PREVALENCIA DE DESNUTRICIÓN CRÓNICA INFANTIL (DCI) EN

No attempt has been made by scholars to identify which parties and personalities Mill supported at different stages (beyond the references to his

Note in this context that the relatively sanguine article "State of Opinion in France", referred to in Part 1, had been written before the uprisings, in March 1834: CW, XXIII, 691-7.

infatuation with Carrel) and how far he went in support of each.

In his Autobiography Mill wrote that the July Revolution prompted him to go to Paris, where he "was introduced to Lafayette, and laid the groundwork of the intercourse I afterwards kept up with several of the active chiefs of the extreme popular p a r t y I n 1864, he wrote to Edwin Chadwick, with regard to an invitation which would have resulted in his meeting Louis Philippe’s fourth son, who lived in England:

I have...declined the invitation of the Due d’Aumale. The fact is, my sympathies with the Republican party in France are so strong that I cannot willingly place myself under an obligation to a conspicuous person of any other party, however high a respect I may have for him individually, and however glad I should be to meet him at any other person’s house.^^

These two statements can serve to introduce the problems of what exactly was the popular party Mill sympathised with in the early 1830s, how extreme it was, how far he went in support for its more extreme wing, and what he meant in 1864 by "the Republican party in France".

It will be shown in the following pages that Mill fell short of supporting the most extreme wing of what he called the "popular party", although he often felt called upon to defend even it against exaggerated reproaches. He reserved his wholehearted

Ibid.yI, 179. See Ann Robson, Introduction to Newspaper writings, op. cit., xlix: "Mill used ‘popular’ not to mean representing majority opinion among the people, but being on the side of the people, on the side of history."

Letter of 18 March 1864: CW, XV, 929.

The last enquiry will be pursued in Part 4. It is clear that the term "party" is used rather loosely here and by no means implies any coherent party organization in a contemporary sense. Cf. Mill’s comment: ibid., XXIII, 662; cf. also: Claude Nicolet, L ’Idée Républicaine en France (1789-1924): Essai d ’Histoire Critique, Paris, 1982, p. 135.

support for those persons and factions of the French mouvement who, in Kelly’s terms, "put liberty first”. That most of Mill’s favourites were republicans was more a result of accidental circumstances than of his having any pronounced preference for republicanism per se in France.

Thus, the examination of Mill’s views concerning the political groupings existing in France can illuminate his attitude towards republicanism in France. Such an enquiry is all the more significant, as what is taken to be Mill’s unqualified support for the French republicans has been adduced as one of the points that prove his alleged latent "republicanism".^^ It is argued in the following account that Mill’s attitude towards the French republicans fails to substantiate such contentions. In Constant’s terminology. Mill was not prepared to sacrifice a certain irreducible degree of "liberty of the moderns" to the liberty of the ancient republics;^"* in fact, in his final verdict on the failure of freedom and progress in France, he came close to suggesting that the French had been confusing the two to their detriment.^^ Thus,

Stewart Justman, The Hidden Text ofM ilTs Liberty. Savage, Maryland, 1991, pp. 5, 8, 25-6, 30-1, 35, 43, 50, 51-2, 55, 56.

Cf. the reviews of Guizot’s historical works, where Mill agreed unreservedly with Guizot’s assertion that "the spirit of liberty...as it exists in the modern world", in the sense of independence, was a phenomenon that first appeared in modem Europe and was absent in the ancient republics: "The liberty of the ancient commonwealths did not mean individual freedom of action; it meant a certain form of political organization; and instead of asserting the private freedom of each citizen, it was compatible with a more complete subjection of every individual to the State, and a more active interference of the ruling powers with private conduct, than is the practice of what are now deemed the most despotic governments. The modern spirit of liberty, on the contrary, is love of individual independence; the claim for freedom of action, with as little interference as is compatible with the necessities of society, from any authority other than the conscience of the individual. " : CW, XX, 274. The statement of the same view in the earlier review (1836) was even more boldly formulated: see ibid. , 383-4.

75 _See

Mill’s support for a section of the French republicans should not be interpreted as support for classical republicanism/"^ since it should be clear by now that he did not support Carrel primarily because he was a republican, but rather supported the republicans because liberals such as Carrel had joined them. One of the ideas Mill stressed in "Armand Carrel" was Carrel’s exceptional role within the republican movement in that he accorded priority to individual liberty, free expression, liberty of the press, genuinely representative government, the protection of and justice to minorities, and the limitation of the powers of the executive. These ideas were not part of the French republican agenda as such^^ but were engrafted onto it by a minority of liberals who adopted the cause of the republic in the early years of the July Monarchy, when they became disillusioned with the conservatism of their former allies, particularly the Doctrinaires. In supporting Carrel and his followers Mill was simply opting for the mouvement liberals as opposed to the résistance liberals (the D o c tr in a ir e s )rather than making a choice between liberalism and republicanism

The first thing to be borne in mind in any discussion of Mill’s attitude to French republicanism is that "the republic", in France, meant different things to different people at different periods. As Claude Nicolet has put it, it was one of the "mot voyageurs" of French political discourse: see Nicolet, L ’Idée Républicaine..., op. cit., pp. 16-34.

