We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 November 2015
In his biography of James Mill, Alexander Bain made a number of claims with regard to Mill's essay “Government” (1820). First, the essay was a catalyst in the movement for reform, making “in all probability . . . our political history very different from what it might otherwise have been.” Second, the essay provided a unique opportunity for Mill to expound on “the whole theory of Government in a compact shape.” Third, as far as his “Logic of Politics” was concerned, Mill depended on the deductive method—the method of geometry—having quickly discarded the applicability of inductive logic in politics. In this article, I take issue with the last claim.
1 Bain, Alexander, James Mill: A Biography (London, 1882), 215–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 For an examination of the first claim see Thomas, William, “The ‘Essay on Government’ and the Movement for Reform,” Historical Journal, 12/2 (1969), 249–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Thomas, , The Philosophic Radicals: Nine Studies in Theory and Practice 1817–1841 (Oxford, 1979)Google Scholar, chap. 3. For the second see Fenn, Robert A., James Mill's Political Thought (New York, 1987)Google Scholar, chap. 4; Grint, Kristopher, “James Mill's Commonplace Books and Their Intellectual Context, 1773–1836” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Sussex, 2013)Google Scholar, chap. 2.
3 Ricardo, D. to Mill, J., 27 July 1820, in The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, ed. Sraffa, P., 11 vols. (Indianapolis, 2004; first published 1951–77), 8: 211.Google Scholar See also Ricardo, D. to Mill, J., 30 Aug. 1823, in ibid., 9: 375 Google Scholar; J. Mill to D. Ricardo, 13 Nov. 1820, in ibid., 8: 291.
4 Thomas, “Essay on Government,” 250.
5 Thomas Babington Macaulay, “Mill's Essay on Government: Utilitarian Logic and Politics,” Edinburgh Review, 49/97 (1828), 159–89, at 160, 162Google Scholar. Unless otherwise stated, references to Mill's “Government” are to the edition used in James Mill's Political Writings, ed. T. Ball (Cambridge, 1992), 1–42.
6 See e.g. Macaulay, “Mill on Government,” 168, 187. See further Lively, Jack and Rees, John, “Introduction,” in Lively, John Rees, Utilitarian Logic and Politics (Oxford, 1978), 1–51 Google Scholar.
7 Bain, James Mill, 217. See Stuart Mill, John, Autobiography (1873), Collected Works of J. S. Mill, gen. ed. Robson, J. M., 33 vols. (Toronto, 1963–91), 1: 211, 167–9Google Scholar (hereafter CW, followed by volume and page number); Mill, J. S., A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive (1843), CW, 8: 889–94Google Scholar (see further Logic, Book 6, chaps. 7–11). See also Sidgwick, Henry, The Elements of Politics, 4th edn (London, 1919; first published 1891), 11, 11 nGoogle Scholar.
8 See Maurice, F. D., Eustace Conway: A Novel, 3 vols. (London, 1834), 1: 84.Google Scholar
9 Nadia Urbinati, “John Stuart Mill, Romantics' Socrates and the Public Role of the Intellectual,” in Demetriou, K. N. and Loizides, A., eds., John Stuart Mill: A British Socrates (Basingstoke, 2013), 49–74, at 53–4, 57–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 See Mack, Mary P., Jeremy Bentham: An Odyssey of Ideas (London, 1962), 19 Google Scholar.
11 J. S. Mill, Autobiography, 211.
12 Fenn, Mill's Political Thought, 142. For a summary of interpretations of Mill's “Government” see Grint, “Mill's Commonplace Books,” chap. 2.
13 Thomas, William, “James Mill's Politics: A Rejoinder,” Historical Journal, 14/4 (1971), 735–50, at 750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Grint, “Mill's Commonplace Books,” 73, 92–3.
15 Bentham, Jeremy, Plan of Parliamentary Reform (London, 1817)Google Scholar; Hansard, Thomas Curson, ed. The Parliamentary Debates. Volume XXXVIII; 13 April–10 June 1818 (London, 1820), 1164 Google Scholar.
