TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

I have been too long in acknowledging the receipt of the very interesting things you last sent; but I was working against time on another subject, and had unwillingly to put by your last notes unread until this morning. I thank you most heartily for them. They are a complete Essay on the state and prospects of Ireland,2 and are so entirely satisfactory that they leave me nothing to think of except how to make the most use of them. For my new edition I must confine myself chiefly to the general results; but if I find it advantageous to transcribe certain paragraphs entire, will you allow me to name their real author?3 The article is a valuable supplement to the notes. The letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle4 I was already acquainted with, having read it in I forget what newspaper. I beg you to offer my sincere thanks to Mr Pim5 for the books he so kindly sent, which I shall immediately read. His letter, inclosed in yours, is full of good sense.

Respecting the rate of profits in the United States, we must hope to learn something through the kind offices of Mr Moran.6 But it is, I imagine, very difficult to ascertain the real average rate of profit, or expectation of profit, in any country. It would, however, be something to have an answer to the Edition: current; Page: [986] more vague question, whether, in the opinion of Mr Ashworth,7 or other persons to whom business in both countries is familiar, the profits of capital in the United States are or are not, higher than in England.

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

Now as to the Reader.8 I consented to become a shareholder with the full intention of sending occasional contributions (to which I should be quite willing to put my initials) in case I was satisfied with the editorial arrangements, which I should be, in a very high degree, with regard to any part of them which you might undertake. My satisfaction would be much increased if you were willing, as Mr Spencer wished and hoped, to undertake not merely the political economy department, but political philosophy generally. I could be more useful to the Reader on other branches of that subject than on political economy, on which you would seldom need any hand but your own, and could easily obtain other aid if you accidentally required it. I might give some help too in moral and metaphysical philosophy, but that department will probably be under Spencer’s superintendance, and he and I should, I dare say, often differ. I have heard nothing further of their plans since the first communication made to me. Perhaps they may like to try their wings a little before attempting the higher flight which we have advised, but for which they are not strong enough at present, if the number for December 31 (which as it has been sent to me, I suppose came out under the new management) is a sample of what they can do. When you are fixed in London and ready to take an active part, we shall be likely to have more influence on their proceedings.

I take Macmillan, and was much interested by your article,9 which makes more distinct the idea I already had of the contract system in the mining districts. Laing, in his Prize Essay,10 brought it forward many years ago as an example of the cooperative principle.

I was glad to see Mr Brace’s letter in the Daily News.11 I have had a visit here from a rather remarkable American, Mr Hazard,12 of Peacetown, Rhode Island. Do you know him, or his writings? If not, I shall have a good deal to tell you about him that will interest you.

TO WILLIAM TALLACK1

Your letter and its inclosures have been forwarded to me here. I am glad of the appointment of a Commission to enquire into the effects of capital punishment.2 I confess, however, that I have a very strong opinion against its total abolition, being persuaded that the liability to it (whatever may be the case with the sight of it) has a greater deterring effect, at a less expense of real suffering, than any other penalty which would be adequate to the worst kind of offences. If examined, therefore, I should not be a witness on the “right side.” I am Sir

TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN1

I have been so much occupied with pressing work, that I have only quite recently had time to go through the “Double Algebra.”2 I have found it everything that from what I already knew of your speculations I expected it to be. Either you are the first (not excepting Peacock)3 who has pointed out the true rationale of algebra as an universal calculus, or I was not capable formerly of understanding the true theory when I had it before me, and have become capable now. Which of these suppositions is the true one, you best know. The fact in regard to myself is, that everything which I had a glimmering of, I now seem to myself to see as clear as day, while you have also led me into regions of which I had not even a glimmering, and have shewn me how I may have an equally clear comprehension of the whole of these by taking sufficient pains to follow you through the details.

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

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

I have received your note, and the slips of part of your intended address,2 which I have read with great edification, though I do not think the practical Edition: current; Page: [989] question so completely decided by it as you seem to think. I cannot conveniently manage to be at the meeting this evening, but I shall be at the Club on Friday3 when I hope to hear the subject fully discussed by yourself and others.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

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

The Political Economy2 has gone to press, considerably improved as I think, and indebted to you for much of the improvement. I have availed myself of your permission to acknowledge this in the preface,3 and also in the chapter on the Irish question,4 a good deal of which I have given in inverted commas as a communication from you. I have endeavoured to correct the effect of the passage which has been used by Australian protectionists, not by omitting it, but by giving a fuller expression of my meaning.5 The subject of an Index I had thought of, but most Indexes of philosophical treatises are so badly and stupidly done, that unless I could have made it myself or got it made by a political economist, I thought it better let alone. An index is less wanted for a systematic treatise than for a book of a miscellaneous character, as the general arrangement of topics, aided by the analytical table of contents, shews where to find the things most likely to be wanted.

I hope that the Reader is not tied to its present editor or sub editor,6 and that all its arrangements are at present only provisional. He goes out of his way to say the most abominable things about America, and in other respects he seems to me to do his business carelessly and ill.

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

TO JOHN CHAPMAN1

I have this morning left at Mr Trubner’s, directed to you, the first article on Comte. I am well advanced with the second, which will, as I expected, be considerably shorter than the first.2

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

I thank you much for your pamphlet on Seasickness.3 You seem to have made a great discovery.

TO THOMAS HARE1

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

You will be glad to read the inclosed, which please return, as I have not answered it. When is your new edition likely to be ready?2

I have been struck, though not disappointed, by the extreme narrowness of mind shewn by the Radical members of parliament in all their recent addresses. There would be more chance, I think, of being listened to, on such subjects as representation of minorities, by the working classes themselves, than by their well dressed friends, who are afraid to concede anything, or admit any fault or danger on the democratic side. But it is a real disappointment to find the Daily News as bad on these subjects as if the editor3 were looking out for a seat in parliament.

Lord Amberley’s speech4 is the only one of any promise. He has brains, and is in earnest, and as he is sure of influence, good is likely to come of him.

With our kind regards to all your family I am

TO ROWLAND G. HAZARD1

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

I have been so busy with other subjects that I have not yet been able to read your book on the Will.2 I preferred not to touch it until I could give consecutive attention to it. I have read the greater part of your Essay on Language3 of which the purely metaphysical part pleased me much. The Edition: current; Page: [992] speculations respecting a future state seemed to me to have an imaginative rather than a philosophic interest.

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

TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN1

The delay in acknowledging your kind and interesting letter of Nov. 10 was occasioned by my absence from England, which had prevented me from receiving the sheets of the Christian Examiner which you so obligingly sent. One of the first things I did after my return here was to read them. The paper on Inspiration2 interested me as an exposition of a particular line of thought, but, as you would naturally expect from the nature of my psychological opinions, it did not carry me with it. The political articles I was, as I expected to be, much pleased with; and it gave me great pleasure that you should have thought my miscellaneous essays worthy of so highly complimentary a judgment.3 The article ‘Democracy on Trial’4 I am almost certain that I received, and quite certain that if I received it I read it, and thought highly of it, having always done so of everything political which I have read in the “Examiner”. In the third edition of my “Representative Government” just published, I have corrected the omission to notice the democratic municipal system of the New England States.5

It is almost superfluous now, to congratulate you on the progress of events. A triumphant end of the war seems not only certain but as near at Edition: current; Page: [993] hand as is perhaps consistent with that complete regeneration of the political feeling and thought of the country, to which I have always looked forward as its result. The present attitude of the Free States with respect to slavery was worth buying at even a greater price than has been paid for it; since it is the removal not only of a stain but of a moral incubus, and is likely to be the starting point of a moral progress not inferior to the prodigious material expansion which will be hereafter dated from the annihilation of negro slavery. I am Dear Sir

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

As you supposed, your letter of Jan. 24 had not reached me when I last wrote to you, but it has been sent from Avignon since. I am much obliged to you for the trouble you have taken to get information respecting the rate of profit in the U. States, but I fear it is next to impossible to obtain any conclusive evidence on the subject. There is no more difficult point to ascertain in the whole field of statistics. The scientific question remains as great a puzzle to me as ever. Hitherto I have left the passage of my Pol. Economy exactly as it was; but I shall have to alter it more or less in the proof sheet.2

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

Respecting the cost of transferring land in France I can speak from my own experience. The mere law expenses are very trifling. The only important expense is the tax, i.e. the duty on reggistration, which is at present somewhere about 7½ per cent, but this includes a décime-de-guerre, and the whole or half of another—which do not profess to be permanent, though there is considerable danger that one of them at least will become so. The second décime is that which Louis Napoleon made a demonstration of taking off on the Edition: current; Page: [994] termination as he thought, or pretended to think, of the Mexican war.3 The upshot was the taking off of half of it only, but whether immediately or prospectively, and whether the reduction has yet taken effect, I cannot say.

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

I am delighted that you now agree with me on the question of American separation. D^r Brown Séquard’s opinions4 do not surprise me, both because the scientific class have been very generally on the right side of the American question, and because the actual sight of America generally corrects prejudices which 19 times out of 20 are the effect of pure ignorance. It is such things as this which gauge the depth of British ignorance on all matters whatever outside of this island. What wonder that people are ignorant of America, when they are equally ignorant, & equally ignorant of their ignorance, as to Ireland? I agree with you in thinking Goldwin Smith entirely wrong in the object of his last two letters.5

The last number of the Reader is a little better. Since you have begun to write in it,6 the political writing will improve.

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

TO JOHN CHAPMAN1

I return the Lancet2 with many thanks. This additional instance of the value of your discovery must be highly gratifying to you.

I have put into the first page of the second article on Comte a sentence respecting Mr Bridges’ translation, but without including it in the list at the head of the article, which is confined to original works.3 I see no reason against its being noticed in the small print at the end of the Review.4 You will have my second article by that time, and will be able to avoid as far as necessary any inconsistency between that and the notice. The Discours Préliminaire which Mr Bridges has translated, gives the pith of Comte’s later speculations free from some of their grosser absurdities, and in a form better adapted than any other of his later works for the information and edification of English readers.

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

TO JOHN PLUMMER1

I am afraid you have thought me very negligent in not having sooner acknowledged your last two letters, but having at the time nothing important Edition: current; Page: [996] to communicate, I put off writing till I could tell you that we have returned, and shall be happy to see you here at any time when you are in London.

I saw “Charlie in Australia”2 and thought it extremely good. I always take the greatest interest in all you do, and shall hope to hear more from you, when I see you, about the controversy in the Daily Telegraph3 of which I heard something but which my absence prevented me from seeing. I am Dear Sir

TO HENRY FAWCETT1

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

TO WILLIAM LONGMAN1

I am quite satisfied with as much of your proposal as relates to the 8000 copies;2 but when we talked together on the subject I understood Edition: current; Page: [997] that a period was to be fixed after which the plates would revert to me. Nothing was said about destroying them; & were I to agree to that part of your proposal I sh^d be no longer a free agent, unless under the condition of making new plates, the cost & risk of which it would require another 8000 copies to remunerate. I would suggest in preference, that if after the first 8000 are sold the demand should still continue, we should for a further period (to be now fixed)3 go on at half profit & that on the expiration of this further term (whether determined by years or by number of copies) the plates sh^d be at my disposal.

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

TO MAX KYLLMANN1

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

With regard to the other subject of your letter; I quite agree with you that no Reform Bill which we are likely to see for some time to come, will be worth moving hand or foot for. But with respect to the manhood suffrage Edition: current; Page: [998] movement, & the question of my taking part in it, I have long since determined that I would on no account whatever aid any attempt to make the suffrage universal to men, unless the inclusion of women were distinctly & openly proclaimed as a substantive part of the design. There are only two things worth working for—a practical result or a principle: if a practical result it sh^d be one which is attainable; if a principle, not to go the whole length of it is to sacrifice it. I look upon agitation for manhood as distinguished from universal suffrage as decidedly mischievous. The exceptionally enlightened leaders, mentioned in your letter may not intend, in claiming half, to deny the whole; but such is the power of words, that every time the phrase manhood suffrage is publicly pronounced, save in contempt or execration, an additional rivet is added to the chain of half the human species. It is to be remembered, too, that universal suffrage was the expression formerly used by all radicals, & that it was withdrawn & manhood suffrage substituted precisely because the wider expression had been criticised as including women. To adopt a phrase which has no other reason of existence than that it excludes them, would be, in my opinion, to betray the principle & at the same time, to make a retrograde step.

When any portion or body of the working classes chooses as its programme a reading & writing (or rather writing and cyphering) qualification, adult instead of manhood suffrage & Hare’s system, I will gladly give to such a noble scheme all the help I possibly can. Do not suppose that my opinion about plural voting2 would be any obstacle. I put that in abeyance, first because I would accept universal suffrage, & gladly too, without it (though not without Hare’s system) & next because Buxton has smashed plural voting for years to come by associating it with property,3 a thing I have always protested against & would on no account consent to. Plural voting by right of education I sh^d not mind defending to any assemblage of working men in the kingdom. But though I would always speak my mind on it, it would be no bar to my cooperating. But on adult suffrage I can make no compromise.

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

The Baden minister whom I referred to must be well known to you—Prof. Mohl of Heidelberg,4 who advocated Hare’s plan by articles in the Zeit of Frankfort. Mr Hare has the papers.

The two French authorities whom I mentioned are Louis Blanc5 (of course) & Laboulaye.6

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

TO WILLIAM LONGMAN1

I accept your proposal of five years2 & shall be glad to receive a draft of the agreement.

I saw Mr. Buckle yesterday & he will send me the MSS. immediately.3

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

I am glad that you were enabled to hear through Mr Hare of the cause of my not having sent you the immediate answer you asked for. It is very honourable to Mr Beal2 and his friends to have proposed so good a mode of selecting a candidate,3 and to be willing to take upon themselves in the manner Edition: current; Page: [1000] you describe, all the trouble of his election. As regards myself, my only course, for the present, is to do exactly what you intend doing, namely to wait and see if anything further comes of the proposal.

TO HARRIET GROTE1

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

We arrived at home well, and much the better for our three days with you2—and Helen sends her love and thanks for the pleasant visit.

With kind regards to Mr Grote

TO JOHN CHAPMAN1

I inclose a note which I have received from Lord Amberley. His articles in the North British Review, on Tests,2 and on the Report of the (Public Schools) Education Commissioners,3 have shewn real capacity both of thinking and writing, and I am very glad that he wishes to write for the Westminster. He has talent and earnestness, and there is no young man coming forward in public life on whom I build so much hope.

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

TO HERBERT SPENCER1

I will certainly attend the meeting on Tuesday2 & will gladly cooperate with you in attempting to effect a radical reform in the conduct of the Reader. It has hitherto been an entire disappointment to me, nothing whatever having been done to fulfil the expectations held out—& had I not supposed that the existing arrangements must be only temporary & that the final ones were not yet installed, I should not have allowed so much time to elapse without a strenuous remonstrance. The idea is ridiculous that such a set of men as had been got together shd have given their money to establish such a wretched thing as, with the exception of the scientific department, this has hitherto been. The only chance evidently is that Mr Pollock shd be induced to resign all concern in the editorship. I shd think there could be no difficulty in finding a successor. I dare say Professor Cairnes would undertake it if asked, though he is very unlikely to put himself forward—if he would, I know no one who would be better qualified & I know him to be most desirous that the Reader shd be made what we thought it was meant to be, a real organ of advanced opinions, political & social as well as philosophical.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

Your two letters, with their inclosures, arrived in time; the former of them only just in time. Mr Pim’s remarks,2 as you anticipated, do not change any Edition: current; Page: [1002] of my opinions, but they have enabled me to correct one or two inaccuracies, not so much of fact as of expression. On reading the proofs of the new matter I have inserted respecting Ireland3 for most of which I am indebted to you, and in which consequently your name is mentioned, I feel unwilling that it should see the light without your imprimatur. I have therefore taken the liberty of sending you by this post the two sheets of which it forms a part, and I shall not have them struck off until I hear from you that you do not object to anything they contain. Any addition or improvement you may kindly suggest will be most welcome.

The American information is very valuable, and I can hardly be thankful enough to Mr Ashworth4 and to his Boston correspondent for the trouble they have taken and the service they have done me. I beg you will convey to Mr Ashworth my grateful acknowledgements. From their statements it is clear that the ordinary notion of the extravagantly high rate of profit in the U. States is an exaggeration, and there seems some doubt whether the rate is at all higher than in England. But that does not resolve the puzzle, as even equality of profits, in the face of the higher cost of labour, indicated by higher money wages, is as paradoxical as superiority. This is the scientific difficulty I mentioned, and I cannot yet see my way through it. I have framed a question for the purpose of bringing it before the P. Ec. Club, which will perhaps be discussed at the April meeting & if not, at the July.5 I hope you may be present in either case. You were greatly missed on Friday last. Had not I shone in plumes borrowed from you, we should not have made much of it, and I regretted your absence the more, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was present, and spoke.6

The American news is better and better. With regard to the chances of a war between the U. S. and this country, the calamity would be so immense that the bare possibility of it is enough to cause anxiety, but that there is any real danger of it I do not believe. This country will give no cause of quarrel which international law recognises, and the deeprooted respect of the Americans for law and judicial tribunals is a very strong ground of reliance in the last resort. I attach no importance at all to any general impression in this country that there will be war. It is, to my thinking, a mere expression of the state of mind of people who, under the teaching of the Times and D^r Mackay,7 never allowed themselves to imagine that the North could succeed, and consequently Edition: current; Page: [1003] let loose their tongues in the certainty, as they thought, of complete impunity, and now having come to perceive that their precious protégés are beaten, and anxious to buy off war with the North by war with Europe, they are frightened, and cry “What is to become of us.” If all they are in the habit of saying of democracy were true, they might be right. But those who hate democracy most do not at all understand its characteristic weaknesses: one of which is that the outward signs of public opinion are at the absolute command of professional excitement-makers, to which category most of the journalists and nearly all the politicians in the U. S. belong. Accordingly all the politicians, even the President’s own cabinet, are in the daily habit of bidding high for the good word of these people, who are lords and masters of their momentary estimation; but when things grow serious, the President with his responsibility, and the Northern and Western farmers with their simple honesty, come forth and trample out the nonsense, which therefore never tells on serious public transactions, though making a very formidable appearance in spoken and written words.

I much regret to hear that you have been obliged to suspend what you were writing on the land question.—The affairs of the Reader8 seem to have reached a crisis. I am going to a meeting of the proprietors on Tuesday to help Spencer in attempting to upset the present arrangements. I will write to you immediately afterwards.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

I have just received notice that the Reader meeting2 is put off till Tuesday the 21^st, to accommodate “many of the shareholders who are anxious to attend.” This is of good augury.

Many thanks for the Belfast paper. The article3 is so good that I should have supposed it to be yours but for the words you wrote across the concluding paragraph. Was that paragraph an editorial addition? Or was the article not yours at all?

TO JOHN CHAPMAN1

I returned on Friday the revise of the article on Comte. I suppose it would be rather more than less convenient to you to let me have the separate copies before the Review is out, and I should like to send it at once to M. Littré,2 who has promised to get it translated.3 If you have no objection, I will ask you to do me the additional favour of requesting the publisher to send some of the copies to certain persons whose addresses I will send,4 postage and all expenses being at my charge. All except the copies to M. Littré can, if you prefer it, be delayed until after publication.

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

Shall I say anything from you to Lord Amberley?5

TO HERBERT SPENCER1

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

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

TO JAMES BEAL1

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

To be the representative of West^r is an honour to which no one can be insensible, & to have been selected as worthy of that honour by a body like that in whose name you write not only without solicitation but without my being personally known to them either in a public or private capacity is a very signal one indeed.2 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.3 It is an example deserving to be imitated by all popular constituencies & worthy of the rank which belongs historically to Westminster as the head & front of the Reform party.

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

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

Again, my only object in Parliament would be to promote my opinions. What these are, on nearly all the political questions in which the public feel Edition: current; Page: [1006] any interest, is before the world: & until I am convinced that they are wrong, these & no others are the opinions that I must act on. I am ready to give any further explanation of them that might be wished for, & sh^d I be elected I would freely state to my constituents whenever desired, the votes I intend to give, & my reasons for them. But I could give no other pledge. If the electors are sufficiently satisfied with my opinions as they are, to be willing to give me a trial, I would do my best to serve those opinions & would in no case disguise my intentions or my motives from those to whom I should be indebted for the opportunity.

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

Whatever be the result as regards myself, allow me to express the hope that your recommendation to the electors will not be limited to two names. To obtain the best representative & even, if only to ensure success against the powerful local influence which is already in the field,4 it seems plainly desirable to give the electors the widest possible choice among all persons, willing to serve, who would worthily represent the advanced liberal & reforming party. Several eminent persons have been mentioned, whom it would be highly desirable to give the electors an opportunity of selecting if they please. Edition: current; Page: [1007] Sir J. Romilly5 is in the number of these, & would, in every way, do honour to your choice. Mr Chadwick would be one of the most valuable members who could be chosen by any constituency; & besides the many important public questions on which he is one of the first authorities, he is peculiarly qualified to render those services in connexion with your local business which it would not, in general, be possible for me to perform. The admirable mode of selection which you have adopted will not have fair play unless you bring before the consideration of the electors the whole range of choice, among really good candidates, which lies within their reach. It will not be inferred from your placing any particular person on the list, that you consider him the best. Some will prefer one & some another; & those who are preferred by the greatest number of electors would alone be nominated.

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

I am Dear Sir very sincerely & respectfully yours

TO LORD AMBERLEY1

D^r Chapman writes to me that he should be very glad to have you as a contributor,2 but that he would prefer political to theological articles; not that he thinks your articles “would be less able if theological,” but because he is disposed to lessen the quantity of theological and increase that of scientific matter in the Review. I do not think this need affect you practically in any way. The greatest utility of the Westminster Review is that it is willing to print bolder opinions on all subjects than the other periodicals: and when you feel moved to write anything that is too strong for other Reviews, you will generally be able to get it into the Westminster. The fact is, Chapman is Edition: current; Page: [1008] stronger in theological contributors than in political, and would like to be strengthened where he is weakest.

I see no reason against your offering him what you have written on Political Economy,3 unless you prefer to publish it in a more substantive and permanent form.

With best wishes for your success at Leeds, I am

TO JOHN CHAPMAN1

Thanks for your note. I have written to Lord Amberley the part of its substance which concerns him.2

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

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

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

Monsieur Auguste Picard,3 Place Coste Belle, Avignon, France.

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

George Grote Esq. 12 Savile Row

Professor Bain, Aberdeen

Herbert Spencer Esq. 88 Kensington Gardens Square

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

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

Professor Cairnes, 74 Lower Mount Street, Dublin

Max Kyllmann Esq. Greenbank Fallowfield, Manchester

Viscount Amberley, 40 Dover Street

in all 14, leaving 6 copies for the author.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

I thank you sincerely for your further favours in regard to my Political Economy. I have sent your new matter to press, and have profited to the full by your observations on what I had myself written. I am indebted to you for nearly all which will give to that chapter of the book,2 any present value.

Your solution of the difficulty as to American profits3 is perfectly scientific, and was the one which had occurred to myself. As far as it goes, I fully admit it; but my difficulty was, and still is, in believing that there can be so great a difference between the cost of obtaining the precious metals in America and in England, as to make the enormous difference which seems to exist in money wages, consistent with a difference the contrary way in the cost of labour. It is impossible to approfondir the subject in time for the present edition. I have contented myself, therefore, with qualifying the opinion I had previously expressed,4 so as to leave the subject open for further inquiry.

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

I am very glad that there is another writer in Ireland besides yourself, who writes such excellent articles on America as the one you sent me.5

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

TO GEORGE GROTE1

I have finished the first volume of the Plato,2 not so quickly as I expected, having been very much taken off by an unusual press of occupations, especially that of correcting several sets of proofs at once. As far as this volume reaches, the book so completely fulfils my hopes—the things said seem so exactly those which it was good to say, and which required saying—that I see little else for me to do in reviewing it,3 than to try to condense into a few pages the general results. I look forward with the greatest pleasure to your account of the longer and more important dialogues; more important, I mean, in point of doctrine. The character, scope, and value of the purely dialectic or peirastic dialogues are already as completely brought out as can be done even by yourself in the subsequent volumes. Your general conception of Plato, and your view of the Platonic Canon, seems to me completely inexpugnable.

