick. Avignon, ^tk November 1867. Dear Chadwick, — Thanks for sending me a bulletin of your progress. What you say about the effect of your address is encouraging ; but it is disheartening to see that in the constituencies generally the only power which seems capable of making head against money is local influence. The great question of next session will be the promised bill against electoral corruption. The advanced Liberals must have their rival bill, and I am anxious that all who have thought on the subject, and particularly that you, should put down as heads of a bill all that has occurred to them as desirable on this subject. When all sug- gestions have been got together the most feasible may be selected, and the best Radicals in and out of the House may be urged to combine in forcing them on the Government. Whenever you think the time has come to form a committee and raise a subscription for your return to Parliament I beg you to put me down, as I said before, for ;^5o, and I am ready to serve on any London or general committee. I suppose that for the University the com- mittee must consist of members of the constituency, which I am not ; but if any others are eligible, I should be glad to be one. I have read and been duly edified by the paper you mention in ihe Journal of the Society of Arts. I think there is a chance that Ireland may be tried as a corpus vile for experimentation on Government management of railways and telegraphs, as well as of other things. Certainly there is little to spoil there ; the worst that could happen would Aetat. 6l. TO R. W. EMERSON 95 but be one more failure, and there is no necessity to fail. 1867 Your first paper read at the Academy I have lately received and will read, as well as the one which is yet to come. There is no difficulty of principle in legislating for trade unions, but a great deal in detail. For example, on that question of picketing. The principle is that they may persuade, but must not intimidate. But who is there to be persuaded in case of a strike but those who have accepted work, and how are they to be got at except by watching to see who they are ? and if persuasion is per- mitted, can the persuader be withheld from expressing disapprobation, and strongly too ? while, as we all know, this expression of disapprobation easily degenerates into illegitimate intimidation. But how or where is the line to be drawn ? Can more be done than to prohibit threats ? And not even that, if the mischief threatened is not physical, but mere ill will, with its natural expres- sion ? Hardly any one who has written on the practical question seems to have faced this difficulty. To R. W. Emerson, introducing Mr. John Morley. Avignon, (>th November 1867. Dear Sir, — A few months ago I took the liberty of introducing Lord Amberley to you. I now venture to give an introduction to another friend of mine, of great capa- city and promise, Mr. John Morley, one of our best and most rising periodical writers on serious subjects — moral, social, and philosophical, still more than political — and at present editor of the Fortnightly Review. I should not thus presume did I not feel confident that you would find Mr. Morley worthy of your attention and interest, both as man and as a thinker. — I am, dear Sir, very truly yours, J. S. Mill. Aetat. 6i 96 TO E. W. YOUNG To E. W. Young, in reply to a question concerning a passage in the "Utilitarianism." Avignon, lOiA November 1867. 1867 Dear Sir, — I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 23rd ultimo. I do not claim any greater latitude of making excep- tions to general rules of morality on the utilitarian theory than is accorded by moralists on all theories. Every ethical system admits the possibility, and even frequency, of a conflict of duties. In most cases the conflict occa- sions no great difficulty, because one of the duties is in general obviously paramount to the other. The difficulty arises when the choice is between a very great violation of a duty usually subordinate and a very small infringe- ment of one ordinarily of more peremptory obligation. In such a case the former, I cannot but think, may be the greater moral offence. When I mentioned, as a case of this kind, the case of stealing or taking by force the food or medicine necessary for saving a life, I was thinking rather of saving another person's life than one's own. A much stricter rule is required in the latter than in the former, for the obvious reason that there is more pro- bability of self-deception or of dishonesty. But I am far from saying that the rule should never be relaxed, even when the case is one's own. A runaway slave by the laws of slave countries commits a theft : he steals his own per- son from his lawful owner. If you say this is not morally theft, because property in a human being ought not to exist, take the case of a child or an apprentice who runs away on account of intolerable ill usage. There is in the doctrine I maintain nothing inconsistent with the loftiest estimation of the heroism of martyrs. There are times when the grandest results for the human race depend on the public assertion of one's convictions at the risk of death by torture. When this is the case martyrdom may be a duty ; and in cases when it does not become the duty TO ALEXANDER BAIN 97 of all, it may be an admirable act of virtue in whoever 1867 does it, and a duty in those who as leaders or teachers are bound to set an example of virtue to others, and to do more for the common faith or cause than a simple believer. I do not know whether what I have written will do anything towards removing your difficulty, but I have not leisure to enter further into the subject. To Alexander Bain. Avignon, dth December 1867. ... I am very thankful to you for having found, and indeed made, time to do so much for the "Analysis." I like all your notes very much, and they all supply valuable matter, most of which I could not have made out by myself. The only case in which we have gone over the same ground is the case of Association by Resemblance, on which I have also written, to the same general effect as you ; and I propose to retain both, as they do not repeat, but enlarge and strengthen one another, and yours is, I think, one of the very best of the present batch. I also have been working pretty vigorously, and have exactly got through the first volume. I have written (as far as regards the rough draft) a great number of minor notes and several long ones, the two longest being on the subjects that you particularly recommended to me. Belief and Nominalism. I have no doubt that I shall get through the second volume in the same manner by the meeting of Parliament. What will remain for the next recess will be the rewriting, which will probably involve much en- largement as well as improvement. But I shall not commence this until your part of the work is finished and before me. I shall be particularly glad of any notes on the chapter on Memory, as that phenomenon is still to me the great unresolvable fact of psychology. It seems to me that it and the problem of Belief are in fact the same, viz., that which I have stated in the chapter on the Ego in my book on Hamilton — the distinction between VOL. n. G Aetat. 6i. 98 TO ALEXANDER BAIN 1867 recognising something as a mere thought and as an actual fact. There are two subjects which my knowledge is un- equal to, and on which I hope you will give me further assistance. One of them is the direct relation between ideas and states of the nerves. You must have observed that the source of some of the chief imperfections of the " Analysis " is the author's steady refusal to admit any pro- duction of ideas by physical causes except through the medium of sensations raising up ideas already associated with them. He carries this so far, as to explain the fact that chronic indigestion excites feelings of anxiety by the circumstance that anxiety disorders the digestion. You have just touched this topic in one of your notes, but in a very summary manner. The other point is one which I could, if necessary, get up from your grammar without troubling you ; it is the distinctive characters of the subordinate parts of speech. Your view of the adjective, I believe, coincides with my father's, that it serves for making cross divisions. You could, however, help me very much if you had time to annotate those sections. There is one point which I am quite unequal to. The philology of the "Analysis " on the subject of prepositions, conjunctions, &c., though right in principle, is now obsolete in detail, and I do not know who is the best person to ask to amend it. Can you suggest the right person ? I have not found any help in [Samuel] Bailey for dealing with Nominalism, though he objects to the same parts m my father's exposition which I object to. I have, how- ever, derived some benefit from reading again Bailey's four volumes ; but how very very shallow he is ! He not only cannot seize any of the less obvious applications of the principle of Association, but he is unfeignedly unable to make out what the writers who speak of such things can possibly mean. Yet at the same time, how plausible ! He has scarcely his equal in skimming over the hollow places in philosophy, and putting a smooth face on unsolved difficulties. If he had been in the Forum at TO ALEXANDER BAIN 99 the time of Curtius he would not have leaped into the 1867 gulf, but would have thrown a platform over it, by which people might walk across without noticing it. When he attempts to confute those who are trying to resolve difficulties which he does not see, he usually does it by formally stating and developing at great length some elementary truth which he fancies to be all there is in the matter. As elementary truths are very often lost sight of, these elaborate enforcements of them are in many cases useful, but are seldom at all germane to the particular controversy. The best thing about him (ex- cepting his chapters on the moral sentiments) is that he is a decided supporter of the " experience hypothesis " ; but he is so in a way, and in a sense, peculiarly his own. What used to be called the m.undus inielligibilis, consisting of all the obscurer notions which have wearied and divided metaphysicians, he disposes of by maintaining that the intelligible world is all perceived through the senses. Why puzzle ourselves about the necessity of any of our beliefs ? Necessity is a quality of outward parts, and can be seen. We see that the theorems of geometry are necessary. How absurd to seek for an explanation or a definition of Cause ! We see one thing cause another. How different Herbert Spencer, whose " Psychology " I have been reading for the third time ! The second of his four parts is admirable as a specimen of analysis. It is a great satisfaction to find how closely his results coincide with ours. I hope he will not make the book worse instead of better in the projected rewriting, as I am afraid he is going to do with his "Social Statics." The long miscellaneous chapter with which the second volume of the "Analysis" commences will give us a great deal of occupation, for under the guise of explaining names it contains the author's solutions of most of the great questions of metaphysics proper. I shall hope by- and-by for a full note from you on the Will, whether I write one myself or no. The original generation of Will, which Hartley had the first glimpse of, but which you have been the first to understand thoroughly, will be 100 TO MISS FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE 1867 much better treated by you than by me. I may per- A taTe haps add something of my own on the polemics of the subject. To Miss Florence Nightingale, in reply to a letter from her, in which she declined to join the Woman Suffrage Society, though expressing sympathy with its objects. By Helen Taylor. Avignon, 31st December 1867. Dear Madam, — You will readily believe that only the pressure of constant occupation has prevented me from replying earlier to the interesting letter I received from you in August. If you prefer to do your work rather by moving the hidden springs than by allowing yourself to be known to the world as doing what you really do, it is not for me to make any observations on this preference (inas- much as I am bound to presume that you have good reasons for it) other than to say that I much regret that this preference is so very general among women. Myself (but then I am a man) I cannot help thinking that the world would be better if every man, woman, and child in it could appear to others in an exactly true light ; known as the doer of the work that he does, and striving neither to be under nor overvalued. I am not so " Utopian " as to suppose that bad people will readily lend themselves to this pro- gramme ; but I confess to considerable regret that good women should so often be almost as fond of false appear- ances as bad men and women can be ; seeking as much to hide their good deeds as the others do to hide their bad ones ; forgetting probably the while that they are putting somebody — more or less willing — in the position of a false pretender to merits not his own, but belonging legitimately to the lady who delights to keep in the background. I know that it often appears, in practical matters, that one can get a great deal of work done swiftly and apparently effectually, by working through others ; securing, perhaps, Aetat. 6i. TO MISS FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE loi in this way their zealous co-operation instead of their 1867 jealous (or perhaps only stupid) obstruction. In the long run, however, I doubt whether any work is ever so well done as when it is done ostensibly and publicly under the direction or at the instigation of the original mind that has seen the necessity of doing it. Whether this is the fact or not, I am quite certain that were the world in general to know how much of all its important work is and always has been done by women, the knowledge would have a very useful effect upon it, and I am not certain that any woman who possesses any talent whatever could make a better use of it in the present stage of the world than by simply letting things take their natural course and allowing it to be known just as if she were a man. I know that this is not pleasant to the sensitive character fostered by the present influences among the best women ; but it is to me a question whether the noble and, as I think, heroic en- thusiasm of truth and public good ought not in this age to nerve women to as courageous a sacrifice of their most justly cherished delicacy as that of which the early Christian women left an example for the reverent love and admiration of all future time. I have no doubt that the Roman ladies thought them very indelicate. In regard to the questions you do me the honour to ask me : first, Are there not evils which press much more hardly on women than not having a vote ? Second, May not this, when attained, put women in opposition to those who with- hold from them these rights, so as to retard still further the legislation necessary to put them in possession of their rights ? Third, Could not the existing disabilities as to property and influence of women be swept away by the legislature as it stands at present ? To answer these questions fundamentally would require only to state fundamental principles of political liberty, and to reiterate that debate so nobly carried on in our own history, whether social happiness or dignity, commercial liberty, religious freedom, or any form of material pros- perity, is or is not best founded on political liberty. It may be granted in the abstract that a ruling power, 102 TO MISS FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE 1867 whether a monarch, a class, a race, or a sex, could sweep away the disabilities of the ruled. The question is, Has it ever seemed to them urgent to sweep away these disabilities until there was a prospect of the ruled getting political power ? More than this, it is probably a question whether it is in human nature that it ever should seem to them urgent. In the same way it may often be a question whether painful symptoms do not press more hardly upon a patient than the hidden disease which is the cause of them. And undoubtedly if the symptoms themselves are killing, the physician had better address himself to them at once, and leave the disease alone for a time. But if the oppressions and miseries under which women suffer are killing, women take a great deal of killing to kill them. God knows I do not undervalue these miseries, for I think that man, and woman too, a heartless coward whose blood does not boil at the thought of what women suffer ; but I am quite persuaded that if we were to remove them all to-morrow, in ten years new forms of sufferinglwould have arisen, for no earthly power can ever prevent the constant, unceasing, unsleeping, elastic pressure of human egotism from weighing down and thrusting aside those who have not the power to resist it. Where there is life there is egotism, and if men were to abolish every unjust law to-day, there is nothing to prevent them from making new ones to-morrow ; and moreover what is of still greater importance, new circumstances will constantly be arising for which fresh legislation will be needed. And how are you to ensure that fresh legislation will be just, unless you can either make men perfect, or give women an equal voice in their own affairs ? I leave you to judge which is the easiest. What, however, constitutes an even more pressing and practical reason for endeavouring to obtain the political enfranchisement of women, instead of endeavouring to sweep away any or all of their social grievances, is, that I believe it will be positively easier to attain this reform than to attain any single one of all the others, all of which must inevitably follow from it. To prefer to sweep away any of TO MISS FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE 103 these others first, is as though one were to prefer to cut 1867 away branch after branch ; giving more labour to each ^^~ ^^ branch than one need do to the trunk of the tree. The third question, whether there is not danger of political partisanship and bitterness of feeling between men and women, is also a question which I think has been asked and answered in other departments of politics. It has been asked and answered too, though the answer has been different from that which we most of us approve of in politics, in some cases of marriage. To prevent quarrels, it has been thought best to make one party absolute master of both. No doubt if women can never do anything in politics except for and through men, they cannot be partisans against men. No doubt, where you have death, you have none of the troubles of life. But if women were to prove possessed with ever so great a spirit of partisan- ship, and were they to call forth thereby ever so intense partisanship on the part of men, and were they, as the weakest, to be drawn to any extremities, I don't see that the result could be very different from what it is at present, inasmuch as I apprehend that the present position of women in every country in the world is exactly measured by the personal and family affections of men, and that every modification for the better in women's absolute annihilation and servitude is at present owing not to any sense of abstract right or justice on the part of men, but to their sense of what they would like for their own wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters. Political partisanship against the mass of women will not among civilised men diminish the sense of what is due to the objects of their private affections. But I believe on the contrary, that the dignity given to women in general by the very fact of their being able to be political partisans, is likely to be itself a means of raising men's estimation of what is due to them. So that if men come to look upon women as a large number of unamiable but powerful opponents, and a small number of dearly loved and charming persons, I think men will think more highly of women, and will feel less disposed to use badly any superior power that after all they them- Aetat. 6i. 104 TO MISS FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE 1867 selves may still possess, than if they look upon women, as I think men generally do at present, as a few dearly loved, pre-eminently worthy, and charming persons, and a great number of helpless fools. On the whole, then, I think, firstly, that political power is the only security against every form of oppression ; secondly, that at the present day in England it would be easier to attain political rights for such women as have the same claims as enfranchised men, than to obtain any other considerable reform in the position of women ; thirdly, I see no danger of party spirit running high between men and women, and no possibility of its making things worse than they are if it did. Finally, I feel some hesitation in saying to you what I think of the responsibility that lies upon each one of us to stand steadfastly, and with all the boldness and all the humility that a deep sense of duty can inspire, by what the experience of life and an honest use of our own intelligence has taught us to be the truth. I will confess to you that I have often stood amazed at what has seemed to me the presumption with which persons who think themselves humble set bounds to the capacities of improvement of their fellow-creatures, think themselves qualified to define how much or how little of the divine light of truth can be borne by the world in general, assume that none but the very elite can see what is perfectly clear to themselves, and think themselves permitted to dole out in infinitesimal doses that daily bread of truth upon which they themselves live, and without which the world must come to an end. When I see this to me inexplicable form of moderation in those who nevertheless believe that the truth of which they have got hold really is the truth, I rejoice that there are so many presumptuous persons who think themselves bound to say what they think true, who think that if they have been fortunate enough to get hold of a truth they cannot do a better service to their fellow-creatures than by saying it openly ; who think that the truth that has not been too much for themselves will not be too much for others ; who think that what they have been capable of seeing, other Aetat. 6i. TO MISS FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE 105 people will be capable of seeing too, without a series of 1867 delicately managed gradations. I even go so far as to think that we owe it to our fellow-creatures and to posterity to struggle for the advancement of every opinion of which we are deeply persuaded. I do not, however, mean to say that there is any judge but our own conscience of how we can best work for the advancement of such truths, nor do I mean to say that it may not be right for any of us endowed with special faculties to choose out special work, and to decline to join in work for which we think others better qualified, and which we think may impede us for our own peculiar province. Therefore, while I have seen with much regret that you join in so few movements for the public good, I have never presumed to think you wrong, because I have supposed that your abstinence arose from your devotion to one particular branch of public-spirited work. Aetat. 6i CHAPTER XI 1868 To the Rev. L. J. Bernays, showing Mill's view of the form which State-education ought to take. Avignon, %th January 1868. i868 Dear Sir, — I thank you for the opportunity of reading the little pamphlet on education. All that the author says against centralising the education of the country in the hands of Government is very just, and I entertain the strongest objections to any plan which would give a prac- tical monopoly to schools under Government control. But I have never conceived compulsory education in that sense. What I understood by it is that all parents should be re- quired to have their children taught certain things, being left free to select the teachers, but the efficiency of the teaching being ensured by a Government inspection of schools, and by a real and searching examination of pupils. The actual provision of schools by a local rate would not necessarily be required if any schools already existed in the locality which were sufficient for the purpose, or which could be made so by aid from the local funds and by in- spection. Moreover, a mere consolidation of the already existing school endowments, now mostly jobbed or, at best, very insufficiently applied, would probably enable good instruction to be provided in all localities in which it is not already afforded by private exertions. Of course there must be a Government Department to control the employ- ment of these funds, but it does not follow that the teachers need be appointed or directly controlled by any public office. The control might rest in a school committee chosen from the locality itself, perhaps by a mixed system 106 Aetat. 6 1 TO CHARLES HAYES 107 of election and nomination, and entrusted with consider- 1868 able latitude as to all details. These are all points for mature consideration ; but a thorough system of instruction for the whole country we must have ; and I do not see anything short of a legal obligation which will overcome the indifference, the greed, or the really urgent pecuniary interest of parents. To Charles Hayes, a storekeeper of Leeds, in reply to a letter from him suggesting the imposi- tion of a tax of 6d. per ton on coal, to be used for paying off the National Debt. Blackheath Park, 15/A Febi~uary 1868. Dear Sir, — I should be happy to support almost any feasible plan which would ensure the appropriation of a surplus revenue to the reduction of the National Debt. The mode you propose of effecting this is strongly recom- mended by the close connection of the subject with the limitation of our coal supply, and plans similar to it have sometimes been suggested. For my own part I am unable to see the force of the strong objection which many public men entertain to any tax on coals. As for the iron manu- facturers, Mr. Plimsoll has shown in his letters to the Times that the coal they waste amounts to as great a quan- tity as their Belgian rivals consume altogether, and it would do good instead of iiarm to compel them by a tax to be more economical. No plan for reducing the Debt has a better claim to consideration than yours, but until it has been more discussed it is impossible to come to a positive opinion in favour of it. To LiNDSEV ASPLAND, who retired from the Jamaica Committee on account of the decision to prosecute Governor Eyre. Blackheath Park, 2yd February 1868. Dear Sir, — I am soiTy that the resolution adopted by the Jamaica Committee should deprive them of the benefit io8 TO NICHOLAS KILBURN 1868 of your co-operation. But the fact that it does so reveals 4 ~ a fundamental difference of opinion between you and the ' majority of the Committee as to the mode in which a struggle like that which they have undertaken should be carried on. This is not like a contest for some political improvement, in which the only question is whether it shall be obtained a little sooner or a little later. Ours is, morally, a protest against a series of atrocious crimes, and politically an assertion of the authority of the criminal law over public delinquents. This protest and vindication must be made now or never ; and to relinquish the effort while a single unexhausted chance remains would be, in my estimation, to make ourselves to some extent participants in the crime. Suppose it to be certain that we shall fail in bringing the criminal to justice, still there will be a portion of the nation that will have held out to the last and refused to condone the guilt, and it is better for the future that even one person should have done this than that the national judgment should go in favour of the criminal with universal, at least passive, acquiescence. You talk of leaving Eyre to con- tempt. What he would be left to is boastful triumph, followed by the fruits of victory in the shape of lucrative Government employment, probably with power to do again what he has done, and with undiminished if not increased disposition to do it. He has, after years of skulking, come over and defied us doubtless for this express purpose, and were we not to accept his challenge we should be justly reproached for our past conduct towards him, since we should shrink from meeting him before the tribunal which we have been invoking as the proper judge of his guilt or innocence. To Nicholas Kilburn, in reply to a letter asking whether it was true that Mill beheved in Spiritualism. By Helen Taylor. Blackheath Park, iSi/t March i868. Dear Sir, — I have to thank you for your enclosure and inquiry. It is the first time I have ever heard that I was a Aetat. 6i. TO JAMES TRASK 109 believer in Spiritualism, and I am not sorry to be able to 1868 suppose that some of the other names I have seen men- tioned as believers in it are no more so than myself. For my own part, I not only have never seen any evidence that I think of the slightest weight in favour of Spiritualism, but I should also find it very difficult to believe any of it on any evidence whatever. And I am in the habit of expressing my opinion to that effect very openly whenever the subject is mentioned in my presence. You are at liberty to make any use you please of this letter. To James Trask, on compulsory insurance. Blackheath Pakk, 22nci Apn'/ 1S68. Dear Sir, — I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 20th instant and its enclosures. Even labourers who have the means of saving from their wages (which cannot be said of the first person mentioned in your letter) must, if they have not done so, be relieved at times of temporary inability to work ; but there ought to be legal means of recovering the amount from their wages as soon as they are again able to earn. By the Poor Law of 1834 power was, I believe, given to Guardians to grant temporary loans to persons in distress ; certainly this power was given in the original Bill, and I am not aware of its having been struck out, though I am surprised at never having heard of its being used. I do not think it beyond the competence of a Govern- ment to compel all its subjects to insure against the various evils of life — which is the principle of your pro- posed National Friendly Society. But I think it much better simply to afford them facilities for doing so without employing compulsion, and I do not believe that a compul- sory measure would be carried, unless long and thorough previous discussion had led the working classes them- selves to demand it. Neither, I think, would it even be no TO PETER DEML 1868 felt to be just to take compulsory measures against the improvidence of the labouring classes, leaving that of all other classes free. To Peter Deml, a journalist of Vienna. Blackheath Park, 22nd April 1868. Dear Sir, — I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 14th instant. Your purpose of endeavouring to improve the popular discussion of the remedies for poverty by substituting reason and science for vague declamation is most laud- able, and commands my strongest sympathy. You will render a great service by diverting the attention of thinkers and of the working classes to the close connection between the rate of wages and the ratio of population to the means of subsistence and employment. At the same time you doubtless agree with me in thinking that this is only one of several causes which conspire to determine the good or bad material condition of the labourer. It would not be a correct view of my opinions to suppose that I think everything wrong in the doctrines of Socialism ; on the contrary, I think that there are many elements of truth in them, and that much good may be done in that direction, especially by the progress of the co-operative movement, now so successfully commenced in most of the leading countries of Europe. Since you do me the honour to be a reader of my writings, I may be permitted to refer you, on this subject, to the chapter of my " Principles of Political Economy" entitled "The Probable Future of the Labouring Classes," which expresses in a sufficiently distinct manner the position I take up with regard to this class of questions. During the Jamaica episode, and the prosecution of Governor Eyre, popular feeling ran very high in this country. Mill received a number of abusive letters, threats of assassination, &c., which he pre- TO MR. GOLDWIN SMITH iii served with his other letters. As may be supposed, 1868 they bear the signs of having been written by ignorant ^etat. 62. and illiterate persons. One begins, " The Mill atheist of Westminster, lately M.P., but now a dog." Another begins, " John, your conduct is extremely vindic- tive, malicious, and disgraceful." A third threatens to stab him the next time he entered Westminster. But these abuses and threats had very little effect upon him. To Mr. G01.DWIN Smith, at the time of the prosecution of Governor Eyre. Blackheath Park, ^ith May 1868. My dear Goldwin Smith, — ... It would be difficult to find any one less likely to be discomposed by the abuse heaped upon him than myself, or, I believe, than Taylor. The worst of all this is the indication which it gives of the spirit of our higher classes and of a considerable portion of the public. A propos, I receive abusive letters at the rate of three or four a week, and the other day I received one threaten- ing me with assassination. They are all anonymous, and as ineffably stupid as one might expect. To W. S. Pratten, one of Mill's constituents, who wrote to remonstrate with him on his action in the case of Governor Eyre. By Helen Taylor. Blackheath Park, gth/une 1868. Dear Sir, — I regret deeply that any one who has ever done me the honour to vote for me can ever disapprove of the course I thought it my duty to take in regard to Mr. Eyre's proceedings in Jamaica, because I have never 112 TO W. S. PRATTEN 1868 in the whole course of my life felt myself called upon to take practical action on any matter on which I felt more clear as to the course indicated by the principles which I hold and have always endeavoured to promulgate. In regard to Mr. Eyre personally, my feelings towards him, so far as I can be said to have had any, before I knew of his conduct in Jamaica, were favourable, inasmuch as I knew of him only as a traveller whose narrative I had read with interest. Neither has anything ever occurred, directly or indirectly, in the whole course of my life to arouse the smallest personal feeling of any sort in me towards Mr. Eyre as a private man. But I cannot say that it is possible to me as a man to regard Mr. Eyre's conduct in Jamaica without the deepest indignation, or as an Englishman without a sentiment of humiliation : nor can I pretend that I can regard without abhorrence and contempt the man who, knowing himself to be guilty, in the eyes of many disinterested persons, of the wanton torture and death of many hundred men and women, can be content to shelter himself under any shield what- ever against a judicial examination, and does not eagerly challenge and earnestly invite the closest possible scrutiny into whatever justification he thinks that he can urge. To me it appears that the conduct of Mr. Eyre since his return to England shows a callousness to human suffering and a contempt for his fellow-men which alone go far to show his total unfitness for any station of authority over them. Yet if all human sympathies could be laid aside altogether, the importance of instituting a judicial inquiry into the proceedings in Jamaica would still be paramount in the eyes of all thinking persons who look upon law and justice as the foundation of order and civilisation. If the majority of any nation were willing to allow such events to pass unquestioned, I have no hesitation in saying that all the ties of civil society would in that nation be at the mercy of accident. There would be no principle in the minds of men to bind civilised society together. Happily, I am fully convinced that the great majority of the English nation does desire judicial inquiry into these TO W. S. PRATTEN 113 events. Were I not so convinced I should be ashamed of 1868 my country. Nevertheless, even if I were not convinced of this, I should think it my duty to express in the clearest, the most public, and the most practical way in my power my opinion of the importance of checking the lawlessness of which Mr. Eyre's conduct in Jamaica appears to my humble judgment a flagrant example. I believe from a perfectly calm and disinterested examination of the subject that Mr. Eyre has either been guilty of, or has tolerated under his authority, crimes of violence and cruelty which no man of even ordinarily tender conscience or good heart could be capable of. The detestation of the right- judging among his fellow-creatures might, however, in some cases be a sufficient punishment for this. At all events, while the world is as full of crime as it is, I do not suppose that, however strong my feelings about it, I should have considered myself as peculiarly called upon to interfere against him. But I do so consider myself as an Englishman called upon to protest against what I believe to be an infringement of the laws of England ; against acts of violence committed by Englishmen in authority calculated to lower the character of England in the eyes of all foreign lovers of liberty ; against a precedent that could justly inflame against us the people of our dependencies ; and against an example calculated to brutalise our own fellow-countrymen. Nor would any amount of declamation, public or private, political or literary, have been to my mind a proper mode of chastis- ing what I believe to be the offence committed, so long as it was uncertain whether the laws of England are not impotent to restrain such lawless proceedings for the future or punish them in the past. The humblest or obscurest English man or woman, animated with that respect for law and love of liberty on which the greatness of England has been founded in past times and depends in the future, ought in my opinion to contribute his part towards a calm and legal settlement of this question. And it is at once amazing and humiliating to me that any one who has done me the honour to read, much VOL. II. H 114 TO W. S. PRATTEN 1868 less to approve, of any of my writings, could for one AetaTea '"^^^"^^ doubt that I should think so. I can understand that any one might doubt what might be my opinion of Mr. Eyre's conduct. I can understand that those who have not examined it as carefully as I have done might expect me to approve of it. But I cannot understand that any one should expect me not to desire an examina- tion of it, conducted in the fairest and most open manner that could be attained. That the real or supposed crimes of men in authority should be subject to judicial examina- tion is the most important guarantee of English liberty ; and I am not aware that any reason has ever yet been brought forward why Mr. Eyre should be the sole and solitary exception to this liability. In regard to the petition concerning which you ask my opinion (that of one of the Foreign Affairs Committees against the Abyssinian war), I did not present it because I agreed in it, but because I think members of Parliament should extend as widely as possible the limits within which they accept petitions to present. The power of petitioning is very important, especially to all unrepresented citizens, and as it can only be exercised through members of Parliament I think they should throw as few obstacles as possible in the way. Those who approve of my little book on " Liberty " can scarcely think me inconsistent in this opinion. I have always thought and often said that this country was bound to recover its envoy even by war if necessary, and the manner in which the war has been carried on by Sir R. Napier does honour to him and to our country. Its success is probably owing in great measure to the spirit of law and order which reduced the sufferings of war to the lowest possible point amongst the people in whose country it was carried on. The continuance of hostilities after the prisoners had been surrendered is the one point which requires and which will probably receive explanation. Aetat. 