Anotherpersonalreasonisthat，ashecomplainsratherbitterly，31*theRadicalsneverspokesoastosecurethesympathyoftheworkingclasses。Thispointstotherealdifficulty。Therewasagulfbetweenthemiddleandtheworkingclasses，aswellasbetweenthe，privileged，andthe’disqualified。’TherealaimofMill’sarticlesistoshowhowthisgulfcouldbesurmounted。Allthe，disqualified，mightbebroughtintolineifonlythephilosophicalRadicalscouldbegottoattracttheworkingclasses，andtheworkingclassestofollowtheRadicals。MillthereforeendeavourstoprovethattheRadicalmeasureswereinfactintendedforthebenefitoftheworkingclasses，andmightconsequentlybemadeattractive。Thepositionwasinfactpreciselythis。TheChartistagitationwasbecomingconspicuous，andtheChartistshadbrokenofffromtheRadicals。
Millhadtopersuadethemthattheydidnotknowtheirtruefriends。Hissincerityandthewarmthofhissympathyareunmistakable，butsoisthedifficultyofthetask。
Inthefirstplace，herepudiatesuniversalsuffrageoneofthesixpoints。Hethinksitbadinpointofpolicy，becausetoproposeitwouldalienatethewholemiddleclassatonce，whowouldseeinitadirectattackuponproperty。Butuniversalsuffragewasalsobadinitself，becausethemassoftheverylowestclasswasignorant，degraded，andutterlyunfitforpower。
Theintelligentworkingmanoughttorecognisethefact，andthereforenottograntthesuffragetothelowestclass。What，then，wastobedone？Theanswer，givenemphaticallyinhislastarticle，isthatweshouldgovernfortheworkingclassesbymeansofthemiddleclasses。That，hesays，shouldbethemottoofeveryRadical。Theidealisagovernmentwhichshouldadoptsuchapolicyaswouldbeadoptedunderuniversalsuffrageinacountrywherethemasseswereeducatedsoastobefitforit。Inotherwords，thegreataimofRadicalsshouldbetoredresspracticalgrievances。
Did，then，theRadicalplatformaimatsuchredress？Mill’sproofthatitdidissignificant。TheRadicalswereunanimousagainsttheCorn-laws；andtheCorn-laws，asheargues，32*
injurethepoormanbecausetheylowertherateofprofit，andareruiningthesmallcapitalistanddestroyingourtrade。ThephilosophicalRadicalsweresupportersofthenewPoor-law。Ithadoftenbeensaidthatthesinecuristswereinfactrichpauperslivingonothermen’slabours。Millinvertstheargumentbysayingthatthepaupersundertheoldsystemwerepoorsinecurists，equallylivinguponothermen’slabours。Tosaynothingofsomesmallergrievances，suchastaxesonarticlesconsumedbythepoor，logginginthearmy，andenclosureofcommons，whichwereattackedbytheRadicals，theRadicalsalsowishedtodischarge，oneofthehighestdutiesofgovernment，bysettingupasystemofnationaleducation。ItisnoweasytoseewhytheseproposalsfailedtosatisfytheclasstowhomtheRadicalsweretoappeal。Agreatpartofthem，hesays，were，Owenites，or，inotherwords，inclinedtoSocialism。Theyhad，asMillregretfullyadmits，crudeviewsuponpoliticaleconomy。
Thus，theChartistswerenothearty，evenintheanti-Corn-lawagitation。Theydidnotseethatariseofprofitswasatallfortheirbenefit。Theyheld，asMillobserves，thatwhateverprofitwasgainedwouldgototheirmasters。Ontheotherhand，theydidnotadmirethenewPoor-law。Theythoughtthat，asCobbetthadtoldthem，itrobbedthemoftheirrights，anddidnotobjecttohavingsmallsinecures。Nationaleducation，howeverdesirable，didnotseemworthastruggletilltheyhadgothigherwages。
Then，asMillagainadmits，theywouldnotseethatthecompetitionwhichinjuredthemwastheirowncompetition，andduetotheirdisregardofMalthus。Theyobjectedtocompetitioningeneral，whichmeant，astheythought，thegrindingdownoftheirclassbythewickedcapitalist。MillremarksthatOwenwasnotreallyopposedtorightsofproperty；andoneofhisrecommendationsisthatthelawofpartnershipshouldbereformedsoastofacilitatethegrowthofcooperativesocieties。Evenifthisfailed，itwouldtendtoeducatethepoorinsoundeconomicprinciples。Meanwhile，however，theprinciplesoftheiractualleaderswereanythingbut’sound。’