16 [James Mackintosh], “Universal Suffrage,” Edinburgh Review, 31/61 (1818), 165–203, at 173–4Google Scholar. See also [James Mackintosh], “Parliamentary Reform,” Edinburgh Review, 34/68 (1820), 461–501 Google Scholar, at 466.
17 [Anon.], “Parliamentary Reform,” British Review and London Critical Journal, 11/22 (1818), 287–327, at 314–15Google Scholar. See also [Anon.], “Bentham's Plan of Parliamentary Reform,” Quarterly Review, 18/35 (1817), 128–35, at 128–30Google Scholar; [Anon.], “Bentham's Parliamentary Reform,” Critical Review or Annals of Literature, 5/6 (1817), 551–60, at 551, 556–7, 560Google Scholar.
18 See Burke, Edmund, “Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents” (1770), in Select Works of Edmund Burke, ed. Caravan, Francis, 4 vols. (Indianapolis, 1999), 1: 69–156, at 76.Google Scholar
19 Translation is by W. D. Ross. Drawing on Polus (Plato, Gorgias 448c, 462b–c), Aristotle admitted that rules of arts are created through experience, i.e. a correct induction of particulars (M 981a1–5).
20 Toulmin, Stephen, Return to Reason (Cambridge, 2001), 123 Google Scholar.
21 James Mill, Commonplace Books (hereafter CPB), 5 vols., ed. Robert A. Fenn (vols. 1–4, London Library; vol. 5, LSE Library Archives (Mill–Taylor Collection)), 1: 108v (vols. 1–4, ed. R. A. Fenn and K. Grint, can be accessed at www.intellectualhistory.net/mill).
22 Mill, James, trans. and ed., Charles Villiers: An Essay on the Spirit and Influence of the Reformation of Luther (London, 1805), 318 n;Google Scholar cf. [James Mill], “Scott's Elements of Intellectual Philosophy,” Literary Journal, 2nd series, 1/6 (1806), 561–80, at 561–2. For the distinction see Stewart, Dugald, Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind, 2 vols., in Collected Works of Dugald Stewart, ed. Hamilton, W., 11 vols. (Edinburgh, 1854), 2: 403 (cf. 2: 417)Google Scholar.
23 Mill, James, Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind (1829), ed. Mill, J. S., with notes by Bain, A., Findlater, A., Grote, G., 2nd edn, 2 vols. (London, 1878), 2: 402–3, original emphasis.Google Scholar
24 [Mill, James], “Theory and Practice,” London Review, 3/1 (1836), 223–34, at 227Google Scholar. I follow R. A. Fenn, James Mill's Political Thought (Appendix II) in the identification of James Mill's anonymous writings.
25 Mill, CPB, 1: 106v, 107r, 112r–113v. See also Mill, CPB, 1: 108v, 109r, 114v; 5: 125.
26 [Mill, James], “Belsham's Elements of the Philosophy of the Mind,” Anti-Jacobin Review, 12/47 (1802), 1–13, at 1–2Google Scholar; [Mill, James], “Forsyth's Principles of Moral Science,” Literary Journal, 5/4 (1805), 381–92, at 383Google Scholar; [Mill, James], “Education” (1819), in Mill, Essays (London, 1825), 5, 25, 34 Google Scholar. See also [James Mill], “Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind, by Stewart, Dugald,” British Review and London Critical Journal, 6/11 (1815), 170–200, at 184, 193Google Scholar; [Mill, James], “Whether Political Economy Is Useful,” London Review, 2/4 (1836), 553–71, at 556, 561–2Google Scholar; [Mill, James], “Theory and Practice,” London Review, 3/1 (1836), 223–34Google Scholar. See also Fenn, James Mill's Political Thought, 58–9, 97–9, 128Google Scholar. For a discussion of the relevant parts of Mill's MS see Grint, “Mill's Commonplace Books,” chap. 4 (section 5).
