De Morgan by his wife Sophia. Part 4

This file covers events in De Morgan's life after 1837. The material is a version of that written by De Morgan's wife Sophia Elizabeth in 'S E De Morgan, Memoir of Augustus De Morgan by his wife Sophia Elizabeth De Morgan (London, 1882)'.
There are three sections:
(i) De Morgan's second resignation;
(ii) the Free Christian Union;
(iii) De Morgan's last years.

The other sections of these Memoirs are at
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

1. De Morgan's second resignation

The occasion arose on the appointment of a new Professor of Mental Philosophy and Logic, in June 1866, in place of Dr Hoppus, an Independent minister, who had held the chair from the beginning. In accordance with the laws of the College the testimonials of all candidates were submitted to the Senate of Professors, who examined and reported on them to the Council, in whose hands rested the final appointment. From the first foundation the Unitarians had been among the most powerful supporters of the College, which could never have risen to its then condition without their assistance in money and effort. When it was first known that the Rev James Martineau, a Unitarian minister and a distinguished scholar, was a candidate for the chair of Mental Philosophy and Logic, a gossiping rumour came to the ears of my husband and myself that the Unitarians on the Council were working to bring in their own candidate. This was merely foolish talk among a few persons, but I mention it to show what my husband's feelings were on the subject of the appointment. When he heard the report he declared his disbelief in it, but said he would make inquiries, as there must be no suspicion of the preponderance of any one party in religion in that place. He inquired about the rumour, and, as he expected, found it false. No member of the Council at that time knew anything of the relative merits of the candidates. It was evident, even if any one who knew him well could have supposed it possible, that friendship for Mr Martineau, for whom he had a sincere respect, did not influence his subsequent conduct.

The report of the Senate, after enumerating Mr Martineau's qualifications for the appointment, as shown by his writings, by his examination papers, and by the testimony of his pupils, concludes with the words:-
All these considerations evidently lead to the conclusion that Mr Martineau is the most eligible candidate. He appears to be at least equal to the other candidates in ability and learning, while he is superior to them both in reputation, and in experience and success as a teacher.
The question was, however, raised at this early stage, whether Mr Martineau's position as a Unitarian minister would be injurious to the class; and of this doubt the Council, some of the influential members of which were bent on appointing a Professor far lower in the scale of orthodox belief than Mr Martineau, availed themselves. They postponed the appointment for a time, and 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. Their report of the second of the candidates was given in these words:-
Upon the strength of this singularly strong testimony we have no hesitation in concluding that Mr Croom Robertson is exceedingly well qualified to fill the vacant chair; and that of the candidates whose claims we have examined 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. But there yet remains upon the list the name of Mr 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.
In the hope and belief that the position of affairs was not yet past remedy, fourteen Fellows of the College, including some of its most distinguished alumni, sent a requisition to the Council asking that a special Court of Proprietors might be summoned to consider the course taken by the Council in deferring the appointment of the best qualified candidate for special reasons to the vacant chair. An objection to this on legal grounds was raised by the Council; they referred the question to the law officers of the Crown, and before the opinion of these gentlemen (which was in favour of the requisitionists) was announced, settled it their own way by the appointment of Mr Croom Robertson, who was a pupil of Prof Alexander Bain, and an adherent of the school of thought upheld by that gentleman, and approved by the leading members of the Council.

When Mr De Morgan heard that the Council intended to reject Mr Martineau for reasons connected with religious belief, he openly declared that should the College make such a departure from the principle on which it was founded, he should feel that his connection with it was at an end. He waited with anxiety for their decision, and when the news came that the acknowledged best candidate was set aside on the ground of his Unitarianism, and one below him appointed, he said that the College had committed a suicidal act, and would never hold its old place again. He did not hesitate as to his own course, but at once sent in his resignation.

His letter to the Council, which follows, I know to have been written without any intention of publication at the time, or rather with a distinct intention of non-publication during his lifetime.
To the Chairman of the Council of University College.

91 Adelaide Road, November 10, 1860.

Sir, - I feel much sorrow in notifying to the Council that my connection with the College must close at the end of the current session.

