352 MEMOIR OF AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN. 



1866. after stating that they did not think it necessary to report a 

 second time concerning Mr. Martineau, they added these 

 words : 



' We wish, however, to express our opinion upon a question 

 of principle which is supposed to be involved in the matter. If 

 it be thought by the Council that the characteristic principle of 

 the College, impartiality between religious sects, 1 would be 

 violated or endangered by placing in the Chair of Mental Philo- 

 sophy a prominent theologian and a leader of one school of theo- 

 logical thought, even though the upright and honourable 

 character of the individual gave an assurance that he would not 

 consciously allow his theological opinions to affect his teaching 

 of philosophy, the Senate fully recognises the right of the 

 Council to entertain the objection ; and it is not disposed to 

 impugn the discretion of the Council, in whatever way the ques- 

 tion may be ultimately determined. In fact, the difficulty has 

 been felt in the Senate as well as in the Council.' 



The report including this paragraph was carried, after an 

 adjourned debate, by a majority of 14 to 2 ; so that it may be 

 fairly taken as expressing the deliberate opinion of the main 

 body of the Professors. It will be observed that the Senate 

 pronounced no opinion upon the case of Mr. Martineau. They 

 desired only to recognise and uphold the perfect right of the 

 Council to consider his ecclesiastical position before they appointed 

 him to the Chair of Mental Philosophy. 



The reproach to which the Council is now subjected is of a 

 novel nature. It is something strange that gentlemen pro- 

 fessing liberal opinions should make it a reproach to other 



1 This may be accepted as the semi-official declaration of the prin- 

 ciple of the College in 1866. It is evident that if it be the right one, 

 my husband's was wrong (see pp. 369-373). 



It is also evident that if it were the full statement of that principle, 

 divines of all denominations alike might have been, by the Charter, 

 precluded from holding chairs in the College. Had this been announced 

 in the first instance, Mr. De Morgan might possibly have still held a 

 Professorship there, as in any other institution of moderate liberality ; 

 but he certainly would have made no sacrifices to retain it, in the idea 

 that he was supporting the sound principle of religious equality defined 

 by himself. 



As a matter of fact, the reiteration of the statement that no reli- 

 gious qualification or disqualification could be tolerated in the College 

 had become almost tedious. S. E. DE M. 



