Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros16Special IssueJohn Stuart Mill and Political Re...

Special Issue

John Stuart Mill and Political Reform

Responses to Bentham and Grote
John Stuart Mill et la réforme politique: Réponses à Bentham et Grote
Minami Murata

Résumés

Bien que John Stuart Mill et Jeremy Bentham aient été considérés comme d’illustres exemples de « Philosophes radicaux », leurs exigences en matière de réforme sociale et politique étaient basées sur des points de vue différents. Comparée à celle de Bentham, l’analyse de Mill concernant le principe d’utilité et de démocratie représentative présente certains traits « perfectionnistes » et « élitistes ». La présente étude se propose d’examiner ceci à la lumière de la réception et de la réponse de Mill aux idées de Bentham sur la politique. Bien que Mill fût, en partie, un partisan enthousiaste de Bentham, et qu’il lui attribuât le mérite de promouvoir les réformes juridiques et politiques, il semble avoir commencé, à partir de 1833, à évaluer ouvertement Bentham de façon critique. Ceci peut être perçu dans ses discussions et sa relation intellectuelle avec George Grote, qui était aussi un politicien et un historien utilitariste. L’accent mis par Mill sur le rôle essentiel de « l’éducation sociale du peuple » dans la promotion de l’esprit public fut développé dans des dialogues avec Grote et l’examen de ses études historiques. La présente étude conclut que Grote fit preuve de plus de sympathie envers Bentham que Mill, dans l’approche théorique aussi bien que dans l’approche pratique. Bien que tous les trois fussent vraiment dévoués à la même cause radicale, ils avaient toutefois des visions différentes de la crise de la démocratie parlementaire. L’examen du contexte de sa relation intellectuelle avec Grote fournit l’une des sources permettant de comprendre le défi jeté par Mill aux idées de Bentham relatives à la réforme politique.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

  • 1 Mill, Autobiography, 1873, in Collected Works of John Stuart Mill [CW], 33 (vols.), F. E. L. Priest (...)
  • 2 Halévy 1929, p. 417. For the contextual based analysis on the reception of Bentham’s Plan, see Scho (...)
  • 3 Bentham, 1817, p. 440. See also Schofield 2006, p. 147.
  • 4 Bentham, 1817, p. 441.

1It is not a stretch to argue that Jeremy Bentham’s theoretical and practical legacy could not be ignored by those who succeeded him. James Mill and John Stuart Mill were the “philosophical radicals” who inherited that legacy. John Mill acknowledged that his father was “the earliest Englishman of any great mark, who thoroughly understood, and in the main adopted, Bentham’s general views of ethics, government, and law.”1 When Bentham published Plan of Parliamentary Reform, in the form of a Catechism in 1817 it quickly became recognition as “the classical work of the radical party.”2 Bentham’s Plan expressed his criticism of the sinister interests undermining “democratical interest” or “universal interest.” He argued that partial, separate, sinister monarchical, and aristocratical interests, would prevail unless radical parliamentary reform was undertaken.3 Bentham claimed that establishing “democratic ascendency” was the fundamental scope and “antidote” for dismantling political corruption.4 Both his many contemporaries and his pupils argued over his scrupulous reform plan, which included a secret ballot, annual elections, and universal suffrage.

  • 5 Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, p. 57.
  • 6 Ibid., pp. 136-37.
  • 7 Drawing a comparison between John Mill and Bentham has been widely studied by either philosophical (...)

2Despite the younger Mill admitted that being close to the radical circle in the early stages of his education provided him “an important circumstance,”5 there is an ambiguity regarding whether he directly read it. Nevertheless, the reflection to Benthamite political reform appeared in both direct and indirect form. When the younger Mill first encountered Bentham by reading French edition of Traité de Législation, civile et pénale, edited by Étienne Dumont, he noted that it made him “a different being.” The experience unified his “conceptions of things” and “the principal outward purpose of a life.” Moreover, it provided him with a powerful pull and purpose for life: “When I first read Bentham, [...] I had what might truly be called an object in life; to be a reformer of the world. My conception of my own happiness was entirely identified with this object.”6 However, a “mental crisis” in 1826 sowed doubt in his mind about Benthamism. Mill then embarked on modifying this theory over many years, until the publications of works such as On Liberty, Utilitarianism, and Considerations on Representative Government.7 This paper aims to illustrate this transformation by surveying Mill’s responses to Bentham and George Grote.

  • 8 Alexander Bain called Mill “a Greece-intoxicated man” (Bain 1882, p. 94). Despite that there is no (...)

3Firstly, Mill’s reception and interpretation of Bentham in 1830s will be explained, when the movement for the first Reform Act was active. Mill perceived the time as “an age of transition,” and searched the renovated political and moral theory for the forthcoming reform. Although his faith to a radical cause was contested after the heat of the movement, he did not abandon it, and challenged to reconstruct utilitarian political theory. The second part discusses this by exploring Mill’s intellectual relationship with Grote. Grote was a utilitarian writer, politician, and historian, and, between 1846 and 1853, Mill deepened his ideas of democracy by reading and reviewing Grote’s A History of Greece.8 Discovering, through Grote, the Athenian institution provided Mill with a source to enrich the modern political system. Certain aspects of Grote reflected what Mill had been contesting from 1830s in Bentham’s articles to Considerations. Identifying his agreements and disagreements with these two philosophers sheds light on Mill’s own political and philosophical purpose for being “a reformer of the world.”

Mill’s Perception of the Transitional Period and Political Reform

“The Spirit of the Age”

  • 9 Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, p. 147. For the detailed and convincing analysis on the development of (...)
  • 10 Ibid., pp. 177-78.

4In common interpretation, Mill discovered the important nature of the “internal culture of the individual” as one of “the prime necessities of human well-being” by falling into a “mental crisis” in the fall of 1826.9 This period of depression has been interpreted as providing him with a chance to reconstruct his utilitarian theory, which had been bestowed on him by Bentham and James Mill. In the convalescence stage of the troubled mind, Mill himself admitted that he fell out of believing in representative democracy as “an absolute principle,” and turned to pondering it as “a question of time, place, and circumstance.” Regarding “the choice of political institutions as a moral and educational question more than one of material interests,” the premise of his political philosophy began to turn away from Benthamism. Nevertheless, his political creed for the practice remained as before, namely, that of an English radical and democrat.10 Prior to 1838, when the disagreement with Bentham firmly took hold in his political ideals, Mill’s conflicted development had appeared in several newspaper articles.

  • 11 Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, V [Part 2],” in Examiner, 1831, CW, XXII, pp. 312-16, p. 316.
  • 12 Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, IV,” in Examiner, 1831, CW, XXII, pp. 289-95, pp. 289-90.
  • 13 It should be noted that this comparative method implies Saint-Simon’s influence on Mill.
  • 14 Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, I,” in Examiner, 1831, CW, XXII, pp.227-34, pp. 232-33.