62. TO A CORRESPONDENT 115 To a Correspondent, who asked Mill's assistance in obtaining him a post as teacher. This he found difficult to obtain on account of his religious views. All but the last paragraph by Helen Taylor. Blackheath Park, I'^thjune 1868. Dear Sir, — I should be most happy were it in my 1868 power to further your wishes in regard to independent employment, in which I most heartily sympathise : but there are few persons less able than myself to do so, and although I can sincerely say that I shall not forget your name should any occasion offer itself to me, yet I cannot hold out any hope that I am likely to meet with one. In regard to the points on which you say that the convictions in which you were brought up have been shaken, I fully agree with you that it would not be right for you to attempt to inculcate those convictions. I think, however, that you will find them, at least as stated in your letter, as difficult to disprove as to prove : except, indeed, in the case of prayer. I think you have omitted to mention one effect that prayer may reasonably be said to have on the mind, and which may be granted to it by those who doubt as well as by those who admit divine interposition in answer to it ; I mean the effect produced on the mind of the person praying, not by the belief that it will be granted, but by the elevating influence of an endeavour to commune and to become in harmony with the highest spiritual ideal that he is capable in elevated moments of conceiving. This effect may be very powerful m clearing the moral perceptions and intensifying the moral earnestness. It may be so powerful as to leave it open to question whether it is produced solely by the internal action of human nature itself or by a supernatural influence, and this question will have to be resolved by ii6 TO G. K. HOLDEN 1868 each individual from his personal experience. I know of no proof sufficient to entitle psychologists to assert it as ' certain that the whole of this influence is reducible to the known elements of human nature, however highly probable they may think it. As to the other two points, the existence of a Deity and the immortality of the soul, it would be still less possible to bring negative proof to bear upon such questions that would be conclusive to all minds. You might perhaps find much to interest you on these matters in Mr. Herbert Spencer's " First Principles " and in Mr. Grote's work on Plato. / As to the sentence you quote from my " Utilitarianism "; when I said that the general happiness is a good to the aggregate of all persons I did not mean that every human being's happiness is a good to every other human being ; though I think in a good state of society and education it would be so. I merely meant in this particular sentence to argue that since A's happiness is a good, B's a good, C's a good, &c., the sum of all these goods must be a good. To G. K. H OLDEN, Member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales. Blackheath Park, ^th July 1868. Dear Sir, — I hope you will pardon me for the delay in acknowledging your letter, dated as long ago as February. Parliamentary business is so exacting, and I receive such a multitude of letters which require an immediate answer, that I am often obliged to put aside for a time those which admit of delay. Your impression is quite correct that I was applied to from Victoria in consequence of the use made by pro- tectionists of the passage in my " Political Economy " which speaks of the occasional benefit in a young country of aiding the naturalisation of an industry suited to the circumstances. I did, at that time, return an answer, which was published in a Victoria newspaper, to the effect TO G. K. HOLDEN 117 that if this encouragement took the form of a protecting 1868 duty, it should be strictly limited to a moderate number ^^"qj of years, and not continued beyond. I have not altered the opinion that such encouragement is sometimes useful, and that in many cases the most just mode in which it could be given is that of a temporary protecting duty, on condition that it should be known and declared to be merely temporary, and of no very long duration. But I confess that I almost despair of this general understanding being ever practically established. I find that in Australia, protection is not advocated in this form or for this pur- pose, but that the vulgarest and most exploded fallacies are revived in its support. As far as I can perceive, those who contend for protection in Australia mean it to be as permanent as any other legislative arrangements ; and hold to all the false theories on the subject, of which Europe is rapidly ridding itself, and which are declining even in America. In such a state of opinion as this I should resist, with my utmost strength, any protection whatever, because it is far easier to withstand these false and pernicious doctrines before they have been carried into practice to any serious extent, than after powerful protected interests have been allowed to grow up under their influence. Allow me to express my high sense of the ability and effectiveness of your letter, signed H., on this question. Such clear expositions of the principles of the subject are what can alone be trusted to for combating any natural prejudices in a free and popularly governed country. I well remember your exertions for the adoption of Mr. Hare's system in the election of the Legislative Council, and the very valuable report in which you discussed the subject. The debates in the British Parliament which have since occurred may well have struck you by the amount of ignorance they disclosed ; but great and daily progress is making in the correction of that ignor- ance, and many political men, including some of the most active and intelligent leaders of the working classes, are ii8 TO THE SECRETARY OF THE S.P.C.A. 1868 now converted to Mr. Hare's system, in principle at least, . , and frequently even in its detail. The doctrine of personal Aetat. 62. , , • • 1 • ., • , representation is making the same rapid progress among thinking minds on the Continent and in America. But as you are probably in correspondence with Mr. Hare, you have access to the best source of information on this subject. To the Secretary of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Blackheath Park, 26th July 1868. Dear Sir,— I am much honoured by the wish of the President and Committee of your Society to include me in the list of its Vice-Presidents ; but though I think the Society very useful, and have been for many years one of its members and subscribers, I do not feel it consistent with my principles of action to identify myself to any greater extent with the management, while it is thought necessary or advisable to limit the Society's operations to the offences committed by the uninfluential classes of society. So long as such scenes as the pigeon-shooting exhibitions lately commented upon in the newspapers take place under the patronage and in the presence of the supposed 61ite of the higher classes, male and female, without attracting the notice of your Society, this respect of persons, though it may be prudent, is too foreign to my opinions and feelings to allow of my sharing in any, even indirect, responsibility for it. I cannot help thinking that anything of the sort is peculiarly to be regretted, because the Society really includes so many of the upper classes (and does them so much honour) that an attack upon the cruelty of the less enlightened among themselves would come with the best possible grace from them, who cannot be accused of class-feeling. TO JAMES HENDERSON 119 To James Henderson, of Glasgow, recommending Edwin Chadwick as a candidate for Parliament. Avignon, iznd August 1868. Dear Sir, — I have heard with much gratification that 1868 it is under the consideration of some of the advanced . ^ Apt- n\ Q 2 Liberals to put forward my old friend Mr. Chadwick for one of the districts of Scottish boroughs ; for not only do I deem Mr. Chadwick eminently qualified for a seat in the House of Commons, both for the work he would himself do and for that which he would be the cause of in others, but I should consider his absence from the next Parliament as a public misfortune. Any constitu- ency that returns him to Parliament will, in my opinion, be doing a public service of great value, and would do itself still further honour if he were to be returned free of expense. I have known Mr. Chadwick with considerable intimacy from the time when both of us were very young men. He was then quite unknown to the public, but was already active in a quiet way, in standing up against jobbing and oppression ; and it is within my knowledge (for I was aware of every step in the proceedings) that within a very short interval he had the principal share in defeating two different attempts to commit great public and private wrong. He had even then bestowed much thought and study on the details of administration, and some papers which he wrote on administrative subjects attracted the notice of Mr. Senior,^ who appointed him an Assistant- Commissioner under the original Commission of Poor Law Inquiry, in which capacity he displayed such superior ability that he was made a member of the Commission itself, for the express purpose of assisting in drawing up the new Poor Law. No one, except Mr. Senior, had so great a share as Mr. Chadwick in originating all that was 1 [W. Senior, one of the Poor Law Commissioners.] Aetat. 62. 120 TO JAMES HENDERSON 1868 best in the Poor Law of 1834, and had his counsel been taken in all respects, as it was in some — had his clauses respecting the education of pauper children not been rejected in the House of Lords — had his plans been accepted for the separation of the sick, the lunatic, the old, and the young from one another and from the able- bodied, and their distribution in different houses with a view to totally different modes of treatment, not only would the vast expense of administrating the Union Workhouses have been in a great measure saved, but the greatest blots upon our present Poor Law administration would have been effectually provided against. The next of Mr. Chadwick's great public services was as a member of the Factory Commission, which proposed and carried the limitation of the labour of children in factories to six hours. From that time Mr. Chadwick has never ceased to occupy himself with the improve- ment of the conditions of factory operatives. He was the proposer, and has been the indefatigable apostle of the half-time school system, by which the education of the children of the operative classes has been made com- patible with the necessities of the family. He proposed but did not succeed in carrying a measure for the pro- tection of the operatives by making masters pecuniarily responsible for accidents. He has been from the beginning the leading mind of the sanitary movement which has done so much, and will do much more to improve not only the health, but the moral and economical condition of the working population generally, and especially of its most neglected portions. Almost as much of his time and thoughts has been employed upon the great question of public education, in its most difficult department, its busi- ness details ; and I know of no one capable of being of so much use to our future ministers and legislators in forming an organised plan by which the most efficient education can be given to the whole people at the smallest sacrifice either to the public or to individuals. I have touched only on main points, for to go through all the minor but important matters of public interest which he TO CHARLES GILPIN 121 has helped forward would take up far too much time and 1868 space. I may say in brief that he is one of the contriving ^^"g^ and organising minds of the age ; a class of mind of which there are very few, and still fewer who apply those qualities to the practical business of government. He is, however, one of the few men I have known who have a passion for the public good ; and nearly the whole of his time is devoted to it in one form or another. With respect to political questions in the narrower sense of the word, I may say that Mr. Chadwick was highly esteemed by Mr. Bentham, the father of enlightened Radicalism ; that throughout life I have seldom had occasion to differ from him on subjects of that nature ; and should we be returned to Parliament, there are few whose vote I should expect oftener to agree with mine on all subjects involving the principles of popular government. You are at liberty to make any use you think well of this letter. To Charles Gilpin, Liberal M.P. for Northampton, in reply to a letter in which he had mildly protested against Mill's support of Bradlaugh against himself and Lord Henley. By Helen Taylor. Avignon, 12M September 1868. Dear Sir, — I should be sorry indeed if your election could be perilled, but I do not think it can be. I understood from Mr. Bradlaugh not only that he had no intention of standing against you, but that he considered your election certain ; and I hope you will not allow yourself to be per- suaded that one of the mere rank and file Liberals can be as valuable in the House of Commons as yourself. But (although for totally different reasons) I think Mr. Brad- laugh also would be a very valuable member of Parliament. He also holds opinions not cut after the pattern of some three hundred or so other Liberal members of Parliament, 122 TO CHARLES ELIOT NORTON 1868 and I think him able to sustain them with abihty which would give them effect. This is what we want in the House of Commons, and while it is most important to uphold honest and honourable men, faithful supporters of our own party like Lord Henley against Tories and luke- warm Liberals, I do not think that their claims ought to be allowed to prevail against the claims of exceptional men. Where there are two men to sustain one opinion and only one man to sustain another, the one is a more valuable man than either of the two ; and after all, the men willing to vote against the Irish Church are at least two hundred to one as against men holding original opinions of their own like yourself and Mr. Bradlaugh. Moreover, the good aver- age Liberal, especially if he is a man of rank, is likely to have a better chance for a larger number of constituencies than such a man as Mr. Bradlaugh ; you will see that I urged upon Mr. Bradlaugh the importance of not allowing a Tory to step in, and this seems to me the only important consideration in the matter. You will perhaps let me add that I could scarcely forbear smiling at the modesty which could let you suppose that you were the candidate against whom Mr. Bradlaugh's efforts are likely to have the greatest effect, even if he did oppose you, which I sincerely believe he would not do. To Charles Eliot Norton. Avignon, 24^ September 1868. . . . There is no doubt that the feeling of the mass of the working classes in England is very much alienated from the propertied classes. They are very strongly imbued with a sense of the opposition of interest between the receivers of wages and the payers of them. But I do not think that this feeling has reached the point of personal hatred between classes. I think that the operatives have confidence in the goodwill towards them of many persons in the higher and middle ranks, and that experience has taught them to expect that the others will be brought round gradually by the joint influence of conviction, persuasion, Aetat. 62. TO THOMAS BEGGS 123 and prudence. The intelligent, who are the politically 1868 active part of the working classes, are not impatient ; they have a sincere dread of the mass of brutal ignorance behind them, and have consequently set themselves to demand very vigorously a real national education. This they will soon obtain, and it will alter, in an incalculable degree, all the bad elements of the existing state of things. Already the aspirations of the workmen to the improvement of their physical condition are pointing not so much to any- thing to be done directly by the State as to what they can do for themselves by co-operation. Revolution and civil war will not come from their side of the question, for when their minds are sufficiently made up the existing political institutions are sufficient to carry into execution their will. The political enfranchisement of women, whenever it takes place, will further strengthen the influences opposed to violence and bloodshed. The only question which may possibly become dangerous is that of the land. There are signs of a rapidly growing conviction in the operative classes that the land ought not to be private property but should belong to the State. This opinion, which has always seemed to me fundamentally just, may perhaps come to maturity before the landholding classes are pre- pared even to listen to it ; and in that case there will be bad blood and violent class animosities : but even then, as far as I am able to anticipate the future, it seems to me that the probabilities are in favour of the settlement of the question by a succession of compromises without coming to blows. To Thomas Beggs, a member of Mill's election committee at Westminster, in reply to a letter of protest about Mill's subscription to Bradlaugh's election expenses. Avignon, iTth September 1868. Dear Sir, — I am exceedingly sorry that you should have had any trouble or annoyance in consequence of my 124 TO THOMAS BEGGS 1868 subscription for the election of Mr. Bradlaugh. In giving — him this aid I did not take at all into consideration his Aetat. 62. i-eligious opinions, with which, as practical politicians, we have nothing whatever to do. Though, like yourself, I know his early career only by report, I have understood that he was formerly violent and intemperate in his lan- guage, a defect which it is to be hoped may disappear with time, but which, if it does not, he will share with some of the best-known men in the House of Commons ; for there are several members of Parliament whom few working men at all events would be disposed to consider models of tem- perance in speech, yet whom all parties are willing to see in the House because they are forcible exponents of a particular point of view. It may be said for Mr. Bradlaugh in palliation that persecution naturally provokes violence, and at the time when he commenced men were still put in prison for expressing his opinions ; indeed, if I remember right, he himself has been imprisoned for them. But with regard to Mr. Bradlaugh's political opinions and conduct all that I know is greatly in his favour. No one who is active in politics on the Radical side seems to me less open than he is to the much-launched accusations of being a demagogue or a panderer to popular prejudice. He seems to me a thinking man, who forms his opinions for himself, and defends them with equal ardour whether they attract or alienate those whom he seeks to influence. I may mention as one example, that he is a strenuous supporter of representation of minorities, which, whether right or wrong (a thing I do not now discuss), at least proves him to be no friend to the despotism of the greater number; and as a second example his earnest Malthusianism, which places him in opposition to a vast mass of popular prejudice, supposed to be particularly rife among the Radicals of the working classes. If the capability of taking and the courage of maintaining such views as these is not a recommendation, to impartial persons, of an extreme Radical politician, what is ? With regard to his standing against Liberals, or rather against a Liberal, for to my excellent friend Mr. Gilpin he Aetat. 62. TO THOMAS BEGGS 125 disclaims all opposition, I am extremely desirous that you 1868 should fully understand my opinion on that subject. Un- doubtedly the point of first importance at the present juncture, is to return to Parliament supporters of Mr. Gladstone and of the disendowment of the Irish Church. This object ought not to be sacrificed to any other, and a member whose vote can be relied on for this purpose ought not to be opposed at any risk of bringing in a Tory. You are aware that I have cautioned Mr. Bradlaugh on this point, as I do everyone to whom I give any advice about the approaching elections. But the importance of the immediate struggle ought not to make us forget that the Parliament we are going to elect has much other work to do besides this — that we are looking to it for a general revision of our institutions and for making a commence- ment of effort against the many remediable evils which infest the existing state of society. Already the too ex- clusive attention to one great question has caused it to be generally remarked by friends and enemies, that there will be very little new blood in the future Parliament, that the new House of Commons will be entirely composed of the same men, or the same kind of men, as the old one. Now I do not hesitate to say that this is not what ought to happen. We want, in the first place, representatives of the classes now first admitted to the representation. And in the next place, we want men of understanding whose minds can admit ideas not included in the conventional creed of Liberals or of Radicals, and men also of ardent zeal, even if not always according to discretion, for it will all be wanted to make any impression against the force of at least negative resistance of those who are satisfied with their own position in life, and without meaning any harm are careless of evils because they do not feel them. Were Mr. Bradlaugh in Parliament, his zeal and ability would be of great use, and his violence, if he were still violent, could do no harm except to himself ; and he is a inuch less able man than I take him for, if he ever again repeats such errors of violence as those he is accused of. These are the reasons why I should be glad to see Mr. 126 TO A WESTMINSTER VOTER 1868 Bradlaugh in the House of Commons, and why, though I ^gj~, should have preferred to see him displace a Tory, I still desire his success even against Lord Henley, who, more- over, would probably have much less difficulty than Mr. Bradlaugh in obtaining another seat. And I hope to stand acquitted, even if not justified in your eyes, and in those of the friends whom you mention. I can say most sincerely that no one more thoroughly disapproves than I do any conduct or expressions needlessly offensive to the reverential feeling of any one, even if I had less sympathy of feeling with him than I have with many pious minds. To a Westminster Voter, in reply to a letter asking whether Mill's subscription to Bradlaugh's election expenses was a fact. By Helen Taylor. Avignon, th January 1869. Dear Thornton, — 1 have to thank you again for one of your pleasant letters. I congratulate you on having Aetat. 62 176 TO W. T. THORNTON 1869 brought your book to a happy termination, and most heartily wish it the success with the public which I am sure it deserves. Your description of your feeling of recovered liberty after the completion of your book would seem to describe my feeling at having recovered the free disposal of my time. I also, like you, have a great arrear of miscellaneous reading to bring up, and this is not yet getting itself done very quickly in consequence of other arrears. The printer is making good progress with the "Analysis," and I hope to succeed in the attempt to get it published by or soon after the ist of March. From what you say I hope to have read your book before that time. I have a good deal to read and study before I next revise my " Political Economy " for another edition. What you say of Sir Stafford Northcote's weakness of character, giving up good reasons of his own to bad ones of other people, explains to me much of his political life ; how the more vigorous will of Sir Charles Trevelyan kept him true to his convictions as to competitive examina- tions ; and how his honesty of purpose did not hinder him from going all lengths with Disraeli, though Disraeli did not convince his reason. I do not know what sort of a Minister the Duke of Argyll will turn out, but I am glad you have not got Bright, who would have had much to unlearn, and very little disposition to unlearn it. The two members of Council you mention are not good average specimens, having been selected by the old body out of their own number in consequence chiefly of their personal popularity, which was in itself not undeserved. We are glad you share in our estimate of our terrace, which, so far from being suppressed, has been nearly doubled in size, we having increased the part of the house of which it is the roof, and added a bathroom thereto. Moreover, Helen has carried out her long - cherished scheme (about which she tells me she consulted you) of a "vibratory" for me, and has made a pleasant covered walk some 30 feet long, where I can vibrate ^ in cold or ' [Mill doubtless adopted this word from Bentham, who had a similar covered walk at Ford Abbey. Vide Bain's " Life of James Mill," p. 133. J TO STANDISH O'GRADY 177 rainy weather. The terrace, you must know, as it goes 1869 round two sides of the house, has got itself dubbed the . , Acta.t 02 " semi-circumgyratory." In addition to this, Helen has built me a herbarium. — a little room fitted up with closets for my plants, shelves for my botanical books, and a great table whereon to manipulate them all. Thus, you see, with my herbarium, my vibratory, and my semi- circumgyratory, I am in clover, and you may imagine with what scorn I think of the House of Commons, which, comfortable club as it is said to be, could offer me none of these comforts, or, more properly speaking, these necessaries of life. Helen says your room is not finished yet, because, as she is architect and master mason all in one, she is carrying on the improvements very slowly, not letting the attention to them interfere too much with her other work. But you may be sure we have not altered the outward aspect of our dear little cottage, which looks as small as ever, and you may be equally sure that I am lost in wonder and admiration of the ingenuity with which Helen has contrived to manage it all. You will not be surprised to learn that among the other additions there is a puss-house. Altogether we are very comfortable, and only wish everybody could be as com- fortable as we are. The weather this year, though cloudy and wet, is still so delightfully mild that we can still spend hours upon the terrace. To Standish O'Grady, in reply to a question about Mill's discussion of Miracles in the " Logic." Avignon, \6th January 1869. Dear Sir, — The reason why I think that a miracle could not prove supernatural power to any one who did not already believe in the existence of some such power, is this, that we never can know that any seeming miracle implies supernatural power. The achievement of appar- ently impossible results by strictly natural means is a fact, VOL. II. M Aetat. 62 178 TO E. JONES not only within experience, but within common experience. It is not even necessary to suppose the employment of a law of nature not previously discovered. It is sufficient to bear in mind the innumerable and truly wonderful exploits of jugglers, and, supernatural power not being proved by the miracle, d fortiori it would not be proof of a God. If, however, any man possessed the apparent power of controlling not some particular laws of nature, but all laws of nature — if he actually stopped the course of the sun, arrested the tides, changed the water of the sea instantaneously from salt to fresh, and so on without limit ; then indeed he would prove by the direct testimony of sense that there existed a supernatural power, and that he was possessed of it. The fact is, that this would be an experience as complete as, and the exact counterpart of, that which we should have of creation if we had ocular demonstration of worlds similar to our own called into existence by a Will. But if the apparently supernatural power only mani- fests itself in the seeming supersession of a limited number of natural laws, the hypothesis of its being done by means of other natural laws would be, as it seems to me, intrinsic- ally so much more probable, that nothing but the proved impossibility of this could warrant the conclusion that the power was supernatural. And this proof of impossibility it is evident could never be obtained, in the existing or very probable future state of human knowledge. To E. Jones, in acknowledgment of a pamphlet by him on Orthography. Avignon, i^th January 1869. Dear Sir, — I thank you for your pamphlet. It is truly a frightful consideration that the annual number of pupils who pass the highest grade in the schools aided by Government, i.e. who leave the schools able to TO AN AMERICAN ASSOCIATION 179 read a newspaper with understanding, is less than the 1869 number of teachers (including pupil teachers) employed in the schools. To remedy such a state of things as this requires a most earnest devotion of the administra- tion, and probably of the legislative mind to the purpose. There is no doubt that, as you say, a simplification of English orthography would facilitate considerably the task of learning to read. A language which, like the Spanish of the present time, has reduced its spelling to a perfectly uniform system, has a great advantage over others. But it would take a much longer time to effect a change in orthography than would be required to teach every child in the United Kingdom to read with facility. There certainly is no necessity that it should take " seven years of the best learning period of a child's life" to teach him to read. So great a waste of time only proves the wretchedness of the teaching. I, myself, cannot remember any time when I could not read with facility and pleasure ; and I have known other children with whom this was the case. Such essays as yours, however, do good, both by causing discussion, and by promoting useful though gradual changes. The Com- mission you propose would be useful in a similar manner, but the Government may perhaps not think that a subject which does not come within the province of direct legislation is a suitable subject for a Govern- ment inquiry. To the Secretary of the American Social Science Association, in reply to an invitation to come over to America. The Association undertook to pay the whole of Mill's expenses, both of travelling and living in America ; to send a representative to England to escort him over and attend to his comfort ; and if he felt in- i8o TO HEWETT C. WATSON 1869 dined to lecture while in America, to pay him three Aetat 62. hundred dollars for each lecture. Avignon, igth January 1869. Dear Sir, — I have had the pleasure of receiving your letter of the 21st ulto., proposing on the part of the American Social Science Association that I should visit the United States as their guest, and make a lecturing tour through the Northern States under their auspices. Few things could be more flattering to me than the high honour of such an invitation from such a body ; and your letter also contains proposals of a pecuniary nature on such a scale of liberality, as to convert a visit to the United States from an expensive pleasure into a source of great personal profit. The shortness, however, of life, and the numerous unexecuted literary projects which the public duties, on which the greater part of my life has been occupied, have left on my hands, and which require all the leisure of my remaining years for their fulfilment, admonish me of the necessity of dividing such time as I am able to dispose of between those undertakings, and a rest more complete than would be afforded by a journey such as that to which I am so flatteringly invited. These are the considerations which compel me to decline an invitation so honourable, and which, if I had more leisure and a greater number of years of life in prospect, would have been so welcome to me. Allow me in conclusion to express to yourself per- sonally my sincere acknowledgments of the friendly and courteous terms in which you have communicated to me the proposal of the Association. To Hewett C. Watson, acknowledging the gift of his book "Cybele Britannica." Avignon, zoth January 1869. Dear Mr. Watson, — I am much obliged to you for your kind present. You are right in thinking that my TO A YOUTH OF FIFTEEN i8i absence from Parliament will give me more time for 1869 botany ; I am now looking through my herbarium for the . ~g first time since the winter of 1864-65. But the scientific interest of your book gives it a value to me beyond the purely botanical. In regard to the Darwinian hypothesis, I occupy nearly the same position as you do. Darwin has found (to speak Newtonically) a vera causa, and has shown that it is capable of accounting for vastly more than had been supposed ; beyond that it is but the indication of what may have been, though it is not proved to be, the origin of the organic world we now see. I do not think it an objection that it does not, even hypothetically, resolve the question of the first origin of life, any more than it is an objection to chemistry that it cannot analyse beyond a certain number of simple or elementary substances. Your remark that the development theory naturally leads to convergences as well as divergences is just, striking, and as far as I know, has not been made before. But does not this very fact resolve one of your difficulties, viz., that species are not, by diver- gence, multiplied to infinity ? since the variety is kept down by frequent blending. The difficulty is also met by the fact that the law of natural selection must cause all forms to perish except those which are superior to others in power of keeping themselves alive in circumstances actually realised on the earth. To a Youth of Fifteen, who asked Mill's opinion on the subject of pre- destination. The youth wished to become a sailor, but was opposed by his parents, lest he might be drowned. Avignon, ^rd February 1869. Dear Sir, — I do not believe, nor I fancy does any one in the present day, except Mahometans and some other Orientalists, believe, that there is such a thing as destiny in the sense in which you understand it. The only necessity in events is, that causes produce effects, and means accom- Aetat. 