Showing 33 results

Trinity College - RJ has not sent WW any of his '[cravets?] and speculations' on induction. WW has been 'working out the part about foreign trade which makes very nice equations and I think I see a little more light'. He will be 'hugely wroth' if Lockhart [John G. Lockhart] does not put his review of RJ in the same edition of the Quarterly Journal as his one on Herschel ['Modern Science: Inductive Philosophy', Quarterly Review 45, 1831].

WW sends his review article of RJ's book on rent ['Review of An Essay on the Distribution of Wealth and Sources of Taxation by the Revd Richard Jones', The British Critic, Quarterly Theological Review and Ecclesiastical Record, 10, 1831]: 'I do not like it as I told you but I hope you will not think much tinkering needful for it will be very troublesome and I do not feel half myself while that thief Lockhart has got my other altruism in his power'.

2 Raymond Buildings, Gray's Inn - CL was annoyed that WW had good reason not to put forth 'your strength for the Q. R.' A similar experience happened to CL: 'I felt as you do that one cannot write if uncertain that your work will see the light'. CL knows that Lockhart [John Gibson Lockhart] liked his review of CL's first volume ['Principles of Geology']: 'it was pronounced your best product in point of style'. He sends WW a few sheets from volume two of his 'Principles of Geology'. CL would like WW not to 'say anything about our failures at King's College'.

Lancaster - WW hopes to be in Hertford by the 12th or 13th. How is RJ's work on wages progressing?: 'I hope you still keep your intention of being ready for another explosion in the course of the winter'. WW wants to know 'whether that Scotchman' [John Lockhart] will publish his review of RJ in the Quarterly Review.

WW has been writing his reply to Peter [possibly William Peter or Karl L. Peter. See WW to RJ, 9 October 1831], and is inclined 'to make a separate pamphlet of it by which means it can be more easily disseminated among those whom one would wish to see it'. WW does 'not much like the thought of having anything to do with Blackwood' [Blackwood Magazine]. However, because his piece on John Herschel in the Quarterly Review 'is so little likely to attract or interest readers that I have little doubt Lockhart [John Lockhart] thinks himself well rid of me'. WW should do what Macaulay [Thomas B. Macaulay] 'does in reviews, who always takes care to put in as much thought as he can express clearly and illustrate well and not a bit more'.

London - CL has forwarded WW's corrections [Review of 'Lyell's 'Principles of Geology', volume 2', Quarterly Review, 1832] to the printer. Lockhart [John Gibson Lockhart - editor of the Quarterly Review] has read WW's review article and tells CL: 'there are some passages in which the style is 'contorted' - I would willingly give him two sheets if he would indulge in enlarging, not on your book for there is just about enough of that already but on the source of the more popular subjects treated of in your volume'.

Trinity College - It looks like Lockhart [John Lockhart] at last intends to put WW's review of RJ in the Quarterly Review. The article will hopefully do more good than if WW had written it against Peter [possibly William Peter or Karl L. Peter]: 'Still I should have liked much to have a knock at him for his reasoning in the Edinburgh...We must judge as well as we can whether after this article appears it is needful to answer Peter's puzzles'. WW is inclined to do so since they are the puzzles of an array of people: 'The two main points seem to be the proof that Ricardo, the Ricardians etc not merely mean Ricardian rents, which I suppose can be made out palpably enough: and the proof that McCulloch [J. R. McCulloch] himself has never had any but the most imperfect and incoherent glimpses of the effect of agricultural improvements; and that you have labour up that part in a way which shews the importance and having of it'. WW only talks of such projects for speculations sake. 'I do not know whether you are exactly aware how the young Ricardians will meet your proofs that the increase of rent is owing to improvement'. WW explains how he thinks they will counter RJ's claims.

