STATEMENT IN SUPPOKT OF COUNCIL. 351 



minister of a religious sect : not, be it carefully observed, by any 1866. 

 consideration whether he belonged to this sect or to that, but by 

 the fact that he was a minister of religion, and a minister who 

 was placed in a prominent position. When it became known 

 that he was not appointed to the vacant Professorship, the first 

 outcry raised was that he was rejected because he was a Uni- 

 tarian, with the additional imputation that he was rejected, not 

 because the Council of University College objected to Unitarians 

 as such, but because they sacrificed their own professed principles 

 in timid and interested subservience to the prejudices and ' 

 bigotry of the outer world. This calumny was too gross to be 

 long maintained in face of the known characters of the gentlemen 

 who constitute the Council. But it did its work. It was the 

 origin of the agitation which was raised ; and probably it is still 

 believed by many persons. And not only was it the origin of 

 the agitation, but the agitators continue to agitate as if their 

 first assertions were true, although they know that the question 

 to be considered is a very different one. 



On August 4 a motion was submitted to the Council in the 

 following terms : 



* That the Council consider it inconsistent with the complete 

 religious neutrality proclaimed and adopted by University 

 College to appoint to the Chair of Philosophy of the Mind and 

 Logic a candidate as minister and preacher of any one among 

 the various sects dividing the religious world.' 



This motion was negatived ; so that no one has a right to 

 assign the principle here laid down as the ground of the subse- 

 quent action of the Council as a body ; although, no doubt, as 

 there was a minority who voted for the motion, it may be assumed 

 that those individual members acted upon this principle in their 

 subsequent votes ; and it is possible that other members, who 

 were not present in August, but were present in November, did 

 the same. 



It is seldom expedient in any deliberative body to propound 

 a resolution in general terms, when the object is practical action 

 in a particular case ; and the Council probably judged wisely in 

 not affirming the general proposition in their minutes : but the 

 argument suggested is one which might be entertained and 

 applied in the particular case, without any departure from the 

 true principles of the College. It is important that the friends 

 of the College should know that such, at least, is the deliberate 

 opinion of the Senate. In the conclusion of their second report, 



