James Mill Research Articles

John Stuart Mill: Government and Economy

134 1 Mill, born in London on May 20, 1806, was the eldest son of James Mill, the author of the History of British India. He died at Avignon, France, May 8, 1873, and was buried beside his wife, Harriet Taylor Mill. story of his life and his remarkable education at the hand of his father is told in his Autobiography. See Autobiography of John Stuart Mill, with a Preface by John Jacob Coss, ed. Roger Howson (New York: Columbia University Press, 1924). Another edition with an appendix of unpublished speeches under the editorship of Harold Laski was published in the World's Classics, No. 262 (London: Oxford University Press, 1924). For the influence of Harriet Taylor Mill on the writing of the see Jack Stillinger (ed.), Early Draft of John Stuart Mill's Autobiography (Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois Press, 1961). best critical analysis of the subject is Albert William Levi, The Writing of Mill's Autobiography, Ethics, LXI (July, 1951), 284-96. On the question of Mill's relations with Harriet Taylor see F. A. Hayek, John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor (London: Routledge S Kegan Paul, 1951); H. 0. Pappe, John Stuart Mill and the Harriet Taylor Myth (Australian National University Social Science Monograph, No. 19 [Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, I960]); and Michael St. John Packe, Life of John Stuart Mill (London: Seeker & Warburg, 1954). In my work on Mill, particularly on his career in the Examiner's Office of the East India Company (1823-58), I have been aided by grants from the American Council of Learned Societies, Social Science Research Council, American Philosophical Society, and, at the University of Chicago, the Dean of the College and the Committee on Research in the Division of Social Sciences and in the Division of Humanities. years after On Liberty, is hardly read at all, except perhaps in university courses in which the purpose, more than likely, is to show how obsolete Mill's political theory has been made by recent studies focused upon the permeation of the processes of democratic government by bureaucratic formations, the party machine, organized interest groups, and lobbyists. While Representative Government cannot be said to afford exact policy prescriptions for present-day political affairs, its significance in the development of the Western liberal theory of government is certainly not less than that of Locke's Civil Government or Tocqueville's Democracy in America, which Mill reviewed and which is now experiencing a revival of interest. Mill's explanation of why representative government is ideally the best form of polity, his conception of the conditions necessary for its successful operation and continuance, and his comprehension of the difficulties confronting the representative system reveal a profound grasp, I think, of some of the fundamental issues connected with government in a free society. Mill is no oracle to whom we may go for solutions to concrete problems of contemporary government and economic system. At times he was inconsistent and confused, if not falla-

The Scottish Education of James Mill

There was once a lad from the neighborhood of Auchinblae, in Kincardineshire, named James Milne. With Mill, Mills, Miln, and Milner, the surname Milne belongs to the ancient family of Miller, a trade name which is derived probably from the Gaelic Muileann, a meal (mill), thus signifying one who dwells at or near a mill, a miller. The miller ground the corn and the bakester (Baxter) baked the bread. James was brought up like our rural ancestors, with little blest to be patient of labour; he was accustomed to hard work; yet he was placid of temper; his natural reserve caused those whom he met to respect him for his canniness; although unendowed with great wisdom he had his measure of country shrewdness. A good, honest, humble workman, he was, moreover, punctilious in his Episcopalian devotions.

James Mill on Universal Suffrage and the Middle Class

JAMES MILL'S Essay on Government is widely known as a succinct theoretical statement of Mill's political views. It is thus somewhat surprising, in view of Mill's reputation as a forthright and bold reformer who was greatly concerned with clarity in thought and expression, that there should be no general agreement as to position he takes up in Essay. This is made more surprising when it is recalled that Mill modelled his argument on what Macaulay called geometric method of Euclid, a method not calculated to leave doubt as to author's conclusion. Some of Mill's interpreters, by far majority, believe Essay to be a theoretical defense of middle class and Mill an advocate of a suffrage restricted to that class, while others see it as a defense of universal suffrage. Since Essay is properly considered to be important for way it exemplifies political application of Utilitarianism, a good deal turns on question. According to MIill's initial premise, human nature is such that men will seek to gratify their individual interests, even to extent of behaving in a predatory manner. From this he deduced that rulers, if they were responsible to only a segment of populace, would sacrifice interests of remainder. Mill suggested that such difficulties can be avoided only if an identity of interests between rulers and community be established. His argument thus implies universal suffrage. Yet Mill is also supposed to have ignored this implication, holding that since middle class interests comprehended all others, suffrage could reasonably be confined to that class. This view, held by Sabine, Dicey, and Wilson, among others, and perpetuated by editor of most recent edition of Essay, finds support in Mill's famous eulogy of middle class at end of Essay. It is middle class that is the most wise and most virtuous part of community; it gives to science, to art, and to legislation itself their most distinguished ornaments; and the opinions of that class of people who are below mid(le rank are formed, and their minds are directed by that intelli-