27 Mill, J. to Napier, M., 10 July 1821, in Napier, Macvie Jr., ed., Selection from the Correspondence of the Late Macvey Napier (London, 1879), 27 Google Scholar.
28 Mill, “Stewart's Elements,” 181.
29 Stewart, Elements, in Collected Works, 2: 220 Google Scholar. Also see Campbell's, G. discussion on “empirics” and “visionaries” in The Philosophy of Rhetoric, new ed. (New York, 1868; first published 1776), 15Google Scholar.
30 Mill, CPB, 1: 106v. See Bacon, Francis, Novum Organum, 2nd edn (Amsterdam, 1660), 57–8Google Scholar; Bacon, New Organon, ed. L. Jardine and M. Silverthorne (Cambridge, 2000), 52, aphorism 64).
31 Milton, John, Artis Logicae Plenior Institutio, ad Petri Rami Methodum concinnata, in The Prose Works of John Milton, ed. Symmonds, C., 7 vols. (London, 1806), 6: 198.Google Scholar
32 E.g. Mill, James, History of British India, 3rd edn, 6 vols. (London, 1826; first published 1818), 2: 135–6, 181Google Scholar.
33 [Mill, James], “Malthus's Essay on the Principles of Population,” Literary Journal, 2/10 (1803), 577–87, at 578–80Google Scholar. See also e.g. [Mill, James], “Newenham's Historical Inquiry into the Population of Ireland,” Literary Journal, 5/3 (1805), 249–58, at 255Google Scholar; [Mill, James], “Tooke's Diversions of Purley,” Literary Journal, 2nd series, 1/1 (1806), 1–16, at 10Google Scholar; [Mill, James], “Gentz on the Political Balance of Europe,” Literary Journal, 2nd series, 2/3 (1806), 286–300, at 298Google Scholar. See further de Marchi, Neil, “The Case for James Mill,” in Coats, A. W., ed., Methodological Controversy in Economics (London, 1983), 155–84, at 160–61Google Scholar.
34 Mill, History, 5: 246.
35 Mill, “Stewart's Elements,” 193; see also Mill, “Scott's Elements,” 578.
36 Mill, History, 2: 70. It seems that James Mill found this idea in Condillac (Mill, CPB, 1: 85). The idea was suggested by Bacon and acknowledged by Thomas Brown (cited in Mill, Analysis, 1: 233). See also Stewart, Elements, in Collected Works, 3: 245. But the implications of this idea for scientific method were only drawn out by John Stuart Mill's A System of Logic (1843). In short, the younger Mill tried to show that the uniformities existing among phenomena, which people experience, “force themselves upon involuntary recognition.” Philosophers or scientists eventually investigate those phenomena, thereby revealing limits to these spontaneous generalizations or showing their truth to be contingent upon other, previously unobserved, circumstances. John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, in CW, 7: 312, 318–19.
37 [Mill, James], “Anderson on the Scarcity of Grain,” Literary Journal, 4/4 (1804), 385–402, at 386–7Google Scholar.
38 Bacon, Novum Organum, 113–4; Bacon, New Organon, 83–4.
39 [Mill, James], “Taylor's Translation of Plato,” Literary Journal, 3/8 and 3/10 (1804), 449–61 and 577–89, at 460–1Google Scholar.
40 Mill, CPB, 1: 112v, 114v.
41 Mill, CPB, 4: 41vb3. See Stewart, Dugald, “On Taste,” in Collected Works, 5: 352–3Google Scholar.
42 Stewart, Elements , in Collected Works, 2: 222 Google Scholar (cf. Mill's reference in Analysis, 2: 348). See further Haakonssen, Knud, “James Mill and Scottish Moral Philosophy,” Political Studies, 33/4 (1985), 628–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
43 Mill, CPB, 3: 111v.
44 Mill, CPB, 1: 115r.
45 Hobbes, Thomas, De Cive (1642), in The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, ed. Molesworth, William, 11 vols. (London, 1839)Google Scholar (hereafter EW), 2: xiv, italics added.