You will receive in a day or two a separate copy of the first of my articles on Comte, though the Review containing it will not be published till the first of next month. Littré is going to get the article translated and published in France.4

With our kind regards to Mrs Grote, believe me

TO HERBERT SPENCER1

Dr Chapman will send to you in the course of a day or two a copy of an article of mine on Comte, which is to be published in the forthcoming Westminster. In forming an estimate of him, I have necessarily come into collision Edition: current; Page: [1011] with some of your opinions2—a thing for which I should never think of apologising to you or any other advanced thinker: but it has so happened that though our points of agreement very greatly exceed in number and importance those of difference, the latter are those respecting which, accidentally, most has been said to the public, on my side at least. What I have now written, however, will give a very false impression of my feelings, if it raises any idea but that of minor differences of opinion between allies and fellow-combatants. In a larger volume3 which I shall soon have the pleasure of offering to you, there will be little or nothing to qualify the expression of the very high value I attach to your philosophical labours.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

From your letter, which came this morning, I am afraid you never received a short note which I wrote to you, to the effect that the “Reader” meeting was postponed to next Tuesday, the 21^st, at the wish of many shareholders who desired to attend.2 I am very sorry that there is no chance of your being present. The fons malorum appears to be, that after it had been arranged that there should be five departmental editors, the publishers thought it necessary that there should be a general one and this title was consequently given to Mr F. Pollock; who, contrary [to] the intention and understanding of some at least of the shareholders has assumed a control over all the departments. The object ought to be to get Mr Pollock out—but to do this, it will be necessary to put somebody else in. Now, would you allow me (in case the discussion renders it necessary or expedient) to say that you would be willing to accept the position of Editor? I know of no one connected with the Reader Edition: current; Page: [1012] who would be equally fit, and I am not aware if any other is inclined, as you have told me that you are, to give a considerable part of his time to the Reader. You may rely on me for not letting it appear as if you had sought the position, knowing as I do that you have not: I will take the whole responsibility of the proposal on myself. But I should like to be able to say that I have reason to think that you would not refuse.

I am sorry to find that I have no chance of seeing you before I go abroad, as I shall go before Easter. The question on the rate of interest is luckily postponed, and will, I suppose, come on in July.3

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

TO THOMAS BAYLEY POTTER1

Nothing can, to my estimation, be more desirable than that you should take an active part in the projected Reform Conference (the London Conference).2 It is of vast importance that any great public cause should be taken up by men who are not (in the phraseology of the great English revolution) self-seekers; and you, having been at the head of a valuable popular organisation,3 would very probably be urged to render a similar office to the new one which it is proposed to form. Of course the Edition: current; Page: [1013] desirableness of your doing so depends on the goodness of the object which the organisation is meant to promote; and on this no one can judge for you but yourself. For my own part, I could not presume to advise on what it would be right for you to do, since I do not sufficiently know your opinions on the particular points on which Radical reformers differ. I can only respond to your very flattering confidence by saying what I should think it right to do myself in this or any similar case.

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

On the other hand, I consider an educational qualification, to the extent of reading and writing (I would even add ciphering) indispensable. It is to be hoped that before long, this restriction will no longer exclude anybody; and I could have no adults excluded on any other ground. But adult suffrage is not complete unless minorities have their fair share of representation. If 50,000 electors have to elect five members, it is not fair and equal representation that 30,000 of them should be able, by outvoting the others, to elect all five. The 30,000 are only entitled to three members and the remaining 20,000 to two. This is not, as is sometimes pretended, a proposal made for the purpose of defeating democracy. On the contrary it is positively required by democratic principles. Democracy is not the exclusive rule of the greater number and the virtual disfranchisement of the rest, but the equal representation of all; majorities returning a majority, and minorities a minority. Mr. Hare’s admirable plan is the best that has been proposed for securing the equal representation of minorities, and would incidentally attain many other important objects. It is, as I hear, making some way among the intelligent leaders of the working classes at Manchester.4 I should not, however, make that particular plan a sine qua non; but the acknowledgement of the principle, that minorities ought to be represented in proportion to their numbers, seems to me indispensable to show that the working classes are willing to allow the same justice to others which they claim for themselves. In the present state of the constituencies, the working-classes would themselves benefit by it. And it is hardly possible to exaggerate the moral effect that would be produced Edition: current; Page: [1014] in favour of them and their cause, by such a proof that they do not aim at merely substituting one class ascendency for another, but demand for every class a hearing, and such influence as it is entitled to.

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

Lastly, I could not support the ballot.

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

I thank you very sincerely for your kind invitation; but I do not feel called on to attend the conference.5 I think that I can probably do more good as an isolated thinker, forming and expressing my opinions independently, than by associating myself with any collective movement, which, in my case, would almost always imply putting some of my opinions in abeyance. Your position is different, and you seem to me to be, in a manner, called (if you will allow me the expression) to take part in such movements, and endeavour to direct them to right objects.

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

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

TO HERBERT SPENCER1

I never doubted that we agreed—feeling as we do—in theory as well as in our practice, as to the free expression of differences of opinion, & my reason for mentioning the subject to you at all2 was merely to guard against your supposing that I like to bring forward my differences with you rather than my much more numerous & more important agreements.

Mr. Pollock’s refusal of remuneration for editorship deserves respect as well as thankful recognition, but as it does not render him an exponent of the opinions or wishes of the subscribers, or at least of such among them as agree with ourselves, it cannot affect the substance of what they have to do.3 As for the manner, doubtless no one would wish to make it other than the least unpleasant possible.

TO GEORGE GROTE1

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

TO LORD AMBERLEY1

I have taken the liberty of sending you a copy of the new edition of Mr Hare’s treatise,2 as, even if you have read the book, I think you will be Edition: current; Page: [1016] interested by the excellent new preface, and perhaps also by the documents in the Appendix, shewing the progress of his idea on the Continent, in the United States, and in our colonies.

I congratulate you warmly on your last speech at Leeds3 (in this morning’s Daily News). It deserved to make, as it seems to have made, a great impression and must be wormwood to those who congratulated themselves on the check which they thought you had received.

With our kind regards to Lady Amberley, I am

TO [HENRY PITMAN]1

In consequence of what you wrote to me concerning the Wolverhampton Platelock Workers,2 and of the additional information I have received from that excellent friend of Co-operation, Mr. Kyllmann, respecting the system they have adopted (which seems to be a very thoughtful one, and one of the most favourable to the workers which has yet been started), I am now convinced that they ought to be supported against the attempt to ruin them by unfair competition. . . .

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

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

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL1

Permettez-moi de vous prier de vouloir bien envoyer la lettre ci-jointe, après l’avoir lue, à Duveyrier2 dont je ne sais pas l’adresse actuelle.

Aurons-nous bientôt la suite de votre travail sur les Evangiles?3 Si la seconde partie vaut la première sa valeur sera grande. J’attends avec un vif intérêt votre opinion sur les écrits attribués à Saint-Jean.

Veuillez me rappeler au bon souvenir de votre frère,

TO WILLIAM TODD1

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

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

The Reader meeting took place yesterday afternoon,2 and after a three hours debate, it was adjourned to Wednesday April 5^th, when the question will be decided, whether to wind up the concern, or to conduct it in a totally Edition: current; Page: [1018] different manner. Mr Pollock, who has edited it up to the present time, and some others of the Directors were for selling the paper, since as it had, in their opinion, deserved success, they thought the experiment had been well tried and had failed. But the opinion that it had not been well tried, was that of a large majority, including Spencer, Huxley, Tyndal[l], and the better part of the subscribers generally; and the manifestation of this opinion on their part, induced Mr Pollock to resign the editorship. There is a fortnight in which to determine whether and how the paper can be carried on. Spencer is full of hope and confidence, saying that the obstacle is removed, that we shall now be unanimous, and that it will be carried on in our own way. He and his supporters certainly have the right notion of how to carry it on; that it should have decided opinions, that they should be those of advanced liberalism, political, scientific, and theological, and that one of the objects should be (as Huxley said) to carry the scientific spirit into politics. The financial affairs seem to have been as much mismanaged as everything else, but they are not, in the opinion of those present, irretrievable: when all retrenchments are made, the concern will not be losing more than £6 a week, and the opinion is, that if the eight shares which have not been assigned, are taken up as it is thought that they may be, on the footing of preference shares, this and the £10 still due on the old shares will enable the experiment to be tried long enough to give it a chance of success. A good deal has been lost in money, and I should think, in reputation by what Huxley called our false start; but he and the rest think it is not too late to retrieve it. If they succeed between this and April 5 in organizing the management, both in the business and in the writing department, as well as they think they can, I shall be disposed to give them all the little help which is consistent with my occupations. I need hardly say of how great importance your cooperation would be, even if only as a writer, and much more if you would still be willing to take charge of a department.

I have again gone through your exposition of profits in the papers you so kindly took the trouble of writing for me; and I think, as before, that your mode of putting the doctrine is very good as one among others, and that there is no difference of opinion between us.3 I still, however, prefer my own mode of statement, for reasons which it would be long to state, and which I have not time at present to reconsider from the foundations. I am inclined to think that the real solution of the difficulty, and the only one it admits of, Edition: current; Page: [1019] has been given by myself in a subsequent place, Book III, ch. xix, 2 (vol. ii. p. 156 of the fifth edition.)4

Your anxieties about the mischief makers on the subject of America must have been a good deal relieved by the debate in which Disraeli and the other Tories vied with the Liberals in disclaiming all idea of the probability of war,5 and of any conduct on the part of the United States which could produce or justify it. Both the Times and the Saturday Review have backed out of what they said on the probability of war.6 I am Dear Sir

TO HENRY FAWCETT1

I have sent to you through Thornton the Appeal of the Wolverhampton Plate Lock Cooperators,2 and Pitman’s and Kyllmann’s letters on their case. They appear to me preeminently entitled to support. What is the way in which we can best help them? For myself I mean to write them a letter and send them a subscription, but any pecuniary help will be a mere drop in the bucket unless some portion of the public can be induced to join in it. The best way I can think of is that some one should write a letter to the Spectator (which from its connexion with Ludlow and Maurice, is likely to be favourable) and invite subscriptions;3 in which case we ought to send in a few names to commence with. If you agree in this, should you be willing to write such a letter with your name to it? And do you think you could get a few subscribers’ names? Thornton will be one. If you are disposed to do this, and will let me know, I will at once endeavour to get a few names. I am

TO THOMAS JONES1

I beg to inclose a subscription of £10 to aid, as far as such a sum can do it, in the struggle which the Cooperative Plate Lock makers of Wolverhampton are sustaining against unfair competition on the part of the masters in the trade.2 Against fair competition I have no desire to shield them. Cooperative production carried on by persons whose hearts are in the cause, & who are capable of the energy & self denial always necessary in its early stages ought to be able to hold its ground against private establishments; and persons who have not those qualities had better not attempt it. But to carry on business at a loss in order to ruin competitors is not fair competition. In such a contest, if prolonged, the competitors who have the smallest means, though they may have every other element of success, must necessarily be crushed through no fault of their own. I am now convinced that they ought to be supported against the attempt to ruin them. Having the strongest sympathy with your vigorous attempt to make head against what in such a case may justly be called the tyranny of capital I beg you to send me a dozen copies of your printed appeal to assist me in making the case known to such persons as it may interest in your favour.

TO THOMAS HARE1

I was very glad to see your Appeal in the Daily News.2 It will, no doubt, have been read by some persons with profit. But the editor has not afforded the opportunity I hoped for, of a “rejoinder” to comments of his own on your paper. Without something like controversy to give interest and attract readers, an attempt to press the subject further by more letters in the paper at the present time would, I think, be lost labour. You no doubt feel with me, Edition: current; Page: [1021] that nothing ought to be more avoided than accustoming people to regard the subject as a bore. Our best chance of being able to do anything at present, lies in the proposed Social Science meeting3—the way for which ought to be prepared by a previous circulation of your paper, in a separate form, among selected persons. But the time of year is an obstacle to the meeting, unless it could be held at the end of the week after next, immediately after your return; Passion Week, I suppose, would be objected to; and in the fortnight following, many whose attendance might otherwise be hoped for, will be out of town. I myself would willingly put off my departure for days, but to postpone it for weeks would deprive my year of its spring. And I doubt if a meeting in May would have any very material advantage over one in July. This, however, is in the hands of those who are much better judges of the expediences than I can be.

Many thanks for your kindness about Lord Russell’s book.4 We got it from the Library, on the day on which we received your note. I have read the Introduction, and been much struck with its pompous emptiness, and the mental feebleness which it shews.

TO JOHN PLUMMER1

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

TO LOUIS BLANC1

Je viens de recevoir la lettre ci-jointe,2 qui, comme vous verrez, vous regarde. Je crois devoir vous l’envoyer afin que la demande qu’elle contient, un peu présomptueuse à mon sens, ait la chance quelconque que votre bonté pourra lui donner.

Je vois avec plaisir qu’on annonce quelque chose de vous sur l’Angleterre.3 Que ce soit une réimpression de vos articles du Temps, ou quelque chose de nouveau, sera toujours un plaisir pour vos lecteurs et une chose utile aux deux pays.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN1

Many thanks for the copies,2 which arrived safely this morning. I regret to hear of your friend’s illness, and hope I may understand from your letter that it is proceeding favourably.

TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN1

Your note, received today, would have reminded me, if I had forgotten, that I have another communication of yours still to acknowledge. I have just Edition: current; Page: [1023] read it again for the fourth or fifth time, and find a great deal of meaning in it. To understand it entirely I must wait for your promised paper.2 But I have little doubt that you will find out, and make intelligible at all events to psychologists, whatever there is to be found out in that direction.

I hope you have good accounts from your son.3 The Mediterranean, with the exception perhaps of Rome, is certainly ill suited for irritable respiratory organs. It is bad for the bronchitis which usually accompanies consumption. When, as sometimes happens, the pulmonary disorder is unaccompanied with bronchial irritability, then, I believe, the dry sharp air of such places as Nice, Naples, &c. is beneficial, by its bracing effect on the system generally. But that is not the common case.

Your conjecture about the original meaning of the word Compliment4 reminds me of the way in which it occurs in the English translations of the letters of Indian princes and nobles to the Governor General of India. These translations always begin with the words “After Compliments” which are the equivalent of a long string of high sounding ceremonial phrases in the original, which, as being matters of course in formal Asiatic correspondence, may well be dismissed under the general denomination of “fillings up.”

TO HARRIET ISABELLA MILL1

I return the legal document, which seems quite unobjectionable so far as I am concerned, and I am quite ready to sign it. If this could be done not later than the 10th of April it would be convenient as I shall probably go abroad Edition: current; Page: [1024] on the 11th. The interpretation you put upon the reservation of certain lands is probably the true one.

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

TO LORD AMBERLEY1

I hope that a copy of Mr Hare’s book,2 as well as of my paper on Comte, has been forwarded to you from Dover Street:3 They were sent there before I knew exactly where to address you in Gloucestershire.

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

TO JOHN CHAPMAN1

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

I suppose there is some one who makes himself acquainted for you with what the newspapers and periodicals say about the Review. If there should Edition: current; Page: [1025] be anything said about the Comte article, either in praise or dispraise, that is worth my seeing, I should feel obliged by your keeping it for me, as it may be useful hereafter in revising the article for separate publication.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

Your proposed letter2 is very good as to substance, but I think it would be much improved by some alterations in form, and especially in the order of the topics. It would be made much more effective by going at once in medias res, saying first of all who are the persons addressing the electors, and what they want the electors to do, and then giving the reasons. I have put upon paper, rather hastily and roughly, how I think the letter might run. Of course it is a mere suggestion, to be dealt with in any manner that you, or Mr Beal think fit.

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

I am very glad to hear that Mr Westerton3 has declared for you. I am much more desirous that you should be elected than that I should.

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

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

The Reader meeting yesterday was satisfactory.2 Huxley and Tyndall have made all the arrangements; the editor is to be a Mr Rae,3 a barrister, who wrote the article on Taine in the January number of the Westminster Review,4 and who, Huxley says, is a strong liberal, and bent upon making the paper a liberal organ. The editorial and all other literary expenses are placed on a very moderate scale, and Mr Rae’s pay is to be credited as payment on two shares in the paper, which he is to take. The other deficient shares (all but three) are either taken, or expected to be taken immediately. All business expenses will be reduced as much as is consistent with efficiency, and so that the present receipts (if not diminished by a further falling off in the advertisements) will cover them. Spencer is elected a Director in the room of Pollock, and he and others mean for the present to write as much as they can in the paper. It is perfectly understood that original articles of any kind will be received as well as reviews, and that signing, either by name or initials, will be rather encouraged than otherwise. The greatest drag is, that no fewer than 32 reviews, actually accepted, are on hand: but though all these must be paid for there are hopes that only the best of them will be used. I therefore think that the prospects of making the paper a useful organ are now as good as they seemed to be at first. Mr Hughes5 was very particular in his enquiries after you, and desired me to tell you that he hopes to see you as soon as you arrive in London. He thinks your cooperation of the greatest possible value, and hopes that you will be able to write a good deal; the more, as most of the others are so very much occupied. For myself, I think that success will depend more on your cooperation than on anything else. You will now (I think) be well supported, but there is need of some one, capable of writing well on great subjects, who will stick to the thing and write regularly, and I hope it may suit you to do so.

In case this Westminster movement should come to anything, which I cannot bring myself to think at all probable, it will be a great encouragement to me that you express a deliberate and well considered opinion in favour of the desirableness of my being in Parliament. However this may be, there is something very encouraging in the enthusiasm which has been excited, both in Edition: current; Page: [1027] Westminster and elsewhere, not simply for me, but for the opinion respecting the proper position of a candidate, which I expressed in my letter.6 You would be surprised at some of the people who have come forward unasked to offer subscriptions merely from reading the letter. What do you think of Howell and James7 offering £50, Fortnum and Mason of Piccadilly,8 I believe the same sum, Debenhams9 the auctioneers £100, two brothers, wine merchants in Bond Street another £100? The greatest pleasure which public life could give me would be if it enabled me to shew that more can be accomplished by supposing that there is reason and good feeling in the mass of mankind than by proceeding on the ordinary assumption that they are fools and rogues.

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

TO HARRIET ISABELLA MILL1

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

TO RICHARD HOLT HUTTON1

I have had great pleasure in hearing from Mr Hughes, this morning, that you are disposed to help the Wolverhampton Plate Lock workers,2 and that Edition: current; Page: [1028] you wish to be able to state that I am among their supporters. I sent them a subscription some days ago, with a letter, a copy of which I inclose, as it will shew on what principle my desire that pecuniary help should be given them, is grounded. I should mention that Mr Pitman intends to publish this letter in the next number of the Cooperator.3

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

The subscriptions I have as yet collected are

TO THOMAS BAYLEY POTTER1

Though I have good reason for sympathising in your personal disinclination to go into Parliament, having the same feeling myself, I cannot help being very glad, on public grounds, that there is a prospect of your being elected for Rochdale.2 And if this takes place, in spite of your professing opinions in advance of the general state of opinions among reformers, there will be the more reason for satisfaction.

I have no objection whatever to the publication of my letter.3 Its association with the last thing Mr. Cobden ever wrote will give it a melancholy interest.

TO HERBERT SPENCER1

I have written to Mr Lubbock2 to express my great satisfaction at his being a candidate, and the pleasure it would give me to be of any use to him. One of whom you express so high an opinion must be a very desirable member of the advanced liberal party in Parliament or anywhere.

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

TO JOHN PLUMMER1

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

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

With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer I am

TO JOHN CHAPMAN1

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

M. Littré will take care that the translation is not published till after the second article has appeared in the Westminster.2

I leave for Avignon this evening.

TO HENRY FAWCETT1

I have sent the few subscriptions I have received to Mr Hughes, whose letter in last Saturday’s Spectator you have perhaps seen.2 Mr Hughes has also collected a few, and intended handing them over to Mr Hutton, the editor of the Spectator, to be published in next Saturday’s paper.3 I think the best thing you could do with yours would be to send it in a note to the editor, so that it might appear in the same list.

The Social Science meeting went off well,4 and was very full. Lord Stanley presided, and brought out Hare’s strength by good questions. The reports Edition: current; Page: [1031] which I have seen give no idea at all of what was said, but I was glad to see that the Times reporter stated well and clearly the plan itself. Altogether it will have had a lift upwards by the meeting.

I am

TO JAMES BEAL1

I beg leave to acknowledge your communication of the 12^th inst. informing me that at a meeting of Westminster Electors2 it has been resolved to adopt me as a candidate on the terms of my letter of March 7^th & to invite subscriptions to defray the expenses of my election.

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

On this part of the subject, I have only further to express the earnest hope, that in accepting me on the terms of my letter, the Meeting intended to include Edition: current; Page: [1032] in their adhesion the principle of an individual appeal by circular to every elector, laying other names before him as well as mine & requesting him to select from among them or from any others the person or persons whom he would wish to be brought forward as candidates.

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

1. With regard to Reform Bills: I sh^d vote at once both for Mr. Baines’ bill3 & for Mr. Locke King’s,4 & for measures going far beyond either of them. I would open the suffrage to all grown persons, both men & women, who can read, write, & perform a sum in the rule of three, & who have not, within some small number of years, received parish relief. At the same time, utterly abominating all class ascendancy, I would not vote for giving the suffrage in such a manner that any class, even though it be the most numerous, could swamp all other classes taken together. In the first place, I think that all considerable minorities in the country or in a locality should be represented in proportion to their numbers. What other adjustments of the electoral system to an universal or nearly universal suffrage might prove practically the best adapted to secure to every portion of the community its just share of influence, while preventing any class from acquiring an unjust degree of preponderance either by means of property or of numbers, is a question which may be answered in many different ways & which will require much sifting & public discussion before the best can be selected. In the meanwhile I sh^d be prepared to support a measure which would give to the labouring classes a clear half of the national representation.

2. I prefer a mixed system of direct & indirect taxation to either alone. If the attempt were made to raise so large a revenue as ours after all due retrenchments would still be exclusively by direct taxation, I do not know of any taxes, in themselves just, which, under such strong pecuniary temptation, would not be successfully evaded. The evasions of the income tax are already a disgrace to the national morality. I would in no case tax any of the necessaries of life; but if even a working man expends in luxuries for himself, & Edition: current; Page: [1033] especially in stimulants, what is required by the necessities of his family, I think it perfectly just that he sh^d be taxed on such expenditure.

3. Every civilised country is entitled to settle its internal affairs in its own [way], & no other country ought to interfere with its discretion, because one country, even with the best intentions, has no chance of properly understanding the internal affairs of another: but when this indefeasible liberty of an independent country has already been interfered with; when it is kept in subjection by a foreign power, either directly, or by assistance given to its native tyrants, I hold that any nation whatever may rightfully interfere to protect the country against this wrongful interference. I therefore approve the interposition of France in 1859 to free Italy from the Austrian yoke,5 but disapprove the intervention of the same country in 1849 to compel the Pope’s subjects to take back the bad government they had cast off.6 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 Poland7 or of Denmark,8 because on any probable view of consequences I sh^d have expected more evil than good from our doing what, nevertheless, if done would not have been, in my opinion, any violation of international duty.

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

5. Voting for a member of parl^t is a public & political act, which concerns not solely the elector’s individual preferences, but the most important interests of the other electors, of the non-electors, and even of posterity: & my conviction is that in a free country all such acts sh^d be done in the face & subject to the comments & criticisms of the entire public. I wish that the elector sh^d feel an honourable shame in voting contrary to his known opinions, & in not being able to give for his vote a reason which he can avow. The publicity which lets in these salutary influences admits also, unfortunately, some noxious ones; & if I believed that these were now the strongest—if I thought Edition: current; Page: [1034] that the electors of this country were in such a state of hopeless & slavish dependence on particular landlords, employers, or customers, that the bad influences are more than a match for the good ones, & that there is no other means of removing them, I should be, as I once was, a supporter of the ballot. But the voters are not now in this degraded condition: they need nothing to protect them against electoral intimidation but the spirit & courage to defy it. In an age when the most dependent class of all, the labouring class, is proving itself capable of maintaining by combination an equal struggle with the combined power of the masters, I cannot admit that farmers or shopkeepers, if they stand by one another, need despair of protecting themselves against any abuse now possible of the power of landed or other wealth.

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

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

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

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

10. The differences between employers & workpeople which give rise to strikes, are, it appears to me, a subject which wholly escapes the control of legislation. I see nothing which law can do in the matter except to protect from violation the equal liberty of all to combine or to refrain from combining. Edition: current; Page: [1035] After a sufficient trial of each other’s strength, both sides will probably be willing to refer their disputes to arbitration, but even then I do not think that the arbitrators should have power to enforce their decisions by law; because, in such cases as they would usually have to decide, it is impossible to lay down rules of justice & equity which would suit all cases, or would obtain universal assent: & the adjustments must generally be of the nature of compromises, not acting on fixed principles, but each side giving up something for the sake of peace. I do not presume to say that a better rule may not be arrived at in time, but it would be quite premature to act as if it had already been arrived at.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

I have received your note dated the 11th. and Mr Beal’s official announcement of the decision of the Meeting.2 The same post which takes this carries my reply to him, of which I inclose a copy.