62. 182 TO JAMES BEAL 1869 plish ends. Effects never come but through their causes. By avoiding, to the utmost of one's power, all the causes of an effect, one greatly increases the chances of one's avoiding the effect. And if one desires an end, one greatly increases one's chance of obtaining it by adopting some known means. It is true, what we desire sometimes comes to pass without any effort of ours, and what we dislike sometimes happens in spite of all we can do to avert it ; but our conduct has on the average many times more effect on the fate of such of us as are not under the control of other people, than all other circumstances put together. There is no doubt that if you adopt a sailor's life you have a greater chance of being drowned than in most other occupations, because the causes which operate in that direction occur oftener and are less (though still very much) under human control. It is not, therefore, by any argument founded on destiny that you can hope to over- come the scruples of your parents, but rather by urging that all occupations are exposed to some evil chances, that one may be too much afraid of death, and that if persons of good health and strength were to avoid a really useful employment like that of a sailor because of its dangers, the world's affairs could not be carried on. To James Beal, on London Municipal Administration. Avignon, ith February, 1869. Dear Sir, — I certainly do think your original plan of municipal government in London preferable to that of a single municipal government for the whole metropolis. When I first heard of your plan, it at once struck me as that which best met the real difficulties of the case, while it had also the advantage of being less open to unreasonable as well as reasonable objections ; and this opinion has been confirmed by the additional consideration which since the receipt of your letter I have given to it. I will endeavour to put down what occurs to me, for any use you like to Aetat. 62. TO JAMES BEAL 183 make of it except sending it to the press. I rather regretted 1869 that you published the letter I sent you about police ; not that there was anything in its substance that I could wish to withhold from publicity, but because in a mere memo- randum for a friend, with whom one agrees generally in opinion, intended to be used by him for what it may be worth as materials for forming his own judgment, the same things are said in a different manner from that in which one would address the public. Accordingly, though you used the precaution of stating that the letter was to a private friend, the newspapers took no notice of that, but judged the letter exactly as if it had been written for the public, and charged it with dogmatism, arrogance, and what not. These accusations are not a very great evil, but there are so many purposes for which one is bound to risk them that it is better not to court such occasions unneces- sarily, and in the case of the letter I am now writing there are special reasons against communicating it to those who are not to be taken into practical council, which will appear in the very first things I have to say. It is to my mind certain that Parliament will not tolerate the existence in its immediate vicinity of another assenibly resting on a broad basis of popular election, wielding the power and disposing of the great amount of revenue which would belong to a single body carrying on every branch of local administration for the whole of London. The idea excited would be that of the " Commune de Paris " during the Revolution. If, therefore, the plan adopted is that of a single assembly, one of two things will happen. Either, first, the power of the body will be extremely curtailed. This may be done in one or both of two ways : by leaving much of the administration in the hands of the parochial bodies, the vestries and local boards, whom it is a great object to extirpate, root and branch ; or by withholding many of the most important parts of the local adminis- tration from the Council, and either leaving those parts in their present state of general neglect, varied by fitful parliamentary activity, or turning them over to a department of the central Government. These are modes in which the 184 TO JAMES BEAL 1869 powers of the municipal body may be brought within what Parliament would tolerate. The other course which may be adopted is that of spoiling its constitution, either by adopting a high electoral qualification, or by joining to the elected members a certain number of members nominated by the Government, or by making the assent of a Minister necessary to their more important acts. All these systems would be more intolerable to you and me, and to most of those who think with us in general politics, than even the present irregularity and want of system, and would be far more likely to last. These prudential reasons should, I think, prevent our friends from encouraging, or consenting to support, any plan for a single municipality. But even in itself, a single municipality in so enormous a city seems to me unlikely to work well. There is far too much work to be done ; and the mass of details affecting only particular neighbourhoods, would leave too little time or energy to the Council for maturing and carrying out general plans of improvement, and would, moreover, require it to be more numerous than is quite consistent with that purpose. Those who hold up as an example the local administration of Paris do not know what that adminis- tration is. Letting alone the fact that every single person connected with it is a Government nominee, it is not the fact that all Paris is under a single municipal administration : there is indeed but one Council, but there are twenty mayors, each of whom administers one of the twenty arrondissements. It is as much a double administration as that which would be given by our two bills, except that, England being a free country, our mayors must have councils, and properly elected ones, to assist and control them. I confess also I should not like to restrict to a single popular body all that exercise of the business faculties on public concerns which does take place under the present local institutions with all their imperfections, and which in England, and still more in America, trains many men of no great ability or reach of thought to be quite capable of discharging important public functions and of watching and controlling their discharge by others. This TO THE PRESIDENT OF A COMMITTEE 185 is one of the great differences between free and unfree 1869 countries — practical intelligence in public affairs not con- fined to the Government and its functionaries but diffused among private citizens. Our vestries are bad schools, but yet those who organise public movements, and bring the people together for an object, have mostly gained their first experience in the capacity of vestrymen, and it might easily happen that the too great concentration of municipal action might leave London without a sufficient number of such persons. To the President of a Committee, formed for the purpose of securing an amnesty for political prisoners. Avignon, %th Febrimry 1869. Dear Sir, — Your letter and the proposed Address en- closed in it reached me several days after the meeting to which you invited me. I do not think I could go to the full length of what is claimed in the Address. I am very doubtful if the Govern- ment ought to release all who may be in prison for being connected, for instance, with the Clerkenwell outrage, or for having joined in the Fenian invasion of Canada. To those political prisoners who have shed no blood, or have shed it in the way of what may be called fair or legitimate insurrection on Irish soil, I would, simultaneously with a great act of justice to Ireland, grant a full pardon, with a public declaration that it is done from the hope that the willingness practically shown to redress Irish injuries by legislation would induce the Irish in future to seek for redress only in that way, and would thus render legal punishment unnecessary. But in rebellion, as in war, it seems to me that a distinction should be made between fair weapons or modes of warfare and foul ones. And a good deal of thought would be required to decide exactly where the line should be drawn. i86 TO T. CLIFFE LESLIE To T. Cliffe Leslie. Avignon, SiA February 1869. ,gg Dear Mr. Leslie, — I have read your first letter in the — Economist with great pleasure, and your paper on La Creuse Aetat. 62. -^vith much interest and instruction. It is very important to put such points as it contains before the conceited Englishmen who fancy they understand all that relates to the land and politics of France, when they do not know the first rudiments of it, much less the many important matters you discuss. I look forward with great expecta- tion to the other papers which you announce as in pros- pect, and shall not fail to weigh well what they say on political economy. Many thanks for the trouble you have taken for M. Chauffard's Mittermaier.^ I agree with you in going the complete length with Bentham as to the admissibility of evidence. There are, I believe, frequent cases like that you mention of practical mischief both to the accused and to others from his not being examined as a witness. The one point on which alone Bentham seems to me to be wrong is in allowing the judge to interrogate. But I have recently seen it stated that the prodigious abuse of this power which takes place in France is, in part, owing to the fact that men are almost always made judges from having been public prosecutors, i.e. persons the whole business of whom it has been to find evidence of guilt ; and not, as with us, from among barristers, who have equally often had the duty of finding evidence of innocence. The reason is that the salaries of judges are not worth the acceptance of an advocate in good practice, and the salaries are small because, in France, there are everywhere courts of five judges or more, where a much smaller number and, in general, one judge would suffice ; thus does a single error in a system engender a series of others. The physical illustrations in my " Logic " were all re- viewed and many of them suggested by Bain, who has a ' [Mittermaier's " Traite de la Procedure criminelle, &c.," translated from German into French by A. Chauffard. Paris, 1868.' Aetat. 62. TO SIR CHARLES DILKE 187 very extensive and accurate knowledge of physical science. 1869 He has promised me to revise them thoroughly for the next edition, and to put them sufficiently in harmony with the progress of science ; which I am quite aware that they have fallen behind. To Sir Charles Dilke, on his book "Greater Britain." Avignon, 9M February 1869. My dear Sir, — Ever since reading your book, which a variety of occupations prevented me from doing until very lately, I have felt desirous of expressing to you the very high sense I entertain of its merits, and the great plea- sure which, as one who has turned much of his attention to the same subjects, I have felt at seeing such a number of sound judgments, and such a sustained tone of right and worthy feeling, sent forth to the world in a style so likely to command attention, and by one who has the additional vantage-ground of a seat in Parliament. It is long since any book connected with practical politics has been published on which I build such high hopes of the future usefulness and distinction of the writer, showing, as it does, that he not only possesses a most unusual amount of real knowledge on many of the principal questions of the future, but a mind strongly predisposed to what are (at least in my opinion) the most advanced and enlightened views of them. There are so few opinions expressed in any part of your book with which I do not, as far as my knowledge extends, fully and heartily coincide, that I feel impelled to take the liberty of noting the small number of points of any consequence on which I differ from you. These relate chiefly to India ; though on that subject also I agree with you to a much greater extent than I differ. Not only do I most cordially sympathise with all you say about the insolence of the English, even in India, to the native population, which has now become not only a dis- grace, but, as you have so usefully shown, a danger to i88 TO SIR CHARLES DILKE 1869 our dominion there ; but I have been much struck by the ^~ sagacity which, in so short a stay as yours must have been, ' has enabled you to detect facts which are as yet obvious to very few ; as, for instance, the immense increase of all the evils and dangers you have pointed out, by the substitution of the Queen's army for a local force, of which both men and officers had at least a comparatively permanent tie in the country ; and, again, that the superior authority in England, having the records of all the Presidencies before it, and corresponding regularly with them all, is the only authority which really knows India, the local Governments and officers only knowing at most their own part of it, and having generally strong prejudices in favour of the pecu- liarities of the system of government there adopted, and against those of the other parts. I observe that your pre- ferences seem to be, as mine are, for the systems which give permanent rights of property to the actual cultivator, which is best done in the modern Bombay ryotwar system. I am sorry to say that there is at present a strong reaction in favour of setting up landlords everywhere, and, what is worst, I am told that this prevails most among the young men (the hide-bound Toryism of Sir W. Mansfield assisting), and there is great mischief of this kind in progress, both in the Punjaub and in the Central Provinces, notwithstanding the contrary predictions of Sir John Lawrence ; what will happen under the Irish landlord who is now Viceroy, "^ I dread to think. But have you not, on the questions which concern the English planters, leant too much to their side ? You have yourself stigmatised their treatment of the natives, and what better can be expected in a country where a station-master kicks and cuffs the passengers, and a captain of a steamer kicks the pilot round the deck whenever the vessel runs aground ? If it could be right to make the breach of a contract to labour for the planters, under habitual treat- ment of this sort from them and their low nigger-drivers, a penal offence, the evil could not be so flagrant as your book shows it to be, and as it undoubtedly is. Another thing ' [Lord Mayo.] Aetat. 62. TO SIR CHARLES DILKE 189 to be considered is that either a most unjust advantage 1869 would be given to European over native landholders and employers of labour, or the same legal remedy must be granted to both ; and I suppose even those who think that an English indigo planter and his underlings would not suborn witnesses to depose falsely in a criminal court, will admit that a native landowner would. In your plan for the improvement of the organ of Indian government in England, you show a just and en- lightened appreciation of the necessity of making the organ a permanent one in the sense of not going out with the Ministry : but this will not and cannot be, if the organ is a Secretary of State, or any member of the Cabinet. No one who does not go out when the majority in Parliament changes will, or ought to, have a voice in the Cabinet which decides the general policy of the country. Neither is it likely to be thought right, nor indeed would it be right, that the Government of the empire should have no voice, not even a negative one, on the administration of its greatest dependency. If, then, the head administrator of India were not to be in the Cabinet, we should find that a Cabinet Minister would be set over him to control him, as one was set to control the Court of Directors ; and the nominal head administrator being only one person, and that one of inferior official rank, would have no power of resistance, and would sink into a mere Deputy. Would this be any improvement ? I have always myself thought that a Board or Council for India, with a Cabinet Minister to control them but not to sit among them, was the really best system for India, and I have given my reasons for this in the concluding chapter of my book on Representative Government. It is, however, impracticable to go back to this, and under the present system I think your own opinions will lead you to the conclusion that the Secretary of State must necessarily change with the Government, and that the real knowledge of India which you hope to obtain in him by making him permanent can only be found in a Council of advisers with at least as great powers as the present Council. It is quite another question whether the 190 TO PASQUALE VILLARI 1869 Council ought not to be more rapidly renewed. I am ^ "T g much disposed to think with you that its members should only be appointed (and should, exceptis excipiendis, only hold their seats) for five years ; but I think they ought to be fully as numerous as at present, that all the different systems of administration in India may have somebody there who knows them well enough and has sufficient sympathy with them to correct any misunderstanding to their disadvantage. You see that, in order to find fault with anything, I have very soon got down to extremely small points, or to such as have very little to do with the general scope of the work. If there is any criticism of a somewhat broader character that I could make, I think it would be this — that (in speaking of the physical and moral characteristics of the populations descended from the English) you sometimes express yourself almost as if there were no sources of national character but race and climate, as if whatever does not come from race must come from climate and what- ever does not come from climate must come from race. But as you show in many parts of your book a strong sense of the good and bad influences of education, legislation, and social circumstances, the only inference I draw is that you do not perhaps go so far as I do myself in believing these last causes to be of prodigiously greater efficacy than either race or climate or the two combined. To Pasquale Villari, sympathising with him on the death of his mother. Blackheath Park, le 19 mars 1869. J'avais remarqu6, mon cher M. Villari, que depuis long- temps je n'avais pas de vos nouvelles ; cette intermission n'est que trop expliqu6e par la lettre que je viens de re- cevoir. La sympathie la plus vive et la plus sincere ne pent presque rien pour consoler dans un si grand malheur. Dans I'affreuse souffrance des premiers temps c'est TO PASQUALE VILLARI 191 presqu'une moquerie que d'en offrir. Maintenant le temps 1869 est venu pour vous de ce profond abattement, cette perte . ~7 g de tout int^rM dans la vie, que je comprends si bien, et qui serait presqu'aussi dur a supporter, s'il n'y avait un moyen un seul, de soulagement, pour celui qui est capable de trouver un attrait dans le travail d6sint6ress6 pour le bien des autres. Ceux qu'une grande douleur priv6e a degout^s de tous les int6r6ts personnels, ont souvent fini par trouver une veritable consolation et un renouvellement d'energie dans la concentration de leur sensibility et de leur intelli- gence sur des travaux ayant pour but I'am^lioration morale, intellectuelle ou physique de leurs semblables. Cast la ce que j'esp^re pour vous. Vous etes un homme trte pr^cieux pour votre pays, tres sup6rieur par la pens^e et par les talents au niveau commun des hommes dans quelque pays que ce soit. Nul pays plus que le votre n'a besoin de ces qualit^s dans ses citoyens, et aucun n'offre un champ plus vaste et plus propice pour les exercer. Vous avez un amour de votre pays qui, je suis sur, n'a pas sombr6 dans le naufrage de votre bonheur personnel. Tout ce qu'il y a de soulagement possible dans un malheur comme le votre, vous r^prouverez quand vous vous sentirez capable de vous remettre a quelque travail important pour le bien g6n6ral, et de nature a exiger toutes vos forces intellectuelles. Vous trouverez peut-etre que je parle bien a mon aise de travail a un homme accable de douleur 6tant moi-meme dans un 6tat de contentement personnel que je n'avais 6prouv6 de longtemps. En effet, je suis comme un soldat licenci6 qui retourne a ses foyers pour y jouir de plus grand privilege qu'une vie de travail puisse offrir, le libre choix de ses occupations. Pendant que j'^tais d6put6 je ne jouissais cette liberty que pendant trois ou quatre m.ois de I'ann^e. Pendant ce temps je vaquais a mes etudes philosophiques, et j'avais prepare une nouvelle Edition du grand traits de psychologic de mon p^re, avec des notes par moi-meme et par d'autres de ses successeurs dans la meme 6cole philo- sophique. Cette nouvelle edition vient d'etre livr^e au public, et I'exemplaire que je vous avais envoye avant de recevoir votre lettre, vous parviendra, j'espere, en peu de 192 TO HENRY FAWCETT 1869 jours. Maintenant je vais publier un travail ou la question des femmes est trait6e avec plus d'6tendue que dans tout ce qui a paru jusqu'ici en faveur de leur affranchissement. Cette cause fait ici un progres tres rapide, et un si grand nombre de femmes, et des plus distingu6es, ont r^pondu a I'appel qui leur a 6t6 fait, que le succ^s, bien qu'encore 61oign6, ne me le parait plus autant qu'il y a trois ans. Ce petit traits vous parviendra, j'espfere, peu de temps aprfes I'autre. Je tiens plus que jamais a avoir de vos nouvelles, et je vous prie de m'en donner fr6quemment. De mon c6t6 j'espfere avoir a I'avenir plus de loisir pour vous 6crire. To Henry Fawcett, in reply to a request from him for Mill's view on " Mr. Gladstone's scheme for the appropriation of the revenues of the Irish Church." Blackheath Park, 22nd March 1869. Dear Mr. Fawcett, — I have considerable difficulty in judging from outside any question of political tactics during the present transitional state of politics. And the questions you put to me are essentially questions of tactics, for on the substantial issues there can hardly be any difference of opinion. The landlords undoubtedly get what they have no right to ; for though they are charged a fair price for the tithe, the State, in one sense of the word, pays that price for them by lending them the money at a much lower rate than they themselves can borrow at ; just as it lends them its money or credit for the improvement of their land. Thus it undoubtedly makes a present to them ; but as that present costs itself nothing, consisting only in giving them the benefit of its better credit, the Government may be right, as a matter of tactics, in granting them this advantage, which costs nothing to anybody. Again, to employ the resumed national property or a part of it in education would be a far better application of it than the one proposed ; but the measure would then no longer TO A. H. LOUIS 193 tend towards a reconcilement of religious differences. The 1869 application of any of the money to the Queen's colleges or to undenominational schools would be vehemently opposed by the whole Catholic party. The battle of unsectarian education will have to be fought, but we may hope to fight it with better support if this measure has first passed, retaining completely the character of a healing measure. It seems to me, too, that Ireland has a just claim upon the general taxation of the empire for all that it requires in the way of education ; and inasmuch as unsectarian education is contrary to the wish of the great majority of the Irish people, that at least can with much greater propriety be charged upon general taxation, than upon a fund belonging to Ireland as the Church property does. What can be said on the other side of both these points will occur to yourself ; and I am by no means against criticising these provisions of the Bill in a speech. With regard to any directly hostile movement against them (which would certainly be unsuccessful), I doubt if any advantage would arise from it equivalent to the bad effect of an apparent want of unanimity in the Liberal party in carrying through this measure. I do not feel able to give a more positive opinion on the subject. My daughter desires to be kindly remembered to Mrs. Fawcett and yourself. To A. H. Louis, on a proposal to form an Academy of Moral and Political Science. Blackheath Park, 22nd March 1869. Dear Sir, — The idea of an Academy of Moral and Political Science has often presented itself to my mind ; as it could hardly fail to present itself to any one who has been all his life speculating and thinking on social questions and who has studied the institutions and ideas of foreign countries. But the result of the thought I have given to the subject has always been unfavourable. The Society, or Academy, would either be a public VOL. II. N Aetat. 62. 194 TO A. H. LOUIS 1869 body or a mere private association. If a public body, the original members would be named by the Government ; subsequent vacancies might be filled up, as in France, by the votes of the body itself. If the Government acted honestly in the matter, which we will suppose it to do, it would appoint the persons of highest reputation as writers or thinkers on moral, social, and political subjects without (it is to be hoped) any regard to their opinions ; for to pay any regard to these would simply mean to exclude all whose opinions were in advance of the age. This, then, being supposed, what sort of a body would be the result ? An assemblage of persons of utterly irreconcilable opinions, who would hardly even be sufficiently unanimous on any question to exercise, as a body, any moral or intellectual influence over it ; while amidst this medley of opinions there would be an assured majority in favour of what is conservative and commonplace, because such is invariably the tendency of the majority of those whose reputation is already made. In consequence, the subsequent elections by the members, to fill vacancies, would be decidedly worse than we are supposing the original choice to be, for men of the highest eminence would often not be elected if any of their opinions were obnoxious to the arriire majority. Guizot, Thiers, and Cousin while he lived, ruled the French Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, and very few who were not of their opinions were, or now are, admitted into it. The Academic Fran^aise rejected Littrd, the man who by his single efforts was doing admirably the whole work which the Academy was especially appointed to do. Even Academies of Physical Science, in which there is less difference of opinions, always consist in majority of trained mediocrities, while the men whose footsteps mark the great advances in science often do not succeed during their whole lives in obtaining admission. Originality, scientific genius, is in general looked shyly upon by the majority of scientific men ; and it is of the majority that academies, however honestly constituted, will be the representatives. If, on the other hand, the Society was not a public and organised body, but was composed of volunteers rallying TO LORD AMBERLEY 195 round some common standard, it would not materially 1869 differ from any voluntary association of persons agreeing in some of their opinions, and would carry no more weight than any other set of men who unite to assist and back one another in the propagation of their particular doctrine. It does not seem to me possible, by any combination, to make the collective force of scientific thought available as a power in social affairs. The French academies never have been such a power : the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences is neither consulted, nor, as a body, puts forth any opinions, or exercises any moral or political action, except by offering prizes for essays. Its trans- actions, consisting of the papers read before it, are published, but one seldom sees them quoted or referred to. Its individual members have such influence as their talents or character may give them, but collective influence it has none. Having given you the reasons which made me fear that the results you anticipate from the formation of an Academy of Moral and Political Science would not be realised, allow me now to express the great pleasure which our short conversation gave me, and the satisfaction I should have in co-operating with you on the subject of the Alabama claims, and I doubt not, on many other important matters. There is such a lack of energy and earnestness in all classes above manual labourers ; and those who have any wish or capacity for improved ideas are so shrinkingly afraid of what will be said of them, and so daunted by the smallest obstacle, that it is a dies albo notandus on which one meets with any man of intelligence who feels and thinks as you did both in the Commons Society, in our conversation afterwards, and now in your letter. To Lord Amberley. Blackheath Park, gth April i%6g. Dear Lord Amberley,— -It gave me great pleasure to hear from you, and to find my anticipation confirmed. Aetat. 62, 196 TO LORD AMBERLEY 1869 that you would enjoy your liberation from trammels as much as I do myself. There certainly is no blessing in human life comparable to liberty, for those at least who, having any good use to put it to, can indulge themselves in it with a good conscience. I envy you the pleasure of having got to a Latin classic. I hope to be able to give myself the same satisfaction by-and-by. I have not read a Greek or Latin book for at least half-a-dozen years with the exception of Plato, whom I read right through preparatory to reviewing Mr. Grote's account of him. Cicero's philosophical writings are very pleasant reading, and of considerable value historically, as our principal authority for much of the speculations of the Greek philosophical sects, and a brilliant specimen of the feelings of the best sort of accomplished and literary Romans towards the close of the Republic ; but as philosophy they are not worth much, and I like his orations and letters better. It is true I am much interested in everything that relates to that great turning-point of history, the going out of what was left of liberty in the ancient world, and that calm after the storm, that tragical pause at the beginning of the downhill rush, which is called the Augustan Age — so solemn in its literary monu- ments, so deformed by the presence of Augustus in it. No historian has treated that cunning, base, and cruel adventurer as he deserved except Arnold in the " Encyclo- paedia Metropolitana " and Ampere in " L'Empire Romain a Rome," merely because Virgil and Horace flattered him. But this kind of reading after all is but recreation, unless one is making a particular study of history in order to write it, or for some philosophical purpose. Psychology, ethics, and politics, in the widest sense of the terms, are the really important studies now, both for one's own instruction and for exercising a useful influence over others. The Endowed Schools Bill will do a great deal of good if the proper use is made of the powers which it assumes, and Foster's speech shows that he at least intends to do the best. Let us hope that he will have Aetat. 