¹ E.g. Manning, Helen Taft, “Who Ran the British Empire, 1830–1850?,” Journal of British Studies 5/1 (1965), 88–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² James Stephen to J. F. Stephen, 14 Feb. 1858, Stephen Papers, Cambridge University Library.

³ E.g. Vernon, Richard, The Career of Toleration: John Locke, Jonas Proast, and After (Montreal, 2007), chap. 5Google Scholar; Lecce, Steven, Against Perfectionism: Defending Liberal Neutrality (Toronto, 2008), 4–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lippincott, B. E., Victorian Critics of Democracy (Minneapolis, 1938), 5Google Scholar.

⁴ It is important that in the same year as he launched “the first effective attack on Mill's pontifical authority” he stood for Parliament as a Liberal candidate; Smith, K. J. M., “Stephen, James Fitzjames, First Baronet (1829–1894)” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edn; Morley, John, Recollections, 2 vols. (London, 1917), 1: 55Google Scholar. And see Stapleton, Julia, “James Fitzjames Stephen: Liberalism, Patriotism, and English Liberty,” Victorian Studies 41/2 (1998), 243–63Google Scholar.

⁵ Young, G. M., Victorian Essays (Oxford, 1962), 116–28Google Scholar.

⁶ Thomas Schneider's bibliography of Stephen's articles and reviews appended to the Life of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen volume brings some useful order to this mass of material.

⁷ E.g. Annan, Noel, Leslie Stephen: Godless Victorian (Chicago, 1984)Google Scholar.

⁸ Julia Stapleton, “Introduction” to Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, xix–xxxviii, at xxxviii. Unless otherwise noted, all citations of Stephen's texts are of the OUP editions.

⁹ Sidgwick, Review, Appendix 6 of Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, 262–5, at 263.

¹⁰ Schneider, “Introduction” to Stephen, On Society, Religion, and Government, xvii–xxviii.

¹¹ Mantena connects this impulse to purge the historical record of “crimes of conquest” to changes in the ideology of empire over the nineteenth century. Mantena, Karuna, Alibis of Empire: Henry Maine and the Ends of Liberal Imperialism (Princeton, 2010), 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² This point is highlighted by K. J. M. Smith and Lisa Rodensky in their introductions to these volumes.

¹³ Fitzjames “will not accept legislators whose favourite costume is the cap and bells, or admit that men who ‘can make silly women cry can, therefore, dictate principles of law and government’ … ‘Freedom and law and established rules have their difficulties,’ not perceptible to ‘feminine, irritable, noisy minds, always clamouring and shrieking for protection and guidance.’ The end to which Dickens would really drive us would be ‘pure despotism. No debates to worry effeminate understandings, no laws to prevent judges from deciding according to their own inclination, no forms to prevent officials from dealing with their neighbours as so many parcels of ticketed goods.’ These utterances show the combination of the old Puritanic leaven … and the strong patriotic sentiment, to which Dickens in one direction and the politics of Cobden and Bright in the other, appeared as different manifestations of a paltry and narrow indifference to all the great historic aims of the national life.” Stephen, The Life of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, 108–9.

¹⁴ E.g. Matthew, H. C. G., Gladstone, 1809–1898 (Oxford, 1997), 312, 246, 644Google Scholar.

¹⁵ James Fitzjames Stephen, “Parliamentary Government,” in Stephen, On Society, Religion, and Government, 225–53, at 230; Stephen, “On the Suppression of Boycotting,” in ibid., 277–94, at 282.

¹⁶ Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, 22.

¹⁷ Ibid., 25, 113

¹⁸ Particularly exemplary on this point are the essays collected in Stephen, James Fitzjames, Horae Sabbaticae: Reprint of Articles from the Saturday Review, 3 vols. (London, 1892)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, 67, 69; Mill, John Stuart, Considerations on Representative Government, in The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. Robson, John M., 33 vols. (Toronto, 1963–91), 19: 377–571, at 554Google Scholar.

²⁰ Stephen, The Life of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, 104.

²¹ Brinton, Crane, English Political Thought in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1933), 179Google Scholar.