Cf., on the last point: ibid., p. 141: "Les républicains, depuis Saint-Juste jusqu’à François Dupont, n ’avaient cessé de réclamer — contre les libéraux — un ‘pouvoir d ’État fort’, pourvu que ce pouvoir gouvernât ‘dans l’intérêt social’ et pour le peuple." Enough has been said in Parts 1 and 2 to show that one of the things that Mill regarded as most urgently needed in France was the limitation of the powers of the executive. This was a view on which he insisted already in "Armand Carrel" (CW, XX, 191-2, 206) and which was to be one of the points he stressed most pointedly in the 1860s in both Representative Government {ibid., XIX, 420-1) and "Centralisation" {ibid., 581-613).

It was the résistance liberals’ reluctance to condone any extension of the suffrage that most alienated Mill.

(or civic humanism) or choosing between the monarchical and the republican forms of government/^

In the third of the letters the young Mill sent to his father from Paris he noted that the decision of the Chamber of Deputies to give the crown to the Duke of Orleans "was perhaps a matter politically wise, or at least necessary"

In "Prospects of France, I V" , b e f o r e explaining to his readers the demands of "the popular party", he deemed it necessary, in order to controvert what he saw as the misconceptions and misinformation disseminated by the British press, to state what the "popular party" did not demand or stand for. The first thing he disavowed on their behalf was a demand for a republic: "The popular party does not demand a republican government. " The reason why the British press thought most of the opposition was republican was that they were "so ignorant...as not to know that the sovereignty of the people*^ does not mean republicanism": "So far as kingship is concerned, it means simply this — that kings shall be first magistrates, and nothing more". This was "the admitted doctrine" and actual practice of the British

What is said here does not mean either to imply that Mill was an exponent purely and simply of "negative liberty" in Isaiah Berlin’s sense, or to deny the presence in his thought and vocabulary of themes connected with republicanism (cf. Skorupski, J.S. Mill, op. cit., pp. 20, 45-6; Semmel, John Stuart Mill and the Pursuit o f Virtue, op. cit., passim; Burrow, Whigs and Liberals, op. cit., pp. 79-81, 92, and passim; Justman, The Hidden Text..., op. c it.,passim). It is argued, however, that, in the first place. Mill’s attitude to French politics does not provide the kind of proofs of Mill’s flirting with republicanism that it is sometimes held to provide, and, in the second place, that an analysis of his attitude to French political factions brings into relief the limits of his sympathies with these ideals.

CW, XII, 60-1 (The letter was sent on 21 August and printed in the Examiner on 29 August 1830).

Ibid., XXII, 149-58 (10 October 1830).

government, and could therefore be exculpated from any suspicion of being a republican principle.

On the other hand, Mill himself objected to the notion of popular sovereignty for different reasons. Though it expressed no more than the Whig maxim "that the people are the source of all legitimate power". Mill regretted "as much as it is possible for any one to do, the habit which still prevails in France, of founding political philosophy on this and similar abstractions".®^ The "cause of popular governments" stood in no need of such abstractions, while it sustained "great injury" from their misapplications. All that was required in order to establish convincingly "that the people ought to have the control" was "[t]he demonstrable impossibility of practical good government without the control of the people".®'^

Mill was even more worried about the "mischievous interpretation" of which "the sovereignty of the people" was susceptible, when it came to practice. It was in this article that, as he was to tell Tocqueville five years later, he first put forward the distinction between delegation and representation.®^ The sovereignty of the people "[countenanced] the notion" that the representatives of the people were "servants" of the people, whose will the representatives were merely to ascertain and execute. To this metaphor Mill preferred that of "a guardian".®^ Yet, he asserted that the French of his day did not misapply the notion of the sovereignty of the people in that

®^ Justman invoked as one of the proofs of Mill’s republican leanings his endorsement of "popular sovereignty", propagated by the French republicans: see Justman, The Hidden Text..., op. cit., pp. 26, 55.

®^ CW, XXII, 149-50.

®^ See letter of 11 December 1835: ibid., XII, 288. 86 _{Ibid., XXII, 150-1.}

manner, though "their predecessors, the Jacobins" did. In contemporary debates the phrase was used simply "as an equivalent expression to the negation of divine right. The "popular party" had no wish to overturn the throne. He spoke, he asserted, "from considerable opportunities of observation, both among the more active and influential of the young men who now head the popular party, and among the patriots of more established character and more m ature years. " From the latter he had heard "nothing but eulogiums on the personal character and public inclinations" of both Louis Philippe and his heir apparent. As for the former, the younger men, "even those in active hostility to the present ministry", declared "that if it had depended solely upon them, they would have raised Louis Philippe to the throne, not before, indeed, but after, the reform of the constitution." Having said this. Mill had no intention of making secret of the young men’s inclinations as a matter of principle: they were "speculative republicans". "They think, — how should they help thinking? that the progress of events, and of the human mind, is leading irresistibly towards republicanism." Yet, they were aware that their country was not sufficiently advanced to be capable of such a government.** This was why "the speculative republicans" had sacrificed their republican opinions, and cooperated readily in giving effect to the wish of the majority. Besides, the

*^ This was actually true of Carrel: see Jennings, "Nationalist Ideas...", op. cit., p. 506.