62. TO A. LALANDE 197 sufficient firmness of his own and sufficient support from 1869 others not merely to carry the Bill, for that is little, but to work it according to the recommendations of the School Inquiry Commissioners. I honour Dr. Temple and Acland for producing so good a report, for I have no doubt it is mainly their doing. It will be very pleasant to see you and Lady Amberley in autumn at Avignon, if we do not sooner. To A. Lalande, on Mr. Lowe's Budget proposal to abolish the shilling duty on corn. Avignon, 2nd May 1869. Dear Sir, — Your letter has followed me here, and I have read it with great interest. As a piece of English composition, it is quite remarkable as the production of a foreigner, and I agree in a great part of its substance. Mr. Lowe has certainly much exaggerated the strength of the case against the shilling duty on corn. I, however, differ from you on one of the leading points of your argument, viz. where you aim at proving that the price of corn would not fall by the whole amount of the duty taken off, but by a smaller amount, dependent on the degree in which the importation of corn may be increased by the abolition of the duty. This argument was urged formerly, during the discussions which pre- ceded the repeal of our corn laws, and I had occasion to contest it at that time. It seems to me that your argument errs by stopping short at demand and supply as the final regulations of price, without going on to that which, in the last resort, adjusts the demand and supply to one another, viz. cost of production (including all cost necessary for bringing the article to the place of sale). If from any permanent natural calamity smiting the soil with sterility the cost of the production of wheat were increased by a shilling a quarter, I apprehend that the price of wheat would rise by that amount, plus the iqS to EDWIN CHADWICK 1869 ordinary profit upon it, even if there were no diminu- Aet^62. ^'°" °^ supply. Whether the supply would be finally diminished or not would depend on whether the rise of price caused a falling off in the consumption. But the conditions of production having been altered, the average price (that which the producer looks forward to and calculates upon) must accommodate itself to the new conditions. And the same thing happens if, instead of a natural calamity, we suppose the artificial burthen of a tax, which, though levied only on a part, of the corn consumed, enables all the remainder to command on the average the higher price necessary for bringing in that part. Supply and demand determine the perturbations of price, but (when the article admits of unlimited increase) not the permanent or average price. I think, therefore, your argument fails in one important point ; and though some of your other arguments remain valid notwithstanding, I do not think them sufficient to outweigh the advantage of getting rid of the last remaining shred of Protectionism. But I do not therefore dissuade you from publishing your paper. It is written in a way to command attention, and so many intelligent persons will think your opinion correct and mine erroneous, that it is right that the opinion should have a fair hearing. The only news- papers, however, which would be very likely to insert such a paper would be the Conservative journals, Standard, Herald, &c., and with them I have no relations. Probably it would have a better chance either with them or with the Times if sent by yourself. To Edwin Chadwick, on Lord Russell's Bill for the Creation of Life Peerages. Avignon, 2nd May 1869. Dear Chadwick, — Lord Russell's Bill, and its favour- able reception by the Lords, was no otherwise of im- portance than as showing the need which the Lords TO T. CLIFFE LESLIE 199 feel of strengthening their position. So small a number 1869 of life members would do little good even if they were — Aetat 62. always honestly selected, which they will not be. A few good names may be put in at first, but as a rule the life peerage will be a refuge for the mediocrities of past administrations. If now and then a thoughtful and vigorous man gets in, he will no doubt have the means of publicly speaking his thoughts, but to an inattentive audience ; for the peers are too stupid and too con- servative to be moved except by a party leader who they think will carry obstructiveness to the utmost limits of practicability ; and the public pay little attention to speeches in the House of Lords. I doubt if a second chamber can ever again carry weight in EngHsh politics unless popularly elected. I feel sure, at all events, that nothing less than what I proposed in my book on Re- presentative Government will enable it to do so. These are my opinions, but I do not wish to throw cold water on anything which acknowledges an evil and points in the direction of improvement. I should not at all wonder if Gladstone, in what he said to you, did hint at a life peerage : though perhaps what he meant was to hold out hopes that you might be supported by the Government in a future candidature for the House of Commons. I should be more glad if it were the last, but I do not mean that I should advise you to refuse the former, for as it would be obviously a tribute to your legislative capacity, it would doubtless increase your weight. To T. Cliffe Leslie, who wrote to Mill about his difficulties in getting his articles accepted. Partly by Helen Taylor. Avignon, Wi May 1869. Dear Mr. Leslie, — You should not take the editors and their ways so much au sh'ieux. You must remember 200 TO A. M. FRANCIS 1869 that your writings are intended for the public good, and ^ ~", that the editors are not half such good judges of that as you are. Consequently it is for you to make them take your articles just as you would make them take medicine, without any amour propre at having made it up for them yourself, and so put in a little sugar now and then if need be. Now, having made a real success with your amusing as well as useful articles of travels, the editors ask you for more of the same, and you should give it them, wrapping up good doctrine in this form. You should be no more on your dignity with them than with children. To a man like yourself most of them are children, as regards their motives and the objects they have in view. Morley indeed is better, but I dare say he is a good deal bothered, and he probably thinks that Chauffard's Mittermaier is a subject that can wait better than most. I should be vexed if the paper you wrote to oblige me should have any unpleasant effect on your relations with him. . . . To A. M. Francis, of Brisbane, Queensland, on various political questions. Avignon, %th May 1869. Dear Sir, — I have received your letter, and I will answer its different points seriatim. I. My letter to Mr. Holden has been much misunder- stood if it is supposed to indicate any change whatever in my opinions on the sphere and functions of Govern- ment in the economical affairs of societies. The only opinion I intended to withdraw was that which recom- mended, in certain cases, temporary Protective duties in new countries to aid the experimental introduction of new industries. And even on this point I continue to think that my opinion was well grounded, but experience has shown that Protectionism, once introduced, is in danger of perpetuatingi itself through the private interests it enlists in its favour, and I therefore now prefer some TO A. M. FRANCIS 201 other mode of public aid to new industries, though in 1869 itself less appropriate. — r ., '^^ ^ .^, , ,. , Aetat. 62. 1 quite agree with you that in Australia there are many important requisites of prosperity which the Government ought not to consider it beyond its province to provide. One of these is the one you mention — works of irrigation. I have long looked forward to the time when Australia would feel the need of tanks like those of Southern India, to retain through the dry season the surplus rains of the few rainy months. This, however, is a work on a great scale, requiring combined labour, and therefore difficult to accomplish with your present population. I took no part in the discussion about the purchase of the telegraphs, because it was a mere experiment of which I do not foresee the result. I should object to the purchase of the railways until the smaller measure shall have approved its policy by its success. And in no case does it seem to me admissible that the Govern- ment should work the railways. If it became proprietor of them it ought to lease them to private companies. 2. With regard to lands, I am still, like yourself, in favour of the Wakefield system. I should, however, highly approve of selling the lands subject to a land tax, if the Government is in a condition to enforce its payment without a cost exceeding the worth ; a difficulty which seemed fatal to this plan when Wakefield wrote. 3. On the importation of Polynesian labourers I am afraid we differ more widely. If the South Sea islanders came to Queensland spontaneously, the province would have every reason to welcome their coming. But I have the most deep-rooted distrust of plans for sending emis- saries to induce them to come, even by no worse means than brilliant representations. And I do not believe that any laws, which it is possible to enforce among an English population, will protect ignorant and uncivilised strangers, living with them as servants, against outrageous abuses of power. If the experiment ever answers, it is probably with Chinese, who are a more fearless and vigorous race, and are able to make themselves very unpleasant to those Aetat. 63. 202 TO A. LALANDE who ill-treat them. But the common English abroad — I do not know if in this they are worse than other people — are intensely contemptuous of what they consider inferior races, and seldom willingly practise any other mode of attaining their ends with them than bullying and blows. 1 therefore most positively object to putting such victims in their power. If there are no other means of preventing labour from being over scanty, then I am afraid the in- conveniences of the climate must be taken with its advantages. But I should think that the agricultural population of England would furnish (agreeably to one of Wakefield's principles) a sufficient number of young married couples to supply in a moderate number of years the labour required. If in the expression of these opinions I have been rather brief and abrupt, I beg that you will attribute it to my occupations, and to the haste with which they oblige me to write. To A. Lalande, on the Budget proposal. Avignon, 24/72 May 1869. Dear Sir, — I have read your letter of the i8th inst. with attention and interest, and I am much inclined to think with you that the effect of so small a duty as one shilling a quarter on wheat is not sufficient to make it certain that any perceptible relief will be obtained by taking it off. Still, we must reason about small effects on the same principle as one does on large ones. The duty gives a premium of a shilling in cost of production to home-grown corn over imported. This must naturally cause a certain quantity more to be grown at home and a certain quantity less to be imported, and every additional quantity grown at home in a given state of agriculture is grown at a proportionally greater cost. The average price, therefore, must rise sufficiently to remunerate this greater cost, but it will not rise by the full amount of the TO p. A. TAYLOR, M.P. 203 duty; otherwise it would not have the effect of reducing 1869 the quantity imported. Thus the average price of corn will, I conceive, be raised by an uncertain amount short of one shilling a quarter. But this increased price the consumer has to pay on all corn, home grown as well as imported, and from this he will be relieved by taking off the duty. To P. A. Taylor, M.P., on the Bill brought into Parliament for the purpose of degrading Mr. O'Sullivan from his office of Mayor of Cork, on the ground of the support which he gave to the Fenian movement. Avignon, 28M May 1869. ... I cannot but think that the dropping of the Bill against O'Sullivan has saved the British democracy from a most perilous snare. It seems to me that the distinction between a government by general laws and one of arbi- trary edicts is the broadest in all politics, and absolutely essential to good government under any institution, for the reason long ago assigned by Aristotle, that government by law is guided by general considerations of permanent feelings, while government by special decree is guided by the passion of the moment. And it is most especially necessary that this distinction should not be tampered with in a popular Government, for most other Govern- ments are under some check from fear of the majority; but when the majority is itself the Government, the check is only in its own breast, and depends on a strong con- viction in the popular mind of its necessity, which conviction is enfeebled by every instance of violation. I think it would be a fatal notion to get abroad among the people of a democratic country that laws or con- stitutions may be stepped over instead of being altered ; in other words, that an object immediately desirable may be grasped directly in a particular case without the salutary previous process of considering whether the 204 TO DR. GAZELLES 1869 principle acted on is one which the nation would bear to adopt as a rule for general guidance. I have always ■ admired Lincoln, among other reasons, because even for so great an end as the abolition of slavery he did not set aside the Constitution, but waited till he could bring what he wanted to do (by a little straining, perhaps) within the license allowed by the Constitution for military necessities. To Dr. Gazelles, on his French translation of the " Subjection of Women." Avignon, U 30 mai 1869. Cher Monsieur, — Je crois en eflfet que quelques pages pr^Hminaires a la traduction de I'Assujetissement des Femmes seraient tres utiles et je trouve les votres excel- lentes. Je vous soumettrai cependant deux ou trois observations. I. D'abord il me semble que vous ne rendez pas pleine justice aux St. Simoniens et aux Fourieristes, que vous dfeignez clairement sans les nommer. Je condamne comme vous beaucoup de leurs doctrines et surtout le gouvernementalisme a outrance des St. Simoniens. Ce- pendant je trouve que les uns et les autres ont rendu de grands services : et notamment sur la question des femmes, le St. Simonisme surtout ayant jet6 dans les hautes regions de la vie intellectuelle et pratique, un grand nombre d'esprits sup6rieurs, d^sabus^s aujourd'hui de ce qu'il y avait de faux ou d'exagg^r^ dans leurs systemes, mais conservant ce qu'ils avaient de bon, y compris I'^galit^ des femmes. Les St. Simoniens avaient d'ailleurs le bon esprit de declarer toujours qu'on ne pent prononcer sur la fonction des femmes sans elles et que la loi qui les doit r^gir ne pent etre donn6e que par des femmes ou par une femme. lis n'ont donn6 leurs propres id^es sur ce sujet que comme des hypotheses. II est vrai que, comme il arrive le plus souvent, on leur a tenu tr^s peu compte de cette reserve. TO DR. GAZELLES 205 2. D'un autre c6t6 tout en traitant Proudhon avec une 1869 juste s6v6rit6 vous me semblez lui avoir fait la part trop j^^~ ^ belle en disant qu'il a rendu de grands services a la course du progr^s. Je puis me tromper, mais il m'a toujours semble que Proudhon a et€ tr^s nuisible a la cause du progrfe. D'abord personne n'a tant fait pour provoquer la reaction de la peur, qui a eu et qui a encore des effets si funestes. Ensuite je ne vols dans ses Merits rien de sincerement juste et progressif. Ce qu'il y a chez lui de plus puissant c'est sa dialectique subversive, mais c'est une dialectique d'un mauvais aller ; une vraie sophistique, car elle s'attaque au bien comme au mal, et au lieu de se contenter de dire ce qui pent se dire avec verity contre la meilleure cause, elle entasse contre chaque c6t6 de la question pele-mele avec les bonnes raisons, tous les sophismes et ra^me les calomnies qu'on a jamais d6bit6s de part et d'autre. Cela brouille les esprits et fausse les id6es, tandis que la bonne dialectique les ^clairerait. 3. Tout ce que vous avez 6crit a I'endroit de Lanfrey est parfaitement bien pens6 et dit. Seulement il me parait douteux si nous faisons prudemment de rompre en visi^re avec lui. C'est un homme qu'on pent toujours esp^rer de ramener aux iddes vraies, et si on s'attaque aux gens, on risque d'int&esser leur amour-propre a persister dans la voie qu'ils ont une fois prise. 4. Je voudrais qu'il fut vrai qu'en Angleterre les esprits eussent 6t6 d6ja pr6par6s en 1851 a la discussion de r^mancipation des femmes, et que le temps oii Ton pou- vait s'en tirer par le ridicule 6tait d6ja pass6. Cela est vrai aujourd'hui, mais ne I'^tait pas alors. La discussion n'a 6t6 r6ellement entamee en Angleterre que dans cette annee-la, par I'article de ma femme que vous avez lu dans le 2me volume des Dissertations. II y a a la page 6 une expression qu'il serait peut-etre bien de modifier : c'est la ou vous dites " II ne s'agit plus de changer les relations sociales de sexes." Je sais bien ce que vous avez voulu dire, mais ce qui est propose dans mon petit livre serait certainement regard^ comme un grand changement dans les relations sociales des sexes. 2o6 TO ALEXANDER BAIN To Alexander Bain. Avignon, yth June 1869. 1869 Dear Bain, — Mr. Veitch sent me a copy of the " Life — of Hamilton." His replies to my strictures are so very Aetat. 63, ^g^jj (Mansel and water, with an infusion of vinegar), that I shall hardly feel any need of giving them the distinction of a special notice ; except that I am bound to admit that the passage of Aristotle which Hamilton seemed to have mis- understood was not indicated by any reference of his own, but only of the editor's. That is quite sufficient for my purpose, since Mansel at least has learning, and that passage of Aristotle was, I suppose, the nearest he could find to bearing out what Hamilton said. But after all, Hamilton must have known what Aristotle meant by ivep'^eia. I agree with you as to the general impression which the book gives of Hamilton. Only, as it shows advantageously a side of his character which I had no knowledge of, that of his private affections, the general result rather raised him in my eyes. I am glad to be confirmed by you in my impression that nothing in my notes to the " Analysis," on the ques- tion of Belief, is incompatible with your theory of it. I shall be very glad to see your last views of the subject more fully developed. Cairnes, who had not previously studied psychology very seriously, but who has now been reading both the "Analysis" and our notes with full appreciation and great edification, seems to feel a need of some further explanations on the doctrine of Belief as connected with the Will, and what a man of his practised intelligence wants is likely to be wanted by most others. As far as we two are concerned, it is very unlikely that any difference of opinion between us should develop itself when your doctrine is explicitly worked out. The Lords have done all the mischief they could to the Scotch Education Bill. One would have thought the unanimous recommendations of a Commission, partly Tory and fairly representative of all sections in Scotland, might TO J. E. CAIRNES 207 have passed their ordeal. But they Will no doubt, as 1869 you say, revenge themselves for having to eat their leek (if they do eat it) in the Church question by spoiling * ^ ' •'' other Bills. They are becoming a very irritating kind of minor nuisance. To J. E. Cairnes. Avignon, 2-i,rd June 1869. Dear Mr. Cairnes, — I have had so much to do and so many other letters to write that I have delayed till now thanking you for your most acceptable letter of 23rd May, and especially for the sifting which you have given to my review of Thornton. You may imagine how gratifying it is to me that you give so complete an adhesion to the views I take of the wages fund. In regard to the general subject of demand and supply, I think there is not, at bottom, any considerable difference between us. My object in the Fortnightly was to show that the cases supposed by Thornton do not contradict, and invalidate, as he thinks they do, the equation of supply and demand. In this you agree with me, and you do not think the doctrine incorrect. The amount of its value, either scientific or practical, is a different question. But while I admit almost all that you say, I think that the proposition as laid down is something more than an identical proposition. It does not define — nor did it, as I stated it, affect to define — the causes of variations in value. But it declares the condition of all such variations and the necessary modus operandi of their causes, viz. that they operate by moving the supply to equality with the demand or the demand to equality with the supply. The numerous considerations which you notice as influencing the minds of sellers are all of them considerations of probable future demand and supply, modifying the effect which would take place if nothing but present facts were considered. Now it appears to me important to point out that these prospective considera- tions operate by inducing the sellers either to convert a 2o8 TO J. E. CAIRNES 1869 possible present supply into an actual one, or to with- ^^~g draw an actual present supply into the region of merely possible ones, and that in either case the relation of the price to the actual supply and demand is constant, i.e. the price is that which will make them equal. If this statement does no more than give a distinct scientific expression to what is already implied in the terms used, still it is not unimportant to evolve and make explicit what the facts of purchase and sale and a market price really involve. I am delighted that you have derived so much pleasure and advantage from the "Analysis." That alone is enough to satisfy me of the great good likely to be done by its re- publication. With regard to the difficulties you have found in some of Bain's notes, he is aware that his doctrines respecting Belief and Volition require further explanations and developments. I am myself not always sure that I am able to follow him on every detail, though I do not think that any of my views clash with his. I am, however, in- clined to agree in what I think is his opinion, that volition is not a name for a peculiar state of feeling or phenomenon of mind, but only a name for the immediate and irresistible sequence between the specific action of the efferent nerve fibres as effort, and the internal cause which produces it, and which is either an idea or desire or (as explained for the first time by Bain) the spontaneous activity of the nervous system under the stimulus of nutriment. Pray thank Mrs. Cairnes very warmly for her kind letter. I hope to be able to talk over with her and you any remaining difficulties she may feel. I wish the oppor- tunity were nearer than it is likely to be, for Penzance and Blackheath are very far apart. But if Penzance aids your restoration to health I shall be very grateful to it. We were happy to hear good accounts of you from those who saw you in your passage through London. Helen desires her kind regards to you and Mrs. Cairnes. Aetat. 63. TO ALEXANDER BAIN 209 To Alexander Bain, in reply to a highly appreciative letter from him about " The Subjection of Women." Blackheath Park, nth July 1869. Dear Bain, — I am very glad that you are so well pleased 1869 with the new book. With regard to the single point on which you are doubtful, my defence is this. The policy of not laying down wider premises than are required to support the practical conclusion immediately aimed at was a wise policy ten years ago. It was the right policy until the women's suffrage question had acquired such a footing in practical politics as to leave little danger of its being thrown back. But the qtiestion has now entered into a new and more advanced stage. The objection with which we are now principally met is that women are not fit for or not capable of this, that, or the other mental achieve- ment. And though it is a perfectly good answer to say that, if this be a fact, things will adjust themselves to it under free competition, and also that without free competition we cannot know whether it is a fact or not, many will ask and many more will feel, " Why make a great change and disturb people's minds, only to give women leave to do what there is no probability that they either can or will do ? Why make a revolution on the plea that it will do no harm, when you cannot show that it will do any good ? " Even if on no other account than this, it is thoroughly time to bring the question of women's capacities into the front rank of the discussion. But there is a still stronger reason. The most important thing women have to do is to stir up the zeal of women themselves. We have to stimulate their aspirations — to bid them not despair of anything, nor think anything beyond their reach, but try their faculties against all difficulties. In no other way can the verdict of experience be fairly collected, and in no other way can we excite the enthusiasm in women which is necessary to break down the old barriers. This is more important now than to conciliate opponents. VOL. II. o 210 TO PROFESSOR JOHN NICHOL 1869 But I do not believe that opponents will be at all exas- , perated by taking this line. On the contrary, I believe the point has now been reached at which, the higher we pitch our claims, the more disposition there will be to concede part of them. All I have yet heard of the reception of the new book confirms this idea. People tell me that it is lowering the tone of our opponents as well as raising that of our supporters. Everything I hear strengthens me in the belief, which I at first entertained with a slight mixture of misgiving, that the book has come out at the right time, and that no part of it is premature. One effect which the suffrage agitation is producing is to make all sorts of people declare in favour of improving the education of women. That point is conceded by almost everybody, and we shall find the education movement for women favoured and promoted by many who have no wish at all that things should go any further. The cause of political and civil enfranchisement is also prospering almost beyond hope. You have probably observed that the admission of women to the municipal franchise has passed the Commons, and is passing the Lords without opposition. The Bill for giving married women the control of their own property has passed through the Commons, all but the third reading, and is thought to have a good chance of becoming law this session. To Professor John Nichol, of Glasgow, in reply to a letter from him about " The Subjection of Women." Blackheath Park, i%ih August 1869. Dear Sir, — I have been long without acknowledging your letter of 20th July, because there were several points in it on which I wished to make some remarks, and I have not had time to do this sooner. Even now I am unable to do it at any length. You have, 1 doubt not, understood what I have endeavoured to impress upon the readers of my book, that the opinions expressed in it respecting the natural capacities of women are to be regarded as pro- TO PROFESSOR JOHN NICHOL 211 visional ; perfect freedom of development being indispens- 1869 able to afford the decisive evidence of experiment on the . ~ , ..,.,., Aetat. 63. subject : and if, as you truly say, conventionalities nave smothered nature still more in women than in men, the greater is the necessity for getting rid of the convention- alities before the nature can be manifested. I have, however, thought it indispensable to weigh such evidence as we have and examine what conclusions it points to, and I certainly think that, in all matters in which women do not entirely lean upon men, they have shown a very great command of practical talent. I do not read the new evidence respect- ing Queen Elizabeth as you seem to do. She was already known to have had weaknesses of vanity and temper, but with the means of realising her position now afforded to us by the mass of contemporary documents transcribed by Froude, I confess she seems to me to have taken, on the whole, more just views of general feeling than her critics. For example : with the very small pecuniary resources she had (a thing generally forgotten), the economy absolutely indispensable could only be enforced by making those whom she employed (every one of whom was always in great need of money for the purposes of his department) feel constantly extreme difficulty in getting it, and the strongest motive to do without it if he could. Again, with half or more than half her subjects Catholics, herself under the ban of the Pope, and with a Catholic competitor for the throne, was it not wise in her to take advantage as long as she could of the real indisposition of the powerful Philip (an indisposition never fully known till now) to drive her to extremities ? We are bound to remember that, after all that is said of the danger to which she exposed England and Protestantism by her parsimony and over-caution, the event has justified her ; England and Protestantism sur- vived the risk, and came out with greatly increased power and 6clat. If you have read Mr. Motley's last two volumes,^ you will have observed a great change in his tone respecting Elizabeth. There are no more of the disparaging com- 1 [" History of the United Netherlands."] 212 TO G. CROOM ROBERTSON 1869 merits of his earlier volumes ; but, on the contrary, her abilities are always spoken of with great respect. As you truly say, queens, and kings too, are now super- fluous ; but the experience which women have given of themselves as queens is not obsolete. They are not now wanted as queens, but the qualities which made them suc- cessful as queens are still the conditions of success in all the practical affairs of mankind. I thought it best not to discuss the questions of marriage and divorce along with that of the equality of women ; not only from the obvious inexpediency of establishing a con- nection in people's minds between the equality, and any particular opinions on the divorce question, but also because I do not think that the conditions of the dissolubility of marriage can be properly determined until women have an equal voice in determining them, nor until there has been experience of the marriage relation as it would exist between equals. Until then I should not like to commit myself to more than the general principle of relief from the contract in extreme cases. To G. Croom Robertson, in reply to a letter from him, praising " The Subjec- tion of Women." Blackheath Park, iSiA August 1869. Dear Mr. Robertson, — Want of time has prevented me from sooner thanking you for the very interesting letter you wrote to me on the subject of my little book. On the few points which you criticise, you show so clear a discernment of both sides of the question that there is little need or scope for answering you. Only on the smallest of them, the good government of Indian prin- cesses, do your remarks present anything to be corrected. In an Asiatic principality good government (even com- parative) is never obtainable by letting alone. It is obtained by an ever-watchful eye and a strong hand, depending as it does upon a rigid and vigorous control of the subordinate agents of government, whose power TO MRS. BEECHER HOOKER 213 of plunder and tyranny, if left to themselves, is irresistible. 1869 The rulers who do let things alone are those whose affairs fall into disorder, and their countries into anarchy, through their supineness and self-indulgence ; and these are gener- ally male rulers. The measure of good government in the East is the closeness of the ruler's application to business ; and it is really remarkable that the instances of this should be so preponderant in the temporary rule of women as regents. The comparison of women to slaves was of course not intended to run on all fours. I thought the differences too obvious to need stating, and that the fundamental resem- blances were what required to be insisted on. But a different judgment coming from you cannot but be valuable to me. The most important of your points is the suggestion of a possible turning of what is said about the usefulness of the present feminine type as a corrective to the present masculine, into an argument for maintaining the two types distinct by difference of training. You have yourself gone into considerations of great importance in answer to this argument, all of which I fully accept. I should add some others to them, d^s, first, it is not certain that the differences spoken of are not partly at least nattiral ones, which would subsist in spite of identity of training ; secondly, the cor- rection which the one type supplies to the excesses of the other is very imperfectly obtained now, owing to the very circumstance that women's sphere and men's are kept so much apart. At present, saving fortunate excep- tions, women have rather shown the good influence of this sort which they might exercise over men, than actually exercised it. To Mrs. Beecher Hooker, in reply to a letter from her, praising " The Subjec- tion of Women." Avignon, 13M September 1869. Dear Madam, — I beg to acknowledge, with many thanks, your letter of loth August. 214 TO ANDREW RE ID 1869 You have perceived, what I should wish every one ^ ~g who reads my little book to know, that whatever there ' is in it which shows any unusual insight into nature or life was learnt from women — from my wife, and sub- sequently also from her daughter. What you so justly say respecting the infinitely closer relationship of a child to its mother than to its father, I have learnt from the same source to regard as full of important consequences with regard to the future legal position of parents and children. This, however, is a portion of the truth for which the human mind will not, for some time, be sufficiently prepared to make its discussion useful. But I do not perceive that this closer relationship gives any ground for attributing a natural superiority in capacity of moral excellence to women over men. I believe moral excellence to be always the fruit of educa- tion and cultivation, and I see no reason to doubt that both sexes are equally capable of that description of cultivation. But the position of irresponsible power in which men have hitherto lived is, I need hardly say, most unfavourable to almost every kind of moral excellence. So far as women have been in possession of irresponsible power, they too have by no means escaped its baneful consequences. To Andrew Reid, of the Land Tenure Reform Association. 5/A October 1869. Dear Sir, — Your letter of 29th September has just reached me. I am very glad to hear of so many and such good adhesions. It is a proof that many have arrived at the conviction that the time has come for making some improvement in the land laws. But the subject has been so little discussed that there is sure to be great difference of opinion as to what that improvement should be, I myself agree in principle with Mr. Odger and his friends ; but if the Association were to adopt as its purpose the TO T. CLIFFE LESLIE 215 resumption of all the land from its proprietors, it could 1869 not hope for any support except from a portion of the — working classes. The proposal is entirely new and start- ling to all other classes, and a great deal of preparation will be required to- induce them even to listen to it patiently. An association to agitate on a question is seldom timely or useful until the pubhc have first been to a certain degree familiarised with the subject, so that hopes may be enter- tained of making at once a considerable show of strength. We are certainly very far from this point in regard to the question of taking possession of all the land and managing it by the State ; I say nothing at present of the reasonable doubt which may be entertained whether we have yet reached such a degree of improvement as would enable so vast a concern to be managed on account of the public without a perfectly intolerable amount of jobbing. I must say that the general mind of the country is as yet totally unprepared to entertain the question. It is possible that the active spirits in the working classes may think nothing worth trying for short of this, and may consequently with- hold their support from the Association. I think this would be a great mistake ; but we must be prepared for the possibility of it. . . . To T. Cliffe Leslie; the first paragraph by Mill ; the rest by Helen Taylor. Avignon, Sth October 1869. ... It seems to me that whatever can be justly said against women's fitness for politics, either on the score of narrowness or violence of partisanship, arises chiefly, if not wholly, from their exclusion from politics. Their social position allows them no scope for any feelings beyond the family except personal likings and dislikes, and it is assumed that they would be governed entirely by these in their judgment and feeling in political matters. But it is precisely by creating in their minds a concern 2i6 TO T. CLIFFE LESLIE 1869 for the interests which are common to all, those of their . , country and of human improvement, that the tendency Aetat. 