For some years the returns of my chair have been so small that, taking into account the time I give, my stay has been an imprudence. I had nevertheless calculated that I might, without too great an injustice to my family, draw upon my capital, if I may use so grand a word, for the means of retaining my post during this and the next session, in the hope of the dawn of better days.

The recent vote of the Council in the case of Mr Martineau renders it unnecessary for me to settle when I shall leave the College; it proves that the College has left me. I am, as heretofore, strong in the determination not to be overlooked, and not to be controlled in any matter of religious thought, speech, or teaching. The Council has decided that a certain amount of notoriety for advocacy of an unpopular theology is a disqualification. Whether a distinction was intended between the case of a candidate and of an installed Professor I neither know nor care. I assume that such a body as the Council would never entertain this distinction. I concede that A is not B, but I maintain that those who surrender to expediency point A of principle are the men who will surrender point B when the time comes, and who, until that time does come, will be honestly shocked at the prophecy of their future conduct. Adherence to come is discounted to meet the consequence of present departure. The principle of the College has been partially surrendered to expediency; no man can say how much more will be given up, nor when. This I said when the Peene legacy was accepted, and I was laughed at. The acceptance of the conditions of that legacy did not drive me from the College, because, after much deliberation, and not a little help from what I now see to be sophism, my love for the College and the life I led in it barred the way with De minimis non curat lex. But I ought to have seen that minimum is the first step from nihil to totum; and when St Denys, with his head under his arm, had made that first step, I ought to have foreseen the second. My self-complacency is comforted by observing that there are even now men of experience and thought who not only cannot foresee the third step, but who affirm it will never be made.

Before proceeding to the most delicate part of the subject I make two remarks. First, in all that I say I am stating the decision of my own court, by which my own course is determined. It is for me alone to weigh evidence, and for me alone to decide. This distinction is often forgotten; such a letter as the present is treated as appeal to those to whom it is addressed, instead of recorded argument in a decided case. Be it remembered that the first sentence of this letter contains the needful; all the rest is partly respect to the body I am addressing, partly evidence of what is thought by a person who has stood by the College for thirty years, and who is likely to represent the opinions of many.

Secondly, I earnestly protest against being supposed to impute to any one, in or out of the Council, the least wilful or conscious impropriety of reasoning or conduct. I mean to give the offence which, in our thin-skinned day, is always taken at plain and uncompromising attack upon alleged wrong proceedings; but I am free of all intention to be personally disrespectful to any of the promoters. I can never forget the cordial co-operation of thirty years. In the matter of Mr Martineau, I am aware of the existence of two cross currents. Since the first vote of the Council I have weighed all that I heard, and have for months been satisfied that there has been an objection to his psychology as well as to his religion: the first is too far removed from atheism to please the philosopher, the second too far removed from orthodoxy to please the priest. No longer neutral between the disputes of Christians, the College is to apply the abandoned principle in another field. The frontier is to be rectified by putting Theism in the place of Unitarianism, and making God an open question, not to be the basis of any teaching on the human mind. And so it is contrived that one and the same victim, offered on the altar of the Janus Bifrons of expediency, shall appease both the priest and the philosopher, while each votary selects the particular head of the deity to which his offering is made.

I proceed to show that (supposing me willing to remain) I am as worthy to be extruded as Mr Martineau to be excluded.

I have for thirty years, and in my class-room, acted on the principle that positive theism may be made the basis of psychological explanation without violation of any law of the College. When in elucidating mathematical principles it is necessary to speak of our mental organisation as effect of a cause, I have always referred it to an intelligent and disposing Creator. The nature of things, the eternal laws of thought, and all the ways by which that Creator is put in the dark corner, have been treated by my silence as philosophical absurdities not worthy to have their silly names intruded upon those who are to be trained to think. Were I to remain under the new system, I should hold it a sacred duty and - ah, poor human nature! - a malicious pleasure to extend and intensify all I have hitherto said on this subject.

Again, for more than thirty years I have been as strong a Unitarian as Mr Martineau. If I have not raised my voice in this matter, and as strongly as Mr Martineau has done, it is because I have been deeply engaged in other things, because I do not care what un-reflecting people think they think, and because I have found that the great bulk of reflecting men of all sects keep their Trinitarianism caged in a creed, and are, in every practical application of religion except pelting Unitarians, as truly Unitarian as Mr Martineau himself. Were I to continue in this College, under even the ghost of a gag, I should soon be heard (without the walls) on a subject to which I have paid long and close attention. I should soon bring the question to issue whether the installed Professor is or is not a subject for such discussion as has arisen about the candidate for admission.

