gs ought to live, would become impossible.'[19]

He wrote to his brother when his lectures were over: "Guess what
immediate project I am on; that of writing an article on the
working-classes for the "Quarterly." It is verily so. I offered to do
the thing for Mill about a year ago. He durst not. I felt a kind of call
and monition of duty to do it, wrote to Lockhart accordingly, was
altogether invitingly answered, had a long interview with the man
yesterday, found him a person of sense, good-breeding, even kindness,
and great consentaneity of opinion with myself on the matter. Am to get
books from him to-morrow, and so shall forthwith set about telling the
Conservatives a thing or two about the claims, condition, rights, and
mights of the working order of men."

When the annual exodus from London came, the Carlyles went north for a
holiday. They returned much refreshed at the end of two months. His
presence, moreover, was required in London, as _Wilhelm Meister_ was now
to be republished. He set about finishing his article for the
"Quarterly," but as he progressed he felt some misgiving as to its ever
appearing in that magazine. "I have finished," he wrote on November 8,
1839, "a long review article, thick pamphlet, or little volume, entitled
"Chartism." Lockhart has it, for it was partly promised to him; at
least the refusal of it was, and that, I conjecture, will be all he
will enjoy of it." Lockhart sent it back, 'seemingly not without
reluctance,' saying he dared not. Mill was shown the pamphlet and was
'unexpectedly delighted with it.' He was willing to publish it, but
Carlyle's wife and brother insisted that the thing was too good for a
magazine article. Fraser undertook to print it, and before the close of
the year _Chartism_ was in the hands of the public.

The sale was rapid, an edition of a thousand copies being sold
immediately. 'Chartism,' Froude narrates, was loudly noticed:
"considerable reviewing, but very daft reviewing." Men wondered; how
could they choose but wonder, when a writer of evident power stripped
bare the social disease, told them that their remedies were quack
remedies, and their progress was progress to dissolution? The Liberal
journals, finding their "formulas" disbelieved in, clamoured that
Carlyle was unorthodox; no Radical, but a wolf in sheep's clothing. Yet
what he said was true, and could not be denied to be true. "They approve
generally," he said, "but regret very much that I am a T