5Shortly before the first Reform Bill, he published “The Spirit of the Age” (1831), which portrayed his transitional standpoint in a moment of “great political changes.” He called it a time of “crisis of transition” and concluded by urging the necessity of diminishing the monopolized power of the higher and wealthy classes,11 reflecting the Benthamite criticism of sinister interest: “[t]he conditions which confer worldly power are still the possession of wealth, the being employed and trusted by the wealthy.”12 Mill agreed with the radical cause by denouncing the abusive power exercised by the rich. However, eliminating the aristocracy was not the only way to overcome the problem. Establishing the moral and intellectual influence of the people were required in order to restore society from this transitional state to its natural state. His estimation of the era was characterized in a comparison between these two states.13 He claimed that mankind was now confronted by “intellectual anarchy.” The present age merely archived “the diffusion of superficial knowledge” and only a small number of people were capable of forming “sound opinions by their own lights.” Most men struggled to have confidence in their own opinions and, therefore, seemed to only incline towards them. Though it was an evitable process for civilization to come to an end, parts of the journey would be “rougher or more dangerous” than others.14

  • 15 Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, II,” in Examiner, 1831, CW, XXII, pp. 238-45, p. 238.

The present age is an age of transition: I shall now attempt to point out one of the most important consequences of this fact. In all other conditions of mankind, the uninstructed have faith in the instructed. In an age of transition, the divisions among the instructed nullify their authority, and the uninstructed lose their faith in them. The multitude are without a guide; and society is exposed to all the errors and dangers which are to be expected when persons who have never studied any branch of knowledge comprehensively and as a whole attempt to judge for themselves upon particular parts of it.15

  • 16 Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, V [Part 1],” in Examiner, 1831, CW, XXII, pp. 304-07, p. 304.
  • 17 Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, V [Part 2],” p. 312, see also “The Spirit of the Age, IV,” CW, XXII, (...)
  • 18 Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, V [Part 2],” CW, XXII, p. 312.
  • 19 Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, IV,” CW, XXII, p. 291.
  • 20 Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, V [Part 2],” p. 315.

6In contrast to the transitional state, in the natural state “the opinions and feelings of the people” were formed by those members of society with “the most cultivated minds.” People would accept the utility of this situation with “voluntary acquiescence.” Mill also noted that it enabled the management of worldly power and moral influence. In contrast, the transitional age “the mass of the uninstructed” had an absence of the instructed to help them discerning the right opinions and feelings.16 Sources of moral influences were “supposed wisdom and virtue, the sacerdotal office, and the possession of worldly power.”17 He saw as the crisis people “in a mixed state” who lacked confidence in believing in the truth.18 Reflecting on the history of the ancient civilization in the context of modern England, Europe, and America, Mill presented examples of societal harmony. Ideal models of the natural state existed in the commonwealth of Athens, Sparta, and Rome, where there was an attachment to “constitutional doctrines” and “received maxims of policy.”19 While the moral influences of the ancient commonwealth were an orderly combination of wisdom, virtue, and secular power, the England of Mill’s day was corrupted the rule of a wealthy government which did not have “the superior capacity” to exercise worldly power. Higher classes, devitalized by “lazy enjoyment,” lacked the “active talent” to manage governmental affairs. The survival of such a transitional age, Mill claimed, demanded a role for the educated.20

  • 21 Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, pp. 236-37.
  • 22 Mill, “Attack on Literature,” in Examiner, 1831, CW, XXII, pp. 318-27, p. 326.

7In Autobiography, Mill reflected on the particular character of this series of articles. He thought their publication was “ill timed,” during a heated moment of anticipation of democratic political reform.21 His own evaluation to them reflected an uncertainty in his own standpoint: was he a Benthamite or not at that point. “Attack on Literature” (1831) placed a similar emphasis on the development of the internal capacity of the human-being, and was concerned with the increasing power of “the mass of the people.” Even though the first Reform Act had the potential to eliminate the corrupt character of government, it did not imply that the people would not have “sinister interests.” Mill believed they were as likely as the aristocracy to tend to having “their opinions confirmed” rather than “corrected.” Parliamentary Reform could dismantle some barriers, but Mill concluded it would not be enough.22 Both “Spirit of the Age” and “Attack on Literature” exhibited Mill’s ambivalence towards democratizing politics.

After the Death of Bentham

  • 23 Mill, “Death of Jeremy Bentham,” in Examiner, 1832, CW, XXIII, pp. 467-473, pp. 468-69.

8Almost a year after the publication of “The Spirit of the Age,” Mill published the memorial essay, “Death of Jeremy Bentham” (1832). In it he remembered Bentham’s achievement of the Reform Act. The essay contained neither mention of the personal relationship between the two nor of Mill’s personal memories of Bentham. Instead, Mill described Bentham as “the great teacher” of his time, and reflected on what had achieved as a reformer of jurisprudence and as a moral philosopher, namely, utilitarianism. Looking back on Bentham’s career, Mill reflected on the political and legal reforms of the 1820s and 1830s which had, to a great extent, been accomplished through Bentham’s work. He also reflected on the vigorous debates prompted by his legacy. Mill considered that the state of philosophy of jurisprudence and legislation before Bentham was like a “labyrinth without a clue—a jungle, through which no path had ever been cut.” Systems of law existed, but they were nothing more than “masses of deformity,” based on “the rude contrivances of a barbarous age.” According to Mill, the laws that Bentham faced were “vague cloudy generalities arbitrarily assumed a priori, and called laws of nature, or principles of natural law.”23

  • 24 Ibid., p. 469.
  • 25 Ibid., p. 470.
  • 26 Ibid., p. 471.
  • 27 Ibid., pp. 471-72.

9Mill interpreted Fragment on Government as the first publication in which Bentham sought to destroy the “monster” of English law. According to Mill, when Bentham began his battle against the law, most English laws had not previously been subject to criticism. The Whigs, Tories, and Democrats, despite their party political differences, generally joined in “one chorus of clamorous admiration” for the current state of jurisprudence. As Mill reflected, “Mr. Bentham has fought this battle for now almost sixty years; the greater part of that time.”24 While Mill symbolically depicted Bentham’s challenges against the law, he also understood that “Mr. Bentham has been much more than merely a destroyer. Like all who discredit erroneous systems by arguments drawn from principles, and not from mere results, he could not fail, even while destroying the old edifice, to lay a solid foundation for the new.”25 In renovating and rebuilding the basics of jurisprudence, Bentham devoted himself to both its practice and theory. Mill summed up his admiration for Bentham as the reformer of English law by referring to him as the father of the philosophic radicals. Others who admired Bentham called him the “founder of the science of morals” and the founder of “the science of legislation.” What is certain is that he was the first man to establish a philosophical foundation for morals and the law for “the principle of general utility.” However, what Mill recognized as his real merit was his criticism and his attempt to rid the system of “the rubbish of pretended natural law” and “natural justice.”26 According to Mill, Bentham’s battle with the monster correctly reflected not only his originality and eminent intelligence, but also his highly sophisticated moral characters.27 Overall, Mill respected what Bentham achieved in the fields of legislation and politics.