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

I have suggested to Longman (as you recommended) that he should advertise in the penny papers,3 weekly as well as daily, and have now written again to recommend his not omitting the Morning Advertiser4—

TO JOHN CHAPMAN1

I shall be very glad to see the article in the Saturday Review,2 as my own copy has been stopped at the French post office; for which reason it will be advisable, if you have not already sent the number, to cut out the article and send it only.

I have always contemplated reprinting the articles on Comte as soon as is consistent with the interest of the Review; and if Mr Trübner3 wishes to be the publisher, no one has so good a claim. We will therefore consider that as settled.

TO JOSHUA FAYLE1

Owing to my absence from England, I have only this morning received your note, and the same cause makes it impossible for me to comply with the request which the Society2 has done me the honour of making.

I regret the delay which will take place in your receiving my answer, but I hope that my letter,3 published in Friday’s papers, may have made you aware of my absence soon enough to prevent any inconvenience. I am

TO WILLIAM E. HICKSON1

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

I did not, I believe, reserve the right of translation as regards the book on Liberty. But I have had two applications from intending translators of it. The first was from my friend Professor Villari of Pisa, author of the Life of Savonarola, and of an enlightened and thoughtful Report on Education in England.2 The second was from Alberto Mario,3 Garibaldi’s Secretary and fellow-combatant, the husband of Madame White Mario. Him I referred to Professor Villari, and as the latter has his time very fully occupied, it is not improbable that he may have given up his project, in favour of Mario. In what state the matter is, I do not know, and I can only suggest, that the gentleman who does me the honour to make a third proposal, should ascertain what are the present intentions of his two predecessors. If they have abandoned their purpose, or desist from it in his favour, I give him the full consent which his politeness induces him to ask, but which he does not, for any legal purpose, require.

Death has indeed been busy lately, and one is continually reminded, if at our age we needed reminding, of our mortality. Cobden4 was perhaps the most perfectly honest man among all English politicians of his time and of anything like his celebrity, for he meant every word that he said. Is the Lucas who has just died,5 the same who wrote so many literary articles in the Times, and who had just started a new Magazine?

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

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

Dr Lankester2 and the others whom you mention, fancy, I suppose, that they would diminish their chance of carrying one candidate by attempting two; in which opinion they might be right if they were proceeding in the old beaten track, and bringing forward a candidate in the commonplace, stupid way. But on the plan which was proposed, of going to the electors with a list of names, it would not be they, but the electors, who would determine to have two new candidates, and would decide who they should be. The Committee would be taking nothing upon themselves but to carry out the declared wishes of a body of electors requiring only organization. I fear from the apparent hanging back from executing this plan, that they have grown cold on the subject, and finding that they are getting praised for proposing me, and for the other honourable features of the case, the exemption from canvassing, pledges, and expense, they are content with that, and do not seek for more. If it is so, it is a great mistake, and an opportunity lost, independently of the great value to public objects, and even specially to Westminster of making you one of its members. But I still hope for better things. As to your own conduct in exerting yourself for my election exactly as if you had no claims of your own, I cannot praise it more highly than by saying that it is like everything else I have seen of your public conduct.

As to my last letter,3 I expected that it would damage my chance. If it does no worse than you seem to think, I shall reckon it wholly a success. I do not see how I could have refused to answer questions about my opinions, put in the very letter which announced the acceptance of me as a candidate. It can only be a small proportion of the electors who have ever looked into my books. But I do not think my answers to questions will admit of being confounded with pledges, especially as several of them are opposed to the general opinion of those who support me. I hope there are many more Tories who will take your Tory friend’s view of women’s votes.

The glorious news from America is dreadfully dashed by the terrible report Edition: current; Page: [1039] about Lincoln.4 The idea of its being true is scarcely endurable—but the cause will not suffer—may even benefit by it, now.

TO GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE1

I have received your two notes & your pamphlet,2 which I think is one of the best of your writings, & well calculated to stir up the thinking minds among the working classes to larger views of political questions. So far as I am myself concerned, I cannot but be pleased to find you in sympathy with some of the most generally unpopular of my political notions. For my own part, I attach for the present more importance to representation of minorities, and especially to Mr Hare’s plan, combined with opening the suffrage to women, than to the plural voting which, in the form proposed by Mr Buxton, of attaching the plurality of votes directly to property,3 I have always strongly repudiated. But I think what you say of it likely to be very useful by impressing on the working people that it is no degradation to them to consider some people’s votes of more value than others. I would always (as you do) couple with the plurality the condition of it being accessible to any one, however poor, who proves that he can come up to a certain standard of knowledge.

TO THEODOR GOMPERZ1

I have delayed thanking you for the first number of your Herculanean series,2 in hopes that I should have been able to say something about the work itself. I have, however, been so busy, that I have not yet had time to do more than read your Preface and Introduction and merely glance at the Greek text. What you say of it, however, proves it to be, at the very least, a highly important and novel contribution to the history of Greek thought, and I look forward with great pleasure to making a real study of it at some not distant time.—But, interesting as such labours are, you are capable of things much more valuable than such mere editorial work. I can not wish that you should leave unfinished what you have so well begun, but I shall be glad when the time comes to which you seemed to be looking forward in your last letter, now some months ago. . . . I hope, before this, you have received the book on Hamilton, and also the first of two articles which I have written on Comte’s philosophy. The second article is in print and I expect to be able to send it to you before it is published in England. I shall be well content if you are half as well pleased with these as you are sure to be with Mr. Grote’s book on Plato. This is nearly all printed, and I have read most of it; and both in point of learning and of thought it comes up to my highest expectations. It can not, I think, fail to produce a great effect in Germany, where the thoroughness of his knowledge of the subject will be much better appreciated than by an unlearned public, which can only take it on trust . . . .

TO WILLIAM LONGMAN1

I noticed the discrepancy between the price mentioned in the agreement & those advertised,2 but supposed that it was intentional & that you Edition: current; Page: [1041] thought it advantageous to begin at once with the lower price. I would make any sacrifice rather than consent to fixing the price of the Pol. Ec. higher than the one announced, as it would look like breaking faith with the public. But I feel the same objection as before to binding myself by a permanent engagement which would prevent the plates from ever returning to me. I am most willing that you should retain as many copies beyond the 8000 as will indemnify you for what you would otherwise lose by your mistake. The loss being 2/6 on each of 4000 copies, 2000 copies additional at 5/- would compensate you for this, but would leave you losers by the paper & press work of the 2000 & for that I am ready to add as many more copies as you think sufficient to indemnify you, leaving the stipulation about the subsequent sale as it already stands, viz, that you should continue to publish the editions at half profit for five years after the sale of the whole number of copies agreed on.

I am glad to hear so good an account of the sale.3 I suppose the 400 copies sold of Hamilton are chiefly the trade subscription.4 The Logic will require an unusual amount of revision for the new edition,5 & I will take it in hand as soon as I can, but as this can hardly be before my next return to England, I will ask you to send the sheets to Blackheath Park rather than here.

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

TO WILLIAM GEORGE WARD1

It is very unlikely that anything you write, however much I may disagree with it, could appear to me either “detestable” or “simply mischievous,”2 I have never read anything of yours in which I have not found much more to Edition: current; Page: [1042] sympathise with than to dislike. . . . [again] the only opposition which I deem injurious to truth is uncandid opposition, and that I have never found yours to be, nor do I believe I ever shall.

TO JOHN PLUMMER1

I am extremely obliged to you for taking the trouble to send me those cuttings, none of which I had seen (except Mr Berkeley’s letter,2 which was also in the Daily News) and most of which it would have been a loss to miss. I have been particularly pleased with the tone in which several of them speak of women’s voting, and of Mr. Hare’s plan.

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

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

With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer I am

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1

I shall be happy to join in any mark of sympathy to the Free States of America, both on their success in their arduous struggle, and on the atrocious Edition: current; Page: [1043] act which has mingled such deep grief with the very hour of triumph. I should think that the initiative would be taken by friends of the cause who are in a position to act more effectually than I could. I should like an address to the American people to be signed by millions.2

TO HENRY SODEN1

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

It is a great compliment to me that my supposed opinions should have had the influence you ascribe to them in Australia.2 But there seems to have been a considerable degree of misunderstanding about what they are. The fault probably lies with myself, in not having explained them sufficiently. I have entered rather more fully into the subject in the new editions published this spring. But, not to give you the trouble of referring to them, I can have no difficulty in saying that I never for a moment thought of recommending or countenancing, in a new colony more than elsewhere, a general protective policy, or a system of duties on imported commodities such as that which has recently passed the representative assembly of your colony. What I had in view was this. If there is some particular branch of industry, not hitherto carried on in the country, but which individuals or associations, possessed of the necessary capital, are ready & desirous to naturalize: & if these persons can satisfy the legislature that after their workpeople are fully trained, & the difficulties of the first introduction surmounted they shall probably be able to produce the article as cheap or cheaper than the price at which it can be Edition: current; Page: [1044] imported, but that they cannot do so without the temporary aid either of a subsidy from the Gov^t or of a protecting duty: Then it may sometimes be a good calculation for the future interests of the country to make a temporary sacrifice, by granting a moderate protecting duty for a certain limited number of years, say ten, or at the very most twenty, during the latter part of which the duty should be on a gradually diminishing scale, & at the end of which it should expire. You see how far this doctrine is from supporting the fabric of Protectionist doctrine, in behalf of which its aid has been invoked.

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

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

TO WILLIAM E. HICKSON1

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

From what you say, the Lucas who is dead2 must be the younger brother of Frederic Lucas. I was slightly acquainted with him formerly, but had lost sight of him. I suppose he died of heart disease like his brother—more fortunate than he in dying without a long illness.

Pray thank Mrs Hickson and Miss Grant3 for their kind remembrances.

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

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL1

Je voudrais bien, mon cher d’Eichthal, pouvoir répondre à votre lettre, comme M. Blackie,2 par une lettre en grec: Πολλου̑ γε καὶ δει̑; ἐπεὶ παντὸς μα̑λλον, ὤ ϕίλε, βουλοίμην ἄν.3 Assurément la nation grecque vous doit de la reconnaissance, ainsi que, en second lieu, à M. Duruy.4 Du reste, elle me semble déjà bien avancée dans le chemin de la restauration grammaticale de son ancienne langue. Jugez de ma satisfaction quand j’ai vu, dans la redaction de sa nouvelle Constitution,5 qu’elle avait repris possession complète du cas datif. Après cela il ne lui reste guère à reprendre que l’infinitif, chose très importante, mais nullement plus difficile à regagner.

Votre nouvelle brochure6 ne m’est pas encore parvenue, mais un paquet va venir qui la contiendra. Je tâcherai de faire en sorte qu’il soit question de toutes les deux, non seulement dans la Revue de Westminster,7 mais peut-être ailleurs.

Nous avons un fort bon livre anglais sur la prononciation de la langue grecque, par un nommé Pennington,8 dans lequel il est à peu près démontré que les anciens Grecs prononçaient leur langue d’une manière peu éloignée Edition: current; Page: [1046] de celle des Grecs d’aujourd’hui. Je n’ai pas un exemplaire de ce livre, et je crois qu’il se trouve difficilement, si ce n’est dans les bibliothèques publiques; sans cela je vous l’aurais envoyé. C’est le sécrétaire du gouvernement anglais des îles Ioniennes qui me le fit lire en 1855.9

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

Avez-vous vu l’article du dernier numéro de la Revue de Westminster sur l’Evangile de Saint-Jean? Il ne vous offre probablement rien de nouveau, puisqu’il se donne comme résumé des travaux de l’école de Tubingue.10

Bien des salutations à votre frère et à Duveyrier,

TO EMILE LITTRÉ1

La seconde partie de mon travail sur M. Comte ne sera publiée que le 1^er juillet mais on a promis de me donner bientôt des exemplaires séparés. Il vous en sera expédié cinq, destinés comme auparavant pour vous même, pour le traducteur,2 pour M^me Comte, pour M. de Blignières et pour M. Taine. Il est très naturel que vous n’approuviez pas sans réserve tout ce que j’ai dit dans la 1^re partie. Ce que votre livre a montré d’accord entre nos jugements est encore plus que je n’osais espérer. Une critique de ma critique, faite de votre point de vue, m’intéresserait grandement, et ce serait une bonne fortune pour moi si vous pouviez avoir le temps de vous en occuper.3

Quant au livre sur Hamilton c’est en grande partie une oeuvre de circonstance, comme le doit être tout livre de polémique—mais avec quelques chapitres de psychologie positive. Ce que ce livre a de mieux c’est qu’il porte Edition: current; Page: [1047] la guerre dans le camp ennemi. Aussi je crois que les métaphysiciens de l’école éclectique et allemande ne me le pardonneront pas.

Si un journal a dit que je sollicite des électeurs, ce journal se trompe: ce sont des électeurs qui m’ont sollicité. On m’a porté candidat presque malgré moi. J’ai refusé de rien faire de ce que font ordinairement chez nous les candidats. Je n’ai fait que ce qu’ils ne font guère c. à. d. une profession de foi parfaitement sincère. Au reste je pense avec M. Comte que, sauf des circonstances exceptionelles et transitoires, la place des philosophes n’est pas dans le gouvernement, et malgré mes 35 ans des fonctions administratives je ne me regarde pas comme une exception. Vous savez que dans l’idée que je me fais des assemblées délibérantes, elles doivent être un lieu de discussion plutôt que d’action, et si je consentais à y siéger ce serait pour n’y exercer qu’un pouvoir spirituel. P. L. Courier4 disait que, presque seul parmi les Français, il ne voulait pas être roi: si l’on me nommait à la chambre j’y serais probablement le seul député qui ne voudrait pas être ministre.

TO FREDERICK DENISON MAURICE1

I was already so well aware of your kind feelings towards me that even such a letter as I have just received from you hardly increases my sense of them. I most sincerely feel towards you & your work in life, the full equivalent of all which you so kindly express. I never voluntarily leave unread any of your writings & if I have not more frequently offered you any of mine it was because I seldom felt confident that what you would approve in them, would outweigh what you would disapprove. I knew however that there was much in my new book2 with which you would fully sympathize, greatly as I know you differ from the metaphysical doctrines contained in it. You were continually in my thoughts when I wrote the chapter against Mansel3 and your controversy with him contributed much towards stirring me up to write the book.

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

TO JOHN PLUMMER1

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

Your friend should reconsider his opinion on representation of minorities. Cobden’s answer2 is no answer at all; for in his plan, of having as many constituencies as there are members, a minority of each would still be unrepresented. On Mr Hare’s plan, no one need be unrepresented, since the electoral body would divide of itself into unanimous constituencies.

With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer

TO HENRY BOWIE1

I have had the honour of receiving your letter dated the 10^th inst. inclosing a Requisition from the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and many distinguished citizens of Edinburgh, who, in the name of the Directors and Members of the Philosophical Institution,2 invite me to deliver the Inaugural Address at the opening of the Session in November next.

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

I have the honour to be

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

I have been so very busy, and have had, besides, so many letters to write, that I am very tardy in replying to your interesting letter of April 29. We were greatly amused by the “election humours” which it communicates, and by the comments you report on the injudiciousness of my second letter.2 I do Edition: current; Page: [1050] not wonder that people should think it injudicious if they suppose that my grand object in the whole matter is to get myself elected. But as the only purpose for which I care to be elected is to get my opinions listened to, it would have been very “injudicious” in me to forego so good an opportunity of that, for fear that it should damage my election. I have gained this by it, that what are thought the most out of the way of all my opinions, have been, and are, discussed and canvassed from one end of the country to the other, and some of them (especially women’s voting) are obtaining many unexpected adhesions. I reckon this a good stroke of practicality, whether I am elected for Westminster or not.

As to the election itself, I had much rather you were elected than I, and if I could transfer my supporters in a body to you, I would do so instantly. I suspect, however, that the thing will be taken out of our hands. The appearance in the field of the illustrious man3 whom the Tories have put forward as the representative of the intelligent classes against popular ignorance, as embodied in me, will probably produce a general demand that one of the professedly liberal candidates should be withdrawn; and perhaps the appeal to the individual electors by circular, which we have contended for, will be made for the inferior purpose of ascertaining who ought to retire. I do not think the Tories expect their man to come in, otherwise some more considerable person would have started in that interest. But they are glad when anybody with money to spend, is willing to venture it on the chance.

I feel for Sir Edw. Lytton,4 who expected to get some credit from my friends by the expression of his good wishes (which were very likely sincere) but found he had come across a man who had the peculiarity of expecting that people should act up to what they say. I should have thought more highly of him if he had said plainly, “These are my private sentiments, but I must go with my party”, a feeling which, as men go, is very excusable. Lord Amberley,5 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.6

It is an agreeable surprise to me that Mr Westerton should have been so favourably impressed by the “Liberty”. I give him very great credit for it. It shews that his view of religion is a much higher and better one than is at all Edition: current; Page: [1051] common. Had I listened to commonplace notions of “practicality,” I should never have published that book; yet its publication does not seem to do me any practical harm.

As to the application you have received about having my likeness taken for publication, I have a real difficulty about it, owing to having refused my photograph to friends who much wished for it. If it should be necessary, however, there is a cameo likeness of me,7 from which a copy could be taken; but it cannot be till we return.

TO PARKE GODWIN1

I had scarcely received your note of April 82 so full of calm joy in the splendid prospect now opening to your country & through it to the world; when the news came that an atrocious crime had struck down the great citizen who had afforded so noble an example of the qualities befitting the first magistrate of a free people & who in the most trying circumstances had gradually won not only the admiration but almost the personal affection of all who love freedom & appreciate simplicity & uprightness. But the loss is ours, not his. It was impossible to have wished him a better end than to add the crown of martyrdom to his other honours & to live in the memory of a great nation as those only live who have not only laboured for their country but died for it. And he did live to see the cause triumphant & the contest virtually over. How different would our feelings now be if this fate had overtaken him as it might so easily have done, a month sooner!

In England, horror of the crime & sympathy with your loss seem to be almost universal, even among those who have disgraced their country by wishing success to the slaveholders. I hope the manifestations which were instantaneously made there in almost every quarter may be received in Edition: current; Page: [1052] America as some kind of atonement or peace-offering. I have never believed that there was any real danger of a quarrel between the two countries but it is of immense importance that we should be firm friends; & this is our natural state; for though there is a portion of the higher & middle classes of Great Britain who so dread & hate democracy that they cannot wish prosperity or power to a democratic people, I firmly believe that this feeling is not general even in our privileged classes. Most of the dislike & suspicion which have existed towards the U.S. were the effect of pure ignorance; ignorance of your history, & ignorance of your feelings & disposition as a people. It is difficult for you to believe that this ignorance could be as dense as it really was. But the late events have begun to dissipate it, & if your Government & people act as I fully believe they will, in regard to the important questions which now await them there will be no fear of their being ever again so grossly misunderstood, at least in the lives of the present generation.

As to the mode of dealing with these great questions, it does not become a foreigner to advise those who know the exigencies of the case so much better than he does. But as so many of my countrymen are volunteering advice to you at this crisis perhaps I may be forgiven if I offer mine the contrary way. Every one is vaguely inculcating gentleness, and only gentleness, as if you had shown any signs of disposition to take a savage revenge. I have always been afraid of one thing only, that you would be too gentle. I sh^d be very sorry to see any life taken after the war is over (except those of the assassins) or any evil inflicted in mere vengeance; but one thing I hope will be considered absolutely necessary: to break altogether the power of the slaveholding caste. Unless this is done, the abolition of slavery will be merely nominal. If an aristocracy of ex-slaveholders remain masters of the State legislatures they will be able effectually to nullify a great part of the result which has been so dearly bought by the blood of the Free States. They & their dependents must be effectually outnumbered at the polling-places: which can only be effected by the concession of full equality of political rights to negroes & by a large immigration of settlers from the North, both of them being made independent by the ownership of land. With these things in addition to the constitutional amendment3 (which will enable the Supreme Court to set aside any State legislation tending to bring back slavery in disguise) the cause of freedom is safe & the opening words of the Declaration of Independence will cease to be a reproach to the nation founded by its authors.

I doubt not that you have by this time received from Mr Hare the new edition of his book. I do not know if Mr Fawcett has fulfilled his intention of sending you his pamphlet,4 but as Mr Hare has adopted the simplifications Edition: current; Page: [1053] which Mr Fawcett proposed, you will be under no necessity of learning them from any other source. I am,

TO JOHN PLUMMER1

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

You will do me a favour if you will buy the Fortnightly Review for me, and (after reading it yourself) keep it for me till my return to England. I should like to see the article you speak of,2 but do not think it worth while to have it sent here, and the more, as I have very little time at the present moment to read it.

I have the Saturday Review.

With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer I am

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL1

Merci de votre brochure sur “l’usage pratique de la langue grecque comme langue internationale”2 et des deux journaux grecs de Trieste.3 La première me fait désirer la complétion de l’ouvrage dont elle forme le commencement. Edition: current; Page: [1054] Les derniers montrent bien l’enthousiasme que votre proposition excite très naturellement chez les esprits Helléniques. Je lis assez facilement le Grec moderne, à quoi, en effet, il suffit de posséder une certaine connaissance de la langue ancienne, et d’avoir lu une grammaire quelconque de la moderne: car, dans le vocabulaire, toute ce qui n’est pas grec ancien est une imitation assez drôle des mots occidentaux et surtout français. Je n’ai jamais ri de meilleur coeur que lorsqu’à ma première visite à la poste aux lettres d’Athènes, je vis devant moi une affiche commençant par ces mots: Ἡ γενικη διευθυνσις τω̑ Ἑλληνικων ἀτμοσκαϕειων Ἐιδοποιει̑.4

Je trouve l’article de Littré5 fort bon, et votre lettre dans la Clio6 excellente. Ce serait, sans doute, difficile de faire dans la langue ordinaire la restauration grammaticale que vous proposez. Mais après tout ce que les Grecs ont déjà fait dans ce genre, il ne faut désespérer de rien. D’ailleurs l’instruction que reçoivent à peu près tous les enfants (au moins mâles) dans l’ancienne langue, rend ces changements beaucoup moins difficiles, puisque les formes restaurées seraient tout d’abord comprises.

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

Je ne connais M. Blackie7 que par son réputation et par quelques-uns de ses écrits. J’ai remarqué avec plaisir les succès parlementaires de Lanjuinais.8

Ce serait une bonne fortune pour moi que de vous voir à Avignon: mais, pour le moment, je n’en ai guère l’espoir; car je me propose de partir en cinq jours pour une tournée dans les Cévennes et en Auvergne, après quoi je ne serai ici que pendant deux ou trois jours au commencement de juillet avant de partir pour l’Angleterre, où je passe habituellement la moitié de l’année. L’élection de Westminster n’est pour rien dans mon retour. Cette élection se fait absolument sans moi.9 Je ne compte pas du tout sur le succès, mais s’il arrive, il en sera d’autant plus honorable pour moi et pour les électeurs.

TO EDWIN L. GODKIN1

I thank you very sincerely for your article in the North American Review;2 not merely for sending it to me, but for writing it. I consider it a very important contribution to the philosophy of the subject; a correction, from one point of view of what was excessive in Tocqueville’s theory of democracy, as my review of him was from another. You have fully made out that the peculiar character of society in the Western States—the mental type formed by the position and habits of the Pioneers—is at least in part accountable for many American phenomena which have been ascribed to democracy. This is a most consoling belief, as it refers the unfavourable side of American social existence (which you set forth with a fulness of candour that ought to shame the detractors of American literature and thought) to causes naturally declining, rather than to one which always tends to increase.

But if any encouragement were required by those who hope the best from American institutions, the New England States as they now are, would be encouragement enough. If Tocqueville had lived to know what those states have become, thirty years after he saw them, he would, I think, have acknowledged that much of the unfavourable part of his anticipations had not been realized. Democracy has been no leveller there, as to intellect and education, or respect for true personal superiority. Nor has it stereotyped a particular cast of thought; as is proved by so many really original writers, yourself being one. Finally, New England has now the immortal glory of having destroyed Slavery; to do which has required an amount of high principle, courage, and energy, which few other communities, either monarchial or republican, have ever displayed. And the great concussion which has taken place in the American mind, must have loosened the foundations of all prejudices, Edition: current; Page: [1056] and secured a fair hearing for impartial reason on all subjects, such as it might not otherwise have had for many generations.