63. . , / „ ,. ^ ' ,. 11 to look upon all questions as personal questions wouia most effectually be corrected. My daughter thinks the opinions expressed by the ladies you mention very natural for French men and women and those whose ideas have been most formed by French literature, for two reasons : — 1. The peculiar bringing up of women has on the whole, from a multiplicity of causes having to do with the history of the nation, and also with race peculi- arities, tended in England to make women both weaker and gentler than men ; in France, to make them more energetic and passionate. This passion and energy is chiefly used up in rivalry with other women, and a habit of fierce passionate contest between women as individuals is acquired. What helps to this is that energetic French- women are apt to be less domestic than energetic English- women, partly on account of the smaller families, partly of the custom of sending the children out to nurse and to pension. Their energies are thus devoted in greater proportion than in England to rivalry with other women in dress, in love affairs, and in social success ; so that being at once more energetic and more given to using their energies in specific contests for superiority with other women, they are more disposed to personal enmities. 2. It is probably true that women, on the average, are more what the French mean by jealous than men ; it is certainly true that the less civilised people are more jealous in this sense than the more civilised ; probably on this account it is that women are more jealous than men, as certainly the French are more jealous than the English. There seems, however, good reason to think that one of the specific benefits of political freedom is that it diminishes this moral vice of jalousie, to which the French are more subject than any other people I know, in private affairs, although not more so than the Spaniards and Greeks in politics. You have evidently seen the true answer when you say that the habit of Aetat. 63. TO FREDERI MISTRAL 217 combination for common objects, which is always induced 1869 by political freedom, is the cure for the passionate and self- willed disposition of which the French accuse women, and other nations accuse the French. . . . To Frederi Mistral, who had written to Mill acknowledging a copy of the French translation of " The Subjection of Women," and saying that he had been converted by it. Avignon, le 6 octobre 1869. Cher Monsieur, — Parmi toutes les adhesions qui ont et6 donn^es a la thfese de mon petit livre je ne sais s'il y en a aucune qui m'ont fait plus de plaisir que la v6tre ; et cela non seulement a cause de I'influence que donne a vos opinions votre position si importante dans le monde des lettres mais encore plus par la confirmation de ma con- viction que les ^mes po6tiques, lorsqu'elles sont jointes a une intelligence 6clair6e, ne verront rien qui leur r6pugne dans la modification que la justice exige dans les relations sociales entre les deux sexes. En effet, dans toute soci6t6 qui n'est pas profond^ment d^moralisee il n'y a pas a craindre que I'homme ne cherche pas a id6aliser la femme. La nature I'y portera toujours : mais ici comme dans tout le reste, il s'agit pour I'id^al de ne pas trop s'^carter des conditions de la realite. Autrement on aurait d'une part un ideal incompatible avec les conditions de la vie, et d'autre part une vie rfelle toute prosaique dans laquelle on retomberait toujours. II en est ainsi de I'ideal que beaucoup de pontes ont voulu ^tablir pour les femmes. lis se sont figur6 un ^tre tout de fantaisie, qui aurait besoin pour exister d'un monde aussi imaginaire que lui ; ils ont propose aux femmes cet ^tre-la pour modele, et quand elles tachent de s'y conformer, elles se heurtent contre les dures exigences de la vie r6elle qui s'opposent invinciblement a la realisation. Qu'on s'eflorce tant qu'on veut a ^carter de la vie des femmes ces exigences, on n'en vient jamais a bout : d'abord, pour la trfes grande majority du sexe 2i8 TO MRS. P- A. TAYLOR '^^9 feminin c'est mat^riellement impossible ; et chez le petit Aetat. 63. "oinbre des privil6gi6es il en reste toujours assez pour les rendre dures, egoistes et cruelles, a moins d'en etre pr6- serv6es par une culture morale qui serait tout aussi efficace dans un 6tat de choses plus naturel. II me semble que I'id^al propre a I'existence humaine serait tout autre que cet id^al de fantaisie, sans etre pour cela moins po6tique ; ce serait I'id^e d'une personne complete dans toutes ses facult^s, propre a toutes les tiches et a toutes les 6preuves de la vie, mais qui les remplissait avec une grandeur d'ime, une force de raison et une tendresse de coeur tres au-dessus de ce qui a lieu maintenant, sauf peut-etre chez les plus admirables caracteres dans leurs moments de plus grande exaltation. Si cet id6al a jamais €t6 offert au genre humain c'est dans le Christ, et je ne sais pas ce qu'on pourrait demander de mieux soit a un homme soit a une femme sous le rapport de perfectionnement moral, que de lui ressembler. Or ce caractere-la est aussi profond6ment r^el que po6tiquement dev6 et emouvant. To Mrs. P. A. Taylor, Secretary of the London National Society for Women's Suffrage. yii October 1869. Dear Mrs. Taylor, — ^One of my working-men corre- spondents, and the most thoughtful and intelligent of them, Mr. William Wood, of Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent, who has lately enrolled himself as a member of the London Woman Suffrage Society, is very desirous of having a public meeting, or, if that should be impossible, a lecture in his borough, and offers to take upon himself the work of making the arrangements ; but he considers it a sine qua non that " one at least of the ladies who are the glory and no small part of the strength of the movement, be present to speak to us in its advocacy." . . . I have written to propose to Mrs. Fawcett to take up the project ; if she does not, would it be impossible for you to do so ? It would be unfair to ask you, who have so TO W. T. THORNTON 219 much on your hands in the central direction of the move- 1869 ment, to work at the outposts when the work can be done . ~g by anyone else, but we rely so much on your public spirit that we cannot help looking to you as a reserve when others fail. The cause has now reached a point at which it has become extremely desirable that the ladies who lead the movement should make themselves visible to the pubUc, their very appearance being a refutation of the vulgar nonsense talked about "women's rights women," and their manner of looking, moving, and speaking being sure to make a favourable impression from the purely feminine as well as from the human point of view. To W. T. Thornton. By Helen Taylor. Avignon, 23rrf October 1869. Dear Thornton, — We are most happy to hear that you have had such an interesting holiday, and that both the weather and your health and spirits were so favourable to enjoyment. I am much obliged to you for your obser- vations on the peasant proprietors. We must try to find out whether the farms which pleased you so much in North Holland are the property of the farmers. With regard to the internal discomfort of the houses in other places, it is probably a consequence and sample of the general habits of the country. In most parts of the Continent the taste for what we call comfort is much less developed than in England, and peasant properties, by the prudential and calculating habits which they foster, promote frugality as well as industry. The peasants (pre- ferring saving to enjoyment) often exhibit a very meagre state of living when the means are, as in the case you mention of the widow near Darmstadt, ample. Helen says too that to understand this subject one must distin- guish between comfort and neatness, although neatness is no doubt an essential to comfort in our eyes. There would almost seem something of race in the care for 220 TO W. T. THORNTON 1869 neatness, which Helen says does not follow at all, as one Aetat, 63. ™ght suppose, the variations of climate. Some Oriental peoples are very neat, as are the Spaniards (in the parts of Spain we have visited), and the Greeks. In Greek and Spanish rooms, where the furniture is poor, and there is substantial dirtiness, if vermin may be so called, the neat- ness is often charming, and most refreshing to the eye and spirits, while in French rooms of the same class the building will be more solid, the bedding comfortable and irreproachably clean, and yet the dust and untidiness will be repugnant and wretched to an English eye. Some of the same curious differences may be noticed in different parts of Germany, and Helen says that for many years she has tried to find any general rule which will explain these variations. She is inclined to think that it may perhaps prove that this pleasant tidiness of the home to the eye depends upon whether the women work out of the house or not, and may have nothing to do with race, climate, civilisation, or wealth. This, however, is still a mere hypothesis in her mind. We too have made an excursion of about ten days in the Alps. We established ourselves in the inn on the top of the pass of Mont Cenis, 6000 feet above the sea, and greatly enjoyed walks among the neighbouring heights. We had at first splendid weather, but as it seemed to be changing we went off to some little-travelled parts of the Lower Alps, south of Grenoble, where we had again beautiful weather and much enjoyment. We have since had a still pleasanter, though shorter, excursion in the mountains of the eastern part of our department, in which last excursion we walked upwards of fifty miles in three days. The improvements in our own little place are now nearly completed, but until they are quite finished they continue to give Helen a great deal of troublesome occu- pation. I have no report to make as yet of work done, except what can hardly be called by that name — bringing up arrears of general reading — but I hope to have a better account to give in a little while. About Carlyle I agree both with you and with Hill. It is only at a particular TO DR. GAZELLES 221 stage in one's mental development that one benefits much 1869 by him (to me he was of great use at that stage), but one continues to read his best things with little, if any, diminution of pleasure after one has ceased to learn anything from him. To Dr. Gazelles, (i) concerning an article in the Revue des Deux Mondes by M. Janet on the Philosophy of Hamilton ; (2) concerning M. Charles Renouvier's views ; (3) on Huxley's criticisms of Comte. Avignon, le 23 odobre 1869. Cher Monsieur, — Je vous remercie de m'avoir envoys le Journal des Dibats. La notice par M. Taine d^passe beaucoup en louanges, et ce qui vaut mieux, en adhesion, tout ce qu'on pouvait esp^rer. J'ai lu dans la Revue [des Deux Mondes'] I'article de M. Janet. J'ai lieu de lui savoir gre encore plus que vous, des 6gards qu'il nous montre. Quant a la substance de I'article, mon appreciation difffere peu de la votre. La tentative qu'il fait de prouver I'exist- ence objective des corps par vin argument semblable a celui dont je me sers pour 6tablir la r^alit^ d'autres etres sentants et pensants, est ingenieuse mais sans valeur aucune. Son exemple des deux lutteurs ne prouve que ce qu'on ne songe pas a nier, savoir que les possibiIit6s permanentes de sensation qui sont de la categoric de ce que nous nommons resistance, se trouvent quelquefois li6es a une conviction rationnelle d'une autre sensation de resistance hors de nous, a quoi Ton peut ajouter que leur realisation depend quelquefois d'une volonte hors de nous. Tout cela n'a aucune difficulty des qu'on admet la r6alite de sensations et de volitions autres que les siennes propres. Quant au probl^me general, M. Janet le d6place com- pietement. On lui dit que la force n'est qu'un ph^nom^ne, et il vous r^pond en prouvant la force, comme si vous aviez dit qu'elle n'existe pas. 222 TO DR. GAZELLES 1869 Je viens aussi de lire I'opuscule de M. Renouvier. Sauf AetaTe ^^ question du libre arbitre, que du reste il a pu poser plus nettement et d'une manifere plus rationnelle qu'on ne la pose ordinairement, parcequ'il a renonc6 a sauver la prescience divine ; sauf cette question, dis-je, il ne me semble pas qu'il y ait beaucoup de difference entre ses opinions et les miennes, sur les grandes questions de la mdtaphysique. II nie la substance, il r^duit les corps a des groupes de ph^nom^nes. II croit a la v6rite me d^passer lorsqu'il nie I'infini, et il pense qu'en soutenant I'intelligibilite non de I'infini abstrait mais de I'infini quoad hoc j'ai voulu laisser une ouverture pour des speculations transcendantes. II n'en est rien : mon but etait pratique, et surtout moral ; j'ai voulu montrer que s'il existe un etre poss6dant un attribut quelconque porte a I'infini, cet attribut doit ^tre qualitativement identique au m^me attribut s'arretant au fini ; que, par exemple, un Dieu infiniment bon ne peut etre bon que de la bonte humaine. Ma controverse avec Mansel aurait dii prouver a M. Renouvier la grande importance morale, dans un milieu croyant, de cette these. La r^ponse de M. Huxley a M. Congreve a d^ja paru, dans le meme recueil p6riodique que la conference. Par un heureux accident j'ai conserve cette reponse et je vous I'envoie par la poste. C'est une critique amfere de Comte, parfois juste, plus souvent injuste ou exageree, et qui me parait dans son ensemble extremement faible. Pour rendre justice a Huxley il faut se rappeler que le volume le plus imparfait et surtout le plus arriere de la Philosophie Positive est celui qui traite de la chimie et de la biologie, et que ces deux sciences sont justement celles que Huxley connait le mieux. Je ne lui crois pas de grandes connais- sances dans les sciences qui dependent de la mathema- tique : lorsqu'il se hasarde a contester les generalisations de Comte sur la philosophie generale des sciences, tout ce qu'il dit est tellement superficiel que le moindre disciple de Comte n'aurait pas de peine a le refuter. TO HENRY FAWCETT 223 To Henry Fawcett. Avignon, 24M October 1869. ... I, like you, have a rather strong opinion in favour 1869 of making parents pay something for their children's education when they are able, though there are consider- able difficulties in authenticating their inability. At all events, I would have it left an open question ; and because they refused to leave that and other secondary questions open I did not join the [Education] League. But I think you are quite right in overlooking this consideration and acting with the League in order to form a strong party in the House for the principle of universal and com- pulsory unsectarian education. . . . I do not know whether to be glad or sorry for the separate organisation which has been started by some leaders of the working men for a much more radical alteration of the land laws. The furious and declamatory violence of their resolutions and some of their speeches seems to show that they would have been a very intract- able element in the other association, and that it is well rid of them. One thing I see clearly, that there will be more difficulty than ever in preserving the commons. The working-class speakers are filled with exaggerated ideas of the value of the waste lands for cultivation, and apparently do not care at all for the preservation of natural beauty ; and if they make any way with their agitation the landlords will throw over the commons to save their estates. Our best chance of avoiding this will be the progress of education in all classes, and unfor- tunately it is much easier to improve education in quantity than in quality. It is no new thing that all good depends on work ; but in the present state of matters the work of the more advanced minds, over and above its inherent difficulties, has the additional one that it is, in a certain degree, working against time. But there would be little to fear if there were a tolerable number who worked with the energy of spirit that you do. Aetat. 63 224 TO A CORRESPONDENT 1869 Women's suffrage will help us in this as in so many other things, for women will be much more unwilling than men to submit to the expulsion of all beauty from common life. To a Correspondent, who asked Mill's advice as to whether he should desert his mercantile pursuits for a literary career. Avignon, 2i,th October 1869. Dear Sir, — I have received your letter dated the 1 8th inst. I need hardly say that I sympathise in your preference of literary to mercantile occupation ; but all experience proves that of these two, considered as pro- fessions, the latter alone is to be depended on as a means of subsistence, and that the former can only be prudently taken up by persons who are already in independent circumstances. It is a rare good fortune if an author can support himself by his pen, unless as an editor or sub-editor of a newspaper or other periodical ; and I suppose there is not in our day a single instance in which it has been done by poetry of any kind. All my experience of life confirms the advice which Coleridge, in his " Bio- graphia Literaria," gives to writers even of the greatest genius — to let, if possible, their regular business, on which they rely for support, be something foreign to their favourite pursuits, reserving these as the consolation of their leisure hours. In that case, success, and the favour- able estimation of others, are not a matter of necessity to them ; if they produce anything worthy of being re- membered, they can wait for it to be appreciated, or can be content with the pleasure of the occupation itself. My own conviction is that to be independent of immediate success is almost an absolute condition of being able to do anything that greatly deserves to succeed. Many of the meritorious literary men would feel themselves saved from lifelong disappointment if they could exchange their position for one of assured though moderate income in TO A CORRESPONDENT 225 the vocation which you are so desirous of quitting for theirs. With regard to the publication of your work I hardly know what advice to give. It is easy to obtain a publisher if you are able and willing to take on yourself the risk of pecuniary loss. But it is difficult to find a bookseller who is willing to venture anything on the success of a dramatic poem ; there are so many writers of dramatic poems, and so few buyers of them ; and whatever may be the merit of yours, there is no certainty of its becoming known to the public. Even if an author has friends who are connected as writers or editors with the literary periodicals, which people consult to know what books to order from Mudie's, or the circulating libraries, he has but a precarious chance, for people have learnt to distrust the praises of periodicals. Authors often build hopes on recommendations to a publisher from some person who is considered a good judge, but these are so often given from mere good-nature that they carry little weight ; nor do publishers consider the merit of a work as sufficient guarantee of its pecuniary success. For myself I have no means of aiding you in any of these ways. Even if authority carried greater weight than it does with publishers, I am not an authority on these subjects. What I say to you I have said to many others who have made applications to me of the same kind, and I sincerely regret that I have nothing more satisfactory to offer. In short, I see but two alternatives for a young author. He can test the probable popularity of his work by offering it to publishers and editors, who, whether rightly or not, are practically the judges of this ; and if their decision is unfavourable he must either resign literary work, or content himself with working merely for the love of his work, accompanied by any such hopes as he may still venture to entertain of better success in the future. VOL. II. P Aelat. 63, 226 TO JAMES M. BARNARD To James M. Barnard, of Boston. Avignon, ■z'ith October 1869. 1869 Dear Sir, — I thank you and Mrs. Barnard heartily AetaTe ^^"^ y""" kindness to Mr. Kyllman. I hardly know your equal in eagerness to do kind offices to your friends or to your friends' friends, while from your manner of con- ferring a favour any one would suppose that you were receiving one. I have not written anything on the subject of police. What you have heard of is doubtless a private letter to one of my active supporters in Westminster, who asked my opinion on the proposal to place "habitual criminals " . under police surveillance, a proposal since embodied in an Act of Parliament, some of the provisions of which appear to me very estimable. The letter, though signed by me, was written by my daughter, who has thought more or to greater purpose on these questions than I have. It was not intended for publication, but was sent without my permission to a newspaper. The date of the letter was 14th December 1868, but I have not a copy of any newspaper containing it, and I do not remember the date of publication. The multiplication of casts of the finest works of ancient sculpture is very useful as one among many means of educating the public eye. Both in art and in nature a certain degree of familiarity is necessary not merely to the intellectual appreciation, but to the enjoy- ment of the higher kinds of beauty. Every one who takes pleasure in a simple tune has the capacity of fully enjoying Weber and Beethoven, but very often he derives little or no pleasure from a first hearing of them. It is a great mistake to think that children are not benefited by living and growing up among models of beauty. They are, on the contrary, more benefited than any one else, though not, at the time, conscious of the benefit. I can trace a great influence in my own development to the accident of having passed several years of my boyhood in one of the few old abbeys which ai'e still inhabited, TO JAMES M. BARNARD 227 instead of a mean and graceless modern house, and 1869 having at the same time and place been familiar with ~ , tapestries from Raphael's cartoons, which peopled my imagination with graceful and dignified forms of human beings. There is a great want of this training of the perceptions and taste in our modern societies ; but it is not by any one help or stimulus that the want can be supplied. The great desideratum in America — and though not quite in an equal degree, I may say in England too — is the improvement of the higher education. America surpasses all countries in the amount of mental cultivation which she has been able to make universal ; but a high average level is not everything. There are wanted, I do not say a class, but a great number of persons of the highest degree of cultivation which the accumulated acquisitions of the human race make it possible to give them. From such persons, in a community that knows no distinction of ranks, civilisation would rain down its influences on the remainder of society, and the higher faculties, having been highly cultivated in the more advanced part of the public, would give forth products and create an atmosphere that would produce a high average of the same faculties in a people so well prepared in point of general intelligence as the people of the United States. I have given an introduction to you, and to two or three of my other friends in America, to a correspondent of mine in Scotland, Mr. D. Watson of Hawick, who is anxious to obtain information that can be depended on (but is under the necessity of asking for it by letter) respecting the practical operation of Vote by Ballot in the United States. The example of America is often cited in favour of secret voting and sometimes against it, but there is a great deficiency of real information as to how it works in America, and even as to whether there is real secrecy at all. My correspondent and some of his friends are, like myself, unfavourable to secret voting, but they are anxious to obtain whatever light American ex- perience can throw on the practical question. Aetat. 63. 228 TO J. E. CAIRNES To J. E. Cairnes, who had asked Mill to look over some writings which he proposed to publish on Political Economy. Avignon, \6th November 1869. 1869 Dear Mr. Cairnes, — . . . Your letter made me rather ashamed of myself from the belief it showed that I must be very busy. Since I have been here this time I may almost call myself idle, having done little but to bring up old arrears of general reading. And I am seldom for long together too busy to spare time for anything you ask me to do, especially anything so pleasant as to read any of your writings. I beg that you will never allow any scruple to prevent your applying to me when you think I can be in any way useful, and with respect to the very interesting book you think of writing (I well remember how highly I thought of its precursor), I should be only too happy to read in the MS. either any part or the whole. Indeed, if I were to see all of it that relates to the French political economists as well as to Comte, I should be better able to compare your impression respecting them with my own. I believe we think pretty much alike about them. French philosophic writers seem to me decidedly inferior in close- ness and precision of thought to the best English, and more in the habit of paying themselves with phrases and abstractions. The French political economists share largely in this defect. It should be remembered, however, that there is a much greater number of them than of English, unless to make up the equality we descend to English writers so bad as almost to turn the average the other way. There are also more exceptions than you perhaps know to the general vagueness and looseness of thought of French economists. Besides Say, and Turgot of which last Courcelle-Seneuil says, with some reason, that it is harder to say what of the truths of the science he did not anticipate than what he did, there are some now living who have formed themselves very much upon the Aetat. 63. TO J. E. CAIRNES 229 stricter and more precise English model — Joseph Garnier 1869 especially, in his treatise on Political Economy ; Garnier is an exception to their false conception of the method of the science. Courcelle-Seneuil, whom I just mentioned, and who has written a book of considerable merit, " Traits Thdorique et Pratique d'Economie Politique," is also to some extent an exception. A. E. Cherbuliez, of Geneva (who lately died), published in 1862 a " Precis de la Science Economique et de ses Principales Applications," which I thought favourably of. The last two of those treatises I have here, and can send to you if you would like to see them. I think both Reybaud and Michel Chevalier un- favourable specimens of French economists as to close thinking, and the former is besides of a narrow and pre- judiced school. Bastiat shines as a dialectician, and his reasonings on free trade are as strictly scientific as those of anyone, but his posthumous work, " Harmonies Econo- miques," is written with a parti pris of explaining away all the evils which are the stronghold of Socialists, against whom the book is directed. The Journal des Economistes you will find in the London Library. A course of that gives a more correct idea than anything else of the general characteristics of French economists ; the more as they occasionally carry on controversies with one another in its pages which bring out their several types of thought- They are divided by two broad lines : into Malthusians and anti-Malthusians, and into Utilitarians and anti-Utili- tarians ; this last distinction extends even to political economy, in consequence of the prevailing French habit of appealing to intuitive principles of droit even in economic subjects. Your news of the Fawcetts is pleasant, I have a high opinion of Mrs. Fawcett's capabilities, and am always glad to hear of any fresh exercise of them. Respecting the Irish Land question, I hardly think it possible that you and I should not agree entirely when discussion has thrown sufficient light upon the details of the question. I feel with you that the reasons for fixity of tenure apply chiefly to ryots, or labourer-farmers, and not to capitalist-farmers, 230 TO THE EMPLOYES OF MESSRS. BREWSTER 1869 for whom leases suffice ; and I feel also that, by making AetaTe^ these last actual proprietors, a fresh agrarian question may be raised up on the part of the labourers whom they employ. The chief difficulty, I feel, is the practical one of having different laws for large and for small tenants ; though I myself, in my speech in 1868, suggested as a possible expedient to make a distinction between arable and grazing farms. A propos, there has been a call from Ireland for a reprint of my two speeches on the land ques- tion, together with the chapters on that subject in my " Political Economy," and this is now being printed. Is it not curious that the plan in my pamphlet is almost always spoken of as a simple proposal to buy out the landlords and hold all the land as the property of the State ? though it is palpable to every one who looks at the pamphlet that my proposal was simply a permanent tenure at a fixed rent, and that I only offered to any land- lord who disliked this, the option of giving up his land to the Government instead. Mr. George Campbell sent me his paper before it was published, and I quite agree with you as to its great merit. He has since informed me that he has published it in an enlarged form and has sent me a copy. This is at Blackheath, and will be in the first parcel that comes. To the Employes of Messrs. Brewster, of New York. wth December 1869. Dear Sirs, — I have had the pleasure of receiving your letter of 12th November. The plan of industrial partnership seems to me highly worthy of encouragement, as uniting some of the advan- tages of co-operation with the principal advantages of capitalist management. We should hope, indeed, ultimately to arrive at a state of industry in which the workpeople as a body will either themselves own the capital, or hire it from its owners. Industrial partnerships, however, are not only a valuable preparation for that state, and tran- sition to it, but might probably for a long time exist by the Aetat. 63. TO THE PRINCESS ROYAL OF PRUSSIA 231 side of it with great advantage ; if only because their 1869 competition would prevent co-operative associations of workmen from degenerating, as I grieve to say they often do, into close joint-stock companies, in which the workmen who founded them keep all the profits to themselves. The proposal of Messrs. Brewster is in some important respects a considerable improvement on the English in- dustrial partnerships of which I have any knowledge ; because it takes the employes themselves into council to determine the share of profit to which they shall be ad- mitted, instead of fixing its amount by the sole will of the employers, and because it gives to a council, elected by the employes, an important share in the government of the workshops, even to the extent of allowing them, by a two-thirds majority, to overrule the wishes of the employers. I have no such knowledge of the details of the subject as would enable me to make any suggestions that would be useful to you to receive. But I will show your letter and the printed plan of Messrs. Brewster to those of my friends who have more information on the subject and are more capable of making useful suggestions than I am myself, especially Mr. Hughes and Mr. Ludlow, both of whom have had an intimate connection with co-operation in England almost from its infancy. Only one point in Messrs. Brewster's plan occurs to me as open to criticism : that which provides that those who leave the employment voluntarily shall forfeit their share of profits for the current year. It seems to me that the boards to whom so many other powers are entrusted, might be the judges to decide whether in the particular circumstances of each case the share of profit should be forfeited or not. To the Princess Royal of Prussia, who sought an interview with Mill, and proposed to come to Avignon for the purpose. Avignon, 26M December 1869. Madam, — I am most highly honoured by the message which I have received this morning from your Royal 232 TO THE PRINCESS ROYAL OF PRUSSIA 1869 Highness, but I regret to say that being at present under . medical treatment I am not in a condition to avail myself of the honour intended me. Indeed, I have scarcely the use of either hand, and have difficulty in even writing these few words. — I am, Madam, with the greatest respect, your Royal Highness's faithful servant, J. S. Mill. JOHN STUART MILL I^ro.'