Critical Responses to Bentham

  • 28 Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, pp. 206-07. See also J. S. Mill to Thomas Carlyle, 02/08/1833, The Earl (...)
  • 29 Ibid., pp. 7-8.
  • 30 Ibid., pp. 14-5.
  • 31 Ibid., p. 16.
  • 32 Mill, “Remarks on Bentham’s Philosophy,” 1833, CW, X, pp. 3-18, p. 16.

10In 1833, a year after the Bentham memorial essay, Mill published the essay “Remarks on Bentham’s Philosophy” in Lytton Bulwer’s England and the English. The more detailed opinions presented in this essay, served as a more “critical account of Bentham’s philosophy.”28 Bentham’s legal philosophy was “eminently consistent” with the “systematic character of his intellect” consisting of the “greatest-happiness principle.”29 Nevertheless, when it came to understanding him as “moral philosopher,” Mill raised two criticisms against Bentham. The first was a criticism of Bentham’s understanding of the human character. Mill believed that Bentham’s theory of ethics and its foundation involved the possibility of generating selfishness or the selfish interests of man, so that his writings showed “very serious evil” in its theoretical foundations.30 The second criticism was against Bentham’s political philosophy with regard to the relationship between human character and institutions. For Mill, Bentham attempted to give “the greatest possible facility to the people” for changing the depositaries of power.31 However, according to Mill, this was only part of the real problem. Bentham’s failing was not “to regard political institutions in a higher light, as the principal means of the social education of a people.”32

  • 33 Ibid., pp. 17-8n.

11Although Mill questioned Bentham’s political and moral philosophy, he admired their resulting practical achievements.33 On the one hand, Bentham, as the reformer, was an influential and excellent person in the real world. On the other hand, Bentham, as a theorist, was, in some ways, a fundamental failure. Therefore, Mill was keen to explore what theoretical problems Bentham had left for his contemporaries to solve, rather than merely criticizing what his theories lacked. In other words, Mill sought to understand Bentham’s mode of reaching to his theoretical and practical conclusions in order to establish a holistic estimation of the merits of his work. While Mill vividly described Bentham’s achievements, he viewed the fundamentals of the utilitarian considerations of human nature and institutional design with increasing suspicion.

  • 34 Mill, “Bentham,” in London and Westminster Review, 1838, CW, X, pp. 75-115, p. 95.
  • 35 Ibid., p. 105.
  • 36 Ibid., pp. 106-07.

12This critical approach was developed in his next essay, “Bentham,” published in 1838. Arguing that Bentham did not recognize man as “a being capable of pursuing spiritual perfection as an end” and desiring “the conformity of his character to his standard of excellence,” Mill’s criticism now grew harsher and more obvious.34 He also took particular note of government: “[Bentham] was precluded from considering, except to a very limited extent, the laws of a country as an instrument of national culture: one of their most important aspects, and in which they must of course vary according to the degree and kind of culture already attained.” Despite the institutional ideals that civil and penal law never failed, the Department of Constitutional Legislation, which played a fundamental role in political and legal, contained serious errors.35 The problem with Bentham’s theory, according to Mill, was that it risked giving too much power to “the numerical majority.” Social norms should not be based solely on control against human behavior, but should focus on generating desirable human characteristics.36 As shown in the previous section, Mill perceived the role of radicals as giving more political power to the majority in the age of reform to defeat sinister interests, but changes had gradually taken place from the time when Bentham had devoted himself into those reforms. It was, concluded Mill, time to revise Bentham’s political theory.

  • 37 Ibid., p. 108.

[i]t is necessary that the institutions of society should make provision for keeping up, in some form or other, as a corrective to partial views, and a shelter for freedom of thought and individuality of character, a perpetual and standing Opposition to the will of the majority. All countries which have long continued progressive, or been durably great, have been so because there has been an organized opposition to the ruling power.37

  • 38 J. S. Mill to Thomas Carlyle, 05/10/1833, in The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill, 1812-1848, F. (...)

13It should be noted that, in 1833 and 1834, Mill’s utilitarian standpoint was at risk of being eroded. His letters to Thomas Carlyle reveal his struggles with accepting and revising the theory, and his ambiguity of becoming a successor of the radicals. He admitted that he was in a “period of recovery after the petrification of a narrow philosophy.”38

  • 39 J. S. Mill to Thomas Carlyle, 12/01/1834, CW, XIII, p. 204.

I was then, and had been for some years, in an intermediate state—a state of reaction from logical—utilitarian narrowness of the very narrowest kind, out of which after much unhappiness and inward struggling I had emerged, and had taken temporary refuge in its extreme opposite. My first state had been one of intense philosophic intolerance.39

  • 40 Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, pp. 214-15.

14In 1838, “Bentham” presented a most vivid picture of Mill’s challenge to Bentham’s philosophy. There was yet another illuminating aspect to his contestation of utilitarianism, which occurred after the death of his father, James Mill, in 1836. From 1834 to 1840, the London Review (later the London and Westminster Review) was established to spread and express the discourse of philosophical radicals, including Mill. Following the deaths of his two teachers and, in particular, that of his father, Mill placed his hopes in the review for “establishing a useful influence over the liberal and democratic section of the public mind,” but he could no longer feel that “there was any other radical writers or politician to whom [he] was bound to defer, further than consisted with [his] own opinions.”40 This reflection appeared in the letter to Edward Lutton Bulwer in 1836:

  • 41 J. S. Mill to Edward Lytton Bulwer, 23/11/1836, CW, XII, p. 312.

The Review ought to represent not radicalism but neo radicalism, a radicalism which is not democracy, not a bigotted adherence to any forms of government or to one kind of institutions, & which is only to be called radicalism inasmuch as it does not palter nor compromise with evils but cuts at their roots—& a utilitarianism which takes into account the whole of human nature not the ratiocinative faculty only—the utilitarianism which never makes any peculiar figure as such, nor would ever constitute its followers a sect or school.41

  • 42 Mill, “Bentham,” CW, X, p. 79.
  • 43 Ibid., p. 78.
  • 44 The encounter with Tocqueville also provided Mill to reconsider his theory of democracy. After stud (...)

15In his critical reviews on Bentham, Mill characterized him as: “the father of English innovation, both in doctrines and in institutions,”42 and a “progressive philosopher”43 who gave voice to those who were suppressed before the reform. The death of his father served to sharpen the conflict Mill had experienced in evaluating Bentham while in the search of a new perspective from which to renovate him.44 After this period in the mid-1830s, Mill began working on the issue of democracy by writing a review of Grote’s series of historical studies of ancient Greece.

Reform through Grote’s History

Grote and “the Philosophical Radicals”

  • 45 Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, pp. 238, 240-41.