I hope it will be clear that my absence is as desirable as that of Mr Martineau. But, for reasons given, I deprecate the supposition of having sacrificed to principle. I have only ceased to sacrifice because the temple has been desecrated. My determination would not be altered by a return to the old principle on the part of the Council. I shall, therefore, not be suspected of any personal motive when I urge the Council to reconsider their suicidal vote, and to re-nail the old flag to the mast.

One point has perhaps been almost overlooked. A teacher of psychology, if he do his duty, expounds all systems of sufficient note, and puts forward the grounds of each. Every one must have his own system, and if one may therefore be suspected of bias, so must another. Mr Martineau has special reputation as an eclectic teacher. He is noted for ability to prepare students for examinations in which the examiners have no bias towards his views. I have heard it remarked, before this discussion, that he crams his pupils with different systems. Such a man does not cram. It means that those of his students who desire no better can cram different systems from his lectures. There is more proof of his competency in this respect than in the case of any of the untried candidates.

Return to the old principle. If the College fall, it will fall with honour. No concession of narrow minds, philosophical or theological, will save it. The enemy will give one sneer more, the friend nine cheers less. Thing'embigot, who says that his son shall not enter the College if Mr Martineau teach there, never meant to send his son in any case. The late vicar of St Pancras, then a lessee in Gower Street, found the noise of the playground disagreeable, and sent word that if the nuisance were not abated he should withdraw his patronage; he had been an inveterate opponent. He was left to subtract his negative quantity if he pleased. Let Thing'embigot learn the same rule of algebra.

On the other hand, the enemy of religious disqualification, if the present course be persisted in, must decide whether his son shall be educated under selection carried up to its logical extent in the professed fear of God, or exclusion nibbled at up to compulsion of circumstances in the concealed fear of man as to religion, and another fear of God as to philosophy. I should myself be puzzled to make a choice, for if there be a tincture of atheism in the second fear of God, there is a tincture of blasphemy in the first. Of the two different ways of putting man in the place of God, I think the world at large would prefer the first.

My best wishes remain with the College which I leave, but I wish to make myself clearly understood on the question which has been opened. I trust that by return to and future maintenance of the sound principle on which it was founded, in which there is more religion than in all exclusive systems put together, the College will rise into prosperity under the protection, not of the Infinite, not of the Absolute, not of the Unconditioned, not of the Nature of things, not of the chapter of accidents, but of God, the Creator and Father of all mankind. - I am, sir, with much respect,

Your obedient, humble servant,
A De Morgan.
The reading of this letter at the Council was (I was told) followed by silence for a minute or two. The minority who could understand its meaning and its motive had already been outvoted. The majority could give no answer, because they were determined not to give the only one it called for, a return to principle. The secretary was directed to inform the writer:-
... that your letter of November 10, addressed to the Chairman of the Council, was read at a session of the Council on Saturday last, and that your resignation of the Professorship of Mathematics from the close of the current session was accepted.
The decision and its results gave great dissatisfaction to the friends of religious liberty outside the College. The newspapers, which represented different phases of thought, expressed the variety of opinions held on the subject. By those of the earnest and Liberal school the movement was strongly condemned; among other things it was said that all real Liberals must ask whether it is wise to support a College which, unsectarian in name, can yet be guilty of such religious and philosophical bigotry. Here I may remark upon the expression 'real Liberals.' Every one who has watched the progress of thought, especially during the last half-century, must have seen that its tendency, both in philosophy and in religion, is to the denial, or what amounts to a denial, of God. I am not now attempting to condemn this tendency, but its prevalence has had the effect of confusing formerly well-defined distinctions. The 'Liberal' has frequently gone from liberality to unbelief; and in the case of University College many professed Liberals took the part of intolerance because they preferred atheism to theism. The self-styled religious party said that it was now clear that the profession of desire to preserve the unsectarian character of the College was so much dust thrown in the eyes of the public, and that the College had declared itself truly a 'godless College,' as it had long been called by the orthodox. Scoffers laughed, and opined that 'the College' could do without its principles, but the principles could not do without their College.

