Dumont à Bentham, 3 nov. 1807 (Bowring, vol. X, p

46. Dumont à Bentham, 31 juillet 1809 (Bowring, vol. X, p. 451) ; James Mill à Bentham, 25 juillet (Bain, pp. 99-100) et 6 déc. 1809 (Bowring, vol. X, p. 454), et lettre non datée (Ibid.).

47. Art. VI. Application de la théorie de la législation pénale, par Scipion Bexon. L'article finit par un éloge de Bentham, p. 101 sqq. : Imperfect as his success lias necessarily been (membre de phrase sans doute ajouté par Jeffrey), we hâve no hésitation in saying, that ne has done more to elucidate the true grounds of législative interférence, than ail the jurists who had gone before him. — Encore Jeffrey a-t-il supprimé des citations de Bentham, adouci l'éloge : d'où indignation de Bentham, de ses amis, de James Mill lui-même (Bowring, vol. X, pp. 452 sqq.). Brougham écrivait cependant à Mill, 10 déc. 1809 : The praise of Bentham seems to me excessive, and not very consistent with the tone of the former article, though perhaps less extravagant than a passage in your firsl South American article. The adoption of his neology, I must enter my decided protest against. It is possible youmight notbe aware that fortheomingness and non-fortheomingness are unknown in ail writings on law, except his own ; but such words as semi-public you must be convinced are of his mint. (Bain, p. 106.)

48. Bain, p. 120 : Swear not al ail : containing an Exposure of the Needlessness and Mischievoussness, as well as Anii-Christianity, of the Ceremony of an Oath : a Viewof the Parliamentary Récognition of its Needlessness, implied in the practice of both Houses ; and an Indication of