The English Utilitarians and India

In contrast with the tendency to regard the Utilitarians primarily as exponents of a moral theory, Stokes here focuses on their claim to have developed a practical science of society. He discusses James Mill's influence as the London head of the Indian administration, Macaulay's Benthamite reforms as Law Member, and Fitzjames Stephen's significance in the passage of utilitarianism into imperialism.

Robbins on Torrens

Robbins on Torrens

Mill and Gradgrind

N RECENT STUDY of Dickens is more thoughtful than Dr. F. R. Leavis' analytic note on Hard Times in Great Tradition. Here and there one may disagree in detail, but it has justly marked out the way in which the novel should be read if it is to be understood. Yet some of his remarks should certainly be questioned before they pass current as valid. Perhaps the foremost of these is the statement that, Thomas Gradgrind ... had brought up his children on the lines of the experiment recorded by John Stuart as being carried out on himself (p. 228). This has already been restated more forcibly by Professor Edgar Johnson, who declares in his recent biography that, The education approved by Mr. Gradgrind is identical in spirit with that which was inflicted on John Stuart Mill (p. 809). This is surely both unfair to James and unjustified by what his son wrote in the Autobiography. As far as Dickens had any special target for his satire of Gradgrind's factual education, it can hardly have been the system privately adopted by James Mill, but one that was publicly put into practice in many of the schools. There is certainly evidence that such cramming went on in schools, and even that it was encouraged by some of the inspectors. But this is too wide a question to pursue here. One of the cardinal points in Mill's training, on the other hand, was that he was not crammed with mere fact. He insists that mine ... was not an education of cram. My father never permitted anything I learnt to degenerate into a mere exercise of memory (Worlds Classics edn., p. 26).

The Benthamite Theory of Democracy

Successful political movements are frequently accompanied by, and well served by, theoretical defences of their positions which later reflection shows to be inadequate for purposes other than popular political polemics. The history of the reform movement in England in the early decades of the nineteenth century provides an excellent example. The defence of political democracy offered by Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, and their followers gave the Radicals of the 1820's and 1830's their main intellectual arguments for the Great Reform Act. A close examination of this theory suggests, however, that it is inadequate in its view both of the nature of a democratic society and of the process of policy formation therein. It is, moreover, also apparent that Bentham's theory of democracy is sharply inconsistent with the main body of Benthamite doctrines.The basic problem in Bentham's political theory is a product of the manner in which he resolved a contradiction that exists between his ethical and his psychological theory. Utilitarian ethics rests on the principle that the rightness or wrongness of an act is decided by its effect on the happiness of the greatest number. Bentham's psychological theory, however, is egoistic and hedonistic. He offered no hope that a man will act other than in pursuit of his own interests, and little hope that these interests will naturally be associated with the interests of others.If this psychology is valid, individuals will choose, voluntarily, the ethically proper act only when, by chance, it coincides with that act which they perceive will maximize their own personal pleasure. Bentham realized this. As a consequence, he argued that if individuals are to be brought into harmony and if the greatest happiness is to be achieved, then legal sanctions and incentives must be introduced to influence individual hedonistic calculations in favour of acts that do not diminish the happiness of others more than they increase the happiness of the doer.

Hume and Conservatism

Although David Hume's stature as a philosopher has rarely been questioned, his claims as a political theorist have fared less well. Jefferson showed deep hostility towards Hume's ideas, while John Adams could find agreement with only a few points. Later opinion has been less vehement but still reserved. Thomas Huxley thought Hume's political writings suggestive, but on the whole marred by an unabashed desire for literary success. In Sir Leslie Stephen's judgment Hume was guilty of a “cynical conservatism” that was at once superficial and unhistorical.More recent studies, such as those of Sabine and Halévy, have established more securely Hume's place in political thought but have left certain ambiguities. Sabine has coupled Hume with Burke as an opponent of eighteenth-century rationalism, while Halévy viewed him as a forerunner of the “philosophical radicalism” of Bentham, Adam Smith, James Mill, and Ricardo. To have fathered squabbling children is always something of an embarrassment, but particularly so when one is, like Hume, temperamentally averse to taking sides. It is true, nonetheless, that if a temporary distinction is made between Hume's doctrine and his influence, it is possible to maintain that his influence worked in two quite different directions. His inquires into causation, the role of reason, and the nature of moral judgments helped eventually to undermine the natural law structure of eighteenth-century liberalism, while his emphasis on utility as the test of institutions contributed an important ingredient to Benthamite liberalism.