** Mill stressed that they knew that the transition would be too sudden and that "[t]he habits of obedience, formed under a kingly government, could not be all at once transferred to a republican one".

republicans formed "a very small fraction of the party opposed to the ministry".®^ Mill had started by being hostile to the majority of the Chamber and most of the members of the ministry of its choice^ and on 7 November he announced with obvious satisfaction that the "fraction of the old administration, which was opposed to popular measures" had r e s i g n e d . T h e vacancies in the Cabinet had been "filled by new appointments, said to be made under the auspices of M . Laffitte and M. Dupont de l’Eure", and Mill was hopeful that the new ministry would be much more progressive.^^ But by 5 December he had come to make no secret of his increasing disillusionment with the Laffitte ministry which he accused of "a pitiful attempt to compromise with the majority of the Chamber" (on account of the reports concerning the election law that the government intended to propose, which fell far short of his expectations). He added that "the disgust occasioned by the acts and evident purposes of the men who [had] got the powers of government into their hands" had "resuscitated the republican party". The elevation of Louis Philippe to the throne "without first calling together a Congress like that of Belgium, and remodelling the Constitution", had "long been regretted". But now, more and more

CW, XXII, 151-2. After having explained what the popular party did not demand. Mill came to state what their demands really were. They were "comprised under the four following heads: l.The conditions of eligibility. 2.Those of the elective franchise. 3.Municipal institutions. 4.The peerage.": ibid., 153. Mill devoted the remainder of the articles of the "Prospects of France" series to presenting and commenting on these demands.

90 _{Soeibid., XII, 59-60.}

He was referring obviously to the resignations of Guizot, Broglie, Périer, Mole and Dupin.

On 14 November 1830 he expressed high expectations based on rumours of what the provisions of the Election Law that the Laffitte ministry was going to introduce were expected to be: ibid., XXII, 190-1.

people were coming to regret "that a King and a Court were re-established at all" On 2 January 1831 Mill came to criticize Louis Philippe himself. He noted that it had been "distinctly notified to the King, that he must now choose between the new oligarchy and the people": "He has chosen the oligarchy; and Lafayette, Odilon Barrot, and Dupont de PEure, are consequently no longer in office".^ And on 13 February 1831 he launched a direct and explicit onslaught on Louis Philippe, saying that the King had "taken off the mask" and had "adopted the cant of the stationary or stagnation party. On 10 April 1831 he gave vent to increasing frustration with the French King and government and attacked the ferocity of these self-stiled ''moderates'', stressing the moderation exhibited by the opposition.

Ibid. , 208. On 23 January 1831 in introducing Martin Maillefer, a republican journalist, who was to be the correspondent of the Examiner in France, Mill wrote that the latter was to offer the readers a fair specimen of the views "of the younger and more ardent portion of the popular party". He felt obliged to add: "We are not responsible for all the opinions of our correspondent, nor do we expect that he will never express any sentiments in which we should disagree. " : ibid. , 246-7.

Ibid., 224. In the same article he went on to observe with satisfaction that "[t]here are now symptoms of a strenuous and united opposition, both in the Chamber and without it. We may hope that now at least the scabbard will be thrown away." He went on to envisage "an opposition party headed by Lafayette, and comprising such men as Dupont [de l’Eure], de Tracy, de Cormenin, Voyer d ’Argenson, de Salverte, Isambert, and Odilon Barrot...and backed by almost every man in France under five-and-thirty", which he thought was to be "a power which no one dares despise; and, by earnest and well-directed exertions, is sure of ultimate victory.": ibid., 227.

Ibid., 259-63. Thus, Mill started attacking openly Louis Philippe earlier than Carrel, who did not start warning the King before the beginning of March, and came to attack him directly in the summer of 1831: See McLaren, "The National...", op. cit., pp. 110-2. Cf. CW, XXII, 275.

He adduced as examples of that moderation "the speeches of MM. Mauguin and Odilon Barrot, in the recent debate on the Patriotic Associations. " It was at this point that Mill proceeded to explain the so-called war party’s position on foreign affairs, by maintaining that what they were contending for was not intervention, but rather the enforcement of non-intervention through counter-intervention, if necessary:

In a long article on the "State of Parties in France" (28 August 1831)^ Mill commented with satisfaction on the results of the elections to the Chamber of Deputies that had taken place in July. The renovation of the Chamber’s personnel was far more favourable to the popular cause than what had been anticipated from the very limited franchise (even under the new electoral law). The "Liberal party"** had, he wrote, "sufficiently increased in strength, to influence, though not to govern, the decisions of the entire body", and consequently he expected that "all propositions, tending to the removal of defects, and the introduction of progressive improvements in the institutions and social condition of France", would meet with a far more favourable reception from the new Chamber than from its predecessor. He undertook to make the "people of England" understand "the real character of the two great parties between whom the political public of France is at present divided", implying that most existing reports of the subject were highly flawed. Thus, he ridiculed the