166 A Journey to London in 1840. 



provided with tickets, was not large, a\-eraging each day about 

 thirt}' persons. The price of the ticket was £2 2s. He gave 

 another course, beginning in November of the same year, which 

 'was much better attended, the number Ijeing about double. In 

 1825-26 he gave a 'third course, which, I think, was the last 

 delivered by him in Scotland, the attendance not being greater 

 than in the former year. On the Avhole, though these 'lectures 

 were so honourable to his character, I question if they yielded him 

 any nett profit. Perhaps indeed they scarcely repaid the expense 

 incurred in advertising, class-room rent, janitor's fees, and other 

 outlays. Had the audience all been paying liearers matters 

 might have been different. A lecturer, speaking generally, may 

 be said to follow a poor though an eminent profession : the race 

 of lecturers is anything but wealthy. 



An attempt had meanwhile been made by Mr Jeffrey and 

 other leading Whigs in Edinburgh to get a Chair of Political 

 Economy founded in the University with the view of giving the 

 appointment to Mr M'Culloch. But an unforeseen obstacle stood 

 in the way. The Professor of Moral Philosophy had in former 

 years occasionally given a course of lectures — a very brief course 

 — ^on political economy. The existing Professor had never pre- 

 lected on the subject even once, and besides it was known that he 

 was profoundly ignorant of even its elementary doctrines. But 

 now he immediately interposed and pleaded that political economy 

 belonged exclusively to his chair, and said that he intended 

 forthwith to give a course of instruction on the subject. The 

 opposition was successful. The Professor has since gi\-en a brief 

 course as promised, but of its merits I can say nothing. The 

 truth is, the Professor hated M'Culloch, because the latter had 

 most keenly exposed his character and opposed his views when a 

 candidate for the Chair of Moral Philosophy. M'Culloch was 

 not then editor, but it was well known that the controversy in the 

 Scotsman was carried on by him. Hence the reiterated and 

 vulgar attacks in Blackwood's Magazine on the subject of 

 those few remarks. I believe I may say that I was partly the 

 means of putting a stop to these attacks by a letter in exposure of 

 the falsehood and low motives of ^^'ilson, published in the 

 Mercury and in the Courant of 5th April, 1831. At least 

 I am not aware that thev were continued after that date. 