46 See Stewart, Elements , in Collected Works, 3: 280–81Google Scholar.
47 See Henry Lewes, George, The Biographical History of Philosophy; From Its Origin in Greece down to the Present Day, Library edn (New York, 1857), 495 Google Scholar. Grote, G. to Molesworth, W., 28 Oct. 1838, in Grote, Harriet, The Personal Life of George Grote (London, 1873), 129 Google Scholar.
48 Hampton, Jean, Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition (Cambridge, 1986), 7 Google Scholar. See also A. P. Martinich, Hobbes (London and New York, 2005), 170–71; Talaska, R. A., “Analytic and Synthetic Method According to Hobbes,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 26/2 (1988), 207–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See further Hobbes, EW, 1: 66, 73–4. J. W. N. Watkins, Hobbes's System of Ideas, 2nd edn (London, 1973), chap. 3, §§9–11, has argued that Hobbes was indebted to Paduan methodology.
49 Mill, CPB, 1: 108v.
50 Mill, CPB, 1: 108r. Here, Mill was defending Stewart against Francis Jeffrey, via Hume, on the difference between observation and experimentation in mental sciences.
51 See, Mill, CPB, 1: 112v, 1: 165r, 5: 84–5. Mill did not ignore Condillac's opposition to Synthesis.
52 Bonnot De Condillac, Etienne, Essay on the Origin of Human Knowledge (1746), trans. and ed. Aarsleff, H. (Cambridge, 2001), 49, original emphasisCrossRefGoogle Scholar.
53 Stewart, Elements, in Collected Works, 3: 281.
54 Stewart, Outlines of Moral Philosophy, in Collected Works, 2: 7.
55 Newton, Isaac, Opticks, 4th edn (London, 1730), 380–81Google Scholar.
56 Mill, “Stewart's Elements,” 195.
57 [James Mill], Fragment on Mackintosh (London, 1870; first published 1835), 307, 274, 48, 25–6.
58 Stewart, Elements, in Collected Works, 3: chap. 4.
59 University of London Library MS429/3 f. 8 (on Bacon, Novum Organum, aphorism 29).
60 University of London Library MS429/3 f. 74 (on Bacon, Novum Organum, aphorism 95). See also [George Grote], Statement of the Question of Parliamentary Reform; with a Reply to the Objections of the Edinburgh Review, No. LXI (London, 1821), 7.
61 Bain, James Mill, 14–15, 18–19. See also Fenn, James Mill's Political Thought, chap. 1.
62 Plato, Gorgias 463b. See Mill, CPB, 1: 108v, 112v, also 1: 106v, 1: 113r–v, 1: 162v–163r. J. S. Mill, “Definition of Political Economy” (1836), CW, 4: 312.
63 See Jenkyns, Richard, The Victorians and Ancient Greece (Oxford, 1980)Google Scholar; Turner, Frank M., The Greek Heritage in Victorian Britain (New Haven, 1981)Google Scholar. See Stopper, M. R., “Greek Philosophy and the Victorians,” Phronesis, 26/3 (1981), 267–85Google Scholar, for a corrective to Jenkyns and Turner as regards Aristotle's importance in nineteenth-century Britain.
64 See e.g. Demetriou, Kyriakos N., “The Development of Platonic Studies and the Role of the Utilitarians,” Utilitas, 8/1 (1996), 15–37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
65 See Loizides, Antis, John Stuart Mill's Platonic Heritage: Happiness through Character (Lanham, MD, 2013)Google Scholar, Parts I and II; also Loizides, “Taking Their Cue from Plato: James and John Stuart Mill,” History of European Ideas, 39/1 (2013), 121–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the term “Greece-intoxicated” to describe John Stuart Mill and Grote, George see Bain, Alexander, John Stuart Mill: A Criticism with Personal Recollections (London, 1882), 94 Google Scholar.