The next meeting of Proprietors was appointed for February 2, 1867. But before the end of the current year, and with reference to the requisition already referred to, the Senate met again and supported the decision of the Council, and in anticipation of the meeting addressed a statement to the Proprietors. Though the real question, which lies in a very few words, has been distinctly stated in Mr De Morgan's letter of resignation, I should be thought to give an ex-parte account of the whole affair if I were to omit the arguments on the other side. The strongest of these may fairly be presumed to be embodied in this statement of fifteen Professors, of whom more than one had belonged to the institution from its foundation. I feel it only right to give the document at length.
Statement addressed to the Proprietors of University College.

A certain number of Fellows and Proprietors of University College, London, have required the Council of the College to convene a Special General Meeting of the Proprietors, 'to consider a recent resolution of the Council declining to appoint the Rev James Martineau to the Professorship of Mental Philosophy and Logic, after a Report of the Senate that he was the best qualified candidate for the chair;' and a Special General Meeting will be held, in consequence of this requisition, on Saturday, February 2.
[We omit the rest of this long statement]

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 disfavour in the eyes of the Council.

The special meeting of Proprietors was held early in February 1867, and a few weeks later the annual meeting took place. On both these occasions those who contended for the old principle were beaten, and the College proceeded to work in its new character. Whether it is held in higher estimation since then I have no means of knowing. I only know that it is changed since I heard the conversations of Lord Brougham, Thomas Campbell, and my father at the time of its foundation.

My husband told me that during the session in which he worked after his resignation was sent in he met his colleagues as before in the Professors' room. Not one of them ever spoke on the subject of his retirement, and he left the place without one word of acknowledgment for all he had done for it. Only once, after the end of the session, he paid a visit to his old lecture-room. He went to bring away the notebooks and manuscripts which he had used in his lectures. The visit was a painful one, but was so cheerfully borne that I should hardly have known all he felt if I had not said something to the effect that I hoped he would not suffer for the trial. He said, 'Oh, I shall do very well. I felt all the time today that the College had left me, not I it. It was no longer the old place. But then,' he added sorrowfully, 'all my thirty years' work has been thrown away.' The answer to this was of course easy. I said that no such efforts as his could ever be without result; that his teaching had trained many strong and honest minds; and that if the College had done nothing more, its establishment might have helped in the opening of the two Universities. He acquiesced, but the blow was struck.

In the spring of 1867, after the efforts of many of the best of his old pupils and friends to retrace the false step had failed, some of these gentlemen, desirous that he should not leave the scene of his work without taking with him some memorial of their respect and friendship, asked me whether I thought he would refuse a testimonial in money. I answered without consulting him. He had strongly objected to the system of testimonials, which of late years had grown to such a height, and I was quite certain that his answer would be in the negative. He soon after received the following, enclosed in a letter from our friend Mr Jacob Waley:-
May 7, 1867.
Dear Sir, - Many of your old pupils, at whose request we address you, desire, upon your resignation oi a chair which for upwards of thirty years you have filled with so much distinction, to give some appropriate expression to the high estimation in which they hold you.

Our admiration for your philosophical views of education, your skill in the art of instruction, and your scientific attainments, as well as our cordial regard and esteem for you as our old teacher and friend, render us desirous of recording these feelings in some substantial shape.

We understand, however, that you feel you cannot consistently accept any testimonial of intrinsic value. But we hope that you may be persuaded to gratify your pupils by sitting for a picture or bust to be placed in the library of our old College. We remain, sir,

Yours faithfully,
Jacob Waley, H M Bompas, W A Case, R B Clifton, J G Greenwood, J M Solomon, G Jessel, H Cozens Hardy, Richard Holt Hutton, Theodore Waterhouse, Walter Bagehot.
It gave a pain to my husband to refuse a request so kindly and cordially made. His reply was as follows:-
My dear Waley, - I acknowledge your kind letter of the 7th with the cordial and gratifying inclosure, signed by eleven old pupils, whose dates represent the time which has elapsed since I rejoined the College in 1836.

