It may be said, if Mr. Mill has not become the founder of a new philosophical school at the universities where must we seek the result of his influence?  I cannot give any thing like a complete reply to this question now; but any one who has observed the marked change which has come over the mode of thought in the universities in the last few years will be able to form some idea of the kind of influence which has been exercised by Mr. Mill.  Speaking generally, he has obtained a very wide acceptance of the utilitarian doctrines:  they were presented by Bentham in a form so harsh and unattractive as to produce an almost repelling effect.  Mr. Mill, on the contrary, showed that the utilitarian philosophy might inspire the most active benevolence and the most generous enthusiasm.  This acceptance of utilitarianism has produced a very striking effect in modifying the political opinions prevalent in the universities.  For many years what has been known as the liberalism of young Oxford and Cambridge is in many respects fundamentally different from what is known as liberalism outside the universities.  The liberalism of the universities, as well as that of the Manchester school, are both popularly described as advanced but between the two there is in many essentials the widest possible divergence.  What is known as Philosophical Radicalism will long bear the impression of Mr. Mill’s teaching.

It should be particularly remembered, that, avowing himself a liberal, he never forgot that it is the essence of true liberalism to be tolerant of opinions from which one differs, and to appreciate the advantages of branches of learning to which one has not devoted special attention.  It is somewhat rare to find that those who profess themselves undoubted liberals are prepared to accept a consistent application of their principles.  There is almost sure to be some region of inquiry which they regard as so dangerous that they regret that any one should enter upon it.  Sometimes it is said that freedom of thought, though admirable in politics, is mischievous in theology:  some, advancing what they believe to be one step further, express a general approbation of freedom of thought, but stigmatize free-thinkers.  Again, it may be not infrequently observed that devotion to some particular study makes men illiberal to other branches of knowledge.  Metaphysicians and physiologists who have never taken the trouble to master mathematical principles dogmatically denounce the influence of mathematics.  Eminent classics and mathematicians have too frequently sneered at each other’s studies.  No one was ever more free from this kind of bigotry than Mr. Mill, and it probably constitutes one of the main causes of his influence.  Some years ago I happened to be conversing at Cambridge with three men who were respectively of great eminence in mathematics, classics, and physiology.  We were discussing the inaugural address which Mr. Mill had just delivered as rector