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

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

TO WILLIAM WHEWELL1

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

But a still greater cause of satisfaction to me from receiving your note, is that it gives me an opportunity on which without impertinent intrusion I may express to you, how strongly I have felt drawn to you by what I have heard of your sentiments respecting the American struggle2 (now drawing to a close) between freedom & slavery, & between legal got^t & rebellion without justification or excuse. No question of our time has been such a touchstone of men & has so tested their sterling qualities of mind & heart—as this one—& I Edition: current; Page: [1057] shall all my life feel united by a sort of special tie with those, whether personally known to me or not, who have been faithful when so many were faithless. I am Dear Sir

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

It seems a very long time since I either heard from you or wrote to you, and you may have thought it strange that I did not write on a subject of such deeply tragical interest to us both as the assassination of Lincoln. But I felt it necessary to express my feelings on that catastrophe to so many persons,2 Americans and others, who could not otherwise have known them, that I felt less prompted than usual to give vent to them, to those who would know and judge of them by their own. What I now principally feel is that the death of Lincoln, like that of Socrates, is a worthy end to a noble life, and puts the seal of universal remembrance upon his worth. He has now a place among the great names of history, and one could have wished nothing better for him personally than to die almost or quite unconsciously, in perhaps the happiest hour of his life. How one rejoices that he lived to know of Lee’s surrender.

At present I am chiefly anxious that the Americans may not do themselves any damage in the matter of Jefferson Davis.3 I do not like the trial of the assassins by martial law. If they try Davis in that manner, and convict him, let him be ever so guilty, the world will never believe that he had a fair trial. I have good hopes, however, from the favourable opinion of Johnson4 expressed by men who have the means of knowing him.

I was happy to see your name in full, attached to your excellent article on Lowe’s speech.5 There were several very good things in the last number: Edition: current; Page: [1058] the leader, by Huxley,6 particularly so, notwithstanding what I venture to think heretical physiology, which, however, he clearly sees, and as clearly shews, not to affect in the smallest degree the moral, political, or educational questions, either as regards negroes or women. I wish, however, that the Reader did not cultivate a tone of flippant attack, often on very slender grounds which is infinitely more offensive than damaging to the persons attacked. The Saturday Review, with much more real matter, manages these things much better. Do you know the editor?7 He seems to me to be amenable to good influences, and worth cultivating.

We propose setting out in two or three days for an excursion in the central mountains of France, but letters will from time to time be forwarded to me from here. I shall be in England in time for the July meeting of the Club,8 at which I am pledged to open my question if required and where I shall hope to see you. If you write, pray tell me your London address.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

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

The request of the Committee2 places me in a considerable embarrassment. What they propose is in itself perfectly reasonable; and any one who comes forward and proposes himself as a candidate, ought to be willing to meet the Committee and the Electors in the way they propose, as often as they think desirable. But I have never, from the beginning, been in the position of one who offers himself as a candidate. In my first letter3 I disclaimed doing so; I said that my personal inclination was against going into Parliament; but that Edition: current; Page: [1059] if the electors of Westminster nevertheless did me the great honour of choosing me, I would do my best to serve them, and would answer unreservedly any number of questions respecting my political opinions, which might be put to me by or in behalf of any body of electors. My candidature went forth to the public on this footing; and this declaration seemed to be one of the causes of the feeling so widely expressed in favour of the candidature. If I were now to attend meetings and make speeches to the electors in the usual, and, in most cases, very proper manner, it would seem as if there had been no truth in my declaration that I did not personally seek to be in Parliament; as if I had merely been finessing to get myself elected without trouble and expense, and having found more difficulty than I expected, had at last shewn myself in my true colours, rather than run the risk of losing the election.

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

In the same manner, I shall be happy to reprint any of my articles which the Committee may propose. I cannot, however, remember any that would be much to the purpose, as the political articles are mostly on gone-by politics. I should be very happy to reprint the article on “Enfranchisement of Women,”4 but it must be as my wife’s, not as mine.

I am glad to hear what you tell me concerning Mr M’Clean.5 In addition to his very handsome subscription, he has lately sent me two polite invitations in his capacity of President of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and I was desirous to know how I had acquired so much of his good will.

Any writing by Tories, nominally in my favour, is of no consequence. The Tories prefer anybody to a regular government man, as they suppose Grosvenor to be.6 Any one who is not a pledged member of the ministerial party, they hope may now and then give them a stray vote. But if I were elected I should hope to be a much greater thorn in their side than a member of the old Whig connexion can be.

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

TO THOMAS HARE1

It is a long time since I wrote to you: indeed, from a variety of causes. I have had so many more letters to write to total or comparative strangers than I ever wrote in the same time before, that writing to my real friends has been put off. I have not, however, been inattentive to what you have been doing meanwhile. The Social Science meeting2 evidently gave a push onward to Personal Representation, and you have followed it up in the Daily News with vigour and effect.3 The question has for the first time passed into the domain of popular discussion, and is making unexpected proselytes. You must have noted Lubbock’s4 qualified and Hughes’5 distinct adhesion in their electoral addresses. Perhaps you may not have observed a letter from Francis Newman,6 giving reasons for and against supporting my candidature, in which my adherence to your plan is placed among the foremost of the reasons for supporting me. There are also articles in some of the country papers, shewing that the plan is obtaining favour in proportion as it becomes known. In addition to which, my Westminster supporters are all busy finding what they can say to defend their candidate on the points of representation of minorities and women’s suffrage. Certainly this election affair is a better propaganda for all my political opinions than I might have obtained for many years; and Edition: current; Page: [1061] it is selling my cheap editions, and indeed the dear ones too, in a most splendid manner.

My occupation here, except letter-writing, has been of a kind very remote from these interests, being chiefly that of reading Plato, with a view to reviewing Grote’s new book.7 I do not find that this by any means quickens my zeal in my own cause, as a candidate. It is an infinitely pleasanter mode of spending May to read the Gorgias and Theatetus under the avenue of mulberries which you know of, surrounded by roses and nightingales, than it would be to listen to tiresome speaking for half the night in the House of Commons. The only disagreeable thing here is having to choose between pleasures: thus we are about to tear ourselves away from this most enjoyable place to make a tour in the Cevennes and Auvergne, beginning at Alais, and going round by Le Vigun, the Lozère, the Cantal, and Mont Dore, to Clermont. We expect much pleasure from this, but we give up so much pleasure by not remaining here, that did we not think it useful to health, I do not believe we could either of us make up our minds to it.

I shall be back for the July meeting of the Club, where I shall hope to see you. I am glad to see that Gladstone is to be chosen a member.8

With our kind regards to all your family

TO HERBERT SPENCER1

Nothing can be more agreeable to me than to hear that you are going to answer me in the Fortnightly Review.2 I hope you will not spare me. If you make out so strong a case (and no one is more likely to do so if it can be done) as to make it absolutely necessary for me to defend myself, I shall perhaps do so through the same Review; but not without a positive necessity. I have had enough, for the present, of writing against a friend and ally.

With regard to the Reader, I like the plan of full signatures. I am glad to see that my friend Professor Cairnes has adopted it, & I should be glad if it were the common practice. But, to admit of this, it would be necessary for the Reader to give up the plan it has recently adopted of making slashing attacks to the right and left, with very insufficient production of evidence to justify the vituperation: and in a manner which gives to an indifferent spectator the impression either of personal ill will in the particular case, or of general flippancy and dogmatism. Contributors will not like to identify themselves by name with a publication which would embroil them with an unlimited number of angry and vindictive writers together with their friends and their publishers. I myself should not like to be supposed to be in any way connected, for instance, with the attack on the Edinburgh Review3 (for which I am at this very time preparing an article)—an attack of which I wholly dislike the tone, and agree only partially with the substance; and it happens that the article singled out from the last number for special contempt,4 my name too being cited against it, is by a personal friend of my own, a man of very considerable merit, whom I was desirous of securing as a recruit for the Reader—and who is very naturally hurt and indignant at the treatment of him. I am by no means against severity in criticism, but the more it is severe, the more it needs to be well weighed and justly distributed. I have represented a good deal of this to Mr. Rae,5 with whom I am in correspondence, and of whom in other respects I have formed a very favourable impression. He has very much improved the Reader, and is improving it more and more; and but for that one fault it bids fair to justify our original hopes.

TO MAX KYLLMANN1

I have not written to you since I came here, having from various causes been so overwhelmed with letter writing that I was obliged to Edition: current; Page: [1063] adjourn all of it that admitted of postponement. I now write though I have not anything very particular to say, except that I am going to leave Avignon for a tour in the Cevennes & Auvergne & though letters will be sent to me from here, they will not reach me so soon or so certainly as at present. It seems to me that discussion on the fundamental points of representative government & especially on the points raised in my Westminster letters, is going on very satisfactorily at present. Numbers of country papers are sent to me in which Hare’s system, repr of minorities, in all its shapes, and women’s suffrage are mooted—sometimes with approbation, & often (especially as to women’s suffrage) with much less hostility than was to be expected. You have probably seen Mr. Hughes’ declaration in favour of Hare’s system2 & Francis Newman’s commendation of me for adhering to it.3 The cheaper editions also are going off at a wonderful rate & even the dear ones are increasing in sale. These are substantial advantages derived from the West^r contest whether it succeeds or not. I think it hardly possible that it should succeed. Though it has brought to light a most unexpected amount of good feeling by isolated individuals towards me personally, there is no set of political men who really wish to have me in Parl^t: neither Whigs, nor Tories, nor the Bright radicals (though I hear that B. himself speaks in my favour), nor any other set of radicals except perhaps the Cooperative section of the working classes. Look at the list of subscribers for the election expenses: next to none of them are representative men. They are people from here, there, & everywhere who have happened to like my books. Many even who for personal reasons might have subscribed, hold back, evidently because their sets are hostile to me. This is what I always said would be the case. As Comte says, “tout ce qui est aujourd’hui classé” is sure to be hostile to really new ideas—a little shuffling of the cards is all they want.4

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

TO WILLIAM FRASER RAE1

The author of the paper “Nurses Wanted”2 offers an article on a very different subject, a notice of the new (and much improved) edition of Mr Hare’s book on Representation. The article3 is strongly in favour of Mr Hare’s system; which I suppose you do not object to, especially as any other contributor is free to take the opposite side. I think the writer brings out some important points very well, and will give an impression of novelty in the mode of treatment.

TO CHARLES LORING BRACE1

Your remark2 is most just on the unworthiness of the conversions due only to success. Such conversions merely show the fundamental unworthiness of the original error. The disgust they occasion is one of the causes which make those who have fought an up-hill battle up to the hour of victory eager to go forward to something else, in which they will still have the low-minded and selfish part of mankind against them.

TO ROWLAND G. HAZARD1

I am writing to you from a little place in the mountains of Central France, where we are making a short excursion. I have not liked to write until I had read your treatise on Freewill.2 I have now done so, with great admiration in many respects, but I am unable to say that it has made any alteration in my opinion. It is very clearly thought and expressed, and draws some metaphysical distinctions which though quite correct are often disregarded, for instance, that fundamental one between volition and choice. There is great acuteness too in much of the polemic with Edwards,3 though I think that he might have found much to say in reply to it, and that you have sometimes refuted rather his expressions than his thoughts. But I do not find that your arguments in any way touch the doctrine of so-called Necessity as I hold it. You allow that volition requires the previous existence of two things, which the mind itself did not make, at least directly, nor, in most cases, at all: a knowledge, and a want. You consider as the peculiarity of a free cause, that its determinations do not depend on the past, but on a preconception of the future. But though the knowledge and the want refer to what is future, the knowledge and the want themselves are not future facts, but present, or rather past, facts, for they must exist previous to the volitional act. You seem to admit not only that the knowledge and want are conditions precedent to the will, but that the character of the will invariably corresponds to that of the knowledge and want, and that any variation in either of these determines, or at least is sure to be followed by, a corresponding variation in the volition. Now this is all that I, as a necessitarian, require. I do not believe in anything real corresponding to the phrases Necessity, Causal Force or the like. I acknowledge no other link between cause and effect, even when both are purely material, than invariability of sequence, from which arises possibility of prediction. And this it seems to me, on your own shewing, exists equally between volitions and the mental antecedents by which you allow that they are and must be preceded.

My own view of the subject you will find in a chapter of my book on Sir William Hamilton,4 which I hope reached you, and to which I must refer Edition: current; Page: [1066] you for the arguments I have not room for here. Let me add, however, that on the subject, practically considered, I am at one with you. Your view of what the mind has power to do, seems to me quite just: but we differ on the question, how the mind is determined to do it.5

To turn to another subject, no less interesting to us both; you seem to have now a finance minister who understands currency,6 and the close of the war will render return to the right path comparatively easy. I look forward to the brightest future for America now, provided the North is not foolishly generous to its conquered enemies. It is quite indispensable to break the power of the Slaveholding oligarchy. Emancipation is not enough, without making the freed negroes electors and landholders, nor without reinforcing them by a large migration of northern people into the southern states. Otherwise the negroes will remain in a state of dependence on their old masters approaching to slavery, and both they and the mean whites will be kept ignorant and brutish as they have been kept hitherto. I would not shrink from extensive confiscation if it were necessary for these purposes, but doubtless the impoverishment of the great landholders, and their disgust with the new state of things, will cause a great number of the large estates to be sold and broken up, a thing eminently desirable. Probably the indignation of your whole people at the atrocious crime which robbed the world of your noble President, added to the known opinions and determined character of his successor, may tend to diminish the risk of any undue indulgence being shown to those who, like dethroned despots, will be always hankering after their lost power. It is only the next generation of them who can possibly become true citizens of a free nation.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

I am extremely sorry that your two letters were not answered immediately, owing to their having arrived a day or two after we had set out on an excursion Edition: current; Page: [1067] in the mountains. They have been forwarded to me here, along with a letter from Mr Beal, to whom I have by this post sent a reply, which he will no doubt communicate to you. I have told him that I am decidedly for proceeding in the way first proposed,2 and submitting your name to the electors with those of all the candidates, and that it would not be just to you to ask you to forgo such claims as you possess, without having laid them before the electors and obtained their decision. The talk about dividing the liberal interest is quite inapplicable to the course proposed, in which it is implied that neither you nor I will be nominated if the result of the appeal to the electors shews that we have fewer supporters than Grosvenor and Smith. I need not repeat what my own wishes are, and that I would much rather you were elected than myself. But that is not the question: it is for the electors to shew their preference, and for us, or rather our supporters, to withdraw our names if any other candidates in the liberal interest are preferred to us.

I have revised your address,3 not as to matter, but as to style, in which it was very defective, and sometimes even unintelligible, from haste. The contents of it (and it is an understatement of your public services) ought to suffice for your election by any constituency in the country. If the public were not so much inured to seeing any petty consideration prevail over personal fitness they would feel it a national disgrace that you are not in Parliament.

TO GEORGE GROTE1

Many thanks for the two sheets, which were waiting for me at Mende along with your letter. The chapter on the Leges2 is less interesting than most of the others, because the subject is less so: its inferiority, in fact, was the main point to bring out. The two concluding chapters,3 on the other hand, are equal in interest to almost anything in the work; especially the account of the Megarics, Edition: current; Page: [1068] Kyrenaics &c. of whom I previously knew very little. I hope to be able to make a useful article on the book:4 but when I spoke of giving an intellectual outline of Plato from your materials, I meant from your thoughts: not that I had attained any higher point of view than yours, but that I hoped to reproduce yours in a condensed form.

I hope you have seen Mark Pattison’s review of you in the Reader.5 He contests the question of the Platonic canon with you, or rather, promises to contest it. I fancy he reckons the history of philosophy one of his own strong points; which it certainly is not, since he can speak of Aristotle as a mere pupil of Plato. I was pleased, however, as well as surprised, to find him so eulogistic of the book in every other respect. He had just before written a review of my Hamilton in which he equally surprised me by the extent of his adhesion.6

How valuable to me is your approbation of the Hamilton I need not say. The opinion you express of it comes up to my highest hopes. I have been amused by some of the discussions respecting it which have been evoked by the stimulus of the Westminster affair. I learn from the Spectator,7 that the Morning Advertiser8 (à propos of the chapter on Mansel’s Bampton Lectures)9 declares that I am not only an athetist, but have on this occasion put forth my atheism in a form the most revolting which the editor of that paper has ever met with: and the Record10 says I am the chief of the Satanic School in England at present. The Spectator, on the contrary, says the principal value of the book is the logical; that the passages in question are the true language of prophets and apostles: and in the same number in which it attacks and protests against the philosophy of the book, makes a hearty and vigorous defence of its religion: saying at the same time that it has never been able to find out what my private religious opinions are, and that nobody has any right to pry into them. All this is pretty much as I expected, and wished.

I am writing to you from a beautiful place, in the heart of a valley which is an old crater, surmounted by summits between 6 and 7000 feet above the sea, though only from 3 to 4000 above the plateau of Central France. The interior of the crater is filled up with the loveliest pastures and forests. We have enjoyed our tour very much, and have not been indulged with a single rainy day, Edition: current; Page: [1069] or even hour, in which to get on with Plato. I hope to see you in the early part of next month.

With our kind regards to M^rs Grote

TO CHARLES WESTERTON1

I very much regret that your letter and telegraphic message were not answered as promptly as I should have wished, they having had to be forwarded to me here. I have no objection whatever to attend meetings of the Committee, or even of the electors, other than those which I stated in my answer2 to a letter which Mr Chadwick wrote to me on the subject, at the request as I understood, of the Committee. But I confess the reason you now give for desiring me to come over and meet the Committee, operates on my mind the reverse way. I should never, for my own part, think of taking any notice of a charge of irreligion brought by the Record3 or the M. Advertiser.4 They are ready to bring such a charge against the most pious man in England if he does not agree in their narrow minded & thoroughly unChristian notions of religion and my attending a meeting just at present would scarcely promote the purpose for which you suggest it, since I should positively and deliberately refuse to allow myself to be interrogated on any subject whatever of purely religious opinion. I do this on principle. I conceive that no one has any right to question another on his religious opinions; that the tree ought to be judged, and only can be judged, by its fruits; and I hold myself bound, not for my own sake, for it is my practice to speak my opinions very plainly, but for the sake of future candidates, not to do any thing that may facilitate raising a religious cry against a person who may be unassailable as a politician, on evidence extorted from his own mouth. The case is different as to my expressed opinions. Whatever I have written and published I stand by, and am ready to defend; and I defy any one to point out in my writing a single passage that conflicts with what the best religious minds of our time accept as Christianity. The passage which, I am informed, the Record and the Advertiser have Edition: current; Page: [1070] fastened upon, I maintain to be one of the most religious and Christian expressions of feeling in all recent literature. I am not alone in this opinion. Among many others, one of the most eminent of the Bench of Bishops declares in a letter in the Spectator of June 17,5 that the sentence in question breathes the purest spirit of Christian morality; and the Spectator itself (a most religious paper) had said a fortnight before,6 of the same sentence, that it speaks the true language of Prophets and Apostles. Such expressions as these it would not become me to use; but I am not afraid that your judgment, or that of any rational person who reads the passage and the context fairly, would pronounce it other than Christian, in the truest sense. I am not aware that Mr Mansel’s theology7 is the same thing with religion, or that to say that I will worship no God but a good God is to be an atheist.—You are at full liberty to make any use you please public or private, of this letter.

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

TO CHARLES WESTERTON1

When I wrote to you this morning I had not yet received your letter of the 17th inst. written in the name of the Committee and requesting a personal interview. In reply I beg to say that I shall be happy to attend the Committee on any day they may appoint after I arrive in England. In the meantime I beg to say that with regard to the plan of addressing the electors by circular, as on every other matter connected with the election, it rests with the Committee alone to decide; and I regard it simply as an additional mark of courtesy and consideration towards myself, that they should have sought any consultation with me on the subject. Not taking any of the usual burthens of a candidate, I have no claim to the privileges of one. It is but reasonable that those who take all the trouble should freely determine on their own judgment the course to be pursued. I did not volunteer the proposal of submitting various names to the constituency, as a suggestion of my own; I understood it to be included in the original scheme of which my nomination was a part; and thinking the plan an excellent one, both in itself and as an Edition: current; Page: [1071] example, I expressed strongly the approbation which I felt. My opinion on the subject is not changed; I still think that it would have been highly desirable to adopt this course in the first instance. The Committee, however, are of opinion that the time has gone by for it, and that it would not be suitable to the present state of affairs. They have a perfect right to act on their own judgment; and were they even to carry courtesy so far as to postpone their judgment to mine, to accept such an act of abnegation would be to take the conduct of the election out of their hands, which I am as little inclined as entitled to do. Any discussion between us, therefore, on this matter, I regard as merely an affair of friendly explanation, and not of a practical character. I shall be at Blackheath Park on the 6^th of July,2 and I shall hold myself at the disposal of the Committee any day and hour afterwards, except the evening of the 7^th for which I have a positive engagement.3

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

Your letters of the 15th and 16th followed me to Clermont, and along with them I received an urgent letter from Mr Westerton (with a telegraphic message which had preceded it) urging emphatically the necessity of my coming over at once on account of the accusations of atheism made against me by the Record and the Morning Advertiser.2 I thought so much sensitiveness to such attacks from such quarters of very bad augury; and not choosing to submit to being catechized on my religious belief, I wrote to Mr Westerton as follows: [Here JSM copies Letter 834].

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

My private opinion is, that they made a mess of the matter, and spoiled their chances of great public good and great honour to themselves, by not acting on the plan at first; but that they have let the time go by; that they would stultify themselves by adopting it now, and (especially after Shelley’s retirement)3 would bring on themselves bitter reproaches for dividing the liberal interest, which they are not the men to be capable of facing. My opinion of them is greatly lowered, and I doubt much if they have it in them to bring in even one candidate. Mr Beal is evidently not a typical, but a much too favourable specimen of them.

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

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

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

A very urgent letter which I have received this morning from Mr Westerton seems to make it necessary that I should return immediately, as it is due to those who have taken so much trouble about me that I should not give them the impression that for my own convenience I expose them to the probable frustration of all their endeavours. I shall therefore be at Blackheath next Friday morning, and shall probably see Mr Westerton and perhaps the Committee on the same day.2 I shall apparently be obliged to attend also a meeting of the electors, though by doing so I shall in some degree alter the original character of my candidature, which I had wished to preserve.

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

TO CHARLES WESTERTON1

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

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

TO CHARLES WESTERTON1

Having been informed by you that a proposal has been received from Capt. Grosvenor’s Committee, for a personal conference between Capt. Grosvenor and five members of his Committe on the one part, and myself and five members of your Committee on the other, to discuss the possibility of cooperation between the two bodies; I beg to say, that I can have no objection whatever to a conference between the two Committees for the proposed purpose, but that I cannot personally take any part in it. I have from the first declared that I am not a candidate, in the ordinary sense of the term; that I do not offer myself to the electors, but that, if thought worthy of the honour of being elected, I will do my best to serve them. To engage personally in a negociation with another candidate, would be not only to assume the character which I have disclaimed but to take into my own hands, in a certain degree, the management of the election. That management must rest, as it has hitherto done, wholly with your Committee; with whose judgment respecting the Edition: current; Page: [1074] mode of conduct which most conduces to the furtherance of the liberal interest, I have neither the wish nor the right to interfere.

TO HARRIET ISABELLA MILL1

I duly received your packet, but thought it best to put off signing the document till I got my signature witnessed in London. Having now done so, I dispatch it to Mr. Paterson2 by the first post.

There is no occasion to send stamps.

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

TO EDWIN ARNOLD1

I am very much indebted to you for your note, as well as for your most energetic and most valuable support. I did not get the note until I had finished my speaking for the evening2 except in answer to questions. If any one had come, as I fully expected, primed with questions out of the Morning Advertiser,3 Edition: current; Page: [1075] I was prepared to enter upon the subject you mention.4 But as no one said anything about it, I thought it best to say nothing either. If I should be troubled on the subject at any of the other meetings I have to attend (which does not now seem likely) I shall be ready to face the assailants. But (thanks partly to you) I have now such a multitude of defenders5 that they would carry me through almost any attacks—saying and doing much more for me than I should choose to say or do for myself.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

Though I hope you have gone to Evesham, I write to say that when I went to the meeting yesterday evening,2 the Committee had already come to an arrangement with Grosvenor’s Committee,3 in the bona fides of which they seemed to have complete confidence so that there was nothing for me to do but to acquiesce in it. I had copies made of the draft of my speech, but as the reports of the previous meeting4 were so satisfactory, I made no use of them, and those of this morning give me no reason to regret that I did not. You will have seen in the Daily News, and doubtless in the Telegraph,5 Edition: current; Page: [1076] the onslaught I made on the money power. The Times report,6 though otherwise good, has cut down, or rather cut out, all that related to that subject. I have to speak at meetings tonight, Saturday, and Monday. Happily Monday’s must be the last.7 The meeting was very enthusiastic, and every one seemed very confident. Qui vivra verra. I shall only believe in success when I see it; and, success or not, shall always regret that the original plan was not tried. The probable loss of some liberal seats even metropolitan ones, through too many or bad candidates, will make the liberal managers see what they ought to have done when it is too late to retrieve the error. I am

TO W. L. HARVEY1

The suggestion2 you make of an optional secrecy of voting has been made before, but it has always appeared to me to be liable to all the objections against the ballot without having its advantages; since an elector who asked for the ballot would, by doing so, be considered to declare that he intended to vote in opposition to the influence exerted over him; and Edition: current; Page: [1077] the influence which is strong enough to induce him to vote against his convictions would be strong enough to compel him to give his vote openly as long as he had the option of doing so. Electors who are tradesmen may be some times exposed to coercive influence from both sides; but in that case I should expect that both sides, or at all events the one which thought itself strongest, would insist on the elector’s voting openly, in order that they might know whether they could depend on him.