16After Mill’s critical response to Bentham between 1833 and 1838, he was in search of his own ideal image of the utilitarian political institution. This search was reflected in his published writing throughout the 1840s. When A System of Logic (1843) was prepared for publication and he was writing Principles of Political Economy (1848), Mill was considering that the general character of society was deeply rooted in “selfishness.” Because of that, the human mind was not accustomed to dealing with “the common good.” Compared to ancient world, Mill observed that the modern system tended to discourage people from having any interest in public affairs.45 Comparing the modern and the ancient was a frequent motif in his writing at this time, but this approach strengthened with the publication of George Grote’s History of Greece between 1846 and 1856. Grote’s work shaped and underlined Mill’s vision of political reform based on the fostering of public spirit through political and intellectual education. This section explores how Grote’s work helped Mill to reinforce Benthamite political reform after 1838. As observed in the previous section, after the heat of the Reform Act in 1832 and the political and social democratization of Europe and America, Mill recognized the need for a reforming radical philosophy. This section investigates Mill’s political reform ideas by sketching his responses to Grote from 1846 to 1853, and identifies those idea in his later works. To understand the relation between these two utilitarian thinkers, it is helpful to understand Grote’s radicalism prior to the publication of History.

  • 46 Kinzer 2014, p. 16.
  • 47 [Mackintosh] 1818, pp. 168-70.
  • 48 Both of them were disagreements to Mackintosh with the support for Benthamite reform. However, as L (...)
  • 49 Grote, 1821, pp. 89-91.
  • 50 Ibid., pp. 111-12, 135.
  • 51 Ibid., pp. 116-19.
  • 52 Grote 1821, p. 52. See also, Loizides 2014, p. 78.

17In 1819, David Ricard introduced Grote to James Mill.46 This encouraged Grote to establish a firm and long-term intellectual and practical relationship with the radicals. The first contribution to this field of thought was an article on Bentham’s Plan of Parliamentary Reform (1817), which was both practically and theoretically disputed. One criticism against Plan was delivered by Sir James Mackintosh, who was Whig politician and historian. Mackintosh disagreed with Bentham in an article in The Edinburgh Review in 1818. While the secret ballot was essential to preventing abuse by sinister interests in Bentham’s Plan, Mackintosh criticized it by emphasizing the educative character of the open ballot. Mackintosh was also suspicious of Bentham’s idea of annual elections and individual representation. Although both men admitted to the practical need for reform, they fundamentally disagreed.47 Grote’s Statement of the Question of Parliamentary Reform (1821) and James Mill’s “Government” (1820) attempted to establish the role and advantages of radicals by responding to Mackintosh.48 Grote’s reform plan echoed Bentham in that it supported the implementation of a secret ballot (secret suffrage),49 frequent elections (annual elections),50 and universal suffrage.51 He also expressed the importance of a sense of duty and an attachment to citizenship for binding the community in the establishment of democratic institutions.52

  • 53 Grote’s political life including the detailed argument in parliament, see Kinzer 2014.
  • 54 Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, pp. 202-3.
  • 55 In the early draft of Autobiography, Mill expressed the disappointment to Grote: “The years which h (...)

18As a philosophical radical, Grote was elected as the member of parliament for the City of London in 1832, and served in three parliaments until 1841.53 John Mill noted the presence of several radical politicians in parliament, including Grote, John Arthur Roebuck, Charles Buller and William Molesworth, and took this as “a fair opportunity” to take a stand. Despite their counteraction to the Irish Coercion Bill and the Canada Coercion in 1837, Mill admitted that, “on the whole they did very little to promote any opinions, they had little enterprise, little activity.”54 For instance, despite his efforts to archive Benthamite reforms, Grote’s advocating for the secret ballot fail. In an early draft of Autobiography, Mill described how he and his father anticipated Grote’s contribution in practice, but their expectation was not met.55 Upon leaving parliament, Grote returned to work on writing his comprehensive study of Grecian history.

  • 56 Turner 1981, p. 213.
  • 57 Grote 1826, p. 277.
  • 58 Grote 1826, p. 281.

19As Frank M. Turner writes, “Grote’s concern with the political history of Greece had grown directly out of his activity in radical politics during the 1820s,” his historical and philosophical works were firmly anchored in his political creed.56 Prior to the first appearance of Grote’s History in 1846, he criticized William Mitford’s The History of Greece, published from 1784 to 1818 in a review article for Henry Fynes Clinton’s Fasti Hellenicae for the Westminster Review in 1826. Considering geological and sociological differences between the ancient and modern worlds, Grote argued that ancient Greece had more advantages than present Europe in developing individual character.57 Criticizing how Mitford neglected the “intellectual philosophy” of the “illustrious people” of Greece, Grote declared that “a systematic description, and comparative estimate in the scale of nations, of the manners, the literature, the arts, and sciences of Greece” were required to illustrate the ancient state’s proper nature.58 This perspective was carried forward to History, from which Mill directly received and presented his ideas on Athenian democracy.

Mill’s Responses to Grote

  • 59 There are two core essays to indicate Mill’s consideration of ancient politics through Grote, which (...)
  • 60 J. S. Mill to Harriet Grote 01/04/1846, CW, XIII, p. 699.
  • 61 Bain 1882, p. 85. Bain was a Scottish philosopher and logician who commenced to communicate directl (...)
  • 62 See also Turner 1982, p. 9; Irwin 1998, p. 426.
  • 63 For the full analysis and convincing arguments, see Turner 1982 and Lozides 2013, ch. 1.
  • 64 Mill also pointed out some issues on History of Greece written by Conop Thirlwall with comparison o (...)

20From 1846 to 1853, Mill published seven articles on Grote’s History of Greece59 having promptly accepted an invitation to review the series.60 Alexander Bain, who had direct contact with both Mill and Grote by arguing the ideas of History and philosophical topics on Mill’s System of Logic, described these articles as Mill’s devotion to Grote’s studies.61 Mill praised Grote’s 10 years of hard work and supported his strong admirations for ancient Greece. Responding to Grote’s utilitarian history allowed Mill to envision an ideal prototype of democracy and to figure out what was missing in the reform of the modern political system. Mill described the nature of ancient history studies in modern Europe and evaluated Grote’s contribution. When Grote commenced his work on Greek history, many 18th and 19th century politicians and thinkers expressed their political thinking and ideological standpoints through the presenting of books or articles on ancient history, literature, and philosophy.62 This practice of publishing works of antiquity firmly reflected the character of author. Grote’s historical works, therefore, were a declaration of his radicalism.63 In 1826, Grote had already responded to Mitford’s conservative argument and Mill also criticized Mitford’s interpretations in the first review essay and in a newspaper article in 1846.64 According to Mill,

  • 65 Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, I,” CW, XXIV, pp. 867-68.

