MEETING OF PROPRIETORS. 357 



Atfienceum, and the framer of the resolution, under cover of a 1866, 

 specious general proposition, thrust out of sight the certain fact 

 that there are some departments of human knowledge, and 

 mental philosophy is eminently one of them, in which the pre- 

 possessions of a theologian and the habits of a theological teacher 

 may make him a worse qualified candidate than another man ; 

 and in such a case those who have to appoint the teacher are 

 bound to take cognisance of the fact, and it is very unwise to 

 fetter their discretion. 



We pass no judgment on the particular case of Mr. Martineau. 

 We are quite ready to assent to the general proposition, that no 

 candidate ought to be regarded as ipso facto disqualified because 

 he is a minister or preacher. But we desire to maintain the 

 right of the Council to examine all the circumstances of every 

 case that comes before them ; and we earnestly entreat every true 

 friend of the College not to concur in any vote which would 

 seem to inflict a censure upon the Council for the legitimate 

 exercise of their discretion ; and, above all, not to- concur in any 

 vote which would impose a restraint upon their freedom ot 

 judgment in future. 



This was signed by fifteen Professors, of both Faculties. 



On reading this document, my husband said the 

 principal part of the question was left out altogether ; 

 for had he ever understood that the profession of religious 

 impartiality made by the founders of the College was only 

 to be understood ( as a general description/ his name 

 would never have been connected with it. He drew a 

 distinction between the part taken by the older Professors, 

 who, from their long connection with University College, 

 could not fail to know that its very life consisted in the 

 entire rejection of all religious distinctions, and that of 

 those more recently appointed, who, he thought, might 

 and probably did believe that the Council was not bound by 

 any condition except that of making the appointment 

 which might seem to them best for the worldly prosperity 

 of the institution. From this latter point of view, it is 

 not difficult to understand why a candidate believed to be 

 prominent in an unpopular sect should have met with dis- 

 favour in the eyes of the Council. 



The special meeting of Proprietors was held early in 