You are at liberty to publish my letter.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1

. . . In spite of Mr. Hill’s drawing back about the Wolverhampton Plate-Lock Makers,2 the papers which have been sent to me from both sides, and especially the report of the correspondent of “Aris’s Birmingham Gazette,”3 confirm me in my opinion that the Co-operators are wholly in the right.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

Would this day week Friday the 21^st, suit you and M^rs Cairnes for coming here about 12 o’clock and going with us to Chiselhurst returning here to Edition: current; Page: [1078] dinner? If Mr Conway2 would do us the favour of accompanying you, he would see some very pretty country of the English type, and would give me the pleasure I much desire of seeing and conversing with him.

TO JOHN PLUMMER1

To begin with the most pressing—there does not exist any photograph of me; but I have been so urged to have one taken, that I have been obliged to make up my mind to it, and I promise that you shall have one of the very first copies.2

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

TO WILLIAM GEORGE WARD1

It gives me much pleasure that you sympathise so completely with me on the subject of the Westminster election. That you were sure to feel with me Edition: current; Page: [1079] as to the passage of my book for which I have been attacked,2 I could not doubt after reading your book on Nature and Grace.3 Let me add that (whatever may be my opinion of Ultramontanism) I know far too much both of your writings and of yourself to be in any danger of mistaking you for a ‘bigot.’4 Few people have proved more fully than you not only their endeavour but their ability to do ample justice to an opponent.

[Mill wrote also at considerable length on the Galileo case,5 and the essay was partially recast in deference to his criticism.]

TO JANE MILL FERRABOSCHI1

Though extremely busy, I write these few words to thank you for your congratulations,2 and to wish you, though it is past the day, many happy returns of your birthday. I am quite well, and am glad to hear a good account of your health and that of all your family. The cause of my not having called on you is that it is many years since I have passed more than a few hours at Paris. I regretted that some time ago when you were in England, my absence prevented me from seeing you. Helen desires her kind regards.

TO HENRY FRANKS1

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

The difficulty which you feel I understand to be this: how is the opinion that Christianity might have been extinguished by persecution, compatible with the belief that God intended & preordained that Christianity should subsist?2 I conceive there is no inconsistency between the two opinions. If Xtianity would have perished had it been persecuted in a certain manner, if God had preordained that it sh^d not perish, the reasonable inference is that God preordained that it should not be persecuted in that manner. The preservation of Xtianity thus brought about would be no “accident” but part of the divine plan.

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

TO THE REV. WILLIAM HENRY LYTTELTON1

I thank you most sincerely for your Tract2 which I have read with very great pleasure & sympathy. Though I had read several papers belonging to the same series & was well acquainted with your name & character I had not happened to see this tract. You had a strong case & you have stated Edition: current; Page: [1081] it well & effectively, & above all, like one who feels its importance. I cannot conceive how any other view than that which you take, of the question raised by Mr Mansel,3 can be deemed religious, or Christian; & I felt sure that in maintaining, from my own point of view, the same conception of religious duty, I sh^d be in complete sympathy with the best part of the religious world—using that phrase in its literal & not in its slang acceptation. Accordingly the manner in which so many of the greatest ornaments of the C[hurch] of E[ngland] lately came forward4 to share the responsibility of a doctrine which coming from me was called atheistic & satanic,5 did not cause me half so much pleasure from its connexion with myself as because it so fully justified the perfect confidence I had in their high feelings & principles. It causes me no surprise but additional pleasure that you so fully participate in the same convictions & sentiments.

I return as desired your letter in the Guardian6 with thanks for the pleasure it has given me.

TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE1

Allow me, in thanking you for your kind congratulations on the result of the Westminster election, to congratulate in my turn, not you, but the electors of South Lancashire,2 on having placed themselves in the honourable position Edition: current; Page: [1082] which another constituency has so unwisely relinquished. Though your reelection for the University under the new circumstances would have been, both personally and publicly, a great triumph, the opposite result is not any real loss, it being obvious to everybody that, but for the new mode of voting, you would have been returned by a large majority. If the temporary check to the Liberal party had indicated a retrograde movement at Oxford, it would have been a serious matter. But the country knows that the real University, the resident members of the body, are clear of the discredit of this party move, and that, with them, you are stronger than ever. It is even possible that this disappointment, by stimulating the Liberal party in the University to increased exertions, may ultimately be as great a help to the cause of improvement as even your reelection would have been.

TO JOHN PLUMMER1

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

Hoping to see you and Mrs Plummer on Sunday I am

TO JOHN CHAPMAN1

Many thanks for your note.

My usual conditions with my publishers are the ordinary half profit plan for a single edition—the number of copies to be at the discretion of the publisher Edition: current; Page: [1083] and the copyright to remain with me. This is what I should propose for the Comte papers, if agreeable to Mr Trübner.2 I should wish to revise the articles before they are sent to the printer.

I shall be very glad to hear of any further applications of your discovery.3 If it proves applicable to cholera, it will be still more important than it is already shewn to be. I am

TO JOHN PLUMMER1

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

I hope the photograph will soon be ready.

TO JOHN CHAPMAN1

I have been long under an engagement to review Mr Grote’s book for the Edinburgh2—and shall scarcely have time to do that, much less to write another review also,3 before the meeting of Parliament. I sympathize much in your difficulty, as it is not easy to find writers who are sufficiently familiar Edition: current; Page: [1084] both with Plato and with philosophy, without being full of wrong ideas on the latter, if not on both. I can think of no one who is not likely to have been already thought of by yourself. Have you asked Professor Bain?4

TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN1

In revising my Logic for a new edition2 I have arrived at the places where your son pointed out an error—viz, in my numerical estimation of the probability arising from the addition of two independent improbabilities (Vol. 2. Ch. 23 § 6 of the third book). I find to my very great regret that I have mislaid the paper which contained the discussion of the point, and though I was convinced at the time, I have not been able to reason out for myself the estimation of the compound probability in the case supposed. Though I greatly regret giving you the trouble, I should feel it a great favour if you would kindly put on paper the few sentences which would be sufficient to make me once more understand the matter as it really is.

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

TO HELEN TAYLOR1

Thanks dear for taking the trouble to write an abstract of so many letters. None of them need be sent, or need be answered till I come back, except Edition: current; Page: [1085] Thornton’s.2 To him I will write tonight or tomorrow & I quite agree with you about not taking any notice of Smith’s letter.3 It is very possible that the creature thinks he has not committed any corruption, for that sort of person squares his conscience by the law, entirely.

I rather think I shall not return till Monday, but I will write again to say. Irvine4 seems rather inclined to stay on, and there is plenty to do botanically for a much longer time. We have been successful thus far—fine though showery weather (I have brought & worn a waterproof) & plenty of plants but I have not been so well as I expected to be having had diarrhoea which is going off but has not quite left me. I cannot write more as I am keeping Irvine from his dinner to save the post.

TO RICHARD CONGREVE1

It is precisely because I consider M. Comte to have been a great thinker, that I regard it as a duty to balance the strong & deeply felt admiration which I express for what I deem the fundamental parts of his philosophy by an equally emphatic expression of the opposite feeling I entertain towards other parts.2 It is M. Comte himself who, in my judgment, has thrown ridicule on his own philosophy by the extravagances of his later writings; & since he has done so, I conceive that the mischief can only be corrected if those who desire to separate the first from the last, shew that they are as much alive to the ridiculous side of his character & speculations as those are who are unable to appreciate his greatness. Unless this separation can be effected, either the Edition: current; Page: [1086] absurdities will weigh down the merits or the merits will float the absurdities, & since many of those last are, in my estimation, of such a kind that if it were impossible to laugh at them it would be necessary to denounce them seriously & severely, I am glad that the former side of the alternative is possible. Forgive the freedom with which I express what I know must appear to you not only error & prejudice, but want of due modesty & reverence. But any weaker terms would not put you in full possession of what I feel in the matter, on which feeling must rest the justification of the tone of the article. In saying that the offence I feared I might give would be unintentional I did not mean that it would be unforeseen, but only that such a consequence of my free speaking on the subject would be one which I sh^d sincerely regret. I earnestly disclaimed, near the beginning of the second article, any feeling but that of respect towards M. Comte’s persistent disciples, and I am bound to acknowledge the extreme courtesy of your letter, in circumstances which would have excused in my eyes some vehemence of language.

TO GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE1

I have to thank you for three or four notes which want of time prevented me from answering when I received them. I congratulate you on the triumphant return of Mr Cowen for Newcastle,2 and I regret that the attacks on you should have prevented the realization of your hopes in regard to the Secretaryship.3

The Affirmation Bill4 must not be suffered to drop in consequence of Sir John Trelawny’s absence from the House.5 His non-election is one of the Edition: current; Page: [1087] greatest of the few losses which advanced opinions have sustained in this Parliament.

TO THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY1

I suppose that the projected International Education Society2 is intended to carry out the plan concerning which a good deal has been written by Professor Lorimer of Edinburgh.3 The idea seems to me a good one, but I should hardly place it in the foremost rank of the improvements which require to be made in education, and in any case I could not afford to give any time to it, or incur any responsibility. I do not know whether being one of the Vice Presidents would imply more than a general good opinion of the undertaking, grounded on confidence in some of the names of the list of Directors.

I should like also to know more precisely what attitude the mode of education will hold towards Theology.4

TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN1

Your letter is clear and conclusive, and, together with my own letter grounded on your previous one,2 makes the truth perfectly obvious in the case to which they apply, viz. the comparative probabilities of the different causes which may have produced a known effect. But it is not quite so easy to apply the same principle to cases in which there is no known effect to be accounted for, but the antecedent probability of an unknown fact is to be estimated from mere statistics. Take the case in its most general form, as it stands in my book: Two of every three As are Bs, three of every four Cs are Bs, what is the probability that something which is both an A and a C is a B?3

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

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

I thank you for your kind wishes about my health. No doubt I shall be fully occupied with Parliament during the session, but I hope by keeping out of Edition: current; Page: [1089] engagements, to be able to work at other subjects in the vacation. My safeguard is that I have no taste for what is called society; which is the grand consumer of time, energy, and in my case, of animal spirits. As I do not mean to let myself be drawn into that, I hope to have a fair average amount of leisure like other people.

TO JOHN PLUMMER1

I have now the pleasure of enclosing two carte photographs either of which I give my full consent to your employing, for the purpose of Cassell’s Family Paper.2

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

TO HERBERT SPENCER1

When I received your article in the Fortnightly Review,2 the reprint of my book on Hamilton was too far advanced to admit of any correcting at the proper place the misconception which you pointed out in p. 536 of the Review. Edition: current; Page: [1090] I consequently added a note at the end of the volume, of which, in case you have not seen it, I enclose a transcript.

I do not find that the distinction between the two senses of the word inconceivable,3 removes or diminishes the difference between us. I was already aware that the inconceivability which you regard as an ultimate test, is the impossibility of uniting two ideas in the same mental representation. But, unless I have still further misunderstood you, you regard this incapacity of the conceptive faculty merely as the strongest proof that can be given of a necessity of belief. Your test of an ultimate truth I still apprehend to be the invariability of the belief of it, tested by an attempt to believe its negative.

I have, in my turn, to correct a partial misunderstanding of my own meaning. I did not assert that a belief is proved not to be necessary by the fact that some persons deny its necessity, but by the fact that some persons do not hold the belief itself; which opinion seems as evident as the other would be absurd.4

On the main question between us your chief point seems to be, that the Idealist argument is reduced to nonsense if we accept the idealist conclusions, since it cannot be expressed without assuming an objective reality producing, & a subjective reality receiving, the impression.5 The experience to which our states of mind are referred, is, ex vi termini, (you think) experience of something other than states of mind. This would be true if all states of mind were referred to something anterior; but the ultimate elements in the analysis I hold to be themselves states of mind, viz—sensations, memories of sensations, and expectations of sensation. I do not pretend to account for these, or to recognize anything in them beyond themselves and the order of their occurrence; but I do profess to analyze our other states of consciousness into them. Now I maintain that these are the only substratum I need postulate; and that when anything else seems to be postulated, it is only because of the erroneous theory on which all our language is constructed, and that if the concrete words used are interpreted as meaning our expectations of sensations the nonsense and unmeaningness which you speak of do not arise.

I quite agree with you, however, that our difference is “superficial rather than substantial”,6 or at all events, need not and does not affect our general mode of explaining mental phenomena. From the first I have wished to keep the peace with those whose belief in a substratum is simply the belief in an Unknowable. You have said what you deemed necessary to set yourself right on the points which had been in controversy between us. I am glad you have done so, and am now disposed to let the matter rest. There will probably be other and more hostile criticisms, by Mansel and others, and if I should think it desirable to reply to them, I could on the same occasion make some remarks Edition: current; Page: [1091] on yours, without the appearance of antagonism which I am anxious to avoid.

TO EDWARD WILSON1

I beg to acknowledge your letter of Aug. 2 respecting Parliamentary Reform and representation of minorities, and to say that I shall be happy to read the pamphlet2 you mention when it reaches me, which it has not yet done.

TO JAMES BEAL1

In consequence of the wish expressed by many of my friends in Westminster to have my likeness, I have sat to a photographer, and the result is the Edition: current; Page: [1092] inclosed cartes of which allow me to request your acceptance. It will therefore be unnecessary that I should comply with the proposals made by Mr Mayall2 and by the Stereoscopic Society.3

TO THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY1

From what you say of the projected School2 I feel no doubt that it will be a good thing, and deserving of support; but I do not see how, with my opinions, I could publicly associate myself as a special supporter and recommender, with any school in which theology is part of the course; for assuredly I do not think that theology ought to be taught in any school; and there are, even at present, schools (the Birkbeck schools)3 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,4 which, I believe is only a day school. It might be useless, in the present state of the public mind to propose such schools, and it may be quite right to support others; but I do not feel that that justifies me in holding myself forth as approving, and partly founding, schools in which a principle I wholly condemn is even partly recognised and acted on. I must wait, therefore, to know more of the actual plan of the institution in this respect, before I can judge how far and in what way I can join in promoting its establishment.

When I said that our educational system needs other modifications still more than it needs the due introduction of modern languages and physical science,5 what I had chiefly in view was improvements in the mode of teaching. It is disgraceful to human nature and society that the whole of boyhood should be spent in pretending to learn certain things without learning them. With proper methods and good teachers boys might really learn Greek and Latin, instead of making believe to learn them, and might have ample time besides for science and for as much of modern languages as there is any use in teaching to them while at school. And if science were taught as badly as Greek and Latin are taught, it would not do their minds more good.

TO JOHN BOYD KINNEAR1

Having a strong impression that I sh^d like the book which you did me the favour to send,2 I delayed writing to thank you for it until I sh^d have had time to read it through.

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

The chief points on which I differ from you are

1^st. I think you ascribe too great influence to differences of race & too little to historical differences & to accidents as causes of the diversities of character & usage existing among mankind.3

2^dly. I cannot join with you (glad as I sh^d be to do so) in thinking that the wages-receiving class, if universally enfranchised would have no class feelings or class opinions as such.4 The fact that the operative classes are divided Edition: current; Page: [1094] on many questions of politics & legislation is equally true of the higher, or the middle class, of landholders, or of capitalists, & is as consistent in the one case as in the other with their holding together as a compact body in cases in which their joint interest is or seems to be involved, or in which any bias arising from their common social position is liable to operate.

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

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

I have read your letter in the Economist.2 It is extremely well done, and I sympathize fully in your feelings, but it does not touch any of my difficulties.

I still think that the proper ground to take is to insist on keeping out of the Senate of the Queen’s University3 any person who is disaffected to the purpose for which that University was instituted, viz. mixed education.4 The Catholic party have a just claim to be represented in the choice of examiners, but none whatever to have a voice in the curriculum of study for any but their own institutions, or the conditions of a degree even for those. These are things to be decided only by the State. If necessary, the subjects of examination ought to be fixed, not by the body which confers degrees, but by the government, or even by act of parliament.

You are quite right to point out the bad consequences which are likely to Edition: current; Page: [1095] follow the present concession,5 even if it cannot be with propriety refused. But the great point is, to insist that the particular scheme of education which the British nation has instituted because it thinks that (for Ireland) it is the best, shall continue to have fair play; and that the enemies of the scheme shall have no voice in deciding how it shall be carried out. This is also the utmost which there is any chance of obtaining; for the ministry cannot retract after the general election what they promised before it. They must either keep their promise, or resign.

TO GEORGE GROTE1

I am sorry to say that this present day is the first time since I left Avignon on which I have been able to resume Plato. The whole time here, since I got clear of the election, has been occupied in preparing a new edition of the Logic;2 which I had hoped to be spared until December and January, when the article for the Edinburgh3 would be finished. But Longman came down on me unexpectedly with a peremptory demand; which I should not be much surprised, after all, to find had been premature. From this pressure, I have been obliged to get through the revision of the Logic in a more summary manner than I had hoped to do, and to content myself with alterations and additions to several chapters which I had once thought of rewriting altogether. I have limited myself to what was indispensable, but have given references to the book on Hamilton on points into which I could not enter at length. I read Professor Grote’s4 book carefully, but found speculations and criticisms much more vague and less tangible than I expected. Bain seemed to think that Edition: current; Page: [1096] the objection to Noumena was important, and merited notice, but, as I understand it, it amounts to little. It is very well to say, why suppose an unknowable entity as the substratum of everything knowable, but the truth seems to be that the Professor merely, with Reid and Hamilton, believes this unknowable entity to be the knowable. Altogether I could make no use of the Exploratio for the improvement of my Logic, and have merely touched upon it briefly in a note.5

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

I was very happy to infer from Mrs Grote’s letter to Helen, that the visit to Baden was benefitting her health. It is hardly to be expected that her recovery should be rapid from the state of prostration she seems to have been in. All will depend upon her being surrounded for a considerable time with the most favourable circumstances attainable. We are not likely either to see you and her before our departure or to encounter you on the Continent, as we go first to North Germany, and shall make a long though very rapid circuit before settling down to Avignon and Plato. There is now no other heavy work hanging over me before the meeting of Parliament, and the worst that can happen is that I may have to ask Reeve6 for an additional three months, so as to have the whole time up to February available.

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

An intelligent correspondent of mine in Greece, Mr Leonidas Sgouta,7 has Edition: current; Page: [1097] sent me the inclosed appeal from the Archaeological Society of Athens to those in the Western countries who are interested in Grecian antiquities. You are at the central point of all such, and I cannot better promote the object than by sending the papers to you. I should be very glad to join with others in any subscription for the object.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

I am obliged to you for drawing my attention to the official correspondence about the Low2 affair. I should otherwise have overlooked it.

Today, the very day before we leave, I have for the first time been able to look through the pamphlets and documents which you sent to me, and which I now return. Your address to the Social Science Assn is very good,3 and Lord Ebrington’s pamphlet4 is full of good things.

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

TO WILLIAM MARTIN DICKSON1

I am sincerely obliged to you for giving me an opportunity of reading the letter of General Cox,2 and your excellent paper in reply.3

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

It is certainly some gain to the negroes, and to the principle of freedom, that they have been made even nominally free. I do not pretend that it is nothing, that they can no longer legally be bought and sold. But this is about the amount of all they will have gained, if the power of legislation over them is handed over once more to their old masters, and to the mean whites by whom they are despised as much, and probably hated more, than even by their masters, and who have been fighting these four years to retain them enslaved. If it were not for your State institutions, the case would not be so pressing, for those who have made them free could keep them so. But, once the war power laid down, and the regular course of State government restored, what is to prevent a State legislature chosen by their enemies from making laws under which, unless they resist by force, they will have as little the control of their own actions, as little protection for life, honor, and property, will Edition: current; Page: [1099] in short be, except in a few of the outward incidents of slavery, almost as much slaves as before? To bring this about, it would not even be necessary to enact new laws. It would suffice to leave the old ones unrepealed, by which the testimony of a negro cannot be received against a white. Nay, even were these laws abrogated, nothing more would be needed than partiality and prejudice in the white courts of justice. And would it be consistent with ordinary human nature that such partiality and prejudice should not exist? All this is so evident that even the candidate to whose letter you so ably replied, is quite aware of it; and can suggest no means of averting the evil, except what I agree with you in regarding as the chimerical project, of effecting a local separation between the two races, excluding the negroes from the jurisdiction of the States, and giving them a territorial government apart. It is not to be believed that the President or Congress will entertain such a scheme as this seriously. If, then, they allow the Southern States to reorganize themselves and resume all their constitutional rights without negro suffrage, what is to be done? To abandon the negroes to the tender mercies of those from whom, at so terrible a cost, you have so lately rescued them? No party or set of men in the Free States are so shameless as to propose this combined turpitude and imbecility. But the freedom of the negroes and the self-government of the Southern States as at present constituted, cannot coexist: and if it is determined that, come what will, the former shall be a reality, it must be intended that the latter should be a mere pretence. A censorship will have to be exercised over all the acts, both legislative and administrative, of the State governments; the Federal authorities will by military coercion prevent or set aside all proceedings calculated to interfere with that equality of civil rights which they are bound by every consideration both of duty and of interest to secure to the freed race. And this military dictatorship will have to be continued for a very great length of time; for it is speaking within bounds to say that two generations must elapse before the habits and feelings engendered by slavery give place to new ones; before the stain which the position of slave master burns into the very souls of the privileged population can be expected to fade out.

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

Instead of restoring to the States lately in rebellion a nominal self-government which, unless you are willing to sacrifice all that has been gained by four years of civil war, can not be suffered to be real, would it not be better Edition: current; Page: [1100] to make the self-government real, but to grant it only to a mixed community, in which the population who have been corrupted by vicious institutions will be neutralized by black citizens and white immigrants from the North?

And what is the hindrance to this in the minds of the President and his cabinet? Is it scruples about legality? To be scrupulous about exceeding his lawful powers, well becomes the first magistrate of a free people. But in this case the scruple seems wholly out of place. We are told that the rebel States must be assumed never to have been out of the Union, and therefore to be unconditionally entitled to all their original liberties and powers the moment they condescend to accept them. Reason would say, on the contrary, that by declaring themselves independent of the Union, they could not indeed, divest themselves of its obligations, but certainly forfeited its privileges. A state of civil war suspends all legal rights, and all social compacts, between the combatants. Except under the terms of a capitulation, defeated rebels have no rights but the universal ones of humanity. The Southern people, their lives, bodies, and estates, were by the issue of the war, placed at the discretion of their conquerors; but of conquerors whom both the general law of right, and the special principles of their own social and political institutions, forbid to exercise permanent dominion over any human beings as subjects, or on any other footing than that of equal citizenship. It would, however, be on the part of the Free States a generosity partaking of silliness, were they to give back to their bitter enemies not only power to govern themselves, and the negroes within their limits, but (through representatives in Congress,) to govern the Free States too, without first exacting such changes in the structure of Southern society as will render such a relation between them and the Free States rational and safe. If you have not a right to do this, you had not a right to impose the abolition of Slavery. Consider what an element you are going once more to admit into the supreme government of the Union. Think of this one thing—it is but one of many. Every Southern member of Congress, elected without negro suffrage, is a sure vote for that blackest and most disgraceful breach of faith, which would brand American democracy and popular government itself with a mark that would endure for generations—the repudiation of the war debt. The Southern representatives, in fact, would be the only members of Congress who could honestly vote for this; since to their minds, unless the Confederate debt is recognised too, it would seem only equal justice. This is of itself a sufficient reason why no community, composed exclusively or principally of those who have been engaged in the rebellion, is fit to have a voice in Congress. Of course the States have to be readmitted: to keep them out, and govern them as subjects, would be in contradiction to all the principles of the American or any other free constitution. But the future history of America perhaps for ages to come, depends (I cannot but think) upon your requiring them, before admission, to give Edition: current; Page: [1101] guarantees to freedom, by admixture with fellow citizens whose interests and feelings are in unison with justice and with the principles of the Free States. Migration from the North will do this in time and in part, but only negro suffrage can do it sufficiently.