Mitford's narrative, written and published during the wildest height of Anti Jacobin phrensy, is vitiated by an intensity of prejudice against whatever bears the name or semblance of popular institutions, which renders his representation of Grecian phenomena not only false, but in many particulars the direct contrary of the truth.65

  • 66 Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, I,” CW, XI, p. 275; “Grote’s History of Greece [1],” CW, XXIV, p. (...)
  • 67 Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, I, ” CW, XI, pp. 303-04.
  • 68 Grote, A History of Greece, II, 1846, p. 110.
  • 69 Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, I, ” CW, XI, p. 297.

21In contrast to Mitford and other studies of Greek history, Mill characterized Grote’s work as an attempt to present “a philosophical history.”66 The subject had already been examined by continentals, but it merely apposed historic “materials” rather than providing a source for the analysis and reform of modern society. Writing a version of history for the affirmation of political parties and political creeds was denounced by pure historians. Mill, however, declared his opinions through writing reviews that supported Grote’s approach.67 What most stimulated Mill about Grote’s work was the development of citizenship and public spirit within the legal system and political institutions of Athens. Quoting Grote’s passage regarding the conception of the historical Athenian citizen, Mill characterized the law as “the great impersonal authority” which “stood out separately, both as guide and sanction, distinct from religious duty or private sympathies.”68 Mill also pointed out that Grote perceived “the pre-existing elements of the subsequent republican governments” in “the Council of Chiefs, and the Agora or Popular Assembly, which, though with no definite function or authority, habitually accompany the Homeric kings.”69 His examination of the Athenian system deepened in the second article in 1853.

  • 70 Interestingly, the second article in 1853 did not cover the actual volumes which were supposed to b (...)
  • 71 Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, ,” in Edinburgh Review, 1853, CW, XI, pp. 309-37, p. 324.

22In the second essay, in The Edinburgh Review, Mill expounded on the excellence of Athenian democracy and political culture by introducing his own opinions rather than analyzing Grote’s arguments.70 He argued that political institutions must rest on the qualities of the people, but that the system must be designed to promote those qualities. Mill insisted that neither “the aristocratic Roman republic” nor “the British monarchy” offered the people chances to participate in public office and bestowed honor on them. Conversely, Athenian democracy was “government by a multitude” including “the majority of poor persons” and “a government of boundless publicity,” “freedom of speech,” and “the liberty of press.”71 Stressing the mutual relationship between the system and human character, which Mill had earlier argued in his critical evaluation in “Bentham,” he presented his interpretation of the Athenian polis:

  • 72 Ibid., p. 324.

The daily working of Athenian institutions (by means of which every citizen was accustomed to hear every sort of question, public and private, discussed by the ablest men of the time, with the earnestness of purpose and fullness of preparation belonging to actual business, deliberative or judicial) formed a course of political education, the equivalent of which modern nations have not known how to give even to those whom they educate for statesmen.72

  • 73 Ibid., pp. 331-32. C. f. Grote, A History of Greece, VI, 1851, p. 178.

23Speaking of democracy, one might think of the prevailing story of Athens: of democracy corrupted into mobocracy because of the rise of a demagogue following the death of Pericles. Nonetheless, referring to Grote, Mill depicted demagoguery as “opposition speakers” who denounced the politics of the aristocrats who were committed to suppressing the counterbalance. Mill concentrated on the fact that the aristocracy conducted by “the richest and most highborn men in the republic” such as Nicias and Alcibiades by regarding them as an enemy of democracy.73 It seems that Grote and Mill, both radicals, endeavored to advocate for democracy itself.

  • 74 Ibid., p. 325; Grote, A History of Greece, IV, 1849, p. 239.

Democracy in Grecian antiquity possessed the privilege, not only of kindling an earnest and unanimous attachment to the constitution in the bosoms of the citizens, but also of creating an energy of public and private action such as could never be obtained under an oligarchy, where the utmost that could be hoped for was a passive acquiescence and obedience.74

Mill on Representative Democracy and Political Reform

  • 75 Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, ,” CW, XI, p. 325.
  • 76 Ibid., pp. 314-15, 324.
  • 77 Mill, Considerations on Representative Government, CW, XIX, pp. 373-577, p. 411. The quote seemingl (...)
  • 78 Mill, Considerations, CW, XIX, p. 412. Mill also uses the resembling explanation to it. He consider (...)

24Mill argued that Grote’s manner of portraying Grecian democracy was excellent in highlighting “freedom” and “greatness” as first principles and in identifying how individuals formed “feelings” and “interests” with political institution.75 For the most part, he regarded this as ideal type of government, although he was aware of its flaws. Specifically, women and slaves were “excluded from the rights of citizenship,” and the slavery was “the greatest blot” on the institutions.76 Although Mill admitted this fundamental defect, following Grote’s publication, he continued to apply the historical perspective of ancient Greece to modern politics in synthesizing his political reform. In Considerations on Representative Government of 1861, he argued, “The practice of the dicastery and the ecclesia raised the intellectual standard of an average Athenian citizen far beyond anything of which there is yet an example in any other mass of men, ancient or modern.”77 In making a comparison with the democratic institutions of Athens, he argued there were far too few occasions to participate in and experience the educative effects of “juries” or “serve parish offices,” that produced the same kind of benefit in the English “lower middle class.” Similarly, Mill emphasized that the participation in political and social affairs of every individual enabled the fulfilment of the demands of government. Despite arguing that it is “ultimately desirable” for individuals to exercise “the sovereign power of the state,” he concluded that “the ideal type of a perfect government must be representative” because the size of the expanded modern society is incompatible with the practices in ancient city states.78

  • 79 For the comparison between Mill and Bentham, see Rosen 1983, ch. X; Engelmann 2008.
  • 80 Ibid., pp. 374-76.
  • 81 Mill seemed to referred to Bentham’s Leading Principles of the Constitutional Code (ibid., p. 390n)
  • 82 Mill, Considerations, CW, XIX, pp. 390-92.

25Finally, sketching the principles of Considerations, which contains an account of his reception of Bentham and Grote, would be useful.79 It was neither idealization or abstraction to deem representative government the best form of government. Mill objected to two perceptions of government: those who regarded it as “strictly a practical art” and those who regarded it as “a sort of spontaneous product.” In contrast, he emphasized that every aspect of political institutions was created by “human voluntary agency.” The system “does not act itself” and is firstly “made, so it has to be worked, by men, and even by ordinary men.” He argued that institutions needed to be adjusted to the capacities and qualities of actual men and their “active participation,” not just their mere acquiescence.80 Mill then explained that his vision of “the goodness of government” consisted of two criteria: the qualities of the people and the quality of the “machinery” itself. Following the “complete classification” by Bentham, Mill defined the former as fostering “moral,” “intellectual,” and “active” qualities.81 The increase of “the sum of good qualities” indicated the “well-being” of the people. Therefore, “the virtue and intelligence of the human beings” were essential. The latter was identified as the way the system utilized those qualities for “the right purposes.” Operating public matters with “the greatest effect,” Mill valued seeking the perfection of “moral,” “intellectual,” and “active” worth for operating public matters with “the greatest effect.”82

  • 83 Bentham 1817, pp. 489-90. For the excellent analysis on Bentham’s parliamentary reform, see Schofie (...)
  • 84 Ibid., pp. 542-43.
  • 85 Ibid., pp. 452-59.
  • 86 Ibid., p. 491. Mill also evaluated the secret ballot in Athenian constitution in this chapter. Cons (...)
  • 87 Ibid., p. 502.
  • 88 Ibid., p. 501.
  • 89 Ibid., p. 473. See also Mill, “Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform,” in CW, XIX, pp. 313-39, pp. 323-3 (...)
  • 90 Mill, Considerations, CW, XIX, pp. 473-79.
  • 91 Mill’s critical understanding about the property qualifications can be confirmed in the article of (...)
  • 92 Mill, Considerations, CW, XIX, p. 481.

