Professor Key has, we suspect, done a considerable injury both
to University College, London, and his own side of the ques- tion concerning Professor Martineau's rejection for the chair of Intellectual Philosophy and Logic, by formally admit 'tin, in a letter to Monday's Daily Telegraph, that one reason which weighed with Mr. M.artineau's opponents on the Council was the " unsound- ness " (that is, the non-utilitarian, or perhaps non-physiological character) of his philosophy. "it is well known in our body," says Professor Key, "that exception was taken in the Council to Mr. Martineau qua teacher of mental science. Brilliant, and able, and noble-minded as he undoubtedly is, it was thought by some, and stated, that his views were unsound." This means un- doubtedly that his psychology is either non-Benthamite, or not sufficiently based on the nervous system and the tissues of the brain. Unfortunately, precisely the same might be said of Professor Hoppus, the late teacher of Intellectual Philosophy and Logic. But is University College seriously intending to declare for the school of Materialism in mental science, while it is making such a fuss about unsectarianism in religion ? Is it to weigh against a man—(we ourselves do not think that it ought to weigh for him)—that he leans rather to the philosophic tendencies of Plato and Leibnitz and Kant and Hamilton, than to those of Aristotle, Locke, Paley, and Mill ? University College ought clearly to be as impartial here as in questions of religion. We think the orthodox adherents of University College will be more scandalized than conciliated by the anti-Unitarian fervours of the Council, if they really imply that Professor Hoppa also was a
mistake because he was not sufficiently materialist and utilitarian for their more advanced philosophical heterodoxy.