66 Loizides, Mill's Platonic Heritage, chaps. 2–3 and 5–6.
67 [Mill, James], “Taylor's Plato,” Edinburgh Review, 14/27 (1809), 187–211 Google Scholar, at 199. See Burnyeat, M. F., “Plato,” Proceedings of the British Academy, 111 (2001), 1–22, at 20–21Google Scholar; Jenkyns, Victorians and Ancient Greece, 233.
68 J. S. Mill, Autobiography, 25; J. S. Mill, “Phaedrus,” CW, 11: 96, 93.
69 Mill, James, Elements of Political Economy, 3rd edn (London, 1826), 13–15.Google Scholar
70 J. S. Mill, “Fonblanque's England,” CW, 6: 353.
71 Thomas, Philosophic Radicals, 118.
72 See Thomas, “Essay on Government,” 256 n 46.
73 [Mill, James], “Comber on National Subsistence,” Eclectic Review, 5 (Jan. 1809), 50–61, at 52–3.Google Scholar
74 Ibid., 52–3.
75 See Bator, Paul G., “The Formation of the Regius Chair of Rhetoric and Belles Lettres at the University of Edinburgh,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 75 (1989), 40–64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
76 Bevilacqua, Vincent M., “Adam Smith and Some Philosophical Origins of Eighteenth-Century Rhetorical Theory,” Modern Language Review, 63/3 (1968), 559–68, at 564–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
77 Kennedy, George A., Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times, 2nd edn (Chapel Hill, 1999) 277, 281–2.Google Scholar
78 Howell, Wilbur Samuel, Eighteenth-Century British Logic and Rhetoric (Princeton, 1971), 259–60, 441–7Google Scholar. Warnick, Barbara, “The Old Rhetoric vs. the New Rhetoric: The Quarrel between the Ancients and the Moderns,” Communication Monographs, 49/4 (1982), 263–76, at 263, 263 n 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
79 Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 285.
80 See Campbell, Rhetoric, 76–8; Walzer, Arthur E., George Campbell: Rhetoric in the Age of Enlightenment (New York, 2003), 59 Google Scholar. See also Whately, Richard, Elements of Rhetoric, 5th edn (London, 1836), 74–80 Google Scholar.
81 Bain, James Mill, 19.
82 Bain, James Mill, 166–9. J. S. Mill, Autobiography, 14.
83 Mill, “Taylor's Plato,” Edinburgh Review, 188–9.
84 See Ellis, Heather, Generational Conflict and University Reform: Oxford in the Age of Revolution (Leiden, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, chap. 2.
85 As Mill believed the universities, in the way Classics were taught (including Aristotle's Ethics and Politics), were trying to thwart rather than develop the ability to think for one's self, he may have meant the comment ironically. He thought the ancient universities to be “excellent schools of Priggism,” “prone to Toryism,” and part of the ecclesiastical establishment, whose “fixed creed and fixed forms” aimed “to keep the human mind where it is.” Mill, CPB, 3: 33; 5: 65r, original emphasis; Mill, Mackintosh, 31.
86 Mill, CPB, 3: 34. Mill quoted from Bernier, François, Evenemens particuliers dans les etats du grand Mogol (Claude Barbin, 1671), 64 Google Scholar; and referred to Copleston, Edward, A Reply to the calumnies of the Edinburgh Review against Oxford: containing an account of studies pursued in that university (Oxford, 1810), 23–30 Google Scholar.
87 Mill, CPB, 1: 106.
88 See Aristotle, A Pr 68b28–29.
89 Burnyeat, Myles F., “Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Logic of Persuasion,” in Furley, D. J. and Nehamas, A., eds., Aristotle's Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays (Princeton, 1994), 3–55, at 17.Google Scholar
90 Burnyeat, “Enthymeme,” 17; see Benoit, William L., “Aristotle's Example: The Rhetorical Induction,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66 (1980), 182–92, at 188CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
91 [Mill, James], “Politics,” Literary Journal, 1/23 (1803) 737–44, at 738Google Scholar.