26Using Bentham’s classification, Mill developed his own institutional model, which included respecting the effects of mental capacity and participation in the promotion of representative democracy. Nevertheless, some of his ideas of political reform were strikingly different to those of both Bentham and Grote. As outlined in the first part of this section, Grote supported Bentham’s ideas concerning the secret ballot,83 annual elections,84 and universal suffrage.85 First, in contrast, Mill insisted on the necessity of public voting. He was concerned with “the sinister interests and discreditable feelings which belong to” the voter, “either individually or as a member of class,” rather than “the power of coercing the voter.”86 Second, in chapter 11 of Considerations, he explained that the present system of seven-year terms was an “unnecessary length” but “annual parliaments,” which had been suggested by the “advanced reformers” 40 years earlier, were no longer considered.87 Despite not mentioning an exact term, Mill proposed that it was essential to give representatives sufficient time to exercise their qualities and to prove their desirability and creditability to the voter.88 Finally, Mill questioned universal suffrage by pointing out the dangers of “class legislation,” and the low standard of “political intelligence.”89 To overcome this in the transitional period, he proposed a system of plural votes, which would temporarily give more votes to more qualified people.90 The idea of developing the political abilities of all citizens through participation and education appeared in his valuation of educational qualifications over property-ownership qualifications.91 While his proposed voting system placed high expectations on the educated, he also anticipated a future when Bentham’s dream of universal suffrage could be archived, when sex or skin color were not a justification for depriving citizens of their political rights.92

Conclusion

  • 93 Demetriou 2013 stimulates the comparison between Grote and Mill.
  • 94 J. S. Mill to Alexander Bain, 08/06/1859, CW, XV, p. 631.

27This paper explored the John Stuart Mill’s ideas of political reform by illustrating his responses to Bentham and Grote. While Mill challenged the fundamental plans of the founder of the “philosophical radicals,” his range of discussion and reform thought echoes them. Analyzing Mill’s perceptions of the time with his own internal development provides us with an indication of his divergence from Bentham. What Mill saw as a crisis of democracy was the continuation of aristocratical power, and a lack of political and moral resilience against tyranny. Thus, his pessimistic vision of the transitional period corresponded to Bentham’s, while Grote provided Mill with images of an ideal democratic institution. There was no defining moment when Mill shifted from being a pure democrat to a not wholehearted democrat. However, his response to Grote offers an insight into the developing of these changes. His ideas and practical proposals of representative democracy, which stressed the role to be played by the politically and morally educated, indicated a fundamental difference between he and Bentham. With regard to the practical reform plans addressed in this paper, Grote’s Statement (1821) echoed Bentham’s political vision of a secret ballot, frequent elections, and universal suffrage, while Mill’s reform plan was in disagreement with these.93 While the distinguished characteristics of his disagreement with Bentham are to be found in his later works, in a letter to Bain, on the publication of On Liberty in 1859, Mill stated that “the notion of an intellectual aristocracy of lumières while the rest of the world remains in darkness fulfils none of my aspirations and the effect I aim at by the book [On Liberty] is, on the contrary, to make the many more accessible to all truth by making them more open minded.”94 From Mill’s own perspective, he appears to have struggled to overcome the primal cause, but the challenges posed by Bentham continued through his long-term keen relationship with Grote. This suggests that Mill achieved his primary aim of being “a reformer of the world.”

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Bain, A. (1882), John Stuart Mill: A Criticism with Personal Recollections, Longmans, Green & Company.

Bentham, Jeremy (1817), Plan of Parliamentary Reform, in the form of a Catechism, in John Bowring (eds.), The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol. III, London, pp. 433-557.

Demetriou, K. N. (2013), “The Spirit of Athens: George Grote and John Stuart Mill on Classical Republicanism,” in Kyriakos N. Demetriou and Antis Loizides (eds.), John Stuart Mill: A British Socrates, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 176-206.

Engelmann, Stephen G. (2008), “Mill, Bentham, and the Art and Science of Government,” Revue d'études benthamiennes, [On line], Vol. 4.

Gray, John and Smith, G. W. (1991), “Introduction,” in John Gray and G. W. Smith (eds.), J. S. Mill’s ‘On liberty’ in focus, Routledge.

Grote, George (1821), Statement of the Question of Parliamentary Reform; with a Reply to the Objections of the Edinburgh Review, No. 61, London.

Grote, George (1826), “Institutions of Ancient Greece,” Westminster Review, Vol. 5, pp. 269-331.

Grote, George (1846-56), History of Greece: From the Earliest Period to the Close of the Generation Contemporary with Alexander the Great, 12 (vols.), London.

Grote, Harriet (1873), The Personal Life of George Grote: Compiled from Family, Documents, Private Memoranda, and Original Letters to and from Various Friends, London.

Halévy, Elie (1929), The Growth Philosophic Radicalism, translated by Mary Morris, London.

Hamburger, Joseph (1965), Intellectuals in Politics, Yale University Press.

Irwin, T. H. (1998), “Mill and the Classical world,” in John Skorupski (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Mill, Cambridge University Press, pp. 423-63.

Jenkyns, R. (1980), The Victorians and Ancient Greece, Harvard University Press.

Kinzer, Bruce (2014), “George Grote, The Philosophic Radical and Politician,” in Kyriakos N. Demetriou (ed.), Bill’s Companion to George Grote and the Classical Tradition, Brill, pp. 16-46.

Loizides, A. (2013), John Stuart Mill’s Platonic Heritage: Happiness through Character, Lexington Books.

Loizides, A. (2014), “James Mill and George Grote: A Benthamite Defence of “Theoretic Reform”,” in Kyriakos N. Demetriou (ed.), Bill’s Companion to George Grote and the Classical Tradition, Brill, pp. 47-84.

[Mackintosh, James] (1818), “Universal Suffrage,” Edinburgh Review, Vol. 31, No. 61, pp. 165-203.

[Mill, James] (1820), “Government,” in Macvey Napier (ed.), Supplement to the IV, V, and VI Editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 4, Part 2, Edinburgh, pp. 491-505.