The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo

David Ricardo was born in London in 1772. His father, a successful stockbroker, introduced him to the Stock Exchange at the formative age of fourteen. During his career in finance, he amassed a personal fortune, which allowed him to retire at the age of forty-two. Thereafter, he pursued a political career and further developed his economic ideas and policy proposals. A man of very little formal education, Ricardo arguably became, with the exception of Adam Smith, the most influential political economist of all time. Ricardo was the first economist to make extensive use of deductive reasoning and arithmetical models to illustrate the anticipated reactions to juxtaposed market forces and responsive human action. His modes of analysis have become identified with economics as an academic discipline. Like Smith, Ricardo believed that minimal government intervention best served an economy. His contributions to economics are numerous and include the theory of 'hard money' to hedge inflation, the law of diminishing returns, developed along with his close friend the classical economist T R Malthus, and the labour theory of value. One of Ricardo's most significant contributions to economics is the law of comparative advantage as applied to international commerce, which grew out of Adam Smith's division of labour and has become the central argument for free trade and open markets. It implies that countries best serve themselves when they trade with other countries abiding by their respective scales of efficiency. Besides being the most efficient method of international commerce, the comparative-advantage mode of trade also encourages international stability through multilateral business interests and global interdependencies. As Frederic Bastiat, the French journalist and politician, wrote, If goods do not cross borders, armies will.. Throughout the years, several economists have elaborated on fundamental Ricardo themes and developed compelling theorems. Using Ricardo's assertions about the interrelationships among capital, labor, output, and investment, the Nobel laureate F A Hayek posed the Ricardo effect, a retort to John Maynard Keynes's accelerator principle. Robert Barro of Harvard University used Ricardo's equivalence theorem to argue that the distinction between government taxing its citizens or deficit spending on credit is inconsequential to the long-term aggregate economy. Gordon Tullock, one of the founders of the public choice school, built upon Ricardo's rent theory to explain his rent-seeking phenomenon, which illuminates the inequitable and monopolistic distribution of excessive gains derived through discriminate government subsidies. This 11-volume set contains all of Ricardo's published and unpublished writings, and provides great insight into the early era of political economics by chronicling Ricardo's significant contributions to modern economics. The edition has been widely acclaimed as the best example, prior to the Glasgow edition of Adam Smith's writings, of scholarly editing applied to the work of an economist. It contains a general index and includes four volumes dedicated to his personal correspondence with such economic luminaries as Malthus, Jean-Baptiste Say, and James Mill, the father of John Stuart Mill. Complete sets of the edition have not been available for many years. This publication is an affordable paperback version of the hardcover edition prepared under the auspices of the Royal Economic Society by Piero Sraffa and printed by Cambridge University Press in 1951-1973.

The Issue of a Science of Politics in Utilitarian Thought

The contested status of the science of politics has compelled its supporters to pursue their endeavor in an atmosphere of continual apology. The contemporary exponents of scientific aspirations in the realm of political phenomena remain on the defensive as they are confronted with the tenacious persistence of two focal problems: (1) Does the study of politics reveal the potentiality of a science, in view of the immense diversity of human behavior, which appears to be unpredictable and beyond control for the purpose of observation? (2) What would constitute the criteria of a science of politics, provided that the possibility of establishing such a discipline is conceded? In its essential features, this dual issue represents the current manifestation of a controversy which emerged in Utilitarian thought. The parties to the dispute were James Mill, Thomas Babington Macaulay (the only participant who cannot be identified with Utilitarianism), and John Stuart Mill. The respective arguments of the contestants were presented in James Mill's Essay on Government (1828), in Macaulay's article, Mill's Essay on Government (1829), and John Stuart Mill's A System of Logic (1843). Although these works have suffered no neglect in the history of political theory, the controversy which they reveal in their combined context has not commanded as much attention as its pertinence to contemporary problems merits.