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

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

The “middle course” which you seem to think not feasible2 would, I think, consist in making the Board which confers degrees totally distinct from any of the Colleges, and depriving it of all authority over them. Perhaps the best mode would be to place the whole affair under the University of London,3 appointing, as you suggest a few persons in the confidence of the Ultramontanes4 to seats in the Senate. If this is objected to, it seems to me that a similar body, named by the Government, and in which the Ultramontanes should be represented but not to the extent of half, should be created for Ireland. They are not entitled to half. The Catholic religion is entitled to half, but not any particular section of the Catholic body. The Government would merely in appointing Catholics take care to appoint some of the Ultramontane party, instead of taking care to exclude that party.

But I am afraid there is little chance of getting this, or anything like it, Edition: current; Page: [1102] assented to by the Government or Parliament. Jacta est alea5 I fear. But there must be a stir made in the House, in which I hope to help.

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

TO GEORGE HOWELL1

I thank you sincerely for your letter and its enclosures.2 Your details are of importance by shewing that a strike, when extending to an entire trade, or even to a great part of it throughout the country, is sometimes remarkably successful. But you seem to argue that the benefit to the operators is not at the expense of the employers, being, I suppose, reimbursed to them by the increased price of the article in which they deal, being, in the present case, houses. Now this might, and often would, happen in a single trade, but you have not, perhaps, considered that it could not happen if the rise of wages extended to all, or the generality, of trades. I could shew that there could not possibly be, in that case, an equivalent rise of general prices. But I content myself with saying that even if there was, it would not compensate the employers, since a rise of price extending to all things is merely nominal. Besides, a rise of wages accompanied by an equivalent rise of all prices would be no benefit to the labouring classes.

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

TO JOHN BOYD KINNEAR1

Many thanks for your long & interesting letter. It is well that those who agree as much as we do sh^d occasionally discuss their points of difference, if only for the sake of suggesting to each other matter for further thought. I will therefore add a few words by way of rejoinder confining myself at present to your third point, the extension of the suffrage.2

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

The vertical divisions of opinion which you speak of seem to me to belong to the past, & to be almost wholly the effect of bad laws, now mostly removed. Who ever thinks of opposition of interest or feeling between the agricultural & the trading classes now that the corn laws have been repealed?3 But the division between labourers & employers of labour seems to me to be increasing in importance, & gradually swallowing up all others, & I believe it will be always widening & deepening unless, or until, the growth of Cooperation practically merges both classes into one. And if either of the two powers is strong enough to prevail without the help of an enlightened minority of the opposite class, it seems to me contrary to all experience of human nature to suppose that it will not abuse its power. There is no considerable opposition of apparent interest among the different kinds of manual labourers. Even if there be any kind of them whose wages do not admit of being raised, which I for one do not believe (much less would they), they would still, I apprehend, vote for a law which they thought would raise the wages of others, since the rise would not be at their expense. Neither is it only on the question of wages, or hours of labour, that the poorest & most Edition: current; Page: [1104] numerous class would feel a common interest as against the propertied classes; might they not be tempted to throw all taxes on property—or even on realised property—& to make the taxes heavy in order, by their outlay, to benefit as they might think, trade & labour? Does anyone think them sufficiently enlightened to have outgrown these fallacies? I am expressing all this very crudely for want of time & space, but “I speak as to wise men—judge ye what I speak.”4

I heartily wish you were in the H. of C. to speak there the whole of your book5 & many things besides. But perhaps the wish will appear to you like that of the fox who had lost his tail.

TO JOHN PLUMMER1

There has lately been forwarded to me from Blackheath a note from Mr Walford,2 one of the editors of “Once a Week”, saying that he had been asked to suggest a proper person to go out to India to edit a daily paper, with a good salary guaranteed for three years certain, a knowledge of commercial politics being one of the requisites. He wished to know whether I thought you qualified for such a post, as if so he should like to recommend you for it. I was in some difficulty in giving a distinct answer to Mr Walford’s question, from not knowing exactly what he meant by commercial politics, nor knowing completely what commercial questions you had attended to. I stated to him this difficulty, but said that I thought you quite competent to the editing and much of the writing of such a paper as he mentioned. I did not, however, say anything leading him to suppose either that you would, or that you would not, be likely to accept such a position, not knowing whether it would be more agreeable to you than your present one. I have heard nothing further from Mr Walford, but I think it as well to mention to you what has passed on the subject. It is at any rate an additional instance of a favourable impression made by you.

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

TO WILLIAM FRASER RAE1

I have a strong impression that you are well qualified for the Professorship for which you propose offering yourself,2 but have some difficulty in specifying the grounds of that impression with the precision and detail desirable in a testimonial. I inclose a few lines, but I should not be surprised if they were quite insufficient to be of use to you.

I am sorry that you have had so serious an illness, but very glad that you have got so much better. Your letter is the first information I have had that you are no longer editor of the Reader. I have heard nothing of its affairs since I saw you beyond being invited to a meeting to ratify the sale to some one whose name I do not remember to have heard you mention.3 I was in hopes that in changing proprietors the paper would not have lost its Editor. I am

TO MONCURE DANIEL CONWAY1

I cannot thank you enough for M^r Wendell Phillips’ admirable speeches.2 I was not aware that he was so thorough an adherent of not only representation of minorities, but what is much more, personal representation—the Edition: current; Page: [1106] representation of every elector: that great idea of which the credit, though Mr Phillips seems to give it to me, is exclusively due to Mr Hare. It is hardly possible to state the merits of the principle more forcibly, or with a more thorough understanding of all its importance, than Mr Phillips has done. It is indeed at once a direct corollary from the first principles of democracy, and a most powerful corrective of all evils liable to arise from the forms of democratic government hitherto in use. That M^r Phillips should have taken it up, and in the manner he has, is most cheering and auspicious. I was not aware of the publication he mentions, and should like very much to see it.

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

I have not, however, been convinced by M^r Phillips’ argument against an educational qualification.3 It is very true that intelligence, and even a high order of it, may be formed by other means than reading, and even (though, I think, rarely) without the aid of reading: but not, I think, intelligence of public affairs, or the power of judging of public men, save perhaps in exceptional cases, too few to affect the practical conclusion. At the present crisis, however, the securing of equal political rights to the negro is paramount to all other considerations respecting the suffrage. I should be glad to think that you are strong enough to reject a compromise admitting negroes on an educational qualification common to them with the whites. As things look now, it seems as if even that would be a thing to be thankful for.

The author of the article “Enfranchisement of Women” would have been Edition: current; Page: [1107] well rewarded by the progress which that question is making, had she lived to see it.4 Nothing would have gratified her more than to hear on such high authority that a cause to which she was so earnestly devoted had been in any degree forwarded in America by what she wrote.

TO AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN1

I have to thank you for three letters2 which have been reproaching me ever since they were forwarded from Blackheath. The one on probability I was obliged to lay by for reperusal. This I have now been able to give to it and I seem to myself to follow the reasoning and agree with it. You have probably observed the correction I made on the point in question in the new edition of my Logic.3 It will probably now require a supplementary one. If the edition were still unpublished I would have asked you for a short note with leave to insert it as yours.

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

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

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

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

TO MAURICE WAKEMAN1

Your letter dated Sept. 29 has been forwarded to me here. For the good opinion & good will which it expresses as regards myself I am duly thankful.2 You will scarcely be surprised that the bitter hostility it declares against my country & (with a few individual exceptions) against the whole of my countrymen, produces in me a very different sentiment.

No one disapproves more, or is in the habit of expressing his disapprobation more strongly than I do of the narrow, exclusive patriotism of former ages which made the good of the whole human race a subordinate consideration to the good, or worse still, to the mere power & external importance, of the country of one’s birth. I believe that the good of no country can be obtained by any means but such as tend to that of all countries, nor ought to be Edition: current; Page: [1109] sought otherwise, even if obtainable. If my country were peopled, as you seem to think, by the scum of the earth, & if its existence were a standing nuisance to all other nations, I for one would shake the dust from my feet & seek a better country elsewhere. But, speaking as one who has never kept any terms with national vanity nor ever hesitated to tell his countrymen of their faults & who has especially censured the feelings & conduct of an influential portion of them on the occasion of your late glorious contest, I do not admit the charges brought against them in your letter. England is to the populations of Europe the representative, by no means perfect but still the representative, of the same principles of social & political freedom which Americans so justly cherish. Any weakening of her influence would be simply so much additional discouragement to popular institutions & to liberty of thought, speech, & action throughout the old continents, & strengthening of the hands of despotism, temporal & spiritual, all over the world.

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

TO GUSTAVE D’EICHTHAL1

Je vous remercie très sincèrement de l’envoi de votre travail sur la question des origines américaines,2 bien que je ne l’aie point encore vu. Votre lettre m’a été envoyée ici, mais l’Etude se trouve confondue dans la foule d’imprimés de tout genre dont on m’accable, et pour la faire venir ici il faudrait qu’on fît un paquet de plusieurs kilogrammes de fadaises. Ce sera pour moi une lecture bien intéressante lorsque je pourrai la faire. Je ne puis vous recommander Edition: current; Page: [1110] d’autre nom pour recevoir un exemplaire, si ce n’est peut-être celui de la Société Ethnologique, presidée par M. Crawfurd.3

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

Je me réjouis que vous vous occupez fortement de votre St Jean.4 Si cette partie est relativement à la hauteur de la première, vous aurez fait un des plus importants ouvrages sur un des plus grands sujets.

TO HERBERT SPENCER1

I have kept your letter by me unanswered, partly for want of time, and partly in hopes that the delay might enable something to occur to me which would throw light on the rather subtle matter of difference between us which you bring to my notice.2 It is evident that I have again a misapprehension of your opinion to confess and correct, since you do not acknowledge it as yours in the mode in which it is stated by me. We seem to differ on two questions, one a question of fact, viz. whether it is possible, while looking at the sun, to imagine darkness. You, and your three friends, think it is not, while my consciousness seems to tell me that it is quite as possible to imagine darkness in its absence, as anything else in its absence. Of course the stronger present Edition: current; Page: [1111] impression of an actual sensation makes the simultaneous consciousness of a mere recollection seem feeble by comparison. But it appears to me perfectly real, and as like the impression of sense which it corresponds to, as most reminiscences are to their originals.

But, you say, even if I could, under such conditions, imagine darkness, it would not follow that I could imagine that I am actually at the moment looking into darkness. To me it seems, that to imagine an object of sight, is always to imagine myself actually at the moment seeing it. I think one never imagines anything otherwise than as an immediate and present impression of one’s own. Indeed, when the object to be conceived is darkness, there is absolutely nothing else to imagine, than oneself trying to see and not seeing; for darkness is not a positive thing. It seems to me, then, that I can, in broad daylight, conceive myself then & there looking into darkness. Is this the same thing, or not the same thing, as what you mean by the words “conceive that I am then and there looking into darkness”?3 It strikes me that this change of the expression to the form I am, just marks the transition from conception to belief—from an imagination of something thought as absent from the senses, to an apprehension of something which is thought to be present to the senses; of which two states of mind I hold the former to be, in the assumed circumstances, possible, the latter impossible. It was in this way I was led to think that you were here using the word conception in the sense of belief. Even now, I cannot see how the phrase, to conceive that I am, or that anything is, can be consistent with using the word conceive in its rigorous sense.

TO CHARLES GAVAN DUFFY1

The place from which this note is dated will sufficiently account to you for my not having written to you sooner. Had I been in England, I should have endeavoured to find you out before this. As it is, I can only say that I shall be at Avignon for the next three months and that if your Continental excursion Edition: current; Page: [1112] should lead you this way, I shall be most happy to see you. My address here can be learnt at the Hotel d’Europe.

TO MACRAE MOIR1

My absence from England prevented me from receiving your circular . . . but I beg to express my satisfaction at Mr. Masson’s appointment to the Edinburgh Professorship.2

TO LOUIS BLANC1

J’avais déjà vu dans un journal la nouvelle de votre mariage,2 et j’ai reçu depuis de Blackheath la carte qui m’en faisait part. Je vous félicite de tout mon coeur, et vous souhaite tout le bonheur que puisse offrir un pareil événement.

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

TO JOHN MORLEY1

Wherever I might have seen that article,2 I should have felt a strong wish to know who was its author, as it shows an unusual amount of qualities which go towards making the most valuable kind of writer for the general public.

TO ADAM GUROWSKI1

I have read your three volumes . . . and the result is that on their own account as well as on yours, I am desirous that they should be published.2 You have fully established the claim of your view of the last years of American Edition: current; Page: [1114] history, to be heard and considered. Your Diary will be an important part of the evidence which future historians of these great events will have to study. It will be very instructive even in this country.

TO JOHN NICOLAUS TRÜBNER1

Though I should like very much to be of service to Count Gurowski, and really think his book2 well worthy of republication, I should not be willing to write an introduction to it, or attach my name to it as Editor. I have abstained hitherto, and prefer still to abstain, from making myself responsible for other people’s writings; and in this book there are so many severe things said of individual politicians, that it would be wrong in me, with no more information than I possess, to make myself a party to them, and hardly possible to put my name to the book without seeming to do so.

Your report respecting the work on Comte is very satisfactory.3 A translation of it into French is in course of being made, with my concurrence, to be published by Germer Baillière.4 With regard to a German translation,5 I have no wish except that it should not be done by an incompetent person. I do not look for any gain from it, and I doubt if it would be worth the while of a publisher to give anything worth taking for the privilege: but if it should so happen, I propose that we should divide equally whatever is obtained.

I do not wish any copies to be sent here; but I should like a copy sent to Professor Fawcett, M.P. Trinity Hall, Cambridge, if he was not on the list I sent you; also to J. S. Storr Esq.6 26 King Street Covent Garden, and Dr Brewer,7 21 George Street Hanover Square.

TO GEORGE GROTE1

I find myself, from my want of knowledge of the Platonic critics, ignorant of the merits of a question of some importance and difficulty, viz. whether the Platonic Apologia is in substance the real defence of Sokrates. I learn from your book that Schleiermacher and Ueberweg think so,2 and that you are of the same opinion. But on the other hand, the Platonic Apologia is almost wholly different from the Xenophontic,3 which latter professes to be the defence actually made by Sokrates and told to Xenophon by Hermogenes, who is also mentioned in the Phaedon as one of the friends who were with Sokrates at his death.4 Xenophon says,5 indeed, that many more things were said by Sokrates than are included in his report; and the things which Xenophon was likely to omit, would be just those which Plato would relate. But Plato’s report does not profess to omit anything. If both are genuine, we must suppose that each reporter left out exactly what the other took, for there is hardly anything in common to them both, except the allusion to Palamedes.6 Now, in every other case, you seem to regard the Xenophontic, and not the Platonic, as the historical Sokrates. Could you, without much trouble, give me some notion of the reasons for holding the opposite opinion in this particular case?

If the Apologia is not the real speech of Sokrates I do not know why we should consider it as authoritative evidence of the point of view of Sokrates as distinct from Plato. For it seems almost equally unlikely that Plato would have put anything unSokratic into the mouth of Sokrates in the affecting narrative of the last day of his life: yet he does, without scruple, put into his mouth on that day the whole of his own two doctrines of Ideas and Reminiscence, which, as far as I know, neither you nor any one supposes to have been held by Sokrates. These things are a real puzzle to me: an ἀπορια for which I greatly need τον καταλυσοντα.7

Reeve has very courteously consented to wait for the article till the April number,8 which gives me the whole time up to the meeting of Parliament for Edition: current; Page: [1116] completing it. I have not yet written anything, but have read Plato all through, and am now going through your book carefully again, not only referring to Plato frequently, but reading once more quite through some of the most important of the dialogues which I read last spring: Phaedon, Parmenides, Theoctetus, Sophistes, Politikos, &c.

The article in the Westminster on your book9 seems to me very good. I am curious to know who wrote it.

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

TO W. O. ADAMS1

To give a proper answer to your question2 would be to write the essay which you are intending to write. But if you wish for a mere opinion, expressed in few words, I would say,

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

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

TO ROWLAND G. HAZARD1

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

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

I was happy to find, though it was no more than I expected, that we think exactly alike on the necessity of giving equality of political rights to the negroes. What has just taken place in Jamaica2 might be used as a very strong argument against leaving the freedmen to be legislated for by their former masters. The legislation appears to have been just such as might have been expected, and the consequence is what we see. It seems not at all unlikely that England will have to make a clean sweep of the institutions of Jamaica, and suspend the power of local legislation altogether, until the necessary internal reforms have been effected by the authority of the mother country. How much more needful, then, is it that America should refrain from giving back to the rebel states the rights already forfeited by them, except on such conditions as will secure equal laws and an impartial administration Edition: current; Page: [1118] of justice between colour and colour; which will not and cannot be the case unless the Negroes can serve on juries, and, through the electoral suffrage, have an equal voice in choosing or controlling the judges, or those who appoint them. I felt greatly discouraged a short time ago by the turn which events seemed to be taking; but the published conversation between the President and Mr Stearns3 has revived my hopes; for it seems to shew that Mr Johnson does not differ fundamentally from us; that he only hesitates on the question of time, and is ready even at once to enfranchise the negroes subject to certain conditions, which he would make applicable also to the uneducated whites. If he adheres to this, and also to his declared opinion that non-electors ought not to be counted, even in a fractional proportion, as part of the population that determines the number of Federal representatives; the Republican majority in Congress will be able to act with him, and to prevent any serious mischief.

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

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

TO CHARLES ELIOT NORTON1

I have had the pleasure of receiving your letter of the 30th ult^o. It is needless to send me the North American Review, as I am already a subscriber to it; but I am always glad to hear from any of the writers and to be enabled to identify an article with its author. The essay on American Political Ideas2 I had read the day before I received your letter. There is a good cause why the Americans are more attached than the people of other countries to the principles of their Constitution; it is because their Constitution has principles. The British Constitution has no principles: it is the unpremeditated and unplanned result of a secular conflict of opposing forces. There are however, principles, not laid down in words, but involved both in the English and in the American institutions, viz. personal freedom; liberty of thought and publication; and, in America, perfect civil equality between one person and another. To these principles the people of each country are strongly attached, but in neither are they thoroughly carried out, though by you far more nearly so than by us. I hope you are going to carry the last of them into effect as between white people and black; after which it will still remain to bring it into operation between men and women.

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

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

TO GEORGE GROTE1

I am very much indebted to you for taking the trouble to give me such full explanations in answer to my question respecting the Apologia.2 The points you mention in Xenophon and Plato are all familiar to me, but I wanted your appreciation of them, and that you have given me. I had been much struck with the fact that the two authorities are not agreed even as to what the oracle was, though unquestionably they must both have known it. There is also a prima facie objection to the statement of Sokrates in the Apology, that he first commenced his cross-examining Elenchus after he had already been declared by the oracle to be the wisest of men. If the oracle declared this of Sokrates before he set out on the career which has given him all his fame with posterity, the oracle must have had remarkable sagacity and wonderfully good information. However this may be, I understand you to think that Sokrates spoke the substance of what Xenophon ascribes to him, and also matters which, idealized by Plato, became the Platonic Apology;3 and this seems much the most probable supposition which can be made.

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

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

We are very happy to hear your favourable account of Mrs. Grote. Pray give her our kindest regards. I am equally pleased and honoured by your reviewing me for Chapman,4 and I am glad that you take the opportunity of Edition: current; Page: [1121] doing justice to my father.5 My own contribution to his memory is already written in a MS designed for posthumous publication;6 though if I live more than a few years longer, I shall very likely publish it while I am alive.

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

TO JOHN PLUMMER1

I have received your note, but not the prospectus of the new paper,2 which if sent to Blackheath, would in ordinary course wait there for my return, as though letters are forwarded to me here, printed matter is not. I however expect a parcel from Blackheath in a week or thereabouts, which will probably contain it. I dare say I shall be able to write some sort of letter to you when I have seen the Prospectus, or at any rate after the first number. An article, I am sorry to say, would be quite out of the question with my present occupations.

I have never yet had time to acknowledge your letter of Nov. 11. I am very much obliged to you for all you write, and no less so for not writing solely to forward applications which you are quite right in thinking I should be unable to comply with. I am not surprised at your not accepting the offer of the Indian Editorship,3 and were I in your place I would not accept it either. Your present position, like all others, may have its disagreeables, but they are probably much less than those of the Indian situation, and the connexion is a better one for opening other opportunities both of improving your own condition and of serving your opinions.

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

TO CHARLES KINNEAR WATT1

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

At almost any other time than the present I should have felt it a duty to shew my sense of the distinguished honour conferred on me, by accepting the office of Rector and endeavouring to the best of my power to discharge its duties. But it is hardly possible that such a function could have devolved on me more inopportunely than in the circumstances in which I am placed at the present moment, when my whole time is devoted to clearing off longstanding literary engagements which I cannot hope to have completed sooner than the commencement of the Session of Parliament.2 Even, therefore, if it were possible for you to wait a considerable time for the visit which it would be my duty to pay you, I do not know at what time it would be in my power Edition: current; Page: [1123] to pay it. An address fit to be delivered on such an occasion and to such an audience, is a thing which I certainly could not produce off-hand, or with a mind occupied with other engrossing thoughts. Under these difficulties I see no course which I can take but that of respectfully declining the office which has been so flatteringly bestowed on me by the students of the University.3 With sincere thanks for their good will and favourable opinion, I am

TO LOUIS BLANC1

Je ne puis m’abstenir de vous féliciter des admirables lettres que vous écrivez au Temps sur les déplorables événements qui se sont passés en Jamaïque, et surtout de celle qui a paru le 30 Novembre.2 Rien ne saurait être mieux pensé ni mieux senti que cette lettre. Souhaitons qu’il se trouvera dans le parti libéral de la chambre assez d’hommes de coeur, non seulement pour flétrir dignement les iniquités de la répression, mais pour exiger la punition exemplaire de leurs auteurs. Le ministère et la chambre, voire même la nation, veut donner leur mesure. S’ils laissent faire de pareilles énormités au nom de l’Angleterre, ils n’auront rien à reprocher ni aux Russes en Pologne—qui n’ont jamais fait autant—ni aux Carrier3 et Collot4 de la Révolution française.

Vos observations au le Times sont excellentes; mais on pourrait dire de plus, que dans ce qui regarde les West Indies, ce journal ne représente pas l’opinion publique de l’Angleterre, bien qu’il entraîne trop souvent cette opinion. Vous avez pu remarquer qu’en tout ce qui regarde les nègres, le Times est depuis vingt ans l’organe de l’oligarchie blanche des West Indies. Je ne sais pas quel est l’intérêt, pécuniaire ou social, qui le décide à se ranger Edition: current; Page: [1124] sous cette bannière, mais le fait n’est pas douteux. Le Times n’a-t-il pas fait, pendant de longues années, tout son possible pour forcer ou persuader le gouvernement à retirer l’escadre anglaise des côtes de l’Afrique?5 tentative qu’il n’a abandonnée que lorsque l’impossibilité de réussir a été pleinement constatée. On sait toujours d’avance ce que dira le Times dans tout cet ordre de questions: on est sûr qu’il sera du parti le plus brutalement contraire aux noirs. Il ne serait pas sans utilité que cette liaison du Times avec les intérêts esclavagistes fût connue en France, où généralement on voit dans ce journal un organe de l’opinion anglaise, sans tenir compte des impulsions spéciales et privées qui agissent souvent sur les écrivains du Times comme sur ceux de tout autre journal, et modifient sa mauvaise direction générale par de mauvais caprices particuliers.

TO DR. HENRY MacCORMAC1

In answer to your letter of Nov. 29, I would say, that restrictions on marriage, or on any other human action when so conducted as to be directly injurious to others than the agents themselves, do not appear to me objectionable on the principle of Liberty.2 For all our actions which affect the interests of other people I hold that we are morally, & may without violation of principle be made legally, responsible. I have however expressly guarded myself against being understood to mean that legal restrictions on marriage are expedient. That is an altogether different question, to which I conceive no universal & peremptory answer can be given, & in deciding which for any particular case due weight ought to be given to the probability of consequences of the kind you mention as well as of any other kinds.