Mill, John Stuart (1963-1991), Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, 33 (vols.), F. E. L. Priestley and J. M. Robson (eds.), University of Toronto Press.

Rosen, Frederick (1983), Jeremy Bentham and Representative Democracy: A Study of the Constitutional Code, Clarendon Press.

Sekiguchi, Masashi (1989), Liberty and Cultivation: J. S. Mill and Mass Democracy, Misuzu ShoboJapanese].

Schofield, Philip (2006), Utility and Democracy: The Political Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press.

Thomas, William (1979), The Philosophic Radicals: Nine-Studies in Theory and Practice 1817-1841, Clarendon Press.

Thompson, D. F. (1976), John Stuart Mill and Representative Government, Princeton University Press.

Turner, F. M. (1981), The Greek Heritage in Victorian Britain, Yale University Press.

Urbinati, N. (2002), Mill on Democracy: From the Athenian Polis to Representative Government, The University of Chicago Press.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Mill, Autobiography, 1873, in Collected Works of John Stuart Mill [CW], 33 (vols.), F. E. L. Priestley and J. M. Robson (eds.), University of Toronto Press, Vol. I, p. 55.

2 Halévy 1929, p. 417. For the contextual based analysis on the reception of Bentham’s Plan, see Schofield 2006, pp. 162-65. For the detailed outlook of “philosophic radicals,” see Thomas 1979.

3 Bentham, 1817, p. 440. See also Schofield 2006, p. 147.

4 Bentham, 1817, p. 441.

5 Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, p. 57.

6 Ibid., pp. 136-37.

7 Drawing a comparison between John Mill and Bentham has been widely studied by either philosophical or historical angles in areas as diverse as moral philosophy, ethics, religion, and political thought. For instance, the traditional interpretation had argued that “John Stuart Mill was brought to recognize the limitations of classical utilitarianism but was nevertheless unable entirely to emancipate himself from the influence of his father and Bentham, which the result of that he remained an inconsistent and merely eclectic thinker in whose work no coherent doctrine can be found.” (Gray and Smith, 1991, p. 1).

8 Alexander Bain called Mill “a Greece-intoxicated man” (Bain 1882, p. 94). Despite that there is no specific and comprehensive work dedicated to antiquity within Mill’s writings, their influences to his significant works such as System of Logic, On Liberty, Considerations on Representative Government and Utilitarianismare has been interestingly researched (Demetriou 2013; Irwin 1998; Loizides 2013; Urbinati 2002). Mill started learning Greek and Latin in his childhood under the direction of James Mill. On reaching the age of twelve, he began to read classical works of antiquity. Reading the Latin and Greek books with his father was “worth studying not for the language merely, but also for the thoughts” (Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, p. 23). Later, he decided to translate the Dialogues of Plato, and published them with numerous annotations. While he was devoted to political and social reform as a member of a group of philosophical radicals, a deep attention to ancient history and philosophy remained present throughout his life.

9 Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, p. 147. For the detailed and convincing analysis on the development of Mill’s political thought, see Sekiguchi 1989.

10 Ibid., pp. 177-78.

11 Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, V [Part 2],” in Examiner, 1831, CW, XXII, pp. 312-16, p. 316.

12 Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, IV,” in Examiner, 1831, CW, XXII, pp. 289-95, pp. 289-90.

13 It should be noted that this comparative method implies Saint-Simon’s influence on Mill.

14 Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, I,” in Examiner, 1831, CW, XXII, pp.227-34, pp. 232-33.

15 Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, II,” in Examiner, 1831, CW, XXII, pp. 238-45, p. 238.

16 Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, V [Part 1],” in Examiner, 1831, CW, XXII, pp. 304-07, p. 304.

17 Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, V [Part 2],” p. 312, see also “The Spirit of the Age, IV,” CW, XXII, p. 290.

18 Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, V [Part 2],” CW, XXII, p. 312.

19 Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, IV,” CW, XXII, p. 291.

20 Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, V [Part 2],” p. 315.

21 Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, pp. 236-37.

22 Mill, “Attack on Literature,” in Examiner, 1831, CW, XXII, pp. 318-27, p. 326.

23 Mill, “Death of Jeremy Bentham,” in Examiner, 1832, CW, XXIII, pp. 467-473, pp. 468-69.

24 Ibid., p. 469.

25 Ibid., p. 470.

26 Ibid., p. 471.

27 Ibid., pp. 471-72.

28 Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, pp. 206-07. See also J. S. Mill to Thomas Carlyle, 02/08/1833, The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill, 1812-1848, F. E. Mineka (ed.), in CW, XII, p. 172.

29 Ibid., pp. 7-8.

30 Ibid., pp. 14-5.

31 Ibid., p. 16.

32 Mill, “Remarks on Bentham’s Philosophy,” 1833, CW, X, pp. 3-18, p. 16.

33 Ibid., pp. 17-8n.

34 Mill, “Bentham,” in London and Westminster Review, 1838, CW, X, pp. 75-115, p. 95.

35 Ibid., p. 105.

36 Ibid., pp. 106-07.

37 Ibid., p. 108.

38 J. S. Mill to Thomas Carlyle, 05/10/1833, in The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill, 1812-1848, F. E. Mineka (ed.), CW, XIII, p. 181.

39 J. S. Mill to Thomas Carlyle, 12/01/1834, CW, XIII, p. 204.

40 Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, pp. 214-15.

41 J. S. Mill to Edward Lytton Bulwer, 23/11/1836, CW, XII, p. 312.

42 Mill, “Bentham,” CW, X, p. 79.

43 Ibid., p. 78.

44 The encounter with Tocqueville also provided Mill to reconsider his theory of democracy. After studying Democracy in America, Mill’s political and theoretical standpoint had shifted from “pure democracy” to the modified form of it and the transformation continued to Considerations on Representative Government in 1861 (Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, pp. 199-201).

45 Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, pp. 238, 240-41.

46 Kinzer 2014, p. 16.

47 [Mackintosh] 1818, pp. 168-70.

48 Both of them were disagreements to Mackintosh with the support for Benthamite reform. However, as Loizides offers the precise analysis, there were explicit differences between them: their meanings of “universal interest” and their directed targets differed. The elder Mill’s view was aimed at “a general anti-reform, Tory audience” with emphasis on Benthamite account of universal interest, but Grote targeted “a pro-reform, even if moderate, Whig audience” by presenting universal interest based on common interest (Loizides 2014, p. 79).

49 Grote, 1821, pp. 89-91.

50 Ibid., pp. 111-12, 135.

51 Ibid., pp. 116-19.

52 Grote 1821, p. 52. See also, Loizides 2014, p. 78.

53 Grote’s political life including the detailed argument in parliament, see Kinzer 2014.

54 Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, pp. 202-3.