Millincidentallyspeaksofthe，OastlersandStephenses，asrepresentingonlytheworstclassofthe’operativeRadicals。’Oastlerwasatthistimeconspicuousforhissupportofthefactorylegislation。HewasalliedwithLordAshley，andrepresentedtheallianceofSocialismwithToryismor’NewEnglandism。’Nowthefactorylegislation，whichnaturallyseemedtotheworkingclassesthegreateststeptowardsarecognitionoftheirinterest，isnotmentionedbyMill，andforthegoodreasonthatheandhisschoolwereopposedtoitonprinciple。HerefersincidentallytomeasuressuchastheEightHoursBillasbelongingtothequackschemesofreform。33*Briefly，thedifficultywasthattheworkingclasseswerealreadylookinginthedirectionofSocialism，andthatMillremainedathoroughindividualist。Withhissanguinebeliefinthepowerofeducation，hethought，withacertainsimplicity，thattheOwenites，withwhoseultimateviewshefullysympathised，mightbetaughttogiveuptheircrudepoliticaleconomy。Theireducationrequiredmoretimeandlabourthanheimagined。
Thisindicatesacriticalpoint。TheclasseswhichhadbeendisappointedbytheReformBill，andhadhopedforgreatsocialchanges，werediscontented，butlookedforremediesofaverydifferentkindfromMill’s。TheycouldnotseeaphilanthropywhichwashiddenbehindMalthusandRicardo，andwhichproposedtoimprovetheirpositionbyremovingprivileges，indeed，butnotbydiminishingcompetition。IfthisappliedtoMill，itappliedstillmoretohisfriends。Theyrepresentedratherintellectualscornforoldprejudicesandclumsyadministrationthananykeensympathywiththesufferingsofthepoor。TheharshersideoftheoldUtilitarianismwas，therefore，emphasisedbythem，andMill’sattemptstoenlargeandsoftenitsteachingwereregardedbyhisallieswithacertainsuspicion。TheythoughtthathissympathywiththeSocialistendsimpliedatendencytolooktoofavourablyuponitsmeans。ThearticlesuponBenthamandColeridge，34*inwhichhetriedtoinculcateawidersympathywithhisopponents，scandalisedsuchfriendsasGrote，andheceasedtorepresentevenhisownallies。PhilosophicalRadicalismdiedout。ItsadherentsbecameWhigs，orjoinedtheCobdenformofRadicalism，whichwastheveryantithesisofSocialism。Theirphilosophysuitedneitherparty。Totheclasswhichstillretainedtheleadingpositioninpolitics，theyappearedasdestructives；andtotheclasseswhichwereturningtowardsChartism，theyappearedasthemostchillingcriticsofpopularaspiration。TheFree-trademovement，whichwasgatheringstrengthasthemanufacturinginterestgrewstronger，hadnodoubtanaffinityforoneimportantpartoftheirteaching。ButsuchmenasCobdenandBright，thoughtheyacceptedthepoliticaleconomyoftheUtilitarians，couldnotbecountedasproductsoradherentsoftheUtilitarianphilosophy。Theagreementwassuperficialinotherrespects，thoughcompleteinregardtooneimportantgroupofmeasures。ThismarksanessentialpointinMill’spoliticalandsocialdoctrine。Forthepresent，itisenoughtonotethatthephilosophicalRadicalswhohadexpectedtoleadthevanhadbeenleftononesideinthepoliticalwarfare，andby1840werealmostdisbanded。Grote，theablestofMill’sfriends，retiredfromparliamenttodevotehimselftohisHistoryofGreeceaboutthesametimeasMillsettoworkuponthecompletionofhisLogic。
OnecharacteristicofMillasaneditormaybenotedbeforeproceeding。Underhismanagement，alargenumberofdistinguishedcontributorswereenlisted。ProfessorBainmentionsBulwer，CharlesBuller，Roebuck，JamesandHarrietMartineau，W。J。Fox，Mazzini，andothers。Theindependentauthorshipofmanyarticleswasindicatedbyappendingletters，althoughMillcouldnotintroducethemoremodernplanoffullsignatures。Heoccasionallyattachesnotestoexpresshispersonaldissentfromsomeoftheopinionsadvocated，andaimsatrepresentingvariousshadesofthought。Hewasespeciallyanxioustohelprisingmenofgenius。IntheLondonReviewin1835hewroteoneofthefirstappreciationsofTennyson，andansweredsomedepreciatorycriticismsoftheQuarterlyReviewandBlackwood。