413 
seen such a book for a long time when be wrote his Essay on 
Liberty. 
The “ greatest happiness ” principle of Mr. Mill is certainly 
not to be found in the New Testament ; and it may have been 
this which led him to speak of its ethics as “ incomplete and 
one-sided.” But then the Utilitarian theory, ancient or 
modern in form, has never made out its claim as yet to be 
sound. We look at actions, not at their consequences, when 
we speak of them as virtuous. It is the intention of the 
agent, rather than the benefit conferred, which leads us to ad- 
mire what he does. The tree which supplies us with fruit, or 
the animal which renders us good service, does not awaken our 
sense of gratitude, like the kind and benevolent actions of a 
fellow- creature. Why not ? because it is not the benefit con- 
ferred, but the motive or sense of duty implied, which con- 
stitutes the action virtuous, and awakens its corresponding 
feeling of gratitude and approbation. The facts of human 
consciousness give the lie to utility — right is not the same as 
benefit. 
But I should gather from Mr. Mill’s essay that truth on all 
points must continue to be an open question. His great prin- 
ciple appears to be a mere beating out of human brains in a 
sort of intellectual prize fight. The truth, of course, might, 
some day, come off victorious, but a lie is just as likely to 
triumph. Nay, as fools always outnumber philosophers, the 
stern logic of “ liberty,” of “ individuality ” as elements of 
“ well-being ” in the realm of thought, would seem to give an 
easy triumph to the omnipotence of numbers. But this could 
hardly matter, for we are told that — 
“We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is 
a false opinion, and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.” 
I am no advocate for “ stifling,” but I do think that we can 
never be sure when we hold what is true, if this last quotation 
contains what is sound. Still, Mr. Mill talks of things “ no 
longer doubtful,” and of the “ fatal tendency of mankind to 
leave off* thinking,” as being the cause of half their “ errors.” 
But how he reconciles these statements with what goes 
before, namely, that “ we can never be sure that an opinion is 
false,” is not shown. I must, however, say that this uncer- 
tainty of opinion is not a goal worthy of man’s unceasing 
mental exertions, nor an end such as we may reasonably con- 
clude the Divine Wisdom has planned for His creatures to 
strive after. I think we can be sure that some opinions 
aro false, and that the truth was never intended to remain an 
2 f 2 