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

TO JAMES BEAL1

I have seen with great pleasure, in the newspapers, the movement which the St. James’s Vestry has originated at your suggestion for the union of all London into one body for municipal purposes, with smaller bodies of the same sort for purposes special to each of the parliamentary divisions.2 I have long wished that an effort in this direction should be made. All the more important town-interests are common to the whole town, and can only be properly attended to by a body representative of the whole; and I quite agree with you that there should be but one such body, and that the functions (for instance) of the Board of Trade should merge into those of the united municipality. I also go entirely along with the proposal to abolish the jurisdiction of the Middlesex magistrates in the metropolis, and to have none but stipendiary magistrates. The only point on which I do not agree with the scheme as reported is the choice of magistrates by the citizens or the municipal body. The proposed corporation ought, of course, to have powers equal to those of other municipal corporations; but it seems to me that the choice of judicial officers is best placed, not with any corporation, but with a minister or great public functionary, who can be held responsible for making a proper choice. As a general rule, skilled professional officers are hardly ever well chosen by numbers; some one person must make it his business to find them and judge of their qualifications. I do not know if this view of the question has been under your consideration, or that of the vestry; but as I hope to aid in bringing your plan before Parliament, I am glad to begin already an interchange of sentiment with you on the subject.3

TO WILLIAM FRASER RAE1

I imagine that none of the candidates for the Professorship had any chance against Mr Henry Morley.2 I am sorry to hear such an indifferent account of your health, and I regret much that you have been prevented from finishing the article you mention. If you pass through Avignon before we leave for England, we shall be very glad to see you.

I fully intend to read Livingstone’s new book3 when I have time, but I do not know when that will be. There seems likely to be enough doing in Parliament, this session, to occupy all one’s thoughts. There is no part of it all, not even the Reform Bill, more important than the duty of dealing justly with the abominations committed in Jamaica.4 If England lets off the perpetrators with an inadequate punishment, no Englishman hereafter will be entitled to reproach Russia or the French Revolutionists with any massacres, without at the same time confessing that his own country has done worse.

TO HORACE WHITE1

Your letter dated Nov 3 has been forwarded to me here. It would be a great satisfaction to me to be able to give any assistance in the struggle which the enlightened friends of Free Trade have to maintain against, I am sorry to say, many Americans whose opinions & feelings on other matters Edition: current; Page: [1127] command my warmest sympathies. I do not despair of being able, some time hence, to write something for the Chicago Tribune of the kind you wish,2 & if so I shall esteem it a privilege to have it accepted without any payment. At present however my time & thoughts are so fully occupied by engagements which must be completed before the commencement of the session of Parl^t now near at hand, that I really am not able to undertake any fresh work. What you ask me to do is not easy; I hardly know any point in Pol. Economy which it is more difficult to treat popularly, & so as to carry persuasion to those who have not studied the subject, than that one, of the influence of high & low wages on foreign trade. To understand the matter it is necessary to realize the fact that all trade is in reality barter—that the question is not whether the home capitalist shall produce or not, but whether he shall produce one thing or another—cotton fabrics, for instance, or wheat; & that high wages which must equally be paid in either case, cannot place one of these two modes of employing his capital at any disadvantage by the side of the other. If it was only in cottonspinning that American wages were higher than English, while in agriculture they were equal, then indeed the high wages being peculiar to one employment would really make it more difficult, & perhaps impossible to carry it on without a protecting duty. But in that case it would clearly be an employment unsuited to the country, since labour employed in it would require to be remunerated more highly than the general rate of wages in the country.

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

TO JOHN TULLOCH1

You are probably aware of the causes which have so long delayed my answer to your communication dated the 24 in ult^o. Being so situated as to Edition: current; Page: [1128] have no chance of being able to visit Saint Andrews’ for the purpose of delivering an address, at any time when the University will be sitting, earlier than the end of January 1867, I thought it best to make this circumstance known to the students who had done me the honour of electing me, and to be guided by their wishes in accepting or declining the Rectorship. Being informed that, notwithstanding this inevitable delay, it is still the wish of the Students that I should fill the office of Rector, I beg, accordingly, to communicate to you my acceptance of that office. I understand that this intimation should properly be made to the Vice Chancellor.2 I am not able, where I am, to ascertain who is the present holder of that dignity, nor the proper form in which to make the announcement; but I take the liberty of inclosing a communication addressed to him, and of begging that if it be informal, or in any other way insufficient, you will kindly furnish me with the means of rectifying it.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

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

I am doubtful of any good from an inquiry moved for by Lord Elcho.2 The sole object of its promoters will probably be to obtain such statistics as may frighten Parliament and the electoral body into restricting the extension of the suffrage to the narrowest limits possible. They do not want to have Edition: current; Page: [1129] your, or my, or Mr Hare’s plans of reform taken into consideration, and they will prevent all such consideration if they can. Any locus standi for “crochets” and “fancy franchises” before the Commission will have to be fought for, and fought for against Tories, Whigs, and such Radicals as Bright. It would therefore be in my opinion a false policy for any reformer to say to Government or the public, Do not propose a Reform Bill, but wait for the result of an enquiry by such men as Lord Elcho. But even if it were competent to any other reformer to take this position, it is not so for me. It is for those to call for an enquiry who need an enquiry, before being willing to take action. I know what reform I want, and am ready now to do my utmost to get it. An enquiry should be supplementary to, and not instead of, any measure of reform that the present ministry are likely to propose.

I am very sorry that you have had so much unpleasantness about the Newsman, and sorry that Beal had any share in it. I was hoping that you and he would be able to work together at the local government of London. It is one of the many questions which incessantly make me regret that you are not member for Westminster. I shall want to consult with you about it, and shall miss you if you are in Algeria.3 But if you can really help the sanitary improvement of the army, it is a thing worth going there for.

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

TO HENRY FAWCETT1

I have delayed long to thank you for your book,2 having been very busy writing, and unable to read it with proper attention until within these few days.

I think the essays must have been very interesting as lectures,3 and will be very useful as a book. The subject of the land laws, and laws of inheritance, is very well treated, and is one of which few feel the importance. You have broken ground very usefully on it. The considerations you have brought forward will be much needed in the discussions we shall soon have on Irish affairs, and the whole subject will become much more practical after any considerable parliamentary reform. One of the most important consequences of giving a share in the government to the working classes, is that there will then be some members of the House with whom it will no longer be an axiom that human society exists for the sake of property in land—a grovelling superstition which is still in full force among the higher classes.

I need hardly say how highly I approve your chapter on cooperation, and the restatement of the ideas of your Westminster Review article respecting Strikes.4 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,5 though it will probably be more praised than any of the rest: but I think I could shew that an increase of wages at the expense of profits would not be an impracticability on the true principles of political economy. It might doubtless send capital to other countries; but we must recollect that the movement Edition: current; Page: [1131] 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.6 They were not advances to cooperative societies, but direct payment of wages, for work mostly nominal, from the public purse; and so far were they from having any connexion with Louis Blanc or his opinions, that he has always bitterly complained of them, as having been set up, not for, but against him and his plans. The member of the Provincial Government principally responsible for them was, he says, M. Marie.7 The advances to associations of workmen were quite another matter, and did none of the harm which the ateliers nationaux did—probably even some good: at all events the Government could not have refused such experimental aid when the associations thought that they could not get on without it. I am not certain that such advances (resembling those the Crédit Mobilier8 makes to a richer class) would not sometimes be useful even now: though it is one of the lessons of the experience of that time that in most cases the associations which did without subsidies prospered the most.

There are some misprints in the volume, especially ‘married men’ for ‘monied men’ at p.209, and Arsène Haussage for Houssaye9 (p.103).

We shall now soon meet on our common field of battle. The two great topics of the year will be Jamaica10 and Reform,11 and there will be an immensity to be said and done on both subjects. I have just seen with great pleasure that Lord Hobart has come out decidedly in M^cMillan’s for Hare’s system.12 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,13 of the burthen of which I shall probably have to take a considerable share.

TO THOMAS HARE1

It is a favourable sign of the impression which the idea of Personal Representation is making not only on the best thinkers but on thinking persons of all degrees that I should have received such a letter as the one I inclose.2 The objections to the plan proposed by the writer, you will not need me to point out; but he shews that his mind has worked on the subject, and many minds like his are probably by this time doing the same.

I was delighted to read Lord Hobart’s complete and most intelligent adhesion in the new number of M^cMillan.3 His is about the best theoretical head in the whole nobility. What a pity that he holds an office which excludes him from the House of Commons.

In a letter I have just received from M. Morin,4 he tells me that through the impression made by Naville,5 and in consequence of the victory of the Independent Party in the late elections, there is some chance of an actual trial of Personal Representation in the choice of the four deputies whom Geneva elects to the National Council of Switzerland.6 This, it seems, can be done by the authority of the ordinary legislature: while the mode of election of the cantonal authorities can only be changed by a Constituent Assembly, or by a general assembly of the citizens. But if the trial is made in the one case, and succeeds, its application to the other will probably soon follow. And if made at all, the trial is pretty sure to be a true and fair one, with Naville to direct it.

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

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

TO JOHN NICOLAUS TRÜBNER1

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

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

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

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

One is the question of the Irish Colleges. I have been drawing nearer and nearer to your view of that subject,2 practically considered, though I am not sure that we quite agree yet about the amount of concession required by equal justice. I shall take my stand against the denominational system in any form for Ireland—regarding it as a mere concession to practical difficulties even in England, and in Ireland inadmissible altogether. I am prepared to maintain that no public assistance ought to be given in Ireland to any education Edition: current; Page: [1134] involving more or other religious teaching than exists in the mixed, or national system. I also think that in Ireland it is so great a point to bring youths of different religions to live together in colleges, as will justify almost any encouragement to the system of the Queen’s University, except that of actually refusing degrees to those who have studied elsewhere. From what I see in newspapers and hear, I am in hopes that the Catholic prelacy is shewing itself so impracticable as to give the Government a fair ground for withdrawing any offers they may have made, if only they can be induced to think such a retraction desirable: and it must be the business of members of Parliament to try to make them think so. Do you know of any member likely to lead the opposition on your side? What do you think of M’Cullagh Torrens?3 He, most likely, agrees with you, and he is one of the few Irishmen in Parliament who are not incumbered with an Irish constituency. Do you know what views Neate4 takes of the question? Any tolerable stand made in the House will have powerful support outside, from the mass of feeling in the country always ready to be called forth against any new concession to Catholics.

Then comes the Land Question. I have read several of your letters in the Economist,5 and admired them greatly. The generalities of the question have perhaps never before been so well stated as in your first letter. But your conclusion seems to me to fall far short of your premises. It may be that this is unavoidable. But the remedy of permitting the tenant to carry away or destroy his improvements, will surely do very little for him. It is monstrous that the law, at present, should not permit him to do this. But supposing that abominable state of the law to be altered, how inconsiderable would be the advantage to the tenant. 1^st. If, as is generally the case, the landlord’s object is to clear the estate and consolidate the holdings, the tenant by pulling down his buildings is merely doing the landlord’s work gratis. 2^dly. The cases most of all deserving compensation, are those in which the tenant has actually reclaimed the land: and how can he put it back into the state of heath or bog in which it was before? 3^dly. Even when the improvement consisted in putting something on the farm which can be carried away such as buildings or fences—to remove them would make no return to the farmer for the labour or cost of putting them up, but would merely give him the value of the materials; and what are they? earth or rough stones: seldom worth even the Edition: current; Page: [1135] trouble of carrying away. It would be his interest to accept the most trifling offer from the landlord, rather than exercise his right: unless indeed his motive was a vindictive one; and he would have but little even of that kind of satisfaction, for he could in general do the landlord as little harm as he could do himself good.

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

TO HENRY SAMUEL CHAPMAN1

Your letter of June 18 reached me just before leaving England for Avignon, where I have been during the whole time, which, as you mentioned, M^rs Chapman and your younger children were to pass in London.2 I consequently have not seen them; but I shall hope to see your son who is to remain in England,3 as well as his brother who was already there.4 I have had less intercourse with your eldest son than I had hoped and intended to have, owing to the great engrossment of my time when in England by occupations which you can well appreciate: and now there is more on my hands than ever, and I have so many calls upon every moment of time that I am obliged to seem negligent of old friends, and almost to avoid making new ones. But I am not the less desirous to be of use to any one connected with you, and if I seem inattentive, it is not owing to indifference.

It must be very interesting to you to renew your knowledge of British New Zealand after an interval which bears so considerable a proportion to its short history.5 England has heard much of New Zealand these few years, and in a Edition: current; Page: [1136] manner far from agreeable. Thoughtful people have found it hard to make up their minds on the New Zealand aspect of the universal colonial question—what to do with the aborigines. It was hoped that this would be a less desperate difficulty in New Zealand than elsewhere, on account of the higher qualities and more civilisable character of the Maoris. But the eternal source of quarrel, the demand of the colonists for land, has defeated these hopes; and it seems as if, unless or until the progressive decline of the Maori population ends in their extinction, the country would be divided between two races always hostile in mind, if not always in actual warfare. Here, then, is the burthen on the conscience of legislators at home. Can they give up the Maoris to the mercy of the more powerful, & constantly increasing, section of the population? Knowing what the English are, when they are left alone with what they think an inferior race, I cannot reconcile myself to this. But again—is it possible for England to maintain an authority there for the purpose of preventing unjust treatment of the Maoris, and at the same time allow self government to the British colonists in every other respect? How is that one subject to be kept separate, and how is the Governor to be in other things a mere ornamental frontispiece to a government of the colony by a colonial Cabinet and Legislature, and to assume a will and responsibility of his own, overruling his cabinet and legislature wherever the Maoris are concerned? If the condition of colonial government is, to keep well with the colonial population and its representatives, there is no hindering the colonists from making their cooperation depend on compliance with their wishes as to the Maoris. I do not see my way through these difficulties. Nor do I feel able to judge what would be the consequence of leaving the colonists, without the aid of Queen’s troops, to settle the Maori difficulty in their own way. Perhaps the proofs which the Maoris have given that they can be formidable enemies may have produced towards them in the colonists a different state of mind from the overbearing and insolent disregard of the rights and feelings of inferiors which is the common characteristic of John Bull when he thinks he cannot be resisted. On all these questions I am now under a special public obligation to make up my mind, and I hope to be helped to do so by your knowledge and experience. The information your letters are always full of, will be often valuable to me now.

Your account of the Middle Island and its impassable range of high Alps, is very attractive to me, and if New Zealand were an island in the Northern Atlantic, would speedily send me on a visit there. The very idea of anything impassable and impenetrable is almost too charming, now when every nook and corner of our planet has got or is getting opened to the full light of day. One of the many causes which make the age we are living in so very important in the life of the human race—almost, indeed, the turning point of it—is that so many things combine to make it the era of a great change in the Edition: current; Page: [1137] conceptions and feelings of mankind as to the world of which they form a part. There is now almost no place left on our own planet that is mysterious to us, and we are brought within sight of the practical questions which will have to be faced when the multiplied human race shall have taken full possession of the earth (and exhausted its principal fuel). Meanwhile we are also acquiring scientific convictions as to the future destination of suns and stars, and the whole visible universe. These things must have ultimately a very great effect on human character. You have read Buckle’s remarks on the effect of the aspects of nature in different parts of the earth, upon the mental characteristics, and thence on the social development of the different nations.6 One begins to see a long vista of effects, of analogous origin but very different, on the future generations of mankind. Even without looking to anything so distant, or going beyond the proximate effects of social and economical causes already in operation, some thinkers are beginning to speculate on what will happen when the agricultural labourers of England shall have followed those of Ireland to America; and are asking themselves whether we shall have to import Chinese to supply the vacancy. The most certain result that I foresee from all this, is that English statesmanship will have to assume a new character, and to look in a more direct way than before to the interests of posterity. We are now, I think, standing on the very boundary line between this new statesmanship and the old; and the next generation will be accustomed to a very different set of political arguments and topics from those of the present and past.

TO JOHN NICOLAUS TRÜBNER1

When I have disposed of the second edition of any of my books for a fixed sum, I have always hitherto had more for it than the amount of the half profit I had derived from the first. I think I might reasonably look for £70 for the second ed. of the Comte—the half profit on the first ed. to be Edition: current; Page: [1138] paid when it is all sold & the £70 on the publication of the second. If you agree to this I accept your proposal regarding the remainder of the 5000 copies, on the understanding that the reduced price commences after the sale of the second thousand.

I have to thank you for sending me a number of the Contemporary Review.2

Will you be so kind as to send Count Gurowski’s book3 to my house, Blackheath Park, at any convenient time in the course of the month.

TO THOMAS HARE1

It is not so clear to me as it is to you, that we ought to desire that the Government measure of reform should include nothing but an extension of the suffrage. No doubt there might be advantage in obtaining that first, if there were a reasonable prospect of getting anything else afterwards; but is there such a prospect? I can see none. If Bright’s doctrine2 is accepted by public opinion and acted on by the Government, it may be assumed as certain that no other point of parliamentary reform will be allowed to be discussed this year. No party in the House would tolerate it: whoever attempted it would speak to empty benches—would probably be counted out. And it is to my mind equally indubitable that when any reform has been passed the whole subject of changes in the representation will be tabooed for years to come. Most of the liberal members are not real reformers, and only vote for any reform because they are obliged, and in the hope of getting rid of the question. You seem to think that while the House is passing a bill confined to the one point, it might be induced to appoint a Committee to enquire into the best means of “liberating and stimulating individual thought and action.” But what is to be the inducement? Are there six persons in the House of Edition: current; Page: [1139] Commons who think it any business of theirs to liberate and stimulate individual thought and action, or who would desire to do so even if they knew what it meant? How many are there even outside the House, who would support a motion for such a Committee? The small number who are already converts to your plan; not a man beside. To nobody else would such a proposal carry any distinct meaning; still less represent anything that to their minds would appear sensible or practical. I admit that our prospects are nearly as bad if Lord Russell does include something else in his bill, as if he does not. Little as the chance is of an early reopening of parliamentary reform after the bill has passed, it will probably be sooner reopened for a readjustment of seats than merely for personal representation. This I cannot deny; but in the meanwhile we lose the opportunity of discussing personal representation in the present session—an opportunity which could not be refused to us if the whole subject of representation were on the tapis, but which we certainly shall not have if the question at issue is, by a previous understanding between the two great parties, confined to the extension of the franchise. I have given you my impression on the subject; but I cannot feel complete confidence in its correctness when I see yours to be different.

I shall be delighted to read your paper in the Fortnightly Review3 when I return to Blackheath. Were it sent here I probably should not receive it. The Pall Mall Gazette you kindly sent, never arrived. The Daily News was stopped four times in the six days of last week; and for about two months past, we have never received both the Spectator and the Saturday Review—very often neither. What has happened to increase the rigour of the French Government to the foreign press, I do not know; but there is certainly something. You doubtless noticed the interdiction of the Indépendance Belge,4 and of the principal liberal German papers, and the principle on which it was rested. If that principle means anything, it means the exclusion of all my English papers, except the Times which, for reasons best known to itself, is never seized.

I agree with you about Lorimer’s book.5 It is merely a weaker repetition of his former one.

I shall be very desirous to discuss with you all the points of London municipal Edition: current; Page: [1140] reform, in which I shall have to take an active part. Beal6 told me that you had sent him “a little work” of your own7 “full of good matter on the question.”

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

TO JOHN NICOLAUS TRÜBNER1

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

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

TO ARTHUR LANKESTER1

I regret that the extreme proximity of the date at which the meeting of the Commons Preservation Society2 is to be held makes it impossible for me to be present. I have all my life been strongly impressed with the importance of preserving as much as possible of such free space for healthful exercise, & for the enjoyment of natural beauty as the growth of Edition: current; Page: [1141] population and cultivation has still left to us. The desire to engross the whole surface of the earth in the mere production of the greatest possible quantity of food & the materials of manufacture, I consider to be founded on a mischievously narrow conception of the requirements of human nature. I therefore highly applaud the formation of the Commons Preservation Society & am prepared to cooperate in the promotion of its objects in any manner which lies in my power.

TO THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE HOSPICES D’AVIGNON1

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

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

TO THOMAS BEGGS1

I am much obliged to you for sending me your Social Science paper,2 and the article on Cobden3—the former I had read, Mr. Storr4 having kindly Edition: current; Page: [1142] given me a copy, but I am glad to have one from yourself. The subject of it is one of the most interesting and important of the practical matters now before the public. Many things are pointing to a strong, and I hope a combined movement for the improvement of the dwellings of the working classes which will need all our exertions to forward it. I agree with you as to the necessity of some legislative measure to facilitate the procurement of sites; and I attach the same importance as you do to enabling working classes to be proprietors of their own dwellings. I hope you are on the Committee appointed by the Social Science Association, and are in communication with Mr Hare who has, as you know, given great attention to the subject, and who [has] a particularly strong opinion on this point.

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

TO HENRY REEVE1

I regret that Mrs Austin should have had any annoyance or anxiety on the subject of the missing Notes of Lectures.2 They never were in her possession, having unfortunately been lent by me and lost by the borrower within a year or two after the Lectures were delivered.

The Notes were written next day from memoranda made by myself in the Lecture Room; and Mr Austin’s slow delivery and splendid articulation made it easy to report all the important passages nearly in his exact words. By these means I had the good fortune to preserve many valuable oral elucidations. Edition: current; Page: [1143] There was only one lecture (I forget which one) at which I was unable to be present, and in that case Mr Austin kindly lent me his manuscript to enable me to fill up the vacancy. I never saw the MS of any of the others, nor did he see any of the Notes.

I am happy that the unusual length of my article3 is not an insuperable obstacle to its insertion.

The proofs should be sent to Blackheath.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

Your letter reached me late, owing to my having left Avignon before it arrived. I am most desirous to confer with you on the critical state of things respecting the education question,2 but I suppose I shall scarcely now be able to see you until we meet at the Political Economy Club on Friday.3 We can then fix a time and place for further talk.

If the ministers do not take care, they will commence the breaking up of their party by this measure.4

TO [MONCURE DANIEL CONWAY?]1

The inclosed passage2 is the one which M^r Wendell Phillips seems to have had particularly in view. The remainder not only of the Preface, but of the book, may be regarded as a commentary on it.

I had already read the article in Harper’s Magazine3—I need hardly say with how much pleasure and had guessed, though not with full assurance, its authorship.

TO GEORGE GROTE1

Unless I write now to thank you for your admirable article in the Westminster Review,2 I do not know when I shall be able to do so, as my time is already taken up, to a degree which you can very well understand both from theory and experience, though my constituents have hitherto given me very little trouble of any kind, and that little only for important objects. I write, then, while I can, to express some part of the pleasure it gives me that one whose good opinion and good feeling I value more than that of any other living man, should be able to write about me in the way you have done.3 I thank you, too, most heartily, for the justice you have done to my father.4 When your Kleine Schriften come to be collected, that passage will remain as one of the weightiest testimonies to his worth, and to the place he filled in his generation.

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

Have you seen Mansel’s critique (for I am told it is his) in Nos 1 and 2 of a new publication called the Contemporary Review?5 I should like much to know what you think of it, if you have read it.

My article on the Plato6 is in Reeve’s hands and accepted by him; which is a relief to me, as its length so much exceeds the usual Edinburgh Review dimensions, that I feared he might be unwilling to insert it without an impossible curtailment. I have seldom given so much time and pains to a review article, but it has been well employed if I have done any tolerable justice to the subject.

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

TO HERBERT SPENCER1

On arriving here last week, I found the December livraison of your Biology, and I need hardly say how much I regretted the announcement in the paper annexed to it.2 What the case calls for, however, is not only regret, but remedy; and I think it is right you should be indemnified by the readers and purchasers of the series for the loss you have incurred by it. I should be glad to contribute my part, and should like to know at how much you estimate the loss, and whether you will allow me to speak to friends and obtain subscriptions for the remainder. My own impression is that the sum ought to be raised among the original subscribers.

In the next place, I cannot doubt that the publication in numbers, though it may have been the best means that presented itself at the time, has had an unfavourable effect on the sale, and that a complete treatise with your name to it would attract more attention, obtain more buyers, and would be pretty sure to sell an edition in a few years. What I propose is that you should write the next of your treatises, and that I should guarantee the publisher against loss, i.e., should engage, after such length of time as may be agreed on, to Edition: current; Page: [1146] make good any deficiency that may occur, not exceeding a given sum, that sum being such as the publisher may think sufficient to insure him. With this guarantee you could have your choice of publishers, and I do not think it likely that there would be any loss, while I am sure that it could in no case be considerable. I beg that you will not consider this proposal in the light of a personal favour, though even if it were I should still hope to be permitted to offer it. But it is nothing of the kind—it is a simple proposal of cooperation for an important public purpose, for which you give your labour and have given your health.

TO EDWARD WELMISLEY1

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

TO JOHN PLUMMER1

To take your last subject first. I have of late avoided giving my name to any of the Working Classes’ Exhibitions,2 as it seems to me that the thing is rather overdone; so many of these Exhibitions are now attempted that they stand in each other’s way, are apt to be unsuccessful in a pecuniary sense, and excite but little of the interest which was felt about the first things of the Edition: current; Page: [1147] kind. If it would oblige you that I should give my name to the North London Exhibition I will very willingly do so on that account; but there is very little chance that my daughter and I can be present at the opening, or at any time during the exhibition, as we are almost sure to be abroad at the time.