92 [Mill, James], “Schools for All,” Philanthropist, 4/16 (1814), 323–50, at 326–7, 326 nGoogle Scholar.
93 Smith, Adam, Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, ed. Bryce, J. C. (Indianapolis, 1985; first published Oxford, 1983), 146 Google Scholar.
94 Campbell, Rhetoric, 84–5. Campbell, Rhetoric, chap. 6, had produced one of the most famous critiques of Aristotelian syllogistic reasoning. See Howell, British Logic and Rhetoric, 401.
95 Campbell, Rhetoric, 24–5; chap. 5. Intuitive evidence referred to evidence arising from intellection, consciousness and common sense; deductive evidence, to evidence arising from a reasoning process—inductive or demonstrative. The distinction was also employed in Stewart, Outlines, in Collected Works, 2: 27–31.
96 Campbell, Rhetoric, 84–5; Smith, Lectures, 146.
97 Dugald Stewart, Dissertation: Exhibiting the Progress of Metaphysical, Ethical, and Political Philosophy since the Revival of Letters in Europe, in Collected Works, 1: 3 n.
98 Dugald Stewart, Philosophy of the Active and Moral Powers, in Collected Works, 6: 134. Cf. Stewart, Lectures on Political Economy, in Collected Works, 9: 223.
99 [Mill, James], “Government” (1820), in Supplement to the IV, V, and VI Eds. of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, ed. Napier, Macvey (Edinburgh, 1824), 4: Part 2, 491–505Google Scholar.
100 J. Mill to D. Ricardo, 11 Sept. 1819 and 9 Nov. 1815, in Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, 8: 67 and 6: 321.
101 Mill, “Government,” 4.
102 D. Ricardo to J. Mill, 27 July 1820, in Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, 8: 211. See also D. Ricardo to J. Mill, 30 Aug. 1823, in ibid., 9: 375; J. Mill to D. Ricardo, 13 Nov. 1820, in ibid., 8: 291.
103 See Hamburger, Joseph, “James Mill on Universal Suffrage and the Middle Class,” Journal of Politics, 24/1 (1962), 167–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thomas, “Essay on Government,” 264; Collini, Stefan, Winch, Donald and Burrow, John, That Noble Science of Politics: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Intellectual History (Cambridge, 1983), 98 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
104 Mill, J. to Napier, M., 10 Sept. 1819, in Correspondence of the Late Macvey Napier, 24 Google Scholar; Mill, J. to Ricardo, D., 11 Sept. 1819, in Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, 8: 68 Google Scholar.
105 Mill, CPB, 1: 178v. See also Mill, J. to Ricardo, D., 28 Dec. 1820, in Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, 8: 328 Google Scholar.
106 Mill, CPB, 3: 111v.
107 Mill, “Government,” 3–4.
108 Mill, CPB, 1: 113v.
109 [Mill, James], “Marsh and Others against Lancaster,” Philanthropist 2/5 (1812), 57–108, at 90–91Google Scholar.
110 Barnes, Jonathan, “Aristotle's Theory of Demonstration,” Phronesis, 14/2 (1969), 123–152, at 138CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff. Translation from Prior Analytics is Robin Smith's and from Posterior Analytics is Jonathan Barnes's.
111 Smith, “Aristotle's Theory,” 52; Smith, “Logic,” 47; Barnes, “Aristotle's Demonstration,” 138.
112 Hintikka, Jaakko, “On the Ingredients of an Aristotelian Science,” in Hintikka, Analyses of Aristotle (Dordrecht, 2004), 87–99 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 96. See also Smith, Robin, “Aristotle's Theory of Demonstration,” in Anagnostopoulos, G., ed., A Companion to Aristotle (Oxford, 2009)Google Scholar, 51–65, at 53; Smith, Robin, “Logic,” in Barnes, J., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle (Cambridge, 1995), 27–65, at 48Google Scholar.