/i a Cameo CHAPTER XIII 1870 To Sir Robert Collier (afterwards Lord Monkswell), who was then Attorney-General. Avignon, 11th January 1870. My dear Sir, — I take the liberty of enclosing to you '870 the newspaper report of a matter in which I feel a painful A.etaL6i interest, and in which I am anxious to obtain the aid of your influence towards mitigating the hardship of what seems to me an extremely hard case. On the 24th of December, a policeman named William Smith was charged before Mr. Benson the magistrate with an assault upon a labouring man. The evidence proved that the policeman saw the man knock down a woman (his wife, as it turned out) in the street at one o'clock in the morning and inter- fered for her protection, and in doing so struck the man with his staff — which assault on the man, Mr. Benson said, was " unprovoked, brutal, and unjustifiable," and sentenced the policeman to a month's imprisonment and hard labour. I learn from inquiries which I have since caused to be made, that the man, though of unblemished character and three and a half years' service, has been dismissed from the force and deprived of his livelihood. Now the only thing in which this poor man had ex- ceeded his duty — the only point in which his conduct was not meritorious — was the blow with his truncheon ; and in that he did what any man, not a police officer, might justly have been proud of doing, but which a policeman should not have done if he was able to take the man into custody by a less employment of force ; which, however, 233 234 TO SIR ROBERT COLLIER 1870 is uncertain, as the man was evidently in an excited and violent state. I am not a partisan of the police ; on the contrary, I greatly distrust them, and think that magistrates rely too much on their evidence, and often treat instances of bribery, perjury, and other highly criminal conduct on their part with most undue lenity. But on this very account can there be a worse lesson to the police, or to the public, than that when so many are retained in the force after flagrant misconduct, one poor man, against whom there is no other charge, is dismissed for a little excess of zeal in protecting a woman against gross ill-treatment ? Policemen will think twice before they will interfere again to protect men's wives, or any other women, against brutality when they find that any hurt they inflict on a brute of this description is declared from the seat of justice to be not only " brutal and unjustifiable," but "unprovoked," knocking down a woman in the street being no provocation to a bystander, even to an appointed and paid preserver of the peace — that, in short, a woman is a creature whom it is safe to knock down, but most dangerous to defend from being knocked down by another man. The policeman's sentence will shortly expire and he will be released from prison. Would it be possible to prevail upon the Home Office to restore him to the force ? He has surely been punished enough for the worst that he can be charged with — over-zeal in the performance of an important duty. I think it would be possible to get a well- signed memorial presented to the Home Office, praying for his reinstatement ; but it would be better that it should be done by the spontaneous act of the Home Secretary, as it might perhaps be, if you would interest yourself in the matter. I write by this post to Sir John Coleridge and Mr. Russell Gurney, and would write to Mr. Bruce ^ if my acquaintance with him was sufficient to warrant it. '■ [Home Secretary.] TO PASQUALE VILLARI 235 To Pasquale Villari, on the education of women. Avignon, le 12 Janvier 1870. MON CHER M. Villari, — . . . Vous me demandez mes 1870 id€es sur I'instruction des femmes, mais puisque ^o^^^ ^ tat" 6^ approuvez men livre je crois que vous les connaissez deja et que ce sont les v6tres. Vous savez que je ne voudrais nuUe distinction dans Tinstruction donn^e aux deux sexes. Dans mon opinion I'instruction g^n^rale doit ^tre la meme; quant a la professionnelle, elle d^pendra de la destination sociale de chaque 61eve, mais celle-la aussi doit etre ouverte aux jeunes filles comme aux jeunes gens. Je crois que Ton finira par n' avoir que des 6eoles communes aux deux sexes. Apres cela il va sans dire que la connaissance du milieu social de I'ltalie doit decider de I'approche qu'il est aujourd'hui possible de faire a cet iddal. Le plus grand danger a craindre c'est que tout en faisant faire les memes etudes, on ne s'efforce pas a les faire faire aussi solides par les jeunes filles ; et qu'on se contente de quelque chose de plus superficiel, ne visant guere qu'a I'amusement ou a I'agr^ment. Ce danger cessera du moment ou il sera compris que I'instruction des femmes est tout aussi im- portante aux intdrets sociaux que celle des hommes. Des que cette idee-la se sera emparfe des esprits, la cause sera gagn^e. Et le gouvernement fera d6ja beaucoup de bien en faisant voir que c'est la son intime conviction. To Mrs. Charlotte Manning, in acknowledgment of her book "Ancient and Medi- aeval India." Avignon, \i^th January 1870. Dear Madam, — I have delayed very long to thank you for kindly sending me your book, the reason being that I have only just now found time to read it. Nothing can be more laudable than your purpose in writing the book, that of inspiring greater respect for the people of India in the Aetat. 63 236 TO MRS. CHARLOTTE MANNING 1870 minds of those who are appointed to govern them. That respect, for the most part, exists in the experienced men who know the natives from a long course of service in India; but nothing can be more disgusting than the feelings and demeanour towards them of numbers of the raw young EngHshmen who go out, and I am afraid this is an increas- ing evil, since the substitution of the Queen's army, who detest the country and only remain a few years in it, for a force of which the officers passed their whole career in India, and since the great increase of private adven- turers, who are not even under that imperfect control from superiors, to which the military and the civil officers of government are subject. I think you have done good service by putting within reach of the English public, in the compass of a single work, so much knowledge, both in the shape of informa- tion and of specimens of the thoughts and intellectual pro- ductions of the Hindoos. Opinions will differ as to the merits of these productions, and of the state of civilisation which they indicate ; but they are an authentic and in- teresting product of the human mind ; they deserve to be known, and anyone may now know where to find such a selection from them as is sufficient to give a correct general notion of their kind and quality. This could not, as far as I know, have been obtained before, without at least dipping into many books. You ask me for information respecting the administra- tive capacity shown by so many ladies of ruling families in India, and especially whether these ladies are Hindoos or Mahomedans. They are almost all Hindoos. The case can seldom arise in a Mussulman principality, as by Maho- medan law the mother is not regent for her minor son, whereas among Hindoos the mother by birth or adoption is regent of right. One of the most remarkable, however, of these ladies, the late Sekunder Begum of Bhopal, was a Mahomedan. She was the only child of the ruler of the country ; and at his death, according to the custom of the people, she could transmit the chiefship to her husband, but could not exercise it herself : she was, how- TO JUDGE CHAPMAN 237 ever, so much the stronger mind, and the most popular too, "870 that the people obeyed her in preference to her husband ; ^etaTei and after his death, which was an early one, she was allowed to govern the country, at first nominally for her daughter, but latterly in her own right. She was a most energetic, prudent, and just ruler, and her daughter, who has now succeeded her, and who has been carefully trained by her to public business, is expected to tread in her foot- steps. Her own mother, too, was a remarkable woman. As the Native States were in my department in the India House, I had opportunities of knowing all that was known about the manner in which they were governed ; and, during many years, by far the greater number of instances of vigorous, forceful, and skilful administration which came to my knowledge were by Ranees and Raees as regents for minor chiefs. . . . To Judge Chapman, then a judge in New Zealand. Avignon, x^th January 1870. Dear Chapman, — I am much obliged to you for your interesting letter on the colonial question, and all the more as your early departure will prevent me from having any opportunities of talking over with you the new aspects of the subject. The causes you mention are, no doubt, those which have chiefly contributed to the indifference of official people in England about retaining the colonies. I suspect that separation would still be a great shock to the general English public, though they justly dislike being taxed for the maintenance of the connection. For my own part I think a severance of it would be no advantage, but the con- trary, to the world in general, and to England in particular ; and though I would have the colonies understand that England would not oppose a deliberate wish on their part to separate, I would do nothing to encourage that wish, except telling them that they must be at the charge of any 238 TO WILLIAM MALLESON 1870 wars of their own provoking, and that though we should . ^ defend them against all enemies brought on them by us, Aetat. 63. . = » . ■' m any other case we should only protect them m a case of extremity, such as is not at all likely to arise. I have always thought, however, that we ought to have softened the transition in the case of New Zealand by guaranteeing a loan to enable the colony to maintain for a few years a sufficient force of its own raising without taking away the industrious population from the labours on which the very existence of the colony depends. I do not see my way to any practicable mode of federal government for communities so widely scattered over the world. And I have attended sufficiently to colonial affairs to be aware that the colonies will not allow us to cart out our paupers into them. But emigration of able-bodied agricultural labourers who are not paupers I suppose they would welcome, and this would be very useful to us. Our having given up the unoccupied lands to the colonial governments creates many difficulties. I thought at the time that it was an error ; that the lands ought to have been retained as the common inheritance of the whole people of the United Kingdom and the colonies taken together, and the first-comers having no just claim to the disposal of more than they could themselves occupy. But in this matter jacta est alea, and we have only to make the best arrangement we can with the colonists for the reception of such emigrants as they are willing to take. To William Malleson, on the Contagious Diseases Acts. By Helen Taylor. Avignon, \%th January 1870. . . . Not only do I object altogether to the extension of the Contagious Diseases Acts, but I have seen the passing of them, as they at present exist, with great regret, and should be extremely rejoiced if they could be repealed ; Aetat. 63. TO LORD AMBERLEY 239 since not only do I object to them altogether on principle, 1870 but I think that in the long run those measures are likely rather to increase than diminish the evil they are intended to attack. Moreover, I fully agree with you in thinking that opposition to those Acts is more particularly incumbent on the defenders of the interests of working men, because working women are likely to be the greatest sufferers by this system of legislation, and, if it is to be carried out with anything like efficiency, it could only be by an enormous expenditure, which of course would fall in the long run upon the great mass of the taxpayers. Of course one need scarcely say that to any man who looks upon political institutions and legislation from the point of view of principle, the idea of keeping a large army in idleness and vice, and then keeping a large army of prostitutes to pander to their vices, is too monstrous to admit of a moment's consideration, while the safety of the country could be provided for by the military education of all classes, or until after every possible experiment with married soldiers had been tried and failed. I therefore do not think that this system of legislation, which I think utterly depraving to the mass of the population (not to speak of its gross inequality between men and women), is in any way specially necessary for the army and navy. It is a monstrous artificial cure for a monstrous artificial evil which had far better be swept away at its root, in accord- ance with democratic principles of government. . . . To Lord Amberley, in reply to an account of an interview which he had had with Mr. Lecky. By Helen Taylor. Avignon, 2nd February 1870. Dear Lord Amberley, — Mr. Lecky's state of mind on the subject of prostitution is characteristically conserva- tive. He thinks that since it has not been reformed up to 240 TO LORD AMBERLEY 1870 this day it never can be. This is the true conservative Aetaties st^^dpoint. Whatever reforms have been already effected are well enough ; if they were effected long enough ago they are even excellent. As to any reforms in the future, though they might be desirable in themselves, they are sure to bring with them greater evils than they can remove ; and then come those jeremiads, more or less eloquent and touching, which we are so accustomed to both in politics and morals, about the fearful consequences to society of attempting to do anything that has not been done already. It would be hardly possible to support any opinion by flimsier reasons than these particular ones of Mr. Lecky. Are we to consider what the Church accomplished in the Middle Ages as the extreme limit of the moral improve- ment possible to mankind ? Are the violent appetites and passions of half-tamed or not even half-tamed barbarians a measure of the obstacles to be encountered in educating the young of a cultivated and law-observing community ? The Church strove with sincerity and earnestness in the Middle Ages to suppress private war and the abuses of military violence, with very little success ; but what could not be done then, has been found quite practicable since and has been actually accomplished. It is of more importance, however, to consider Mr. Lecky's doctrine than his reasons. He considers prostitu- tion as a safety-valve to prevent the propensity to which it ministers from producing worse evils. Now, in the first place, I believe that the propensity has hitherto been fostered, instead of being weakened, by the tendencies of civilisation (which has been a civilisation left mainly to the influence of men) and by the teaching of the Catholic Church, which, in order to add to the glory of the " grace of God," always has exaggerated and still does exaggerate the force of the natural passions. I think it probable that this particular passion will become with men, as it is already with a large number of women, completely under the control of the reason. It has become so with women, because its becoming so has been the condition TO LORD AMBERLEY 241 upon which women hoped to obtain the strongest love 1870 and admiration of men. The gratification of this passion in its highest form, therefore, has been with women con- ' ^ ditional upon their restraining it in its lowest. It has not yet been tried what the same conditions will do for men. I believe that they will do all that we wish, nor am I alone in thinking that men are by nature capable of as thorough a control over these passions as women are. I have known eminent medical men, and lawyers of logical mind, of the same opinion. But in the second place, supposing that Mr. Lecky is right in thinking, as he apparently does, that men are not capable of efficient control over this propensity, I should still differ from him when he thinks that prostitu- tion is the best safety-valve. I, on the contrary, think that with the exception of sheer brutal violence, there is no greater evil that this propensity can produce than prostitution. Of all modes of sexual indulgence con- sistent with the personal freedom and safety of women, I regard prostitution as the very worst, not only on account of the wretched women whose whole existence it sacrifices, but because no other is anything like so corrupting to the man. In no other is there the same total absence of even a temporary gleam of affection or tenderness ; in no other is the woman to the man so completely a mere thing, used simply as a means for a purpose which to herself must be disgusting. Moreover, so far from thinking with Mr. Lecky that prostitution is a safeguard even to the virtuous women, I think it cuts at the core of happiness in mar- riage, since it gives women a feeling of difference and distance between themselves and their husbands, and prevents married people from having frank confidence in one another. Marriage has not had a fair trial. It has yet to be seen what marriage will do ; with equality of rights on both sides, with that full freedom of choice which as yet is very incomplete anywhere, and in most countries does not exist at all on the woman's side, and with a conscientious scruple, enforced by opinion, against giving existence to more children than can be done justice VOL. II. Q 242 TO HORACE WHITE 1870 to by the parents. When marriage under these conditions (and with such means of legal relief in extreme cases as may be adopted when men and women have an equal voice) shall have been tried and failed, it will be time to look out for something else ; but that this something else, whatever it may be, will be better than prostitution is my confirmed conviction. The fact I believe to be, that prostitution seems the only resource to those, and to those only, who look upon the problem to be solved to be, how to allow the greatest license to men consistently with retaining a sufficient reserve or nursery of chaste women for wives. Their problem is not, as yours and mine is, how to obtain the greatest amount of chastity and happiness for men, women, and children. . . . To Horace White, of the Chicago Tribune ; on Chinese labour. Avignon, 13M February 1870. Dear Sir, — I presume I am indebted to you for sending me the number of the Chicago Tribune which commented on my supposed opinions respecting Chinese immigration. Nothing could be clearer or fairer than the editorial statement of the reasons which, in my opinion, might justify the exclusion of immigrant labourers of a lower grade of civilisation than the existing inhabitants. But I never said that in America, and in the present circumstances of the case, it ought to be done. My letter on the subject, to a Californian citizen who had asked my opinion, has been so much misunderstood that I cannot but think the copy of my letter which I understand appeared in the newspaper, must have been a mutilated one. I distinctly declared that in my opinion the right course to be adopted is to endeavour by education to bring the rising generation of Chinese up to the level of Americans. If there is little or no rising generation (the Chinese not being permanent settlers), I said that in that case their coming could be no such evil to the labouring TO ALEXANDER CAMPBELL 243 classes as to justify its prohibition ; while the opportunity 1870 it gives of carrying the ideas of a more civilised country — into the heart of China is an advantage to the people of ^ * • 3- China of which, I said, I do not think it would be right to deprive them. The only mode of immigration which I said that I thought should be prohibited, is the bringing over Chinese as coolies under engagements to work for particular persons ; which is a form of compulsory labour, or, in other words, of slavery. To Alexander Campbell, of Glasgow. Avignon, 2%th February 1870. ... I agree with you that the land ought to belong to the nation at large, but I think it will be a genera- tion or two before the progress of public intelligence and morality will permit so great a concern to be entrusted to public authorities without greater abuses than necessarily attach to private property in land. Meanwhile we should try to go on limiting the power of individuals over land by imposing more and more conditions on behalf of the people at large. To Sir Charles Dilke, on a resolution passed by the London branch of the Education League, that national education should be purely secular. Avignon, 2%th February 1870. Dear Sir, — I most heartily agree with the resolution of the London branch, which I had already seen in the newspapers, and I am delighted that the Education League is preparing fot a struggle. For myself I would rather, and I should think that the intelligent part of the working class would rather, have no National Education Act for the next five years, than one which should empower the State to establish schools on the denominational system. All other objections, strong as some of them are, might be waived in order to get a beginning made of a national system, but 244 TO FANNY LEWALD-STAHR 1870 that all schools founded by the Government, either general "7 or local, should be purely secular is a point on which, ^' if I were in Parliament, I should make no compromise, but if it was not conceded would do what I could to defeat the bill. Ever since I saw that the League was going to make a stand on this point I have been desirous of helping it by some expression of opinion, but I have not yet made up my mind how I can best do so. . . . To Fanny Lewald-Stahr, in acknowledgment of her book, " Fiir und wider die Frauen." Avignon, \st March 1870. Dear Madam, — I beg to return you my sincere thanks for your kindly sending me your excellent series of letters on the Women question. It is a real honour to have my name inscribed at the beginning of such a volume. Your book is both convincing and persuasive, and is singularly free from the two contrary defects, one or other of which writings for the cause of women so often exhibit, of indis- creet violence and timid concession. So competent a testimony as yours is well fitted to make me think that I have been at least apparently unjust to German women in the remark I made in my little book on the insufficiency of their education. When I referred to this as being inferior to what it is in France, I did not so much refer to the ordinary character of the schools for young women, which, I believe, is much worse in France than in Germany, but to the much smaller number of women who, like yourself and a few others, have qualified themselves by their studies and acquirements for distinc- tion and usefulness as writers. The average education of German ladies may be much superior (at least as to languages) to that of French ladies, but there appears to be as yet a much smaller number who stand out from the general level, and take a more or less high rank either in the literature or in the various discussions of their country. TO SIR ROBERT COLLIER 245 To Sir Robert Collier. Avignon, yd March 1870. My dear Sir Robert Collier, — Allow me to thank you 1870 for your kind attention to my letter, and for the interest — you have taken in the case of the dismissed policeman. e a . 3. Undoubtedly, if the man has really been guilty of false- hood he ought not to be reinstated ; but that he persists in his story is all he can do if he is innocent. Of course, in a case like this, in which the magistrate has shown such gross incapacity, there ought to be some independent examina- tion of the worth of the evidence of the witness whose story was at variance with that of the man Smith. I should have supposed that it would have been within the province of the head of the police to have made such an examina- tion ; for however much respect is due to a magistrate's decision, magistrates are after all fallible (unhappily, in the case of Mr. Benson, apparently very fallible), and then it seems to lie with the Home Secretary and the immediate superiors of any one who has been aggrieved to redress the injury as well as they can in the absence of any Court of Appeal. I hope you have by this time quite recovered from your unfortunate and troublesome accident, which I much re- gretted to hear of. To Mr. (afterwards Sir) Arthur Helps, in acknowledgment of his book, " Casimir Maremma." Blackheath Park, 2ith March 1870. Dear Mr. Helps, — Your letter was forwarded to me at Avignon, but I delayed acknowledging it until I should have an opportunity of reading your book, which was wait- ing for me here. If, as you intimate, my review of your first publication had any share in procuring for the world the series of works which I and so many others have since read with so Aetat. 63. 246 TO MRS. HICKSON 1870 much pleasure and instruction, far from regarding this exploit of mine as a sin to be repented of, I should look upon it as a fair set-off against a good many sins. This most recent of your works is as full of valuable and happily expressed thoughts as any of its predecessors, while as a story it is far more successful than " Realmah," though perhaps not more interesting to a psychologist. With regard to its practical object, emigration, I should like very much to see the experiment tried in the manner you pro- posed, of founding beyond the seas a new community complete in all its parts. But the conditions of a new country produce of necessity a state of society so much more democratic than our own, that it is only very excep- tional persons in our higher or middle classes that could either reconcile themselves to it or have the foresight and mental adaptability required for guiding and organising the formation of such a community. And considering the great addition made annually to the poorer part of our population, the scheme would have to be executed on a vast scale indeed if it is to clear out the bad quarters of our towns and leave them a tabula rasa for reconstruction on better principles ; not to say that the inhabitants of those quarters are far from being, in general, good material to colonise with. I am very happy that you go so far as you do with those who are seeking to remove the civil and political disabilities of women. Since you think women should have the suffrage, surely you should join the Suffrage Society, which claims nothing whatever but that indepen- dent women with a due property qualification should be allowed to vote. To Mrs. HicKSON, on the death of her husband, WilHam E. Hickson, the educational writer. Blackheath Park, 2%th March 1870. Dear Madam, — Before receiving your sister-in-law's letter, we had learned your irreparable loss from one of TO H. TAINE 247 those who most loved you and Mr. Hickson, our friend 1870 Miss Lindley. My first thought on hearing the sad news . ~g, was of you, I know too well that there is no consolation for a calamity like yours. But nothing can deprive you of what comfort there is in a knowledge of the deep respect which was felt for your husband, and will continue to be felt for his memory, by those who have known him as long and as well as I have. Mr. Hickson was one of the small number of those who, with no personal ambition to gratify, have laboured from an early age first to acquire the powers necessary for enabling them to render services to mankind, and then to use those powers to the utmost extent of their opportunities ; and he was, in no ordinary degree, successful in both objects. I have from an early period been accus- tomed to look upon him as in many important respects an example of what men should be. The loss of every such man makes the world poorer, and is to be lamented even by those who had not the privilege of his personal friend- ship — how much more by all who had. To H. Taine, on Frenchwomen. By Helen Taylor. Blackheath Park, le 21 avril 1870. Monsieur, — Je suis bien aise d'apprendre que je n'avais pas negligd de vous envoyer le livre de mon pere. Ce livre parut dans le moment le plus extreme de la reaction soi-disant spiritualiste, et il a manqu6 par la un ^clatant succes tout en contribuant beaucoup a sauver un certain nombre de bons esprits. R6imprim6 dans un temps plus propice a la philosophie inductive de la nature humaine, il tiendra a fortifier cette bonne tendance, sans jeter ses lecteurs dans les d6fauts que vous reprochez avec quelque raison a I'ecole mat^rialiste. Quant a la question des femmes ; vous n'etes pas le premier qui m'a fait a pea pres les memes observations Aetat. 63 248 TO H. TAINE 1870 sur le caract^re des fran^aises. J'ai et6 souvent frapp6 de I'espece de m^pris avec lequel les Frangais parlent souvent des Frangaises, at (puis-je le dire ?) il me semble que les Frangaises ne manquent pas de rendre ce mepris meme avec intdret. II est sflr que les hommes et les femmes en France ne s'estiment pas r6ciproquement ; ce qui est, par parenthfese, assez souvent la consdquence de trop de galanterie dans les moeurs. Cependant j'ose dire que, comme beaucoup de Frangais et surtout de Parisians et surtout encore des hommes de la classe ais6e, vous ne con- naissez pas toutes les belles qualit^s des Fran^aises. II n'y a pas au monde de famme qui sache mieux " s'ennuyer, sans s'amortir ou s'^taindre " qua la Frangaise provinciale rang^e et vertueuse de quelque rang que ce soit, et il n'y a pas de meilleure femme d'affaira ni de personne plus r6- flechie, plus sobre (d'esprit), que les paysannas francaisas, et encore beaucoup de femmes da la classe artisane quand alias ne sont pas 6cras6es par les souffrancas dont laurs maris les abreuvent. Et meme pour les jolies femmes et les Parisiennes, c'est un pau la 16g6ret6 des hommes fran- gais qui est cause que les femmes frangaises ne leur pr6- sentent que les cotfe fourbes de leur caractfere. Quand ces memes femmes d'apparence frivole ont a faire avac das femmes anglaises, il arrive quelquefois qu'elles font voir un fonds de sd;rieux et d'amertume que se trouverait raremant peut-etra meme parmi ces Anglaises que vous croyaz si s^rieuses. Ce caract^re sympathique qui est si gracieux, si aimable et dans les Francais et dans les Fran^aises, fait que les femmes se montrent banales et frivoles quand ellas croient voir que les hommas attandent d'elles la banalite et la frivolity. C'est a vous hommas intelligents de la France, a montrer que vous croyaz las femmes capables des id6es sdrieuses et das gouts eleves, et je me trompe beaucoup si vous ne verraz pas biantot se d^voiler une intelligence et une elevation dont vous ne surpranez pas encore I'existence. Aetat. 63. TO A LADY 249 To a Lady, who sought Mill's advice as to whether she should separate from her husband, on grounds of incom- patibility of temperament. Avignon, \st May 1870. Dear Madam, — ^You greatly overrate the qualities re- 1870 quired for writing such books as mine, if you deem them to include that of being a competent adviser and director of consciences in the most difficult affairs of private life. And even a person qualified for this office would be incapable of fulfilling it unless he possessed an intimate knowledge of the circumstances of the case, and the character of the persons concerned. It would be a long and a difficult business to define, even in an abstract point of view, the cases which would justify one of two married persons in dissolving the contract without the consent of the other. But as far as I am able to judge from your own statement, yours does not appear to be a strong case, since your husband has still an affection for you, and since you not only do not complain of any ill treatment at his hands, but have so much confidence in his goodness and high feeling, as to feel sure that even in case of your leaving him without his consent, he would not seek to withhold any of your children from you. If I could venture to give any opinion, it would be that if the only bar between you and such a man is a difference in your "ways of thinking and feeling," unfortunate as such a difference is in married life, the mutual toleration which we all owe to those who sincerely differ from us forms a basis on which the continuance of your union may be made endurable, and the differences themselves, when nothing is done to exasperate them, may, as is usually the case between persons who live intimately together, tend gradually to an approximation. Aetat. 63 250 TO ALEXANDER BAIN To Alexander Bain, on his work on " Logic." Avignon, iTth May 1870. 1870 Dear Bain, — I have now finished a careful reading of your book. When I compare it with my own mode of treating the subject I am much struck with the combina- tion of nearly perfect agreement in \h&fond of our opinions on every part of it, with so much originality in the manner in which you have presented many of them. This, if it stood alone, would make the book very valuable, for there is no more important service to any set of thoughts than to vary their expression, and to deduce them from one another in different ways. But in addition to this, by varying the modes of statement you have illuminated points and aspects of our common doctrine which the previous exposition had left more or less in the shade, and you have followed out some of the principles into consequences not previously drawn. I find little or nothing, relating properly to Logic, from which I dissent ; but a good many apparent conflicts between your mode of expressing and presenting technical details, and mine ; in most of which cases I still prefer my own. This applies chiefly to the first volume, and even that exclusive of its concluding chapters. When I next revise my " Logic " I shall carefully collate each chapter with the corresponding chapter of yours : but in general, instead of trying to incorporate your new matter, I think it will be both better in itself, and fairer to you, to refer to what you have done, give a brief account of it, and direct the student to your fuller exposition. Of course I cannot dispense with adapting the statement of the theory of Causation to the Correlation of Force ; but your book has confirmed me in the opinion I had formed, that but little adaptation is required. In making that little I shall be greatly helped by the clear light in which you have placed the distinction between the two sorts of ante- Actat. 63. TO ALEXANDER BAIN 251 cedent conditions, the conditions of Force and those of 1870 Collocation. Respecting the Conservation theory itself, you have given by many degrees the clearest explanation of it that I have ever met with, and I now^ seem to myself to under- stand the facts of the case pretty completely. But about the mode of expression of the facts I still boggle, and have a stronger impression after reading your exposition than I had before, that the men of science have not yet hit upon the correct generalisation, though they may be at no great distance from it. I am so anxious to understand this matter thoroughly that I write down my difficulties in hopes that you will help me to resolve them. In the first place, you exclude from the theory two of the principal forces. Gravitation and Molecular Adhesion, expressly distinguishing these from the " correlated forces." Of course you do so because there is at present no proof of the convertibility of the other forces into these ; and you do not take any notice of the hypothetical explanation of gravitation by molecular motions, given by Tait (I believe) and others, which so strikingly resemble the argument of Descartes to show that his vortices might generate a ten- dency to a centre. But though gravity does not take its place in the theorem of Conservation, motion generated by gravity does. Suppose, then, a weight suspended by a string over the shaft of a mine — suppose that the string breaks, and the weight falls, with rapidly increasing velocity, to the bottom. Here is a positive addition to the active force at work in the universe, which, when it ceases its mechanical motion, remains in the form of heat or in some other of the correlated forms. Now, at the expense of what pre-existing energy has this force been generated ? The conservationists are obliged to say, out of potential energy. A given portion of potential energy has become actual ; and if the weight is hoisted up again the power expended in raising it is so much taken back from the sum of actual energy and restored to the sum of potential. Now I want to analyse the meaning of this phrase, " potential energy." It seems to signify some force actually 252 TO ALEXANDER BAIN 1870 residing in the suspended weight. But it is nothing of the AetaTe^ kind. There is a force actually residing in the weight — a force actually measurable : viz. the downward pressure with which it pulls at the string, and by which it is able to neutralise an equal weight at the other end of a lever. But this force is limited to that with which the body would commence falling if the string broke, and is far short of the vastly accelerated force with which it would reach the bottom of the mine. When we are bid to say that this augmented force existed previously as potential energy in the weight, this potential energy is not to common sense and logic anything which really existed, but is a mere name for our knowledge that a force would be created if the body began to fall. I am discussing the expressions, not denying any of the facts. When force is expended in placing a weight in a "more advantageous position," as you express it {i.e. in a place from which it has further to fall in order to reach its centre of attraction), when it does fall to the depth from which it has been raised, it will reproduce the exact amount of force expended in raising it (making allowance for any part which may have been transformed into heat). The ex- pression "potential energy" is no doubt adopted to enable us to say that the total amount of force in all Nature can neither be increased nor diminished, the sum of the actual force plus the sum of the potential being a constant quan- tity. But this only means that there is a vast reserve of force not existing in any shape now, but which gravity could call into existence, and that this not actual but possible quantity of force has an extreme limit, viz. the whole of the motion that would be generated by the rush- ing together of all the gravitating bodies in the universe until they could not possibly get any closer together. From time to time a little of this possible force gets itself created, and in that case it requires that an equal force should be expended if the effects produced are to be counterbalanced or undone. It seems to me a bad and misleading form of expression to ascribe the motion, which would be gradually acquired Aetat. 