John Stuart Mill | Page 4

ago. "About
this time a small society was formed for readings in philosophical
subjects. The meetings took place at Mr. Grote's house in Threadneedle
Street, on certain days from half past eight till ten in the morning, at
which hour the members (all in official employment) had to repair to
their respective avocations. The members were Grote, John Mill,
Roebuck, William Ellice, William Henry Prescott, two brothers
Whitmore, and George John Graham. The mentor of their studies was
the elder Mr. Mill. The meetings were continued for two or three years.
The readings embraced a small manual of logic, by Du Trieu,
recommended by Mr. Mill, and reprinted for the purpose, Whately's
Logic, Hobbes's Logic, and Hartley on Man, in Priestley's edition. The
manner of proceeding was thorough. Each paragraph, on being read,
was commented on by every one in turn, discussed and rediscussed, to
the point of total exhaustion. In 1828 the meetings ceased; but they
were resumed in 1830, upon Mill's 'Analysis of the Mind,' which was
gone over in the same manner." These philosophical studies were not
only of extreme advantage in strengthening and developing the merits
of Mr. Mill and his friends, nearly all of whom were considerably older
than he was, they also served to unite the friends in close and lasting
intimacy of the most refined and elevating sort. Mr. Grote, his senior
by twelve years, was perhaps the most intimate, as he was certainly the
ablest, of all the friends whom Mr. Mill thus acquired.
Many of these friends were contributors to the original "Westminster
Review," which was started by Bentham in 1824. Bentham himself and
the elder Mill were its chief writers at first; and in 1828, if not sooner,
the younger Mill joined the number. In that year he reviewed Whately's
Logic; and it is probable that in the ensuing year he contributed
numerous other articles. His first literary exploit, however, which he

cared to reproduce in his "Dissertations and Discussions" was an article
that appeared in "The Jurist," in 1833, entitled "Corporation and
Church Property." That essay, in some respects, curiously anticipated
the Irish Church legislation of nearly forty years later. In the same year
he published, in "The Monthly Repository," a remarkably able and
quite a different production,--"Poetry and its Varieties," showing that in
the department of _belles-lettres_ he could write with nearly as much
vigor and originality as in the philosophical and political departments
of thought to which, ostensibly, he was especially devoted. Shortly
after that he embarked in a bolder literary venture. Differences having
arisen concerning "The Westminster Review," a new quarterly
journal--"The London Review"--was begun by Sir William Molesworth,
with Mr. Mill for editor, in 1835. "The London" was next year
amalgamated with "The Westminster," and then the nominal if not the
actual editorship passed into the hands of Mr. John Robertson. Mr. Mill
continued, however, to be one of its most constant and able
contributors until the Review passed into other hands in 1840. He aided
much to make and maintain its reputation as the leading organ of bold
thought on religious and social as well as political matters. Besides
such remarkable essays as those on Civilization, on Armand Carrel, on
Alfred de Vigny, on Bentham, and on Coleridge, which, with others,
have been republished in his collection of minor writings, he
contributed many of great importance. One on Mr. Tennyson, which
was published in 1835, is especially noteworthy. Others referred more
especially to the politics of the day. From one, which appeared in 1837,
reviewing Albany Fonblanque's "England under Seven
Administrations," and speaking generally in high terms of the politics
of "The Examiner," we may extract a few sentences which define very
clearly the political ground taken by Mr. Mill, Mr. Fonblanque, and
those who had then come to be called Philosophical Radicals. "There
are divers schools of Radicals," said Mr. Mill. "There are the historical
Radicals, who demand popular institutions as the inheritance of
Englishmen, transmitted to us from the Saxons or the barons of
Runnymede. There are the metaphysical Radicals, who hold the
principles of democracy, not as means to good government, but as
corollaries from some unreal abstraction,--from 'natural liberty' or
'natural rights.' There are the radicals of occasion and circumstance,

who are radicals because they disapprove the measures of the
government for the time being. There are, lastly, the Radicals of
position, who are Radicals, as somebody said, because they are not
lords. Those whom, in contradistinction to all these, we call
Philosophical Radicals, are those who in politics observe the common
manner of philosophers; that is, who, when they are discussing means,
begin by considering the end, and, when they desire to produce effects,
think of causes. These persons became Radicals because they saw
immense practical evils existing in the government