Difference between writing styles of Lord McCaulay and John Stuart Mill?

Mill writes the book, On Liberty, with what is a limited form of objectivity. He is objective in that he is writing about truth and knowledge rather than about preferences and opinions. The tone is somewhat objective. The reason it is limited is that he is self-aware that he is writing from a contextualized situation. Further, while it is the truth he is most interested in he also realizes that he is writing from a particular ideological, political and social standpoint and that his view is not the only one that can functionally exist. He is however, quite concerned with which one is the best. As such, the perspective includes the subjectivity of his individual expression and 'personal truth' along with this middle ground of socio-political possibilities as well as having the objective object of truth and ethical accuracy and honor as the moral object of the entire venture.

Lord Macaulay is a perfectionist. His grammar, punctuation, spelling, formatting, and composition are flawless. His works are subjective and opinionated, supporting the Whig's view of history. They are well written but accessible.... in other words easy to read and comprehend.

Hello. I am just researching this topic, and I can say that Lord Macaulay and John Stuart Mill had different writing styles. Macaulay was known for his eloquent and vivid prose, often using historical anecdotes and vivid descriptions to attract readers. He had a more ornate and decorative style and sought to captivate with his language. On the contrary, Mill's writings were distinguished by clarity and precision. He focused on logical argumentation and systematic presentation of ideas, making his work accessible and persuasive through careful reasoning rather than flowery language. Mill prioritized communicating complex philosophical concepts with extreme clarity, reflecting his commitment to utilitarianism and rationalism.
I hope It helped you.