63. TO ALEXANDER BAIN 253 by gravitating bodies if the obstacles which keep them 1870 apart were removed, to an energy of equivalent amount residing in the body before it begins to move. But if this objection could be overruled, a greater remains behind. You say (and this is a point quite new to me) that force may be, and is, expended in merely altering the collocation of bodies, without generating even poten- tial energy. This, I suppose, is the case when force is expended in destroying molecular adhesion. But if this be so, how can the indestructibility of force be maintained ? The sum of actual iovct plus the sum of potential is in that case diminished. When you have time, perhaps you will kindly explain to me how the theory of Conservation, as at present expressed, can stand with this fact. There are some questions in physical science which I should like to ask of you, but this can be done viva voce at some future time. In particular I was not aware that chemical combination always produces heat. I will ask you, some time or other, to tell me the explanation of the apparent exceptions — freezing mixtures and the like. Among the differences of mere language between your book and mine there is only one which I much care about ; your use of the word " elimination." In mathematics we eliminate what we want to get rid of : we eliminate y to obtain an equation containing only x. Of late careless writers in newspapers, &c., having picked up the term, have taken to using it in a sense the reverse of this : they elimi- nate not what they turn out but what they keep in : they eliminate the truth out of conflicting stories, &c. In your book you employ the term in both ways : whenever a separation is effected between essentials and non-essentials you speak indiscriminately of " eliminating " either the one or the other. Is this mode of using the term adopted from a deliberate choice ? and what are the advantages that recommend it to you ? 254 TO SIR CHARLES DILKE To Sir Charles Dilke, on the position of the Women's Suffrage movement. Avignon, 2%tk May 1870. 1870 Dear Sir Charles Dilke, — It seems to me that the — position of the Women's Suffrage question is immensely ^'*'" '*■ improved by what has taken place in Parliament. You yourself a few weeks ago could not count as many as 100 members of Parliament who were known to be in our favour, and there are now, including pairs and absentees, 184, considerably above a fourth part of the House, of whom 29 voted in the second who had not voted in the first division. The amount even of Tory support was most promising, including some of the most prominent members of the party below Cabinet rank, and, among others, both the Whips. We knew that we had not a majority in the House, and that when the thing looked serious our enemies were sure to rally and outvote us unless the Government took up the cause, which the time had certainly not come for expecting. The rally is the first proof we have had that the thing is felt to be serious. I am in great spirits about our prospects, and think we are almost within as many years of victory as I formerly thought decades. But I think it would be a great mistake to merge the women's question in that of universal suffrage. Women's suffrage has quite enemies enough without adding to the number all the enemies of universal suffrage. To combine the questions would practically suspend the fight for women's equality, since universal suffrage is sure to be discussed almost solely as a working men's question ; and when at last victory comes there is sure to be a com- promise by which the working men would be enfranchised without the women, and the contest for women's rights would have to be begun again from the beginning, with the working men inside the House instead of outside, and therefore with their selfish interests against our cause Aetat. 64. TO CH. LE HARDY DE BEAULIEU 255 instead of with it. Thus women's enfranchisement would 1870 be thrown back for a whole generation, for universal suffrage is not likely to be obtained in less time than that ; and at the end of the generation we should start again in a more disadvantageous position than we are in at present. . . . To Ch. Le Hardy de Beaulieu, the Belgian economist, on restrictions on child and woman labour. Avignon, k 21 juin 1870. . . . Quant a la question du travail des enfants, I'opinion g6n6rale comme celle des hommes 6clair6s en Angleterre se prononce de plus en plus pour la limitation legale, accompagn^e du syst^me half-time. On 6tend cette legislation de plus en plus, en sorte qu'elle s'applique maintenant a presque toutes les industries qui ne sont pas purement domestiques, sauf I'agriculture qui jusqu'ici fait exception. L'exp6rience a prouvd que la loi peut seule faire face a I'int^ret combing des fabricants et des p^res des enfants a exploiter le travail de ces infortun^s aux d6pens de leur Education et m^me de leur d^veloppe- ment physique, et cette experience a graduellement pr^valu sur les id6es de liberty individuelle. En effet la liberty individuelle n'est sacr6e que dans ce qui ne regarde, au moins directement, que I'individu, et ne peut etre invoqu6 pour I'exercice illimit6 d'un pouvoir quelconque sur les autres, dont les abus sont toujours dans le domaine legitime des lois. Cependant je suis tout a fait d'accord avec vous en ce qui regarde le travail des femmes, qu'en Angleterre on a soumis a quelques-unes des memes restric- tions l^gales que celui des enfants. Vous savez combien je condamne les iniquit^s de la position actuelle des femmes dans la famille et dans la society, mais cette habitude de les traiter comme des enfants me semble contraire a leur veritable int^r^t. Je voudrais qu'en les protegeant beaucoup mieux qu'a present contre les abus Aetat. 64, 256 TO GEORGE ADCROFT 1870 de la force physique, on les reconnut comme moralement capables de se conduire et de s'engager par elles-m^mes, et qu'on ne fU acune difference quant a la liberty des contrats, entre elles et les hommes. S'il vous serait agr^able de poss^der les derni^res enquetes parlementaires sur le travail des enfants j'aurai grand plaisir a les procurer et a vous les envoyer apr^s mon retour en Angleterre, qui aura lieu dans le com- mencement de juillet. Je vous serais de mon c6t6 tr^s reconnaissant de tout renseignement sur le succ^s du syst^me half-time en Belgique, systeme qui en Angleterre rencontre encore quelque opposition. Je regrette que vous soyez du nombre considerable des hommes distingu6s dans les lettres ou dans les sciences qui dans notre siecle comme en d'autres ont ete priv6s de la vue. Cette privation vous est commune avec mon ami M. Fawcett qui de tous nos hommes publics d'aujourd'hui s'est le plus occup6 de cette question du travail des enfants. Comme vous il se soutient noblement contre ce decouragement ; il ne se relache en rien dans les travaux qu'il s'etait proposes comme I'occupation de sa vie et dans lesquels il promet a sa patrie une carriere aussi utile que distingute. To George Adcroft, in acknowledgment of a tract by him. Avignon, 21st June 1870. Dear Sir, — I have read your little tract with interest, but I perceive that you have either published or intend to publish another pamphlet containing the remedies you propose for the evils you so justly denounce. In the meantime I will only say that I think you underrate the power of trade unions to raise wages ; and that I differ from you when you say that a general rise of wages would be of no use to the working classes, because it would produce a general rise of prices. A general rise of prices, of anything like a permanent character, can only take TO CHARLES ELIOT NORTON 257 place through a general increase of the money incomes 1870 of the purchasing community. Now a general rise of . ,Tg wages would not increase the aggregate money incomes, nor consequently the aggregate purchasing power of the community ; it would only transfer part of that purchas- ing power from the employers to the labourers. Con- sequently a general rise of wages would not raise prices, but would be taken out of the profits of the employers ; always supposing that those profits were sufficient to bear the reduction. The case is different with a rise of wages confined to a single, or a small number of employments. That rise, if taken out of profits, would place a particular class of employers at a disadvantage compared with other employers ; and as soon as they ceased to hope that the loss would be only temporary, they would withdraw part of their capital, or at all events, all new capital would avoid those trades and go into others. Consequently the supply of these particular articles would fall short, and their prices would rise so as to indemnify the employers for the rise of wages. But this would not happen in case of a rise of all wages, for as all capitalists would be affected nearly alike, they could not as a body relieve themselves by turning their capital into another employment. To Charles Eliot Norton, on the Land Question. Avignon, 26th June 1870. Dear Sir, — I have had the pleasure of receiving your letter of 17th June. I agree, in the main, with all that you say respecting the limitation of the right of property even in movable wealth. I never meant to say that this right should be altogether unlimited, nor to ascribe to it sacredness in any other sense than that all the necessary conditions of human happiness are sacred. I do not indeed quite VOL. II. R Aetat. 64, 258 TO COLONEL T. A. COWPER 1870 agree with your friend Mr. Wright, when, in the passage quoted and concurred in by you, he seems to say that, from the utiHtarian point of view, the right of private ownership is founded solely on the motives it affords to the increase of pubHc wealth ; because, independently of those motives, the feeling of security of possession and enjoyment, which could not in the state of advance- ment that mankind have yet reached be had without private ownership, is of the very greatest importance as an element of human happiness. But this is prob- ably a difference rather in expression than in opinion between us. There is, however, this great difference between the case of movable wealth and that of land, that so long as land is allowed to be private property (and I cannot regard its private appropriation as a permanent institution), society seems to me bound to provide that the proprietor shall only make such uses of it as shall not essentially interfere with its utility to the public ; while in the case of capital, and movable property generally, though society has the same right, yet the interests of society would in general be better consulted by laws restrictive of the acquisition of too great masses of property, than by attempting to regulate its use. I have, in my " Political Economy," proposed limitations of the right of owner- ship so far as the power of bequest forms part of it, on the express ground of its being injurious to society that enormous fortunes should be possessed by gift or inheritance. . . . The death of Dickens is indeed like a personal loss even to those who knew him only by his writings. To Col. T. A. CowPER, on the case of the Bombay Bank. Avignon, 26th June 1870. My dear Cowper, — I knew before reading your pamphlet that the Bombay Government, having by the TO COLONEL T. A. COWPER 259 constitution of the Bank the appointment of three of 1870 the nine directors, was morally responsible, not neces- sarily for the strict prudence of all the Bank's transactions, but at all events for their not being in violation of the admitted and generally practised rules of safe and legiti- mate banking. I knew also that those rules had, by the directors of the Bank, been flagrantly and systematically violated. But even after all I had read, my idea of their misconduct fell short of what it is shown to have been by your detailed history of their proceedings ; and the many years during which I knew, studied, and profited by the work you did for the Bombay Government, have taught me to repose great confidence in any state- ments of yours, which, moreover, in the present case rest upon, and can be easily collated with, the report of a Government commission. It is hardly possible for abuse of trust to be carried to a greater pitch in the forms of banking than it was by the managers of the Bombay Bank, when, to omit many other disgraceful facts, nearly half the capital of the Bank passed, on nominal securities, into the hands of a speculator who was himself one of the directors, or into those of friends recommended by him, generally for the purpose of puffing up his own special actions ; when the secretary, Mr. Blair, who was allowed to lavish the funds of the Bank without check or control, received large pecuniary favours from this person ; and when two even of the Government directors, one of whom was long President of the Bank, realised large sums by the sale of allotments which they received from speculative com- panies to whom loans were made by the Bank : the case was certainly one which, in a good system of commercial law, would come within the definition of criminal bank- ruptcy, and if justice were done, the chief culprits would be expiating their guilt by fine and imprisonment. Now I find that the Government, through the whole course of the Bank's misconduct, were as utterly regardless of their obligation to watch and control its management as if no such obligation had existed. They gave no in- Aelat. 64, 260 TO COLONEL T. A. COWPER 1870 structions to the Government directors. They allowed the Bank to be carried on under the new charter without even any by-laws to govern and direct its management. And they neither obtained nor sought from their repre- sentatives on the Board any information respecting its proceedings. The great pressure of public business on an Indian Government might be some, though a very insufficient excuse for this quiescence as long as there was nothing to excite suspicion. But the quiescence continued after the mismanagement and embarrassments of the Bank were so notorious even in England as to alarm the Secretary of State, who felt it his duty to warn the Bombay Government. After this the conduct of the Government was, if anything, more discreditable than before. Their unwillingness to admit that anything was seriously amiss almost amounted to complicity. To the warnings and questionings which they now frequently received from their superiors in England and at Calcutta, they answered smooth things, extenuating to the utmost the amount of mischief, abetting the directors in with- holding information demanded of them, and acting as if it were their deliberate purpose to screen the misconduct of the Bank, though probably only desirous of screening their own neglect of the duty of supervision. It is shown that had the Bombay Government, even after they had become aware of the evil, done their duty in preventing further malversation, the Bank, notwithstanding the great losses already sustained, might have been saved from insolvency, and the property of the shareholders might have been in great part preserved to them. By not having done this, even if by nothing else, the Bombay Government made itself morally a party to the misconduct of the directors, and responsible for it to the sufferers. It may be said that the majority of the directors, including those most certainly guilty, were elected by the shareholders. But considering the extreme difficulty under which shareholders labour, as well in England as in India, in choosing trustworthy directors or in con- trolling them, it is certain that the shareholders placed TO COLONEL T. A. COWPER 261 (as they had every reason to think themselves warranted 1870 in placing) their principal reliance on the Government ; whose representatives on the Board, themselves high in the public service, must, if they did their duty to Govern- ment even as the largest shareholder in the Bank, take care that its interests, in common with those of the other shareholders, should receive ordinary and decent regard from those to whose charge they were entrusted. The shareholders would have had no claim to indemnity from the Government for ordinary losses, or for such as were occasioned by irresistible circumstances, or even by ordinary and venial mismanagement. But they have a just claim in foro conscientice to reparation from the Government for loss sustained by gross and criminal violation of duty on the part of its agents. An able speaker in the House of Commons who was master of the facts, could make a speech on them which would resound through the whole country, and which would be damaging to any Government that resisted the claim. You are at liberty to make use of this opinion of mine in any quarter in which you think it would be of service. If it goes to Mr. Gladstone or the Duke of Argyll, I would rather it should be as an enclosure in your letter than directly from myself. But though I think well of the intentions of both those ministers, I think them sufficiently like ministers in general to be much more certainly influenced through the press than by any representation addressed to themselves. I could put your pamphlet into the hands of the writers of several newspaoers, and could probably induce them to pay some attention to the subject. How far they might be willing to proceed in what might be opposi- tion to the Government I cannot tell. There are several courses to choose from, and it is for you to consider which of them you prefer. One is to defer any appeal to Parliament or the public until it is certain that your application to the authorities is unsuccessful. Another is to endeavour to get a motion made in the House of Commons. And if this be deter- 262 TO H. TAINE 1870 mined on, the question occurs whether it should be ~ done in the present session, or early in the next, the public mind being in the meantime acted on as much as possible through the press. If you decide for this session, I will when I return to England, which will be in about a fortnight, consult with my Parliamentary friends and try to find some one in the House willing to take up the subject, and capable of doing it with effect. There should, if possible, be simultaneously an organisation through the press ; and any influence I have with editors I will most gladly make use of, but, as I have said, I do not know how far it is likely to be effectual. . . . To H. Taine, in reply to a letter from him thanking Mill for a favourable notice of his book, " De rintelligence," which Mill had written in the Fortnightly Review. Blackheath Park, le 22}uillet 1870. Monsieur, — Je me felicite de ce que vous avez bien voulu exprimer une opinion favorable de la notice que j'ai publi^e de votre tres remarquable ouvrage. Je sais combien cette notice est insuffisante mais j'ai voulu, au premier moment possible, attirer I'attention des hommes eclairds sur un livre dont la publication en France me parait destind;e a faire d;poque. Votre livre n'a pas besoin d'etre interpr^t^. II suffit qu'on le lise, car vous possedez parmi tant d'autres qualitfe, le g^nie de la clartd Quant a notre difference d' opinion, pour I'approfondir il faudrait entrer trfes a fond dans la theorie de ce qu'on pent nommer I'id^alisation d'une conception d'experience ; comme une ligne droite g^ometrique est I'iddalisation des lignes droites de nos sens. Cette conception id6alis6e n'en est pas moins, comme vous I'admettez, un produit de rexp^rience ; mais vous dites qu'elle ressemble aux produits chimiques et que ses proprietes ne peuvent etre connues que par I'observation directe. Je pourrais, peut- TO J. BOYD KINNEAR 263 etre, contester cela, et soutenir que c'est la I'une des '870 differences entre une conception id^alis^e et una concep- ^gt^g^. tion compos6e : mais meme en admettant votre opinion, on peut dire que cette observation directe ne pourrait vous r6v61er que les propri6t6s du produit regard^ comme conception mentale, c'est a dire des faits psychologiques, et qu'elle ne nous dit rien sur les lois g^n^rales de I'univers. To J. Boyd Kinnear, who had resigned from the Land Tenure Reform Association on account of its adoption of the principle that it is permissible for the State to purchase land, for letting as small holdings ; as also of the principle of the taxation of unearned increment. Blackheaih Park, iindjuly 1870. My dear Mr. Kinnear, — Though I regret very much that you do not sufficiently agree with the articles of the new programme, to feel justified in remaining a member of the Association, it is not without deliberate considera- tion that I have concurred in a course of policy for the Association which we knew would prevent many persons whose support would have been valuable from joining it. We had to choose, however, between losing their adhesion, and depriving ourselves of all support whatever from the working classes : and we might still hope that those who had accepted our fresh programme would co-operate with us from without on the important points on which they agree with us, while as an Association we should have no power of usefulness whatever unless we could enlist in our support the most intelligent part of the working classes ; who are very generally adopting as their creed the entire resumption of the land from private hands into those of the State. We thought it the wisest course, therefore, instead of limiting our demands so as to obtain the greatest attainable amount of adhesion among the Aetat. 64, 264 TO J. BOYD KINNEAR 1870 higher and middle classes, to go as far towards the de- mands of the working classes as we conscientiously could, provided that by this means we could induce them to support us and act with us ; and the conference with some of their leaders, at which you were present, showed that they were willing to do so. The provision for the purchase by the State of land in the market, would be chiefly applicable to neighbour- hoods in which there are neither common lands, nor lands belonging to public bodies, sufficient to give a fair trial to small holdings and to co-operative agriculture. I quite agree with you that public bodies ought not to hold lands ; but I think it quite worth trial how the State could manage landed property (which is a great part of its business in India) ; and of one thing I feel certain, that nothing but a trial on a large scale, and for a considerable period, would convince the working classes that such a system would be unsuccessful or injurious. The article asserting the right of the State to the "unearned increase," &c., is not so worded as to imply that landowners are to be dealt hardly with in this respect. Its purpose is simply to assert the legitimacy of special taxation on land, in consideration of the special property it possesses, in a prosperous country, of continually rising in value. No doubt, as you say, this rise could not have been so great as it has been and is, had there been no improvements in agriculture, because, without those im- provements, the growth of wealth and population could not have reached anything like the same extent. The improvements, however, arise in great part from the improved skill, and knowledge, and exertion of the tenants, not the landlords. And, for what the landlords have done, they would be indemnified by the option allowed them (and now inserted in the programme) of resigning their land to the State at the market price. It is probable, as you say, that the price of wheat is not now higher, pro- portionally to other things, than it was many years ago. But I apprehend that this is owing to foreign importation, and that nearly all other agricultural produce, especially TO H. K. RUSDEN 265 cattle, meat, and dairy produce, have risen in an extra- 1870 ordinary degree. Aet^64. Other property than land may, no doubt, rise in value without any exertion on the part of the owners. But I do not know of any other kind of property of any importance, which rises in value from generation to generation in every improving county by a sort of natural law, the exceptions to which are rare and only temporary. Not to mention that land being the gift of nature, and of limited quantity, a system of landed property which was just and reasonable so long as land was obtainable by all, is fairly liable to reconsideration as soon as the land has become insufficient in quantity, and has been engrossed by a small number of proprietors. I hope your visit to the Channel Islands will accelerate the restoration of your health, which, I was very sorry to hear, stood so much in need of recruiting. To H. K. RusDEN, of Melbourne, on the Marriage Laws. Blackheath Park, 22nd Jidy 1870. Dear Sir, — I have received and read the essays which you did me the honour to send. I am quite of your opinion as to the usefulness, in the present stage of human improve- ment, of speaking out, without reserve, whatever opinions one has deliberately formed on topics important to mankind, subject, of course, to the duty of satisfying oneself by calm consideration that one knows, and has taken into account, such qualifications and counter considerations as may be necessary to make one's opinion a fair expression of the truth. I do not, however, blame a person who stops short of the complete public expression of unpopular opinions, when it would involve serious danger of the loss of his means of subsistence ; for though it is often a merit, it is only in peculiar cases a duty, in any one to be a martyr for his opinions. You are mistaken in thinking that I have purposely 266 TO HENRY FAWCETT 1870 withheld, in my book on " The Subjection of Women," any Aetat64. opinions which I thought relevant to the subject. The purpose of that book was to maintain the claim of women, whether in marriage or out of it, to perfect equality in all rights with the male sex. The relaxation or alteration of the marriage laws, in any other respect than by taking away all vestiges of the subordination of one sex to the other, is a question quite distinct from the object to which the book is devoted, and one which, in my own opinion, cannot be properly decided until that object has been attained. It is impossible, in my opinion, that a right marriage law can be made by men alone, or until women have an equal voice in making it. You say in one of your essays that my book recommends that marriage should be dissoluble at the will of either of the parties. Now I carefully avoided giving any opinion as to the conditions under which marriage should be dissoluble, for the very good reason that I have not formed, and do not consider either myself or any one else capable at present of forming, a well-grounded opinion on the subject. I, of course, accept your proposition that human freedom should not be interfered with, except by such precautions as are necessary to prevent injury to society ; but what those precautions are, in this particular case, is precisely the question to be discussed, and it can only be determined justly or expediently by the joint experience, and with the full force and well-considered concurrence, of both sexes. To Henry Fawcett, on the Franco-Prussian War. By Helen Taylor. Blackheath Park, 26th July 1870. Dear Mr. Fawcett,— Sir Charles Dilke ended the note in which he told me of your wish to make a public demon- stration on the war, by asking me, if I disapproved of it, to write to you, and therefore I have not written to you. TO HENRY KILGOUR 267 I highly approve of having a demonstration, and I hope 1870 there will be many of them. For myself, I do not wish for the present to appear in any way in the matter. A time may come when it will be the duty of every one to speak out. But while I do all I can in private, I think it best for the present, both for public and for private reasons, that my name should not appear. This letter therefore is con- fidential. In the meantime, I think the points of most importance are, that the English public should know, and show that it knows, that this war has been brought on wholly by Napoleon ; that the Prussians are fighting for their own liberty and for that of Europe ; that England is bound to protect Belgium ; and that our utmost efforts can only, if Napoleon lives, defer war, not prevent it. Our turn must come. Therefore, that our people ought to arm at once, taking the responsibility off the Government, which is right to be prudent and silent. The volunteers ought to be armed with the newest and best rifle by public sub- scription. It is not a time for talking about peace and the horrors of war when our national existence may be soon at stake. At the same time it is wrong to attribute this war to France. Neither in justice nor in prudence ought we to do so. The Germans are right in saying that it is Napoleon and not France they are fighting, and Napoleon, if he lives, and is successful in humbling Prussia, will attack England, the fourth of the great powers that fought at Waterloo. To Henry Kilgour, acknowledging a pamphlet by him, written to advocate the formation of a joint committee of colonial legis- latures for the consideration of imperial affairs. Blackheath Park, 15M August 1870. Dear Sir, — I beg to acknowledge your letter of loth August, and the pamphlet to which it refers. I am entirely in favour of retaining our connection with the colonies so long as they do not desire separation. And Aetal. 64. 268 TO HENRY KILGOUR 1870 I think the nation is of the same opinion, and would not tolerate, in the Government, any conduct which is beHeved to proceed from a desire to break the connection. But I confess I do not think it Hkely that a periodical meeting of delegates from all the colonies and dependencies, with no substantive powers, merely for the purpose of discussion, would excite sufficient interest in those countries to become a useful institution. What a colony desires from the mother country is generally something having reference to its own special wants, and which it would probably, in general, pre- fer to discuss singly with the Government, which has the power of decision. The participation of numerous delegates from other communities, with no interest in the particular question, communities whose wants are different and who have little fellow feeling, would, I should think, be more likely to be felt as an incumbrance than desired as a help. Allow me to express my surprise that one who attaches so much importance as you do to the mere public dis- cussion of subjects by those who are specially interested in them, should see no use in the admission into the House of Commons of representative working men. Their pre- sence there seems to me indispensable to a sufficient discussion of public interests from the particular point of view of the working classes ; which assuredly is not less worthy of being considered, nor has fewer truths mingled with its errors, than the points of view of the other classes now so superabundantly represented in Parliament. The " Parliamentary tone " does not seem to me to be at present so elevated as to be in any danger of being lowered by the admission of such men as Mr. Odger into a House a majority of whom seem to me to be abundantly endowed with all the characteristics you ascribe to him, except the " considerable mental vigour " for which you give him credit. The result I should expect from bringing contrary prejudices face to face, and compelling them to listen to one another, would be a great improvement on both sides : and in my own experience, the working classes are not those who have shown least willingness to be improved by such collisions. Aelat. 64. TO P. A. TAYLOR 269 To P. A. Taylor, concerning the apprehensions which were entertained lest Mazzini, who had been taken prisoner by the Italian Government, might be secretly murdered. By Helen Taylor. zznd August 1870. Dear Mr. Taylor, — I have the highest admiration for 1870 Mazzini, and although I do not sympathise with his mode of working, I do not take upon myself to criticise it, because I do not doubt that to him is mainly owing the unity and freedom of Italy. Nor do I in the least doubt the reality of the danger your letter speaks of. But the real safeguard against that danger lies in the fact that the whole Italian people, friends and enemies, are assuredly fully aware of it, and that the Italian Government must be fully aware that if any mischief happens to Mazzini while under their custody no one in Italy will attribute it to natural causes. On the other hand, nothing whatever would persuade any but a few scattered English people that any such danger exists at all. To say so would simply be to expose oneself in England to the imputation, fully believed by those who make it, of being a rabid and fanatical partisan ; whereas in Italy the mildest and most moderate people will believe it even if it is not true. Hence I am sure that it would be impossible to bring the influence of English public opinion to bear in this matter. To attempt to do so would simply be to call forth such honest and genuine expressions of incredulity as might even convince the Italian Government of what they would otherwise never suspect — that if Mazzini dies in prison the English public may really not be sure that he was poisoned. The safety of Mazzini depends on the fear that his death might arouse feeling in Italy dangerous to those in whose hands he is. As I believe this to be the case, I think in all human probability the Government will be very desirous 270 TO GUSTAVE D'EICHTHAL 1870 of avoiding anything of the sort, and of setting him free as AetaTe^ soon as they conveniently can. Some action on the part of English Liberals to request his liberation on grounds of humanity, his age, his health, &c., might, a little time hence, give an excuse to the Government they might be glad to take, to set him free. At present I fear they would not think it prudent to do it. Were I an English personal friend of Mazzini I should certainly endeavour to obtain access to him, for I think the greatest danger at present is of his fretting himself into an illness, which in the hands of Italian doctors might naturally terminate fatally. The presence of a real friend might be of great use to him, and as English people's word is generally believed, the Italian Government might more easily permit English than Italian friends to see him, since they might trust them better to do nothing that they under- took not to do. To GusTAVE d'Eichthal. Blackheath Park, le 27 ao-dt 1870. MoN CHER d'Eichthal, — Merci d'avoir pens6 a moi dans un temps si douloureux. Depuis longtemps je suis arriv6 a la triste conviction que, malgr6 I'incontestable reality des progres modernes, nous ne sommes pas encore a I'abri des grands malheurs et des grands crimes que notre siecle se flattait d'etre parvenu a bannir de la terre. Je plains profond^ment le peuple fran^ais qui n'est pas responsable de tout ceci, qui n'aime pas et n'a pas voulu la guerre, et qui est condamn6 a la payer du meilleur de son sang et peut-etre d'une humiliation nationale la plus difficile a supporter ; pourvu que I'Europe, et surtout la France, apprenne de ces tristes 6v6nements que, lorsqu'un peuple abdique la direction de ses propres destinies et se r^signe a ce qu'un gouverne- ment fasse de lui un simple instrument de sa volont6, il est condamn^ a supporter toutes les consequences de ce qu'il a laiss6 faire en son nom ; et qu'un gouvernement qui par les conditions de son existence a besoin de tout ce qu'il y a Aetat. 