As erroneous opinions have been current as to the relations between Bentham and James Mill and have lately been repeated in more than one newspaper, it may be well here to call attention to the contradiction of them that was published by the son of the latter in “The Edinburgh Review” for 1844.  “Mr. Mill and his family,” we there read, “lived with Mr. Bentham for half of four years at Ford Abbey,”—­that is, between 1814 and 1817,—­“and they passed small portions of previous summers with him at Barrow Green.  His last visit to Barrow Green was of not more than a month’s duration, and the previous ones all together did not extend to more than six months, or seven at most.  The pecuniary benefit which Mr. Mill derived from his intimacy with Bentham consisted in this,—­that he and his family lived with him as his guests, while he was in the country, periods amounting in all to about two years and a half.  I have no reason to think that his hospitality was either given or accepted as pecuniary assistance, and I will add that the obligation was not exclusively on one side.  Bentham was not then, as he was afterwards, surrounded by persons who courted his society, and were ever ready to volunteer their services, and, to a man of his secluded habits, it was no little advantage to have near him such a man as Mr. Mill, to whose advice and aid he habitually had recourse in all business transactions with the outward world of a troublesome or irksome nature.  Such as the connection was, it was not of Mr. Mill’s seeking.”  On the same unquestionable authority we learn, that “Mr. Mill never in his life was in debt, and his income, whatever it might be, always covered his expenses.”  It is clear, that, from near the commencement of the present century, James Mill and Bentham lived for many years on terms of great intimacy, in which the poorer man was thoroughly independent, although it suited the other to make a fair return for the services rendered to him.  A very characteristic letter is extant, dated 1814, in which James Mill proposes that the relations between him and his “dear friend and master” shall be to some extent altered, but only in order that their common objects may be the more fully served.  “In reflecting,” he says, “upon the duty which we owe to our principles,—­to that system of important truths of which you have the immortal honor to be the author, but of which I am a most faithful and fervent disciple, and hitherto, I have fancied, my master’s favorite disciple,—­I have considered that there was nobody at all so likely to be your real successor as myself.  Of talents it would be easy to find many superior.  But, in the first place, I hardly know of anybody who has so completely taken up the principles, and is so thoroughly of the same way of thinking with yourself.  In the next place, there are very few who have so much of the necessary previous discipline, my antecedent years having been wholly occupied in acquiring it.  And, in the last