113 Corcoran, John, “Aristotle's Demonstrative Logic,” History and Philosophy of Logic, 30/1 (2009), 1–20, at 5, original emphasisCrossRefGoogle Scholar.
114 Smith, “Aristotle's Theory,” 54–5.
115 According to Aristotle, the full examination of some subjects is best left to the corresponding science itself (R 1359b17–20).
116 See further Raphael, Sally, “Rhetoric, Dialectic and Syllogistic Argument: Aristotle's Position in Rhetoric I–II,” Phronesis, 19/1 (1974) 153–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
117 Farrell, Thomas B., “Aristotle's Enthymeme as Tacit Reference,” in Gross, A. G. and Walzer, A. E., eds., Rereading Aristotle's Rhetoric (Carbondale, 2000), 93–106, at 99Google Scholar.
118 Cobbett, William, Parliamentary History of England, vol. 30 (London, 1817), 810, 820Google Scholar.
119 Gerald le Grys Norgate, “Roberts, William (1767–1849),” in Sidney Lee, ed., Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 48 (London, 1896), 395. See Roberts, Arthur, The Life, Letters and Opinions of William Roberts (London, 1840), 40 Google Scholar.
120 [Anon.], “Parliamentary Reform,” British Review and London Critical Journal, 11/22 (1818), 287–327, at 307–8, 314–15, original emphasis.Google Scholar
121 Mill, “Government,” 3.
122 Ibid., 4–6.
123 Ibid., 16, also 9, 13, 19.
124 Mill, “Marsh and Others against Lancaster,” 90–91.
125 Mill, “Scott's Elements,” 572. Cf. Mill, Analysis, 1: 267–8.
126 [Mill, James], “Grant on the India Trade and Government,” Eclectic Review, 9 (May 1813), 453–71, at 464Google Scholar.
127 Mill, Analysis, 2: 348.
128 Mill, “Marsh and Others against Lancaster,” 74.
129 [Mill, James], “New System of Education,” Philanthropist, 5/19 (1815), 177–201, at 186Google Scholar.
130 It goes to show that a “complete,” scientific theory of politics needed to be explicit with its premises, since both premises were stated by John Stuart Mill in his own discussion of the method of politics. Mill, A System of Logic, CW, 7: 879, also 7: 371.
131 Anon., “Parliamentary Reform,” 314–15.
132 Mill, “Government,” 16.
133 Hamburger, “Mill on Universal Suffrage.” See further Fenn, Mill's Political Thought, Appendix I, Grint, “Mill's Commonplace Books,” chap. 2.
134 Howell, British Logic and Rhetoric, 259–60.
135 J. S. Mill, Autobiography, 211; J. S. Mill, A System of Logic, CW, 8: 893–4.
136 J. S. Mill, A System of Logic, CW, 8: 893; J. S. Mill, Autobiography, 165.
137 J. Mackintosh to M. Napier, 8 Jan. 1822, in Correspondence of the Late Macvey Napier, 34.
138 [Mackintosh, James], “Stewart's Introduction to the Encyclopaedia [II],” Edinburgh Review, 36/71 (1821), 220–67Google Scholar, at 241–2. Macaulay, “Mill on Government,” 188–9.
139 For the view that particular varieties may counteract more general laws see Mill, History, 1: xviii.
140 Mill, J. to Ricardo, D., 13 Nov. 1820, in Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, 8: 291 Google Scholar; compare with J. Mill to J. R. McCulloch, 18 Aug. 1825, in Bain, James Mill, 292.
141 Mill, CPB, 2: 22r(d); cf. Aristotle, R 1355b2–7; and Hobbes, Leviathan, chap. 10. See also [Mill, James], “Fox's History of the Reign of James II,” Annual Review and History, 7 (1809), 101–2Google Scholar.
142 Mill, CPB, 5: 102v (on Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, III.9.7).
143 Mill, CPB, 2: 7v(b4) on Aristotle, R 1355a38.
144 Mill, CPB, 2: 48ar(a3) on Aristotle, R 1395b30–39.