The English Utilitarians

The English Utilitarians, in three volumes, bound together as one, by Leslie Stephen. I. Jeremy Bentham. II. James Mill. III. John Stuart Mill (New York: Peter Smith, 1950, pp. 326; 382; 525, $15.00). - Volume 17 Issue 3

Willard Phillips, a Predecessor of Paasche in Index Number Formulation

IT IS often supposed that the United States offered no noteworthy writings on the theory of value until the appearance in 1858 of Henry C. Carey's The Principles of Social Science. And the reproduction-cost theory of valuie contained therein is of more interest to the student of the history of economic doctrine as a curiosity than as a helpful contribution to the development of value theory. However, in a relatively neglected work by Willard Phillips,' antedating Carey's Principles by thirty years, is found a contribution to the theory of value as significant as it is different from the views on the subject held by the majority of the writers of the period. Willard Phillips' Manual of was published in Boston in 1828-ten years after Ricardo's Principles, seven years after Malthus' Principles and six years before Senior's article on Political Economy in the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana. It appeared, then, at a time when the labor theory of value held sway among the political economists of England, and only the demurring voice of Malthus could be heard above the vigorous assertations of Torrens, McCulloch, and James Mill in their efforts to state that theory of value in a more unqualified form than did Ricardo. It is not my intent here to discuss the theory of value put forth by Phillips,2 I intend, rather, to call attention to a proposal which Phillips made for the construction of index numbers. In Chapter II of his Manual of Willard Phillips enters upon the search for a measure of value in all times and places with the words;

Social Science and Social Policy

The line of thought from which contemporary Social Science has come forth was occupied with problems of public policy in a way which has since become very much less prominent in the work of social scientists. The classic figures of social thought —Aristotle, Plato, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Jeremy Bentham, James and John Stuart Mill, Ricardo, Hobbes and Locke, Burke, Machiavelli and Hegel—were all involved in the consideration of the fundmental problems of policy from the point of view of the man who had to exercise power and to make practical decisions. Even where they themselves lived in remoteness from practical affairs the clarification of the standards for the judgment and guidance of public policy was always close to the centre of their attention. The politician's problems, reduced to fundamentals, were their problems. The problem of maintaining order through the prince's exercise of power was the point of departure of classical political philosophy; it was extended by modern liberalism to the maintenance of liberty in a framework of order. Political philosophy was regarded by those who professed it, as a means of enlightening rulers—and citizens—as to the right ends and the approximate means. The great ancestor of modern empirical social research, Sir William Petty, who regarded his task as the quantitative matter-of-fact description of what existed, viewed his problem as set by the prince's need to safeguard and maximise his power. Early economic theory accepted the same task. Even after mercantalism gave way to liberalism, economic theory was still intended to be a guide to policy.

The Propagation of Ricardian Economics in England

AMONG the post-Waterloo political economists the advocates of the complete Ricardian case were almost ludicrously few. So uphill was the task of conversion that on Ricardo's death in I823 James Mill could write to M'Culloch that they were his two and only genuine disciples .1 But a catalogue of their opponents of varying degrees was formidable: Malthus, Lauderdale, Chalmers, Spence, Torrens, Rooke, Craig, Bailey, West, Thompson, Sinclair, Young, Comber, Sismondi, Wilson, Jacob, and many others. Of these dissentients nearly all were to remain unshakeable in their own ideas. Though a few, like Torrens, were open to a fuller conversion, they remained for the most part critics of the Ricardian system. This meant that in addition to being outnumbered, the New School found itself opposed by all the senior members of the science, with the sole exception of James Mill. Finally, the Ricardians were innovators in the debate; all the prestige of precedent went to their opponents. Most political economists and most members of the public had a real respect for the possibility of gluts resting not on a syllogism, but on past experiences; their tendency was to fear break-down rather than to shrug it off. Even M'Culloch conceded2 that Malthus was in the line of Adam Smith in this matter. It is only when we reconstruct the forms of thought then current that we realise how extraordinary must have appeared the basic premise of the New School that consumption was co-extensive with production in any period of time worth considering.3 But in spite of all this the victory of the New School has assumed in latter-day eyes an air of inevitability. Explanation on several planes seems possible. It might be argued that the Ricardian case was the ' truer' case, and thus won on' merits ' as an analysis. Or we can inquire as so many have done on the level of social and economic trends, and no doubt arrive at some variant of the theme that Ricardianism was a useful apologia for the rising industrial middle class. But these factors, even if their operation is conceded, are of a more long-term nature; they do little to explain the early victory of Ricardianism. The timing of events is not without interest from this point of view. For a brief period before and after the publication of Ricardo's Principles in I8I7 his system was referred to as the New Political Economy; by the time the Royal Commission

La Monnaie et les Systemes Monetaires.