35*OnthepublicationofCarlyle’sFrenchRevolutionhecalledattentiontoitsmeritsinanarticleJuly1837，which，thoughratherclumsyinform，showsnowantofgenerousappreciationofCarlyle’shistoricalpowers；andinalaternumberOctober1839admitted，withanotetoexplainhispersonalreservations，anexpositionofCarlylebySterling。TohisreviewofCarlyle’sbook，astotheDurhamarticle，heattributesconsiderablesuccess。36*Itsetpeopleright，hethinks，inregardtoawriterwhohadsetcommonplacecriticsatdefiance。FromaletterquotedbyProfessorBain，37*hereckonedatthetimeasathirdsuccesstheresultofhisconstant，dinningintopeople’sears，thatGuizotwas，agreatthinkerandwriter。’HisopinionofGuizotwastochange；butthearticlerepublishedinthedissertationsfromtheEdinburghReviewof1845showsthatheretainedahighadmirationforGuizot’swork。OtherarticlesuponCarrel，A。DeVigny，andMicheletinthesamecollectionshowhisconstantdesiretorouseEnglishmentoanappreciationofFrenchliterature。Tocqueville’sDemocracyinAmericawastwicereviewedbyhim，andhadanimportantinfluenceuponhisthought。38*TherigidUtilitarianismofGrotewasalittlescandalisedbythewidthofMill’ssympathiesevenwithhisopponents。TheorthodoxyofamanwhocouldseeandeveninsistuponthegoodsideofColeridgeandCarlylewasprecarious。Inanycase，wemayadmitthatMillshowedthegenerousdesiretomeetandencouragewhateverseemedgoodinothers，whichisoneofhisstrongclaimsuponourpersonalrespect。
FormanyyearsMill’srelationtoCarlyle，whorepresentedaRadicalismofaverydifferenttype，wassignificant。Thefirstpersonalacquaintancebeganin1831，whenCarlylecametoLondon，anddesiredtoseetheauthorofthearticlesuponthe’SpiritoftheAge。’Foratimetherewasawarmlikingonbothsides。Millappearedasacandidandeagerdisciple，andCarlylehopedthathewouldbecomea’mystic。’DuringCarlyle’ssubsequentretirementatCraigenputtock，theycarriedonanintimatecorrespondence。39*Mill’sletters，ofwhichFroudegivesaninterestingsummary，showMill’scharacteristiccandouranddesiretoprofitbyanewlight。Thoughhespeakswiththedeferencebecomingtotheyoungerman，andtoonewhoadmitshissenior’ssuperiorityasapoet，ifnotasamerelogician，heconfesseswithacertainshynesstoaradicaldissentuponveryvitalpoints。ButthemostremarkablecharacteristicisMill’sconvictionthathehasemergedfromtheolddryBenthamismintosomehighercreed。Whatpreciselythatmaybeisnotsoobvious。
Whenin1834CarlylefinallysettledinLondon，theintercoursebecamefrequent。MillsuppliedCarlylewithbooksontheFrenchrevolution，andwasresponsibleforthefamousdestructionofthemanuscriptofthefirstvolume。ThereviewintheWestminsterwasperhapspromptedpartlybyremorseforthiscatastrophe，thoughmainly，nodoubt，byagenerousdesiretohelphisfriend。AtonetimeCarlylehopedtobeunder-editortothenewlystartedLondonReview；and，astheoldtutorofCharlesBuller，hewasnaturallyacquaintedwiththeUtilitariancircle。Thedivergenceofthewholecreedandwaysofthoughtofthemenwascertaintocoolthealliance。CarlyleexpressesrespectforthehonestyoftheUtilitarians，andconsideredthemasalliesinthewaragainstcant。Buthis’mysticism’impliedtheconvictionthattheirnegativeattitudeinregardtoreligionwasaltogetherdetestable；while。inpoliticaltheories，hewasattheveryoppositepole。MillsympathisedwithhisChartism1839andPastandPresent1843，publishedatthisperiod，asremonstrancesagainstthesinsofthegoverningclasses；butaltogetherrejectswhathetooktobethereactionarytendencyoftheCarlylesegospel。Ultimately。whenCarlyleattackedtheanti-slaveryagitatorsin1849，Millmadeanindignantreply，40*andallintercourseceased。41*Mill’sjudgmentofCarlyle，asgiveninhisAutobiography，showsthevitaldifference。Carlylewasapoet，hesays，andamanofintuitions；andMillwasneither。
CarlylesawatoncemanythingswhichMillcouldonly，hobbleafterandprove，whenpointedout。’IknewthatIcouldnotseeroundhim，andcouldneverbecertainthatIsawoverhim，andI