Allow me to congratulate you on being Editor of the Family Paper,3 both as a rise in your position, and a great increase in the comfort of your daily work. I thank you for the pleasant things you have written about me in the Sydney Morning Herald,4 and for the letter on reform which you purpose addressing to me: Would it not be worth while to write it so that it might be published either in the Family Paper, the Working Man,5 or somewhere else? as a statement of the ideas of the best part of the working classes on reform would be important and interesting to many persons besides me.

Many thanks for the cuttings. I have seen Mr Conway’s article6 and the one in the Contemporary Review.7 The Blackwood8 I have not seen but expect to see.

With our kind remembrances to Mrs Plummer

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

I shall be happy to see you at the House at three on Monday, or at any time after four—as the debate being on the Cattle Plague,2 I shall not feel bound to pay any special attention to it.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

Your news is very important, and the move of the Presbyterian body promises well,2 if the Government is not yet irrevocably committed.3 I, on my side, have talked with Mr Grant Duff,4 who said he could hardly believe that the Government can meditate such a step as the one we apprehend. Not a single Scotch member (he said) would vote with them, and (he added) as their enemies are keenly watching to take the first opportunity of putting them in a minority they would probably be obliged to resign. The result of this and of much other information that reaches me, is to make me apprehensive that we may be more successful than we desire, and may perhaps break up the Ministry and lose the Reform Bill. This is not a sufficient reason against fighting the question of the Colleges to the utmost; but I attach great importance to not being supposed to have the smallest approach to an understanding or concert with those who will merely use our question as a means of effecting purposes which we should greatly lament. Nothing can be more proper than that you should apply to any and every influential politician whom you can get access to; but I am very anxious not to be held out to any one, even to sincere liberals, and much less to false liberals or Tories, as desiring to communicate with them on the subject. I have no objection to its being said to any person whatever, that I have a very strong opinion against the proposed changes. If any M.P. (even a Tory) chooses to open the subject to me, I will tell him my mind. One or two members have already done so; Mr Lowe5 did so the very day I saw you, and I thought he seemed disposed to take the initial step (by putting a question to the Government) without any further parley or consultation with us and our liberal friends. It is most clear to me that we, meaning myself and the other liberal members you mention, should endeavour to act directly on the members of the Government, and should avoid even the appearance of concert with any Edition: current; Page: [1149] of those who would like to do them an ill turn. With regard to Sir Hugh Cairns,6 or any one on that side of the house, whatever they may choose to do should be quite apart from us. The same political instinct which influenced Lord Stanley,7 would probably make them feel that they had better appear as seconders than as originators of a move on this subject.

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

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

TO THE SPEAKER’S SECRETARY1

I have had the honour of receiving an invitation to dine with the Right Hon^ble the Speaker2 on Wednesday next Feb 28 but beg that I may be allowed to excuse myself from accepting it as I think it desirable that those members of the H. of C. who do not approve of the regulations in respect to dress at present in force should make their objection known to the Speaker, who I do not doubt will give to it whatever weight is justly due. I sincerely hope that in taking this mode of expressing the objection which I entertain to the practice hitherto followed I shall not be considered to be wanting in that respect and deference to the Rt Hon the Speaker which it is as much my wish as my duty invariably to observe.

TO FREDERICK MILNES EDGE1

I have to acknowledge a letter from you dated Feb. 15 asking me to explain a passage of my Principles of Pol. Economy2 in which I express the opinion that a protecting duty, for a limited space of time, may be defensible in a new country, as a means of naturalizing a branch of industry in itself suited to the country but which would be unable to establish itself there without some form of temporary assistance from the state. This passage you say has been made use of by American protectionists as the testimony of an English writer on Pol. Economy to the inapplicability to America of the general principle of free trade. The passage has been used for a similar purpose in the Australian colonies,3 erroneously in my opinion but certainly with more plausibility than can be the case in the U. States; for Australia really is a new country whose capabilities for carrying on manufactures cannot yet be said to have been tested: but the manufacturing parts of the U.S., New England & Pennsylvania, are no longer new countries; they have carried on manufacturing on a large scale, & with the benefit of high protecting duties for at least two generations; their operatives have had full time to acquire the manufacturing skill in which those of England had preceded them; & there has been ample experience to prove that the inability of their manufactures to compete in the American market with those of Great Britain does not arise merely from the more recent date of their establishment, but from the fact that American labour & capital can in the present circumstances of America be employed with greater return & greater advantage to the national wealth, in the production of other articles. I have never for a moment recommended or countenanced any protecting duty except for the purpose of enabling the protected branch of industry, in a very moderate time, to become independent of protection. That moderate time in the U. States has been exceeded, & if the cotton or iron of America still need protection against those of the other hemisphere it is in my eyes a complete proof that they ought not to have it, & that the longer it is continued the greater the injustice & the waste of national resources will be.

I confine myself on the present occasion to the one special point which you have referred to me & do not enter into the fallacies of Protectionism generally Edition: current; Page: [1151] or of American Protectionists in particular. But since you pay me the compliment of thinking that what is said on the subject in my Pr. of P.E. is read & listened to by some Americans, I beg to recommend to your notice the further explanations which I have added to the passage quoted by you in the last published (the People’s) edition of that work.4 I have directed the publisher to send you a copy & if the important journal with which you are connected, is pleased to attach any value to my opinion on the subject, that opinion will be found much more completely stated, with additional replies to Protectionist arguments in pp. 556 to 558 of the People’s edition.

TO MONTAGUE RICHARD LEVERSON1

I have gone through the Draft of a Bill,2 and I think it does you very great credit, containing some very valuable provisions respecting the mechanism of representative institutions. I also highly applaud the stand you have made for universal instead of manhood suffrage. As, however, several of the general principles on which the plan is founded, particularly ballot and electoral districts, are opposed to my opinions, I think it best not to connect myself in any way with the movement, and do not wish to have any letter of mine read at the Conference. The authors of the plan may be fully assured of my zealous cooperation on all the points on which their opinions and my own coincide.

TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE1

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

TO WILLIAM LONGMAN1

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

It is satisfactory to find that the People’s Editions have not so much damaged as might have been expected the sale of the library editions. But the Edition: current; Page: [1153] edition you propose would probably compete with the library editions much more successfully.

TO J. GEORGE MAWBY1

I have to acknowledge your note of the 11th instant. I have received many communications on the same subject from working men, and it gives me much satisfaction to find that so great a number of them are in the habit of giving intelligent attention to the foreign policy of the country. The question, which is the subject of your communication, is encumbered with great difficulties; and though if Mr. Gregory2 had divided the House I should have voted against him, I am not satisfied that the immunity of private property from capture would not on the whole be for the advantage if the Declaration of Paris3 must be maintained.

I agree with you in thinking this last the really important question, and I am decidedly of opinion that the relinquishment by the naval Powers of their most powerful weapon of defence against the great military Powers,4 can only be defended if it be true that the change of circumstances has made that weapon one which could no longer safely be used.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1

I start for Avignon tonight, but if it should be the opinion of my friends in Westminster that a public meeting should be held during the recess2 for the purpose of making a demonstration in support of the Reform Bill I shall hold myself ready to return at a day’s notice in order to take part in it.

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

TO THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY1

I return the paper with my signature added, and am happy to join in the Edition: current; Page: [1155] plan proposed for enabling Mr Spencer to continue the publication of his philosophical writings.2

TO JOHN CAMPBELL1

The supposition that I approve of the bill empowering Govt to make loans for the improvement of the dwellings of the working classes is quite correct.2 If I thought that such a measure would injure the independence of the working classes or encourage their improvidence I sh^d strenuously oppose it. But the case seems to me to be one of a class of cases in which people require artificial help, to enable them afterwards to help themselves. The taste for better house accommodation has still to be created: & until it is created, private speculation will not find its account in supplying that improved accommodation. The aid of Gov^t is often useful, & sometimes necessary, to start improved systems which once started are able to keep themselves going without further help. I support loans from the public for the purpose in question (which is still more important morally than even physically) as I would support similar loans for the purpose of creating peasant proprietors, or (if necessary for the purpose) in aid of colonization. I think however that the loans ought not to be accessible only to Town Councils, but Edition: current; Page: [1156] also to building companies or private capitalists under strict conditions & on proper security; and the Bill introduced by the Gov^t gives, I believe, the power of making such advances.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

Your note of the 29th reached me at Avignon, but I could not answer it until my return here enabled me to tell you if Mr Sullivan’s pamphlet2 had been sent to me or not. I find that it has, and I have lost no time in reading it. After doing so, my opinion decidedly is that it requires an answer. It is written with some ability, and knowledge of detail; it does not manifestly exhibit want of candour, and as it makes some points on matters of fact, with apparent success (though none which are essential to the question) it will be largely used in the discussions, and will be represented as a complete answer to you3 and Whittle.4 There should, I think, be a reply to it in print if only to supply those who fight the battle in Parliament with answers to what will be brought against them. The fight will be a more arduous one than we thought; for several of the leading Tories, in the debate on Tests,5 shewed a disposition to adopt denominational instead of mixed education, and exhibited a decided sympathy with the movement of the Catholic bishops. If you reply, I have not the least objection to its being, as you propose, in the form of a letter to me.6

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

TO THOMAS CARLYLE1

My answer to your note respecting Dr Löwe2 has been delayed by the necessity of finding time to rummage old papers in order to ascertain whether an impression I had of having already consented to a similar proposal from some other quarter, was well founded or not. I now find that in December 1861 I gave my assent to a translation of my book on Repr. Govt by a Dr F. A. Wille,3 who like Dr Löwe, had been engaged in the political events of 1848 & had for ten years afterwards been living in Switzerland. Dr Wille then informed me that his translation was partly printed & I am almost sure that it was published in the course of the following years. If a copy was sent to me I have it not at hand, but Dr Löwe could probably inform himself on the subject without difficulty. Dr Wille’s address at that time was Mariafeld (sic), Meilen, Zürich.

Please thank Mrs Carlyle for her remembrance of me. I have been sorry to hear a rather poor account of her health4 & to see by your Edinburgh address5 that your own is not quite satisfactory.6

TO THE EARL OF CLARENDON1

I have had the honour of receiving your communication of the 9th inst. and am much gratified that the small offering2 which I had the opportunity of making to the London Library should have appeared to the Committee deserving of such an acknowledgment. It is probable that I may continue to receive from private friends or public authorities in the United States books and documents of a similar character to those which I had the pleasure of presenting, and since they are considered to be of value to the Library, I shall have great satisfaction in forwarding them as they arrive. A few have been discovered which were overlooked when the parcel was sent, and these I will at once despatch to the Librarian.

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

TO SAMUEL SULLIVAN COX1

On my return to England I did not forget the promise in my letter of Dec. 21, but addressed myself to one of the highest statistical authorities in this country, Mr Newmarch, the associate of Mr Tooke in the later volumes of his admirable History of Prices,2 and a man of mark among our economists; that he is a warm freetrader I need not say. Mr Newmarch has furnished me with some publications in which you will find a great deal of the information Edition: current; Page: [1159] you want respecting the operation of free trade in this country, and with a full review of the commercial history of the last year, forming a Supplement to the Economist newspaper of March 10,3 and written by himself. These I will immediately send (probably through Mr Trübner) to the New York address you gave me. I fear the unsatisfactory state of the reconstruction question, and the differences between Congress and the President, may delay for some time the progress which might otherwise have taken place more rapidly on the freetrade question. But every awakening of the national mind is sure to be favourable to the removal of prejudice; and I have no doubt that, if not a complete, yet a very considerable reform of the legislation on this subject, will before many years reward the exertions of yourself and the other enlightened men who have taken up the cause.

TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE1

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

I venture to ask your acceptance of the inclosed paper2 (printed in the current number of the Edinburgh Review) the subject of which I know to be interesting to you, whatever may be the case with the execution. I offer it, not forgetting how long it must wait before you are likely to be able to give it even a cursory glance. I am

TO GEORGE GROTE1

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

Was I not lucky in being able to quote so capital a Platonic passage from Max Müller?2

I suppose you have read the review of your book in Fraser which was unfortunately the last production of D^r Whewell.3 So far as he differed from you he always seemed to me to be wrong; but it was very pleasant to see that, having some real knowledge of the subject, he gave so complete and so intelligent an adhesion to your novelties of opinion respecting the Sophists.

With our kind regards to Mrs Grote I am

TO HENRY PITMAN1

A Liberal county member,2 to whom I have been speaking about Edition: current; Page: [1161] the Suffolk experiment in Agricultural Co-operation,3 is very desirous to know more about it. I could not remember to what numbers of “The Co-operator” to refer him; but if you would kindly inform me of that, or of any other source of information which it would be well for him to consult, you would do, I think, a useful service to the cause.

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

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

TO WILLIAM LONGMAN1

Your report of the sale of the books is extremely satisfactory—in the case of the book on Hamilton even embarrassingly so2—for several elaborate criticisms & replies to it having appeared since the publication of the 2^d edit.3 there will be a great deal to do by way of preparation for a third, whether this is published separately or as part of the collected edition you propose.

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

TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE1

As I mentioned to you my intention of availing myself of your kind invitation next Thursday morning, I think it best to tell you that I have a severe attack of influenza, to get rid of which I am told that I must confine myself to bed. I am afraid therefore I shall not only lose the pleasure of seeing you on Thursday morning, but what I regret still more, that of hearing your financial statement.2 I am Dear Sir

TO THOMAS HARE1

I return Mr. Rathbone’s2 sensible letter. He certainly had every reason to presume that you would have influence with me or with any one else who knows you. But I have been obliged to answer Mr. Crosfield’s3 letter by a refusal, being compelled to refuse all engagements, and to put off even St. Andrews till next winter.4

I am better, and hope to be at the House on Monday and at the Committee5 if summoned; but as I am practically examiner in chief in the present passing stage of the business, it is not unlikely that Ayrton will not summon the Committee until he has assured himself that I can be present.

TO HENRY PITMAN1

Many thanks for the pamphlets,2 which will be of the greatest use to Mr. Acland3 (the county member I mentioned), and perhaps to others.

The news of the Wolverhampton Plate-Locksmiths4 is most gratifying, and a fine example of what Co-operation can do.

Though I do not agree, so far as compulsory measures are concerned, with the U. K. Alliance,5 yet, since you do, I congratulate you on having obtained a sure income, compatible with the continuance of your most valuable services to Co-operation.—I am, dear Sir, yours very truly,

TO CAROLINE E. LIDDELL1

I am happy to hear that you and other ladies are disposed to assert your just claim to be represented in the body that taxes you, and I recommend to you to lose no opportunity of doing so. When men who wish to remove the invidious distinctions under which you labour offer arguments founded on the evident justice of your cause, we are constantly met by the reply that ladies themselves see no hardship in it, and do not care enough for the franchise to ask for it. I am glad to be able to say that I know several members of Parliament who wish to grant the franchise without distinction of sex, but I know many more who would be ashamed to refuse it if it were quietly and steadily demanded by women themselves. I am sorry to find that you disclaim being strong-minded, because I believe strength of mind to be Edition: current; Page: [1164] one of the noblest gifts that any rational creature, male or female, can possess, and the best measure of our degree of efficiency for working in the cause of truth. But such mental powers and energies as we any of us do possess, ought to be employed in striving to remove the evils with which circumstances have made us acquainted; and a woman who is a taxpayer is the most natural and most suitable advocate of the political enfranchisement of women. I hope, therefore, that you will endeavour to strengthen the hands of those (and I know more than one) who have devoted their lives to working in your cause, by protesting against the injustice you suffer, whenever and wherever you can, both in society, and when occasion offers in public. If you could yourself write a petition (almost in the terms of your letter to me), and procure as many signatures to it as you can, I should be happy to present it to Parliament.2

TO JOHN LOTHROP MOTLEY1

I am afraid you must have thought hard things of me for being so slow in answering your very friendly and most interesting letter of February 1st. Had your introduction to Mr. Holmes2 not already been sent, but depended on my answer, I should have written at once, if even only a line, to say how glad I should be both to see and know him, both as his father’s3 son, as your friend, and as one whose personal history has already been such as your letter intimates. Among the countless and inexhaustible blessings which you, from your national struggle, will in the end bring forth for the human race, it is one of the greatest that they have behind them so many who, being what your friend was, have done what he has done. Such men are the natural leaders of the democracy of the world from this time forward; and such a series of events, coming upon minds prepared by previous high culture, may well have ripened Edition: current; Page: [1165] their intellects, as it cannot but have fitted their characters, for stepping into that vacant post and filling it with benefit to the world.

The new struggle, in which you are now engaged, that of reconstruction, is well fitted to carry on the work of educating the political mind of the country. I have learnt to have great trust in the capability of the American people at large (outside the region of slavery) to see the practical leanings of a political question truly and rapidly when the critical moment comes. It seems to me that things are going on as well and as fast as could be hoped for under the untoward accident of getting an obstinate Southern man, a pro-slavery man almost to the last, in the position of President.4 But the passing of the Civil Rights Bill5 over his head seems almost to ensure the right issue to the contest. If you only keep the Southern States out of Congress till they one by one either grant negro suffrage or consent to come in on the basis of their electoral population alone, they may probably then be let in in safety. But the real desideratum (in addition to colonization from the North) is the Homestead law which you propose for the negroes.6 I cannot express too strongly the completeness of my agreement with all you say on that point. Compared with these great questions, free trade is but a secondary matter; but it is a good sign that this also has benefited by the general impulse given to the national mind, and that the free traders are raising themselves for vigorous efforts. I am not anxious that this question should be forced on while the others are pending; for anything which might detach the Western from the Eastern States, and place them in even partial sympathy with the South, would at present be a great calamity.

I have often during the years since we met in Vienna7 wished that I could talk with you, but always found something more urgent to do than to resort to the unsatisfactory mode of communication by letter, and this is still more the case now that I have allowed new and onerous duties to be placed upon me. They are not nearly so agreeable to myself, and it remains to be seen whether they will be as useful as that of writing out my best thoughts and putting them into print. I have a taller pulpit now, but one in which it is impossible to use my best materials. But jacta est alea, I must make the best I can of it; and I have had thus far much more of what is called success than I could have hoped for beforehand.

TO JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES1

I am much better,2 and am now attending the House, but as I do not go there every day, and on Mondays and Thursdays have to attend a Committee3 from 12 to 4, it is difficult to make an appointment at the hour you mention. At present Tuesday is the first day I can mention, and that is uncertain, but if you do not hear from me previously, you will find me at the House on Tuesday at three. I am

TO MONCURE DANIEL CONWAY1

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

TO EDWARD OWEN GREENING1

I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 10th inst. inviting me to a Soirée to be held tomorrow, in celebration of the 1st. year’s successful working of Edition: current; Page: [1167] the new limited liability company, “Greening & Co.”2 I regret my inability to attend on this interesting occasion; but beg to be allowed to express my warm approbation of the principle of associating all the persons employed by the Company, in the profits of the undertaking, and my congratulations on the success which has already attended your application of that principle.

TO JOHN A. LEATHERLAND1

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

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

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1

I entirely approve and applaud the object of the meeting to be held on Monday next on Primrose-hill2—that of encouraging and strengthening the Government in resisting all compromise in the leading provisions of Edition: current; Page: [1168] the Reform Bill. I am greatly obliged by your very cordial invitation to attend the meeting, but my absence from town will prevent my being present at it.

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

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

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

The Commission respecting Middle Class Schools2 seems to be much in need of information and suggestions that you could give them. I have been talking with Acland,3 one of the members of the Commission, and found that he knew absolutely nothing of what had been done at Faversham.4 He promised that he would look up the case, which must have been reported on by one of their Assistant Commissioners. I could not remember where your account of it was,5 which I read with such extreme interest when it came out. Could you not write them a short letter, or send them papers about it, or, as the next best thing, cram me on the subject, for I am threatened with having a set of questions sent to me from them,6 which would be much better sent to you.

TO EARL GREY1

The Reform Bill of the Government is no doubt a kind of makeshift which it would be difficult for persons of my opinions to defend as being the best thing in itself, and in the detail of which many improvements might be suggested, if it could be done without damaging the chance which the Bill has of getting through Parliament. Among other things, representation of minorities would be an immense improvement in this, as it would in any other scheme of representation. But supposing it desirable that such a proposal should be made in the House of Commons, I am not the right person to make it, in the shape to which you give the preference.2 If I were to originate any move for representation of minorities, it could only be in the form which alone, as I conceive, carries out the principle, that of Mr Hare’s system; which I believe to be practicable, though I am aware that you are of a different opinion. My inability to originate a proposal for the cumulative vote plan (which I regard as the next best) would be no hindrance to my supporting it if proposed by others. But I could only do so in the cases in which the constituency returns three members. There is, no doubt, much truth in your remark that where the two parties are of nearly equal strength, there is less injustice in giving one member to each than two members to the one which is slightly the most numerous, and none at all to the other. But it seems to me indispensable in the future interest of the principle of representation of minorities (which is particularly liable to be misunderstood and misrepresented) that a broad line should be drawn between it and any plan which makes a minority politically equal to a majority; and that this last should be absolutely disclaimed, as going beyond and in opposition to the principle. Unless this is done, the democrats of the old one-sided school3 will succeed in making the principle unpopular as an aristocratic contrivance to neutralise the extension of the Edition: current; Page: [1170] franchise: though in truth it is exactly as much democratic as aristocratic, its effect being to limit the tyranny of the strongest power, whatever this happens to be.

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

TO THOMAS BEGGS1

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

I should have been much surprised if you, having attended to Irish affairs, had come to any other conclusion about them than the one you express in your letter. I am very happy that you think my speech2 calculated to do good. The writer of the article you inclosed (for which I thank you) has well seized the leading points. But he is mistaken in saying that the speech was a surprise to the Irish members. The leaders of the National Party knew my opinions and offered, more than ten years ago to bring me into Parliament for an Irish County on purpose to advocate them.3 He is also mistaken in thinking that the Tory leaders went away to show disrespect to me. They went away because it was long past dinner time.

TO WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE1

Your letter found me yesterday at the further extremity of Somersetshire where I was wandering about the woody and heathy hills, to the great benefit of my health, and had arranged to continue doing so the whole week; not without having ascertained from Mr Brand2 that in his opinion a vote more or less would be of no consequence on Thursday or Friday.

I go entirely along with nearly the whole of your paper:3 on a point or two I need some further explanation which you could probably give in five minutes conversation at any convenient opportunity. It is quite clear that the objection made to the plan has no application, so long as we do not require to borrow a sum greater than the whole surplus on our Banking Account: since the extra million of charge occasioned by the plan, will not absorb any part of our surplus either on the Exchequer or on the Banking account, but will be provided for like the other expenses of the year, by the ways and means voted by Parliament.

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

In time of war, Operation B4 might, and probably ought to be suspended.

TO AN UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT1

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

TO EDWIN CHADWICK1

I have received the invitation I expected from Lord Taunton’s Commission2—and shall be much obliged by any references you can give me to sources of information, or by any intimation of views of your own. When your proposal came about visiting the Limehouse schools, we were in Somersetshire; and at present it is extremely difficult for either of us to find time for it. I think I should learn more about the schools from any good account of them (if there be one) which you could refer me to, than I should pick up from a flying visit.

I read both the articles you sent with great interest, especially the conclusive and highly effective one from the Examiner.3

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

TO CHARLES ROSS1

I thank you very much for your note. The report of my speech in the Times, so far as I have been able to examine it, was so good, that I have lost nothing by not being able to substitute my own report for it. If I understand your note correctly it would not be open to you, if you took a speech from myself, to give slips to the other papers. I am afraid, if this is so, that it will generally prevent me from availing myself of your obliging offer to receive such communications from me. It is of much more importance to be well reported in the Times than anywhere else, but one is so much more certain of being so, that if one has to choose between sending one’s notes to the Times or to the other papers one would rather do it to the others.2 I am

TO JOHN PLUMMER1

Be sure that I shall persist in opposing the Gas Bill,2 whatever the Committee may report3—and I hope the Government will do so too, as one of them (I believe, Mr. Cowper),4 on the former discussion, expressed the opinion Edition: current; Page: [1174] that Gas works ought to be kept out of towns and their immediate vicinity altogether.

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

TO WILLIAM FRASER RAE1

I shall be happy to propose you as a member of the Political Economy Club. You may however have to wait some time before being elected, as there are several good candidates standing before you.2

The reason I do not give my speeches to the Times, is that the Times would keep them to itself, while the other papers give slips to one another. It would be a great piece of servility to give anything that depends on me to the Times alone; denying it to the papers with whose politics I agree, and which have acted in the most friendly manner to me throughout.3

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