This paper examines the classical economists’ views on the virtues and limitations of competition contrasted with the projects of socialism existent at the time. The first section retrieves the evolution of socialistic doctrines in England and France until the first half of the nineteenth century, highlighting Robert Owen’s thesis. After that, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, James Mill and David Ricardo’s comments on the equality of incomes, the worker’s condition and the private property are presented. The third section rescues some elements in John Stuart Mill’s early intellectual formation as well as his debate with William Thompson over the merits of the cooperative system in the London based Owenite society. The fourth section covers others influences on Stuart Mill’s social thought, specially on his more moderate reflections about the possible points of conflict or convergence between socialism and individual liberty. The closing remarks summarize the posture of the classical authors on the feasibility and opportunity of a radical reformation of capitalism.

Malthus's General Theory of Employment and the Post-Napoleonic Depressions

Perhaps in no other stage in history has a rapidly changing pattern of economic life raised so many acutely disturbing economic problems as it did in England during the last decade of the eighteenth and the first few decades of the nineteenth century, even as there have been few periods in which the body of economic thought has been more enriched. The era that included the Napoleonic Wars (1793–1814) and the postwar period witnessed such historic events as the suspension of specie payments by the Bank of England, modification of the corn laws, industrial depression, widespread introduction of machine technology, and the Luddite riots. Little wonder that the brilliant minds of Malthus, Ricardo, James Mill, Bentham, and many others were stimulated by the troublesome issues of the day.

Selected Writings. Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, John Stuart Mill.

Selected Writings. Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, John Stuart Mill.

Malthus Commemoration

THOMAS ROBEBT MALTHUS, the economist, author of the “Essay on the Principle of Population”, died a hundred years ago on December 23, 1834, and the centenary was celebrated in Cambridge on March 2. Many distinguished economists and statisticians met in King's College, along with a few biologists who came to mark the influence of Malthus upon Darwin and his 'struggle for existence’. Prof. A. C. Pigou presided, and addresses were delivered by Mr. C. R. Fay, Mr. J. M. Keynes, and by Dr. James Bonar, whose book on “Malthus and his Work”, written just fifty years ago, remains our chief authority. The same company met again at dinner in Jesus College, of which Malthus was undergraduate and fellow. The Master, Mr. Arthur Gray, spoke to the memory of Malthus, and beside him sat the one surviving kinsman of the philosopher. Dr. Gray coupled the toast with Dr. James Bonar's name, and charmed all his hearers with a simple, intimate account of Malthus and his friends, of the influence which Malthus exercised, and the events and circumstances which influenced him. Malthus became professor of political economy at Haileybury, and was the first of all professors of that science; he was one of the early members of the Political Economy Club, together with Tooke, Ricardo and James Mill; and at the very end of his life he was one of the founders of the Statistical Society. Mr. Gray had many interesting things to say of David Hartley the philosopher, also a member of his College, whose “Observations on Man“and other writings had great influence on the political philosophy of the latter half of the eighteenth century. Malthus and Coleridge (yet another Jesus man), both born after Hartley died, were in their several ways both deeply indebted to him. Coleridge wrote of him as “Hartley, of mortal kind Wisest”, and called his son after his name. Hartley Coleridge was born all but fifty years after David Hartley died, and just two years before the “Essay on Population“appeared. Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Thomas Robert Malthus died in the same year, 1834.

The Place of John Stuart Mill and of Robert Owen in the History of English Neo-Malthusianism

Misconceptions prevalent on Mill and Owen. — I. James Mill, Place, and Carlile, 628. — Hayward's letter of 1873 on J. S. Mill, 630 — His charges and insinuations, 631. — Mill's letter of 1868, 633 — II. Place's statement of 1823 on Owen, 633. — How intimate was Owen's connection with Neo-Malthusianism, 636 — Owen's letter of denial in 1827, 639.

Bible Memorandum of James Mill

Bible Memorandum of James Mill