STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF COUNCIL, 349 



years of age. To judge from his testimonials, his philosophical 1866. 

 acquirements are already very uncommon ; nor ought we to 

 forget the great public service our College may render by giving 

 a man whose natural vocation, we are assured, is philosophy, an 

 opportunity of following his vocation.' The report then spoke 

 of the objection on the score of youth, and after alluding to 

 drawbacks in the case of certain other of the candidates, con- 

 cluded, * But we are inclined to think that, of the disadvantages 

 under which they labour, Mr. Robertson's youth is the least 

 serious, as it is certainly the most remediable.' But the Senate 

 was called upon to make a second report in consequence of new 

 candidates having come into the field, and some of the old 

 candidates having sent in additional testimonials, after the 

 Council had extended the time for filling up the vacant chair. 

 When they drew up the second report, they had before them 

 additional evidence with respect to Mr. Robertson, which gave 

 assurance of the extent of his learning, and of the breadth and 

 impartiality of his views, and of his scrupulous fairness in 

 exhibiting fully contending theories. They expressed their con- 

 clusion in these words : ' Upon the strength of this singularly 

 strong testimony we have no hesitation in concluding that 

 Mr. Robertson is exceedingly well qualified to fill the vacant 

 chair; and that, of the candidates whose claims we have ex- 

 amined up to this point, he is the ablest, and, as far as we can 

 judge, the most learned, and the most likely to rise to eminence, 

 and to raise the reputation of the College.' The report then 

 continued, ' But there yet remains upon the list of candidates 

 the name of the Rev. James Martineau. As the Senate has 

 already recommended the appointment of Mr. Martineau, and 

 the Council has declined to appoint him, the Senate does 

 not think it necessary to present a second report concerning 

 him.' 



It would be almost ludicrous, if it were not rather lamentable 

 that parties in a controversy should be unable to conceive that 

 those who differ from them may differ honestly, to see how 

 little able the partisans of Mr. Martineau have been to take in 

 the notion that he may have been rejected upon his merits. 

 Various unworthy motives have been attributed to the Council ; 

 but it does not seem to have occurred to their assailants that 

 possibly they did not think Mr. Martineau the best Professor of 

 Philosophy that they could appoint. And yet a zealous advocate 

 of Mr. Martineau, in expatiating upon the soundness of his philo- 