Trinity College - When WW last wrote he had not seen the article on RJ in the Quarterly Review: 'I think you have great good luck in escaping out of my hands for I had not ventured to say so broadly what I supposed your plan to be though I expected to leave nearly the same impression, and I certainly never dreamt of quoting you to the extent to which Lockhart's [John Lockhart] established reviewer has done...I am quite sure both from what he says to me and still more from the inscrutable manner in which the whole business of the Review is carried on that he is very far from absolute, and that there is some greater power behind his editorial throne'. WW thinks that RJ's success among the existing political economists, will depend greatly 'on its being explained to them what you are supposed to have different from their doctrine'. If RJ wants 'candid and thinking readers you must go to Germany'. The master of Trinity - Christopher Wordsworth - 'is delighted' with RJ's book ['An Essay on the Distribution of Wealth, and on the Sources of Taxation: Part 1. - Rent', 1831] and impatient for the next volume on wages. WW gives his comments on the review of Whately [Richard Whately].

CL gives some brief comments made by Lockhart [John Gibson Lockhart - editor of the Quarterly Review] concerning WW's article [Review of 'Lyell's 'Principles of Geology', volume 2', Quarterly Review, 1832].

Trinity College - The review of RJ in the Quarterly Review is not to be WW's after all [see WW to RJ, 1 November 1831]. John Lockhart writes to WW to say 'that the article is written without communication with him by a gentleman who had understood that department of the Review to be in his hands etc and has thought it necessary to let this person's review stand rather than lose the benefit of his labours in future'. However, he also says that WW's labour shall not have been spent in vain. This may mean part of it used in the other man's article: 'I expect this will turn out a good thing for you for the man will of course praise your book as opposed to the McCullochites, and you may come to the honour of being the creed of the Tories before your full time. At any rate you will see the impression your book makes on a man not disposed to judge it unfavourably and will get the notoriety of being reviewed in the two opposing reviews immediately'.

Trinity College - Does RJ still persuade himself that he is to write a review of WW's history? ['The History of the Inductive Sciences, from the Earliest to the Present Time', 3 vols., 1837]. If RJ looks at the last Quarterly Review he will see 'that Lockhart and Murray appear resolved to have none but shallow articles...so I apprehend your chance there is small'. Has RJ seen Macaulay's [Thomas B. Macaulay] article on Bacon in the Edinburgh Review?: 'I rejoice to see how little people yet see the philosophy of induction for Macaulay is no bad example of the general thinker; and yet how scanty and superficial are his views - happily expressed and well illustrated of course'. Sir Charles Bell has complained to WW that he has been located 'with slight and injustice in page 425 of my third volume' ['The History of the Inductive Sciences, from the Earliest to the Present Time', 3 vols., 1837]. Has RJ put 'down on paper, as clearly and strongly as you can, the reasons which you can find for the opinion you held a little while ago; - namely - that the simplest mechanical truths depend upon experience in a manner in which the simplest geometrical truths do not; - that the axioms of geometry may be self-evident, and known a priori; but that there are not axioms of mechanics so known and so evident. I am very desirous of getting this opinion in its best and most definite shape, because the rejection of it is a very leading point of my philosophy...The whole act of induction depends upon it'.

RJ sends WW his etymological speculations concerning induction [not attached]. He spoke to John Murray [the publisher of RJ's book on rent] who told him in confidence that he had spoken to John G. Lockhart [Editor of the Quarterly Review] that there would be a review of RJ's book in the next Quarterly hence WW's ambition should be satisfied ['Review of An Essay on the Distribution of Wealth and the Sources of Taxation by the Rev. Richard Jones', The Quarterly Review, 1832]. With regard to 'species Aristotle seems to mean that by some instinctive faculty the mind gets the notion of them when the senses are first conversant with individuals therefore a comparison can be made'.

Edinburgh - After receiving WW's paper upon English Hexameters, WB and Sons mentioned his name to the translator of the two books of the Iliad, who in return gave 'his authority to convey you his name' - Mr Lockhart.

9 East Links, N[orth[ Berwick]. - Sir William Stirling Maxwell has passed on Houghton's enquiry about surviving pallbearers of Sir Walter Scott: his sons, son-in-law [John Gibson Lockhart], grandson, Lord Polwarth, William Scott of Raeburn, Robert Rutherford, Sir James Russell and William Keith. Has enquired of Mrs Peat about Scott's cousins Charles and James Scott. Scott's great granddaughter Miss Hope Scott is the only surviving descendant; the nearest male relative, General Scott, lives abroad and cannot attend the banquet. Postscript: Suggested toast for proposal by Houghton is 'The Roof tree of Abbotsford: Stirling-Maxwell can explain its Scottish significance if necessary.