The inclosure is in itself a testimonial. It has all the meaning and all the value. And to those who hold that the mind of the teacher counts for something in the making of the pupil, the string of names appended to it will be no mean presumption that I have in some degree a claim to the terms in which I am described.

I am asked to sit for a bust or picture, to be placed in what is described as "our old College." This location is impossible; our old College no longer exists. It was annihilated in November last.

The old College to which I was so many years attached by office, by principle, and by liking, had its being, lived, and moved in the refusal of all religious disqualifications. Life and soul are now extinct.

I will avoid detail. I may be writing to some who think that the recent transaction is a reparable dilapidation, or even to some who approve of it. To me the College is like a Rupert's drop with a little bit pinched off the small end; that is, a heap of dust.

I can never forget that I have been usefully employed, though I now wish my life had been passed in any other institution. I have worked under the conviction that I was advancing a noble cause, until every letter in the sentence "Augustus De Morgan, Professor of Mathematics in University College, London," stands for 234 hours of actual lecturing, independent of all study and preparation; and all this under a banner which is now shown to have been either shamefully raised or shamefully deserted.

So much is necessary that my old pupils may understand my mind, and the repugnance I feel towards any proceeding which must record my connection with University College. I am happy to say that the circumstances have not created any personal bitterness of feeling; individuals are to me what they were before. But if force of will can succeed, the institution is to pass away from before my mind, and to become as if it had never existed.

You will see that I am altogether averse to lending aid or countenance to any scheme which will tend to remind others that I was a teacher in the College which did homage to the evil it was created to oppose.

But I am even more sensible to my old pupils' remembrance than I should have been if I could have accepted the result of their most acceptable good opinion. Such remembrance would have been, in any case, a treasure. It has now the additional value of a treasure saved out of the fire.

You will, of course, communicate my answer, and with my warmest thanks and most heartfelt regards,

I am, my dear Waley,
Yours sincerely,
A De Morgan.
He often spoke with satisfaction of the uninterrupted friendly relations which had for thirty years subsisted between himself and his colleagues. From his declining health and other circumstances he saw but little of them latterly, but this was in no case due (on his part at least) to personal feeling created by the question which had caused his withdrawal.

2. The Free Christian Union

One of the last subjects which afforded him interest was the proposed formation of a society to be called the Free Christian Union. The idea, a beautiful and attractive one, was the formation of a union for the promotion of good in various directions of men of all religious beliefs and opinions, on the common ground of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. But there was some inaccuracy in the designation, for under the simple, universal principle, professed Jews, Hindoos, and other Easterns were eligible as members; indeed, my husband said Christ himself and the Apostles might belong to the society, which they could not perhaps have done to many associations taking the name of Christian. Either the designation or the conditions of membership must be abandoned; and on the former proposal, several persons of well-defined orthodox opinions left it. Mr De Morgan hesitated before giving his name, feeling that in the present uncertain and unsettled state of opinion among the best meaning persons a union based upon anything but absolute and simple theism was impossible. This would exclude the use of the word Christian, leaving a common basis of belief so broad as not to satisfy men of deep religious thought, while it would not admit Comtists and others whose philanthropic views and desires to benefit mankind were as wide and earnest as those of the founders themselves.

He also desired to learn to what the designation 'Christian' applied - what were the opinions of the founders with reference to the work and mission of Christ. The writings of some of these, friends whom he valued and respected, had led him to suspect that in their view what is called the supernatural element in the Gospels, the account of the miracles and resurrection of Christ, were due either to the exaggerations of Eastern fancy and expression, or to the interpolations of superstitious times. My husband, who believed fully in the account of the resurrection of Christ as given in the Gospels, wished to ascertain the views of those who held what are called 'advanced' opinions on this head. He wrote and inquired, but told me he could not make out what their ideas were. I once said to him that I thought one element in the question had been generally overlooked, the 'opening of the (spiritual) eyes' of the witnesses, as mentioned in the Gospels on other occasions. This would give some apparent subjectivity to the fact, but it is nowhere stated that all present saw the rising of Christ. He said, 'Very possibly, but there was a rising; the history is clearly given and well attested, and the rejection of it would be to cut away the root from the tree. And the accounts given of this and the other miracles cannot be taken from the history without throwing a discredit on the narrators' character that would make all their statements worthless. They say,' he said of the Rationalistic school of interpreters, 'that it is the character of Christ that commands reverence, and proves his mission from God. You cannot separate the two. He himself claimed extra-natural powers, given by the Father. If this was false He was false, and His character would not have been what it was; and the men who could invent fictions about His works could not have described the character as they did.' It was with reference to this society that we spoke of public prayer. In his letters on Christian union he speaks of a basis on which people might meet and pray together. He had always said to me that Jesus Christ had not enjoined public prayer; and though He had not forbidden it, the tenor of His teaching was strongly in favour of privacy and seclusion in this most internal and sacred communion. 'Enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret,' &c. But though he felt this strongly himself, he knew that all did not feel with him. He himself felt the happiness of prayer, but he said, 'I regard it rather as a luxury than a duty.'