²² Quoted in White, R. J., “Introduction” to Stephen, James Fitzjames, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, ed. White, R. J. (Cambridge, 1967), 1–18, at 11Google Scholar.

²³ E.g. Kirk, Russell, “The Foreboding Conservatism of Stephen,” Western Political Quarterly 5/4 (1952), 563–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roger Kimball, “Conservative Icons: James Fitzjames Stephen,” Conservative Online, 2017, at http://theconservative.online/article/conservative_icons_james_fitzjames_stephen.

²⁴ E.g. Stephen, The Life of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, 220.

²⁵ The closest he appears to have gotten to so treating it was in his analysis of Burke as a “Liberal Conservative.” See Jones, Emily, Edmund Burke and the Invention of Modern Conservatism, 1830–1914: An Intellectual History (Oxford, 2017), 96–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁶ Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, 25, 129–30, 202–3.

²⁷ Bentham, Jeremy, A Fragment on Government, ed. Burns, J. H. and Hart, H. L. A. (Cambridge, 1988), 104–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ Like Mill, Stephen never doubted Bentham's success in exposing the emptiness of such purportedly non-consequentialist bases for morality as “common sense,” the “Right Reason,” “the law of nature,” and so on. Bentham, Jeremy, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, ed. Burns, J. H. and Hart, H. L. A. (Oxford, 1996), chap. 2Google Scholar.

²⁹ Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, 159–61: “The utilitarian standard is not the greatest amount of happiness altogether (as might be the case if happiness was as distinct an idea as bodily health), but the widest possible extension of the ideal of life formed by the person who sets up the standard.”

³⁰ It is worth noting that this approach was quite unlike how his brother Leslie or Élie Halévy, who did more to shape subsequent ideas about utilitarianism than anyone else, would think about a utilitarian “tradition”; e.g. Conti, Greg and Welch, Cheryl, “The Receptions of Élie Halévy's Formation du Radicalisme Philosophique in England and France,” Modern Intellectual History 12/1 (2015), 197–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³¹ Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, 25, 57; James Fitzjames Stephen, “Liberalism,” in Stephen, On Society, Religion, and Government, 84–96, at 94.

³² Stephen, “Liberalism,” 87; Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, 112, 6, 148.

³³ It is instructive to compare Stephen's descriptions of his opponents with the way in which Nozick characterizes his own philosophy a century later. Nozick, Robert, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York, 1974)Google Scholar.

³⁴ Stephen, “Parliamentary Government,” 241–2.

³⁵ Stephen, The Life of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, 145, 200, 250.

³⁶ John Morley, “Mr. Mill's Doctrine of Liberty,” in Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, 236–52, at 241.

³⁷ E.g. Biagini, Eugenio, Liberty, Retrenchment, and Reform: Popular Liberalism in the Age of Gladstone, 1860–1880 (Cambridge, 1992)Google Scholar.

³⁸ Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, 112–13; Stephen, “On the Suppression of Boycotting,” 292. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, in Mill, Collected Works, 18: 213–310, at 223.

³⁹ “Mr. Mill's principle … would condemn, for instance, all taxation to which the party taxed did not consent, unless the money produced by it was laid out either upon military or upon police purposes or in the administration of justice; for these purposes only can be described as self-protective.” Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, 30.

⁴⁰ Ibid., 30, 50–51.

⁴¹ Stephen, James Fitzjames, “The Laws of England as to the Expression of Religious Opinions,” Contemporary Review 25/1 (1874), 446–75, at 474Google Scholar.

⁴² Ibid., 474.

⁴³ Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, 77.

⁴⁴ E.g. Montague, F. C., The Limits of Individual Liberty (London, 1885), 188Google Scholar; Nicholson, Peter, The Political Philosophy of the British Idealists (Cambridge, 1990), 294Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ James Fitzjames Stephen, “The Logic of Persecution,” in Stephen, On Society, Religion, and Government, 145–50, at 146, 149–50; Stephen, “Carlier’s History,” in ibid., 151–9, at 157–9.

⁴⁶ Colaiaco, James, James Fitzjames Stephen and the Crisis of Victorian Thought (New York, 1983), chap. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁷ Stephen, “On the Suppression of Boycotting,” 282–3, 287.