The Quarterly Review is out - 'from the internal evidence of the article and the more direct testimony of old Jacob [William Jacob] I learn that it is not yours but another which Lockhart [John G. Lockhart] has permitted the same person to write who has done their political economy lately and has done Whately in this - now I know that we shall both feel exactly alike on this occasion - indignation at L's gratuitous impertinence mixed with thankfulness that our child has got this lift from any hand so opportunely in its hour of need' ['Review of An Essay on the Distribution of Wealth and the Sources of Taxation By Rev. Richard Jones, Quarterly Review, 1831]. RJ suggests ways of responding to J. R. McCulloch's adverse review ['Review of An Essay on the Distribution of Wealth and on the Sources of Taxation By the Rev. Richard Jones', Edinburgh Review, 1831]: 'I shall send you my papers on Macs article which I shall lay aside for the present - I have analysed it now pretty compleatly and desire no better weapon to belabor him with. It abounds with instances of misrepresentation and ignorance so glaring that they must be striking and what surprises me more, with more than one proof that he is often honestly (if I may complement a term with any thing belonging to him but honesty[)] incapable of understanding much of my reasoning deductive as well as inductive - how the devil did he understand Ricardo? or am I really more abstruse than I meant to be? - Mac's willful sins however predominate of which I hope he will live to repent'. The review of Whately is good in design but indifferent in execution [The Quarterly Review, 1832]. RJ expects a great piece of work from John Herschel 'if he lives and does not let astronomy engross him at last, about which I have my fears, for I can see nothing likely to come of it in either hemisphere which I think worthy of him.

RJ has heard nothing so far regarding the King's College professorship in political economy [see RJ to WW, 21 March 1832]. RJ has been in Brighton 'where Mrs Jones is - much better and going through a regular course of galvanising - a most severe process as I learnt by trying it but she has faith in abundance and I a little'. RJ met John Lockhart in Brighton - 'he talked away much and with apparent openness and amongst other sallies abused you in much an edifying manner that I wished for you there - he says you can write reviews and of all kinds capitally - prose or serious, light or philosophical but that you are a careless hasty fellow and take no little pains that you are rather provoking than not and enough to make an editor mourn the not being able to manage such a desirable hand more to his mind - you would have laughed - so did I'.

Two letters concerning Whewell's article on Herschel.

Cambridge - CL encloses he received from John Gibson Lockhart. In the letter JGL is sorry that WW 'has had much reason to complain - I mean as to his paper on Jones. What used to be diffused over 3 months is now squeezed out in 3 weeks. If WW agrees to undertake a review of CL's 2nd vol. 'he may rely on my entertaining no other proposition from any quarter whatever respecting it' ['Lyell's 'Principles of Geology', vol. 2', Quarterly Review, 1832].

JGL encloses 'a cheque for Mr Murray in acknowledgement of your friend's share in the art on yr second volume'. JGL is not impressed with it.

Two letters; the first requesting him to write a review of Mrs Somerville's [On the connexion of the physical sciences], the second his thanks for the 'spirited review'.

JGL has received WW's note: he does not know when he will be back in town or whether he can undertake anything new for WW's collection [of hexameters]. If WW does not proceed rapidly JGL still hopes to participate in the work.

Regent's Park - On the possibility of JGL's son going to Trinity College.

Regent's Park - JGL's comments regarding the change in signature from M.L. to N.N.T. regarding the printed collection of hexameters. He agrees with all WW's remarks except one. He does not think he will ever do much more on Homer since it is so time consuming.

Regent's Park - JGL's good friend Sir John McNeill, late minister in Persia, was educated at St Andrews and now writes on a subject connected with his alma mater. Comments regarding the Greek Chair at Glasgow.