In reference to the vision of the apostles I may mention that he had always been interested in cases of the kind, especially those in which departing persons, while fully conscious, assert the presence of those who have gone before. Such instances, he said, were so common that one could not believe them to be all illusion; but whatever they were, they should be recorded carefully.

3. De Morgan's last years

In the year 1868 my husband's own health, which had continued steadily to decline, broke down entirely. A sharp attack of congestion of the brain, the result of so much intense mental suffering, left him so prostrated that it was evident he never again would be equal to sustained effort.

We moved in the summer to 6 Merton Road, near Primrose Hill, a house which he said was the most comfortable he had been in since our marriage. We dreaded this moving on account of his weak state, but all was ready to receive him, and he did not suffer.

In his enfeebled condition the task of placing his books was a heavy one. The room destined for them was much smaller than the one he had had in Adelaide Road, which he said was a palace. It was a work of time for him to measure the walls, and to direct the placing of the new shelves, but it was done, with intervals of rest. A large number of the books had been sold, but about 3,000 remained, and I feared he could not get them all in, and of course begged him to have help. He said, with his old spirit, 'They shall all go in, and I will put them all in myself;' and so he did. The work was done gradually, and I do not think it hurt him. He always liked looking through his treasures, and showing to any friend any special rarity.

During the last few years of his life my husband occupied himself a good deal in reading the Greek Testament, and comparing the different versions and translations. I regret much that many comments which he made on this subject were not preserved, as he did not write them. He also compiled a sort of history of his family and biography of himself - not in a connected form - to be left as materials for his Life, and from this book I have taken much of the earlier part of this Memoir. He also rearranged and added to his Budget of Paradoxes, which, however, was not published till after his death.

In August 1870, seven months before his own release, our daughter Christiana was taken. She had stayed at Bournemouth on her return from Madeira, and died there. I came home the day after her death to find her father so weak that he had that day fallen on the floor, and was unable to rise without help.

From this time the decline in his health was very apparent, but he did not seem to suffer, except from weakness and sleeplessness. The physical state was a complicated one, chiefly owing to nervous prostration, and traceable in the first instance to the shock of the College disappointment, and afterwards to anxiety and sorrow on our children's account.

In March 1871 he became still weaker, and talked very little. The only word I remember relating to his own state was, after saying that any way all would be right, 'But I shall be glad when I have got it over.' When I expressed a hope that he would not be taken yet, he told me to 'leave it all in God's hands,' and he then waited quietly for the end.

During the last two days of his life there were indications of his passing through the experience which he had himself considered worthy of investigation and of record. He seemed to recognise all those of his family whom he had lost - his three children, his mother and sister, whom he greeted, naming them in the reverse order to that in which they left this world. No one seeing him at that moment could doubt that what he seemed to perceive, was, to him at least, visible and real. After this he said very little, only on the last morning of his life asking me, as he had been used to do, 'if it was time to get up.' On being told that it would soon be, he seemed to be carefully dressing himself. Then he lay quite still till, just after midnight, he breathed his last. The state of mind in which he had lived, and in which he died, is shown by a sentence in his will:-
I commend my future with hope and confidence to Almighty God; to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom I believe in my heart to be the Son of God, but whom I have not confessed with my lips, because in my time such confession has always been the way up in the world.

Last Updated July 2020