55 In the early draft of Autobiography, Mill expressed the disappointment to Grote: “The years which he withdrew from his History and spent in the House of Commons were almost wasted. Except an annual motion for the ballot (to which he continued to stick after the change of times had made it no longer desirable) and an honorable stand made now and then against a bad measure, such as the Irish and Canada Coercion Bills, Mr. Grote was almost an inactive member of parliament. [...] His standing and social position would have enabled him to create a real Radical party, for which the materials then existed.” These passages were deleted in the final version (ibid., pp. 202, 204).

56 Turner 1981, p. 213.

57 Grote 1826, p. 277.

58 Grote 1826, p. 281.

59 There are two core essays to indicate Mill’s consideration of ancient politics through Grote, which are “Grote’s History of Greece, I” (1846) and “Grote’s History of Greece, II” (1853) posted in Edinburgh Review. The rest of five articles were published in Spectator from 1846 to 1850, which have some similar passages to the other two essays in Edinburgh Review. In addition, Mill and Grote published the review articles on Henry Tayler’s The Statesman under the joint authorship. It explicitly claimed that the movements of parliamentary reform, which was founded by Bentham, is efficient for increasing the feelings of duty as citizen among people. By criticizing Tayler’s ignorance to studying ancient classics, they both claimed that learning them would provide people to attain “the idea of the commonwealth, as the supreme object of his duty and solicitude, attracted to itself the strongest emotions in the bosom of every virtuous man.” (J. S. Mill, “Tayler’s Statesman,” (with George Grote), in CW, XIX, p. 625. See also Demetriou 2013, p. 190). From the perspective of Mill, this article shows that a certain similarity to emphasizing the internal cultivation for political reform, which was presented in “Bentham” (1838) and later his discussion.

60 J. S. Mill to Harriet Grote 01/04/1846, CW, XIII, p. 699.

61 Bain 1882, p. 85. Bain was a Scottish philosopher and logician who commenced to communicate directly with John Mill in 1841, and assisted him by reading the proofs of System of Logic. Engaging the utilitarian circle, Bain subsequently became tight with Grote as well (ibid., pp. 62-66, 82-84). He later edited The Minor Works of George Grote (1873), and published Mill’s critical biography in 1882.

62 See also Turner 1982, p. 9; Irwin 1998, p. 426.

63 For the full analysis and convincing arguments, see Turner 1982 and Lozides 2013, ch. 1.

64 Mill also pointed out some issues on History of Greece written by Conop Thirlwall with comparison of Mitford (Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece [1],” in Spectator, 1846, CW, XXIV, pp. 867-75, pp. 867-68; “Grote’s History of Greece, I,” in Edinburgh Review, CW, XI, pp. 273-305, pp. 275, 277).

65 Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, I,” CW, XXIV, pp. 867-68.

66 Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, I,” CW, XI, p. 275; “Grote’s History of Greece [1],” CW, XXIV, p. 867.

67 Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, I, ” CW, XI, pp. 303-04.

68 Grote, A History of Greece, II, 1846, p. 110.

69 Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, I, ” CW, XI, p. 297.

70 Interestingly, the second article in 1853 did not cover the actual volumes which were supposed to be reviewed by Mill. Grote recognized this fact but he satisfied with it (Harriet Grote 1878, p. 220). It seemed that they shared similar political interests as radicals was the reason why Grote did not show an apparent complaint to it (see CW, XI, “Introduction” by F. E. Sparshott, pp. xxxiv, xxxiii).

71 Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, ,” in Edinburgh Review, 1853, CW, XI, pp. 309-37, p. 324.

72 Ibid., p. 324.

73 Ibid., pp. 331-32. C. f. Grote, A History of Greece, VI, 1851, p. 178.

74 Ibid., p. 325; Grote, A History of Greece, IV, 1849, p. 239.

75 Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, ,” CW, XI, p. 325.

76 Ibid., pp. 314-15, 324.

77 Mill, Considerations on Representative Government, CW, XIX, pp. 373-577, p. 411. The quote seemingly referred to Grote’s History (see note of the editor, ibid). The similar passage appeared in Grote’s review article in Spectator: Athenian government was “a government of unlimited publicity, and freedom of censure and discussion. Public officers were subject to effective responsibility. The tribunals, being multitudinous and appointed by lot, were, like modern juries, generally incorrupt. And there was no distinction in political rights and franchises between poor and rich, lowborn and highborn. That the Athenian institutions on the whole were eminently favourable to progress, is shown by the splendid development of individual intellect during the three or four generations that this form of society lasted (“Grote’s History of Greece [5],” in Spectator, 1850, CW, XXIV, pp. 1157-64, p. 1161).

78 Mill, Considerations, CW, XIX, p. 412. Mill also uses the resembling explanation to it. He considers that “a regulated popular government” could only established within “the bounds of a single city-community.” (ibid., p. 378).

79 For the comparison between Mill and Bentham, see Rosen 1983, ch. X; Engelmann 2008.

80 Ibid., pp. 374-76.

81 Mill seemed to referred to Bentham’s Leading Principles of the Constitutional Code (ibid., p. 390n).

82 Mill, Considerations, CW, XIX, pp. 390-92.

83 Bentham 1817, pp. 489-90. For the excellent analysis on Bentham’s parliamentary reform, see Schofield 2006, ch. 6.

84 Ibid., pp. 542-43.

85 Ibid., pp. 452-59.

86 Ibid., p. 491. Mill also evaluated the secret ballot in Athenian constitution in this chapter. Considering its effect and defect, Mill concludes it was “a valuable instrument of order” for the Athens (ibid., pp. 490-91).

87 Ibid., p. 502.

88 Ibid., p. 501.

89 Ibid., p. 473. See also Mill, “Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform,” in CW, XIX, pp. 313-39, pp. 323-34. In this article, Mill acknowledges the universal suffrage as “an ultimate aim,” however, he objected it because “[t]he opinions and wishes of the poorest and rudest class of labourers may be very useful as one influence among others on the minds of the voters, as well as on those of the Legislature; and yet it might be highly mischievous to give them the preponderant influence, by admitting them, in their present state of morals and intelligence, to the full exercise of the suffrage” (ibid., p. 334).

90 Mill, Considerations, CW, XIX, pp. 473-79.

91 Mill’s critical understanding about the property qualifications can be confirmed in the article of “Grote’s History of Greece. He considers that men of rank and fortune produced the danger of being corrupted in Athenian polis (Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, ,” CW, XI, pp. 327-28).

92 Mill, Considerations, CW, XIX, p. 481.

93 Demetriou 2013 stimulates the comparison between Grote and Mill.

94 J. S. Mill to Alexander Bain, 08/06/1859, CW, XV, p. 631.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Minami Murata, « John Stuart Mill and Political Reform »Revue d’études benthamiennes [En ligne], 16 | 2019, mis en ligne le 20 décembre 2019, consulté le 15 février 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/etudes-benthamiennes/6014 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/etudes-benthamiennes.6014

Haut de page

Auteur

Minami Murata

Doshisha University (Japan)

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés), sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search