64. TO MR. JOHN WESTLAKE 271 de plus malhonn^te et de plus corrompu dans le pays, finit 1870 par 6tre tromp6 par eux au point que meme son appui de predilection, I'administration militaire, se trouve pourrie et en decomposition au moment du besoin. Quelles que puissent Mre pour la France les suites imm6diates de ces ^v^nements, il ne lui faudra pas beaucoup d'ann6es pour redevenir tout aussi grande qu'auparavant ; mais elle devra se contenter d'etre I'une des grandes puis- sances de I'Europe, sans pr6tendre d'etre la seule ou m6me la premiere : il lui faudra reconnaitre pour les relations Internationales comme pour celles de la vie civile la r^gle de r^galite. La pretention d'un pays quelconque a 6tre tellement au-dessus des autres pour que rien d'important ne se fasse sans le consulter, ne peut plus se soutenir aujourd'hui ; et la France devrait voir dans la repudiation universelle d'une telle pretention, le triomphe du principe qui fait sa propre gloire. J'espere qu'au moins vous n'aurez pas d'autres malheurs que le desastre public a deplorer et que la guerre epargnera toute votre famille. Je suis arrive ici huit ou dix jours avant la declaration de guerre, alors qu'un pareil coup semblait presque aussi peu probable que la destruction de Paris par un tremblement de terre. La rapidite foudroyante des grands evenements d'aujourd'hui n'est pas ce qu'ils ont de moins etonnant. To Mr. (afterwards Professor) John Westlake. Blackheath Park, "jth September 1S70. Dear Sir, — The question respecting the expediency of making the sale of instruments of war by neutrals to belli- gerents an offence against the law of nations is a difficult one, and though I have given it some consideration I cannot say that I have arrived at a positive opinion. Your paper will probably assist me in forming one. About one thing I feel quite clear ; that the matter ought not to depend, as it does by our present laws, on the dis- cretion of the executive. For the sake both of principle and of policy the question should be determined by law. 272 TO MR. JOHN WESTLAKE 1870 And it cannot well be determined by law without a previous agreement among the principal nations ; since otherwise Aetat. 64. ^yg should either be adjudging to ourselves rights which might not improbably be disputed, or acknowledging obli- gations which might not be reciprocated. On the rule itself, there is a conflict of considerations. On the one hand, real neutrality seems to me to consist in not aiding either side with means of carrying on the contest : including under " means," any articles of which the sole, or at all events the principal use, is for warlike purposes. On the other hand, it is generally, though not universally, true that the party most benefited by, because most needing, supplies from neutral countries, is the weaker of the belligerents, who is the more likely to be the op- pressed or injured party ; including, among the rest, all who are in arms, on however just provocation, against their own government. It is significant that the only case in which the power given to our own executive in this matter has been acted on (the case of the Greeks and Turks) is of this last description. A further consideration is the difficulty of preventing exportation to the belligerent countries without stopping exportation altogether. It would be of little use to pre- vent guns being sent out to Dunkirk if they can be sent to Ostend, and from thence find their way into France. But this only amounts to saying that it is of no use for one country to act on the rule unless it is adopted generally. If it were so adopted the Belgian Government would be responsible for preventing the guns exported to Ostend from entering France. On the whole, I incline most to leaving the exportation free, but not without misgiving ; for when the access to foreign supplies operates, as it generally does, unequally upon the two belligerents, it seems to me hardly possible that the public opinion of the party suffering should not regard the professing neutral as substantially an ally of the enemy ; and perhaps with still greater resentment as one who, without any ground of quarrel, seeks to make profit by a neighbour's misfortunes. TO SIR CHARLES DILKE 273 There is but too much ground for your apprehensions 1870 as to the feelings likely to be left by this war ; but if it had been unattended with a great and decisive success on either side, it would probably have been much more prolonged, and the case is pre-eminently one in which the shortest evil is the best. Then, too, it was important that a striking retribution should fall on the aggressor in an unprovoked war. It is the justice of their cause which has roused the whole German people, and given them this irresistible might. But it is deplorable to think that the French nation may, from a false point of honour, persist in an unjust war which they neither originated nor desired. To Sir Charles Dilke, firstly, on the question of recognition of the French Government of National Defence ; and secondly, as to whether a protest should be made against the trans- ference of territory to the Germans, without obtaining the consent of the inhabitants. Jointly by Mill and Helen Taylor. Blackheath Park, yath September 1870. My dear Sir Charles Dilke, — On the first of the points mentioned in your note, I think that the Govern- ment of National Defence, being to all appearance obeyed as the Government of the country by all parts of France which are not in the power of a foreign army, ought to be recognised officially (it is already recognised semi-officially) as the de facto Government by Great Britain ; which recog- nition I understand to consist in giving to our ambassador new credentials addressed to the new authorities. I think that what was done in the case of the Provisional Govern- ment of 1848 should be done in the present case ; but after Gladstone's answer to the deputation, I do not think that there is any chance of inducing him to do this. The second point I cannot see in the same light. The Germans have a very strong case. One of the wickedest VOL. II. s Aetat. 64. 274 TO SIR CHARLES DILKE 1870 acts of aggression in history has been by them successfully — repelled, but at the expense of the bitter suffering of many ■*■ thousand (one might almost say million) households. They have a just claim to as complete a security as any practic- able arrangement can give against the repetition of a similar crime. Unhappily the character and feelings of the French nation, or at least of the influential and active portion of all political parties, afford no such security. I feel with you a strong repugnance to the transfer of a population from one government to another, unless by its ovi^n ex- pressed desire. If I could settle the terms of peace, the disputed territory should be made into an independent self- governing State, with power to annex itself after a long period (say fifty years) either to France or to Germany ; a guarantee for that term of years by the neutral powers (which removes in some measure the objection to indefinite guarantees), or, if that could not be obtained, the fortresses being meanwhile garrisoned by German troops. But there may be many objections to this which I do not see ; and, at all events, our Government would probably urge it in vain. Our Government is not likely to have the smallest influence at present with Germany. English public opinion might perhaps have some little influence. But all demon- strations of the kind seem only likely to encourage France in a hopeless struggle. If Gladstone had been a great man this war would never have broken out, for he would have nobly taken upon him- self the responsibility of declaring that the English navy should actively aid whichever of the two powers was attacked by the other. This would have been a beginning of the international justice we are calling for. I do not much blame Gladstone for not daring to do it, for it re- quires a morally braver man than any of our statesmen to run this kind of risk. I have willingly given you my opinion on the points on which you ask it, but I do not wish any public use made of it with my name, as I have no desire to push myself or to be put forward in the matter ; for public opinion in England appears to me, on the whole, so reasonable and TO JEAN ARLfeS-DUFOUR 275 well-intentioned on the subject as to be likely ultimately 1870 to arrive at a right conclusion, and I am not sure whether ^^~ , we have really yet sufficient data as to the mere facts to enable us to form a very definite opinion. To Jean Arles-Dufour, on the Franco-Prussian War. Blackheath Park, /e 29 octobre 1870. Cher Monsieur, — Je n'ai pas eu le coeur de r6pondre a votre lettre du 26 septembre, parceque je ne pouvais vous rien dire de consolation dans I'immense malheur qui pfese sur la France. Aujourd'hui votre voeu pour une mediation anglaise semble etre exauce, dans la mesure de ce qui est possible. Ici la sympathie pour les malheurs de la France est grande, et le d6sir est general qu'elle sorte de cette crise aux conditions les plus favorables que comportent les cir- constances, mais on ne pense pas moins qu'elle doit une grande reparation a I'Allemagne pour les vastes sacrifices de son sang le plus pr^cieux qu'une agression injuste lui a imposes. Et Ton craint que cette facilite a croire ce qui est agr6able, et a resister a I'evidence des faits, qui est propre aux habitudes du Frangais, ne leur fasse refuser des propositions supportables, pour etre reduits a subir plus tard des conditions encore plus rigoureuses. Si le patriotisme ^claire de tout ce qu'il y a de meilleur en France pouvait decider les classes lettres de la nation a voir dans les sacri- fices qui sont devenus inevitables, une legon pour ne plus jamais se laisser aller a pr^f^rer des reves d'agrandissement au-dehors, a la recherche de la liberty et du progres moral et social au-dedans, et pouvait decider I'immense majoritd de la nation a ne se laisser gouverner que par eux-memes, alors on pourrait esperer que les tristes ^venements de cette ann6e, quelque puisse etre leur denouement, deviennent la date d'une veritable regeneration pour la France. Je n'ai gu^re besoin de vous dire, cher monsieur, a quel point moi-meme je partage votre douleur, et combien ma 276 TO FREDERIC BOOKER 1870 sympathie est profonde pour tous les Francais qui n'ont a se reprocher ni le commencement de cette deplorable guerre ni sa prolongation. To Frederic Booker, in reply to a question as to how working men should be supported, if elected on to the School Boards ; it being supposed that these duties would consume their whole time. By Helen Taylor. Blackheath Park, ■^ist October 1870. Dear Sir, — I have not a copy of the Act by me, but I have always understood that the prohibition of payment had reference only to payment out of taxes, rates, or any public fund. I do not believe that there exists any legal obstacle to payment of the representatives by their con- stituents, as the trades unions pay their officers and delegates. It would not cost the trade societies of Manchester much to pay, if necessary, to those working men whom you may succeed in electing, the weekly wages which they would earn if they worked at their ordinary employment. There appears to me, however, a more serious difficulty. If really, as you say, the working men will not have confidence in any man as a real working man who has saved enough to be independent, or who can spare even a portion of his time from earning his daily bread, it would appear that the moment they have elected a man they must lose confidence in him if he is to be supported by subscription, since from the moment when he is so supported he ceases to be a working man. I should have thought it had been the first object of all who have the interest of the working classes at heart that some among the working men, whose talents or good fortune enable them to be pecuniarily better off than the majority of their companions, should continue to be, and to be considered, still members of the working classes. But if they are to be looked on with suspicion and dislike Aetat. 64. TO MR. JOHN MORLEY 277 this cannot be the case. It has always been my hope that 1870 the working classes might come to have a moderate por- tion of leisure, and I should regard it as a great misfortune if, the moment a working man is able to attain this, he should lose the confidence of his fellow-workmen unless he is dependent on their bounty. It cannot be impossible that a working man should retain the principles which are honestly entertained by so many individuals among the richest classes of the country merely because he has been able to become a master workman or a writer, &c., &c. ; and as he will, if he has been born and has generally lived among the working classes, understand and sympathise with them better than most persons of other classes can do, I think such a man should be trusted till he has proved himself unworthy of trust. Doubtless many men will do so, as many men in every rank show when put to the test that their real motives for entering into public life were vanity or self-interest ; but I cannot believe that a larger proportion of men mainly inspired by such unworthy motives would be found among the self-raised men of the working classes than among the self-raised men of the leading mercantile, manufacturing, literary, and others. To Mr. John Morley, on the Franco-Prussian War. By Helen Taylor. November 1870. Dear Mr. Morley, — I am glad to see you have not yielded to the utterly false and mistaken sympathy with France, and indeed I go further than you do in the other side. Stern justice is on the side of the Germans, and it is in the best interests of France itself that a bitter lesson should now be inflicted upon it, such as it can neither deny nor forget in the future. The whole writing, think- ing, and talking portion of the people undoubtedly share the guilt of Louis Napoleon, the moral guilt of the war, and feel neither shame nor contrition at anything but 1 870 278 TO MR. JOHN MORLEY the unlucky results to themselves. Undoubtedly the real nation, the whole mass of the people, are perfectly guiltless Aetat. 64. of it ; but then they are so ignorant that they will allow the talkers and writers to lead them into just such corners again, if they do not learn by bitter experience what will be the practical consequences of their political indifference. The peasantry of France, like the women of England, have still to learn that politics concern themselves. The loss of Alsace and Lorraine will perhaps be about as painless a way of learning this lesson as could possibly be devised. To Mr. John Morley, on Russia's action in breaking the treaty of 1856 respecting the neutrality of the Black Sea. By Helen Taylor. Blackheath Park, i8<^ November 1870. Dear Mr. Morley, — We congratulate you very heartily upon your marriage, of which it gives us great pleasure to hear. Home life is the best possible milieu for work, and I hope you will be able to subordinate your work to the claims of your health, a task, however, which is found very difficult by everybody who can and will work well. I am very anxious just now that there should be some proper protest agamst the infatuation of our press on the Russian question. I can compare it to nothing but the infatuation of the French press, which we have all been wondering at. Almost in the same breath in which our journals tell us only too truly that we are utterly unpre- pared for war, nay, unprepared for the most essential defence, they call upon us to declare war with one of the most powerful military empires of the world — a naval power too — and that at the very same time that our quarrel with America is still pending. So much for their common-sense. As for the rights of the question, it is doubtful whether they are not substantially on the side of Russia. At all events we are not bound in honour to TO HENRY FAWCETT 279 attempt to carry out the treaty when our most important 1870 co-signatory can give no help. Least of all are we bound in honour to insist upon the perpetual adhesion to a treaty which in all probability we ought to be ready to abrogate. As for the argument that Russia is simply casting off all treaty obligations, that simply points to the fact that all such obligations always have been disowned directly the party unwillingly bound by them perceives a relaxation of force in the powers which attempted to bind it. This will always happen so long as treaties are made in per- petuity. Were they terminable, as they might be, those who object to them would have a rational hope of escape in some more moral way than an appeal to the same brute force which imposed them. It points also to the inherent weakness of the scheme of joint treaties and guarantees which must of their own nature fall to pieces directly there is any great change in the conditions or the rela- tions of the joint powers. This treaty of 1856 should have been allowed to fall into disuse. That it has not been so allowed is a legacy of the evil Palmerstonian days. Now, I conceive that the only dignified thing for us to do is to let the treaty be abrogated by Russia, with a protest reserving our own liberty of action. The way in which Guizot dealt with the annexation of Cracow is a case in point, and would form a very good precedent for us in this matter. We shall hope to see you on Tuesday next, as you say, in the forenoon. There is a train at 35 minutes past 12 from Charing Cross, by which perhaps you can come and take luncheon with us. To Henry Fawcett, on Russia's action. Blackheath Park, \?,th November 1870. . . . The newspapers are raging and blustering on the subject of Russia in a manner which will be very dangerous if the Government and the House of Commons think that Aetat. 64. 280 TO HENRY FAWCETT 1870 their ravings express the opinion of the country. Writers who for many months have never ceased sounding an alarm about our total want of preparation for a war even of self-defence, telling us that we have neither troops, nor horses, nor guns, nor officers, nor organisation, nor men capable of giving us these things — all, I believe, too true — now demand that we should instantly say to Russia, Retract that declaration of war ; and when Russia refuses (as what power in such a case would not refuse ?) we are to go to war with Russia at once, and, as they themselves think not improbable, with Prussia too. And all this for what ? Because Russia shakes off an obligation which, though it may sometimes perhaps be rightly imposed as a temporary penalty for unprovoked aggression, no nation can ever be expected permanently to submit to. One would think such a thing had never happened before, as that a nation on whom hard terms had been imposed by victorious enemies has ever treated them as no longer binding after she had recovered her strength. The truth is, such things are often happening, and must often be submitted to, when the object itself is not worth a war ; and so it will be until treaties are concluded as they ought to be, for terms of years only, instead of affecting to be perpetual. Will any one pretend that a nation can bind its posterity for all time by the conditions to which it has been forced to submit at a moment of difficulty ? If not, such stipulations, unless they still remain in themselves desirable, must be allowed to become obsolete, and the only questions are after what lapse of time and under what conditions ; questions which no one, 1 believe, is yet prepared to answer. Strength and opportunity have always decided them hitherto. When one considers that England ought to have done the inestimable service to mankind of preventing the present terrible war if we had chosen to run a very slight risk of being involved in it ourselves, the proposal that after shrinking from this we should rush precipitately into war to limit the number of Russian ships of war in the Euxine shows a degree of criminal fatuity almost greater than that of Louis Napoleon and his advisers four months ago. Aetat. 64. TO MR. LEONARD COURTNEY 281 To Mr. Leonard Courtney, on Russia's action. Blackheath Park, 19M November 1870. Dear Mr. Courtney, — I thank you very much for your kindness about my letter. I perfectly understand that what you and other thought- 1870 ful men regard as the important point in the matter is the declaration of the Russian Government that it intends to throw off one of the obligations of the treaty without asking the consent of the other contracting parties. My position, however, is that it is not every breach of treaty that requires to be, or that ought to be, resented by war. The fans et origo malt is the great error of concluding treaties in perpetuity, instead of only for a term of years, which, by making it inevitable and sometimes even a duty to break treaties, creates that conflict of possible obligations which both fosters and shields unconscientiousness. No treaty is fit to be perpetual. When, however, a treaty is an amicable contract between nations for their joint ad- vantage, it is in most cases possible to get necessary modifications effected by joint consent. But it is not, and never has been, thought to be so in the case of treaties which are real capitulations — terms of peace imposed by victors on the vanquished expressly because known to be disadvantageous to them. Even such treaties, if they were temporary, might be kept. But when no term is fixed for their expiration these treaties — those conditions of them especially which directly restrain the freedom of action of the country — always have been, and always are, violated as soon as the nation on whom they are imposed is able and willing to risk another war. And such violation is habitu- ally condoned, unless the other parties to the violated treaty think the particular object worth a war. Was there ever a more direct violation of a treaty, to which all the powers of Europe were parties, than was committed by France when she placed another Bonaparte on the throne ? But what country dreamed of going to war with France Aetat. 64. 282 TO W. T. THORNTON 1870 to prevent or chastise that breach of engagements ? Instances more or less similar are too frequent in recent history for it to be necessary to enumerate them ; but there is one worth mentioning, because it affords a pre- cedent applicable to the present case. When Russia, Austria, and Prussia combined, in violation of treaties, to destroy the Republic of Cracow and annex it to Austria, Guizot was Foreign Minister of France. He made a public declaration, I do not remember if it was by a circular to his diplomatic agents or by a speech in the Chamber, or by both, that France took notice of this breach of treaties, that she did not intend to take any active measures in opposition to it, but that she reserved to herself the exercise of all such rights as the violation, without her consent, of a treaty to which she was a party, in her judg- ment restored to her. It seems to me that something similar to this is the only wise and dignified course for the English Government to take ; unless, indeed, the repudiated engagement be such as it would enforce de novo if the thing were res Integra, and that, too, at the cost of a war under the most disadvantageous and perilous circumstances ; but as you, in common I should think with all rational persons who know anything of the subject, totally reject this sup- position, I need not discuss it. To W. T. Thornton. Blackheath Park, z\st November 1870. Dear Thornton, — I am very happy that you so en- tirely agree with me about this insane clamour for war. I think there is a great deal in your argument, and even were there no other reason, the total inability of the most power- ful of the parties to the treaty to do anything towards enforcing it, goes a very great way indeed to release the others from any obligation they might have contracted to do so. Will you not write a letter on the subject to one of the newspapers ? Every additional protest at this par- ticular time is of great value, by showing that Englishmen are not all mad together ; and that those who determine TO W. T. THORNTON 283 future opinion will pass a severe judgment on a Govern- 1870 raent which should sacrifice the safety of England to mere bluster and brag. To do the present Government justice, however, it is my belief that they only want support from the public to show themselves yielding and conciliatory ; and therefore we ought all the more to give public expres- sion to this point of view. Those who pretend that we are bound by our engagements to go to war, rely chiefly on the tripartite treaty of England, France, and Austria. I send a page of the Economist which contains it. By the first article those powers guarantee jointly and severally, not the treaty with Russia, but the integrity of the Ottoman dominions. It cannot be pretended by any one that this guarantee comes into force until Turkey is attacked. By the second article they engage to consider any infraction of the treaty as a casus belli; and, if there are causes, to determine with Turkey and with one another what it has become necessary to do. This merely promises that when a case has arisen which gives them a right to go to war, they will take counsel together whether to do so or not. But a still plainer point is that by this treaty the three powers did not bind themselves to Turkey at all. Turkey was not a party to the treaty. They bound themselves only to one another, and can therefore release one another from the engagement. More, since one of the three, France, cannot possibly fulfil that engagement, it cannot require the others to do so, nor is there the least probability that Austria will make any such requirement from us ; while even if she did, the practical impossibility of attaining the end without the aid of France would be a full justi- fication for non-compliance, even in the case of the first article, much more in that of the second. It is perhaps also worth mentioning, for the sake of the completeness of the argument, that this very condition of the neutralisation of the Black Sea has been already broken through by the United States, and that on that occasion none of the con- tracting parties to the treaty thought fit even to protest. With regard to Utilitarianism, you have not said any- thing yet which would give to the most irrational or most 284 TO MR. JOHN MORLEY 1870 irritable person living anything to " forgive." But were you to attack my book or my arguments with any amount " of severity I should only see in the attack, coming from one of whose friendship I am so certain, an additional proof of friendship. Of course one is more glad when a person agrees with one in opinion than when he differs, unless he brings one over to his opinion. This you have not done, as yet. I think you will find all your arguments answered in Bentham's Introduction to the " Principles of Morals and Legislation," or in my father's fragment on Mackintosh, long before I wrote anything on the subject. To Mr. John Morley, offering to relieve him for a while of the duties of editing the Fortnightly Review, to enable him to recruit his health. By Helen Taylor. Blackheath Park, lith November 1870. Dear Mr. Morley, — I have been thinking much over our conversation when I last saw you, and I feel so very strongly how wrong it is that your health should be seriously risked, as I fear it is being, by the impossibility of putting the Fortnightly Review aside for a time, that if you cannot find any other friend to whom you would like to confide it, and if you think it would be possible for me to do it for you in a satisfactory manner temporarily, I should be very happy to do what I can. We do not in- tend in any case to leave England until my daughter has finished, or very nearly finished, her task with Mr. Buckle's MSS.,1 and as her health only permits her to work very slowly, she has no expectation that this will be for many months. The books and MSS. she is obliged to refer to are so voluminous that they cannot well be carried about. They must be worked at at home, and as the stoppage ' [Buckle's "Miscellaneous and Posthumous Works," edited by Helen Taylor. 1872.] TO MR. JOHN MORLEY 285 or uncertainty of the French posts debars her from doing 1870 it at Avignon, we intend to remain here till it is done. It would be some satisfaction if this circumstance should enable me to be of use to yourself ; at all events should other motives induce you to accept my proposal, you need have no scruples on the score of keeping us in England. I presume that the business part of the Review — money matters, advertisements, printing, &c. — are or could be deputed either to the publisher or to some one who could act as man of business ; and I should think that whoever this may be, might, in the event of my under- taking the temporary editorship, write, under my directions, any letters that might be absolutely essential to contri- butors, and might receive and send on to me letters and articles. I could in that case undertake to read and judge of the articles and take upon myself the lite- rary editorship, and either forward the letters to you or read them and forward only such as I might think your ought to see. What I myself should most shrink from in undertaking such a thing, would be not the work of editing itself, but the enormous increase of unnecessary correspondence which I fear I should incur if it were generally known that I had undertaken it, and on this account I think it would be best for letters to be sent to the publisher or some man of business, and for some one, other than myself, to be the ostensible name in such correspondence as could not be carried on by yourself. If you still continue to feel that an interval of at least com- parative leisure would be of benefit to you, and can make no more satisfactory arrangement for the Review, I beg that you will not scruple to avail yourself of any help it is in my power to give. I returned the proof of my little article yesterday to the printers. In reply to this letter, Mr. Morley wrote thanking Mill warmly for his offer, but saying that he had been able to make other arrangements for the con- duct of the Review. 286 TO ALEXIS MUSTON To Alexis Muston. Blackheath Park, le g d4cembre 1870. 1870 Monsieur, — Pardon du retard que j'ai mis a r6pondre ~r a votre lettre, et qui ne fut caus6 que par le manque de temps. Ce fut un veritable rafratchissement pour moi de recevoir de vous una pareille lettre au milieu d'6v6ne- ments si malheureux, comme ce doit etre pour vous meme une grande consolation que de pouvoir dans le malheur public vous rejeter sur la paisible 6tude des grandes ques- tions qui important tant aux int^rets parmanants du genre humain. J'ai tr^s bonne opinion da I'ouvraga de M. Taine sur rintelliganca, sauf las derniers chapitres ou il me semble renier ses principes en croyant pouvoir 6tandre les generalisations de I'experience humaine a das regions etrangeres a cette experience. Quant a la doctrine com- mundmant dita materialiste, c'est a dire qua toutes nos impressions mentalas r^sultent du jau de nos organes physiques, je trouve comma vous qua jusqu'ici ce n'est qu'une hypoth^se, puisqu'on n'a pas pu remplir la con- dition qu'exige une bonne logique inductive dans la recherche des causes, an etablissant que, la causa donnee, I'effet a lieu. Pour cala il faudrait pouvoir fabriquer un organisme at essayer si cet organisme pensa et sent. Dans ce cas-la on saurait si les conditions organiques que nous savons tive. necessaires a la pens^e, sont suffisantas pour la produira, si enfin ca sont da veritables causes, ou seulement des accompagnements obliges. Quant a la question du moi, je ne puis rien ajouter a ce que j'ai dit la-dessus dans le livre sur Hamilton. Je doute si cette question comporte dans I'etat actuel de nos connaissancas una solution complete. Je suis alie jusqu'ou je pouvais allar, et j'ai indiqud le point oil s'arrete mon analyse. Pour la question du sentiment moral il en est autrement, et je crois que I'association en rend compte. Ce sentiment me parait un r^sultat tr^s complique d'un grand nombre de sentiments plus eidmentaires. Mais la TO PROFESSOR J, NICHOL 287 discussion de cette question serait impossible dans les 1870 limites d'une lettre. Je pourrais vous nommer des livres anglais ou elle est bien trait^e, mais ils ne sont pas encore traduits. J'en ai touch6 un c6t6 dans un petit livre qu'on a traduit en fran9ais " L'Utilitarisme " : je ne me souviens pas si je vous I'ai envoys. Sinon, veuillez me le dire et je vous ferai parvenir cette traduction lorsque les com- munications avec Paris seront rouvertes. To Professor J. Nichol, of Glasgow, on the Contagious Diseases Acts. By Mill and Helen Taylor. ■2,6 " Trent " affair, the, i. 265 Trespass, ii. ,'46 Trevelyan, Sir Charles, ii. 176 Trinity College, Dublin, ii. 339 Truth, i. 47; "• 73, I34 Tyndall, John, i. 296, 31 1 ; ii. 4, 12 U Undulatory theory, i. 312 "Unearned increase," ii. 264, 313, 352, 389 Unemployed, the, i. 154 "Universal Postulate," Spencer's, i. 197 Universal suffrage, ii. 254 University Reform, ii. 345 Urquhart, D., ii. 68, 69 Utilitarianism, i. 91 ; ii. 71, 88, 96 " Utilitarianism," the, i. 226, 291 ; ii. 283 Valuation of land rents, ii. 394 Value, on theory of, ii. 340 Vanity, national, ii. 47 personal, ii. 363 Venice, i. 119 Veracity, i. 145 ; ii. 73 Verse, on writing, ii. 364 "Verve " in Macaulay, i. 123 Vespasian, i. 144 Vibratory, the, ii. 176 Victoria (Austraha), i. 208 Villari, Pasquale, i. 194, 202, 206, 216, 217, 222, 231, 242, 254; ii. 190, 235, 304, 332, 340 English foreign politics, i. 194 English in India, i. 206 death of Mrs. Mill, i. 216 sympathy with Italy, i. 222 future of Italy, i. 243 race-characteristics, i. 254 on his mother's death, ii. 190 education of women, ii. 235 ■ France and Italy, 1871, ii. 304 Grote and Macchiavelli, ii. 332 land and the State, ii. 340 Vogt, i. 311 Voltaire, i. 65, 237 W Wages, i. 155, 167, 191 ; ii. 46, 49, 52, 256, 299 Wakefield, i. 19; ii. 201 War, Franco-Prussian, ii. 266, 270, 275. '^17^ 292, 296, 305 Crimean, ii. 296 and improvement, ii. 383 Ward, W. G., i. 140, 227 ; ii. 74 Watson, H. C, ii. 180 Wealth, i. 153, 166, 169 Weekly Dispatch, i. 157 Wellesley, Lord, ii. 65 Wesley, ii. 69 Westerton, ii. 34 Westlake, Prof. J., ii. 271 Westminster election, ii. 20, 33, 37, 39 defeat at, ii. 147, 155, 165, 174 Westminster Review, i. 162, 186, 224, 264, 290 Whately, i. 6, 132 4o8 INDEX Whewell, Dr., i. 277 ; ii. 36 White, Horace, ii. 49. 242 Willcox, J. K. H., ii. 303 Wilson, i. 18 Woman, the idea), ii. 217 Woman Suffrage Society, ii. 218 Woman's work, ii. lOI Women, equality of, i. I39> 187; ii. 80, loi, 140, 204, 209, 214, 256, 266, 308, 311, 330, 382 education of, ii. 235, 244 labour, ii. 255 French and English, ii. 216, 247 Women, votes for, i. 175, 208, 210, 214; ii. 17, 23. 33. 39, 61, 62,79, 81, 94, 102, 123, 141, 150, 157, 172,205, 209, 211, 212, 214, 215, 218, 224, 246, 254, 287, 303, 349 Women, an insult to, i. 160 Wood, Wm. (a working man), ii. 83, 218 Wood, W. M., ii. 307 Wordsworth, appreciation of, i. 10-12 Work, the right to, i. 152 Working classes, i. 269 ; ii. 44, 45, 68,69, 70, n^ 122, 126, 138, 139, 151, 168, 214, 223, 263, 268, 276, 292, 296, 311, 313, 328, 348 Writers, ii. 360, 361, 370, 375, 378 Wyllie, R. C, i. 283 Youmans, Dr. E. L., ii. 163 Young, E. W., ii. 96 THE END Printed by Ballantyne, Hanson <5,* Co. Edinburgh «V London