and Discussions” was an article that appeared in “The Jurist,” in 1833, entitled “Corporation and Church Property.”  That essay, in some respects, curiously anticipated the Irish Church legislation of nearly forty years later.  In the same year he published, in “The Monthly Repository,” a remarkably able and quite a different production,—­“Poetry and its Varieties,” showing that in the department of belles-lettres he could write with nearly as much vigor and originality as in the philosophical and political departments of thought to which, ostensibly, he was especially devoted.  Shortly after that he embarked in a bolder literary venture.  Differences having arisen concerning “The Westminster Review,” a new quarterly journal—­“The London Review”—­was begun by Sir William Molesworth, with Mr. Mill for editor, in 1835.  “The London” was next year amalgamated with “The Westminster,” and then the nominal if not the actual editorship passed into the hands of Mr. John Robertson.  Mr. Mill continued, however, to be one of its most constant and able contributors until the Review passed into other hands in 1840.  He aided much to make and maintain its reputation as the leading organ of bold thought on religious and social as well as political matters.  Besides such remarkable essays as those on Civilization, on Armand Carrel, on Alfred de Vigny, on Bentham, and on Coleridge, which, with others, have been republished in his collection of minor writings, he contributed many of great importance.  One on Mr. Tennyson, which was published in 1835, is especially noteworthy.  Others referred more especially to the politics of the day.  From one, which appeared in 1837, reviewing Albany Fonblanque’s “England under Seven Administrations,” and speaking generally in high terms of the politics of “The Examiner,” we may extract a few sentences which define very clearly the political ground taken by Mr. Mill, Mr. Fonblanque, and those who had then come to be called Philosophical Radicals.  “There are divers schools of Radicals,” said Mr. Mill.  “There are the historical Radicals, who demand popular institutions as the inheritance of Englishmen, transmitted to us from the Saxons or the barons of Runnymede.  There are the metaphysical Radicals, who hold the principles of democracy, not as means to good government, but as corollaries from some unreal abstraction,—­from ‘natural liberty’ or ‘natural rights.’  There are the radicals of occasion and circumstance, who are radicals because they disapprove the measures of the government for the time being.  There are, lastly, the Radicals of position, who are Radicals, as somebody said, because they are not lords.  Those whom, in contradistinction to all these, we call Philosophical Radicals, are those who in politics observe the common manner of philosophers; that is, who, when they are discussing means, begin by considering the end, and, when they desire to produce effects, think of causes.  These persons became Radicals because