Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow 304.: From [WILLIAM CULLEN] - Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 6 Correspondence of Adam Smith

Return to Title Page for Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 6 Correspondence of Adam Smith

Search this Title:

304.: From [WILLIAM CULLEN] - Adam Smith, Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 6 Correspondence of Adam Smith [1740]

Edition used:

Correspondence of Adam Smith, ed. E. C. Mossner and I. S. Ross, vol. VI of the Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1987).

Part of: The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, 7 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


304.

From [WILLIAM CULLEN]1

MS., GUL Cullen 2255/11; unpubl. draft.

[Glasgow,? late Jan.–Apr., 1751]2

Dear Sir

I am sorry to find that our divisions give you so much trouble but I hope it3 will be at an end when you come to live among us for perhaps both parties at present endeavour to take advantage of the distance you are at to gain an influence over you. As to what you write of its being said here that you had sent the two letters to London I had the first notice of such a report from your letter of yesterday.4 I have challenged the principal5 very freely upon this subject but he assures me in the most confident manner that he never gave occasion to such a report. I have talked to Dr. Lindsay6 in the same way and have the same answers from him and I am apt to believe they both speak sincerely and as they are the only persons I suspected for it I believe the accounts you have got are a downright falsehood intended to do the principal a bad office with you but at the same time I must tell you what is at the bottom and may have given occasion to this story. When Mr Lindsay and the Principal first got notice of Mr Craigies letter7 about himself and six others you will remember they took it in great dudgeon and alledged it was a false and low artifice. When you came here to be admitted8 Mr Lindsay was very inquisitive about that matter and learned further that Mr Craigies stile was that he and the six others were to be for you without regard to any great man whatever. This upon consideration provoked Mr Lindsay very much and communicated to the principal had the same effect upon him and upon their finding that Mr Ruat9 had wrote to Lord Hyndford10 making Messrs Leechman11 and Craigies voting for you a compliment to Lord Hyndford and Duke of Argyle12 the principal thought proper to write the affair of your letter to the Duke of Argyle and at the same time to your Cousin13 not with a view of getting declarations14 from you but to get the facts confirmed from you. I guessed that this affair when it came to your knowledge would give you concern15 and therefore I myself should have hesitated about it but if you can be vindicated I am not sorry for the Duke of Argyles being acquainted with the affair. I cannot bear with peoples doing the direct contrary to what they profess and I can give you many reasons for my being displeased and Mr Lindsay and the Principal thought they were at Liberty to make use of what you had accidently dropt in mentioning with what bona fides you had acted with Mr Craigie upon the Subject of your regard to the Duke of Argyle.16 I own to you that I was acquainted with the step and tho I could not approve of it I thought it was safe enough in the Duke of Argyles own hands and if it had gone no further neither you nor Mr Craigie had heard of the matter but I find it has gone further and has been spoke of here and given occasion to [the] report you have met with. Mr Lindsay did not think you were concerned in the matter and at the same time thought he had no measures to keep with17 other persons. I am apt to think that you may be absolutely vindicated and I can testify that your share in the matter seemed quite undesigned and accidental and I think you cannot be answerable for the use that others have made of what you innocently dropt.18 I dare say that no member of the College ever said you had sent any of the letters to London and it has been told you with a bad intention. If you please I shall explain the matter as above to every member of the society that are any ways concerned in it but as the affair has not19 been spoke of here of late and as it must occasion some eclairissemens which in the present state of Mr Craigies health20 would be disagreeable I think it will be better to let the matter remain as it is till you are here yourself and can judge better how to manage it. In the mean time I have no connexion with the affair to hinder me from doing anything in it that you may desire. As to the principles solliciting declarations from you I cannot understand it for I have perceived no anxiety in him on that subject ever since you was here and as to his either solliciting at London or at Edinburgh with that view he absolutely refuses it and particularly refuses that he ever spoke or wrote to any at Edinburgh on that subject. Perhaps he has at some times been guilty of some indiscretions which indulges his enemies in charging him with more than he is guilty of. I beg that for the sake of your quiet and health you would not indulge in any anger or vexation till you are sure of your facts and which you cannot be with regard to our affairs till you are for some time on21

[1 ]The contents of this unsigned draft indicate that it is a report to Smith concerning feeling over his election as Professor of Logic at Glasgow; see Scott, pp. 66, 138–9. Cullen was Smith’s informant about College affairs; see Letters 9 and 10.

[2 ]The professors named in the draft taught at Glasgow College. The date must lie after 16 Jan. 1751 (see note 8), but before the end of April (see note 20).

[3 ]‘your uneasiness’ crossed out.

[4 ]Not traced.

[5 ]Neil Campbell.

[6 ]Hercules Lindesay, Professor of Civil Law, who taught Smith’s logic class when the latter returned to Edinburgh to resume his lectures there after his admittance as a professor at Glasgow.

[7 ]Followed by ‘to you’ crossed out. Thomas Craigie, Professor of Moral Philosophy: his letter has not been traced.

[8 ]Smith was admitted as Professor of Logic on 16 Jan. 1751.

[9 ]William Ruat or Rouet, appointed Professor of Oriental Languages on 31 Oct. 1750.

[10 ]John Carmichael, 3rd Earl of Hyndford (1701–67); diplomat with Lanark connections.

[11 ]William Leechman, Professor of Divinity.

[12 ]Archibald, 3rd Duke of Argyll.

[13 ]William Smith; see Scott, p. 66.

[14 ]‘engagements’ written above.

[15 ]‘uneasiness’ written above.

[16 ]Followed by ‘I thought the’ crossed out.

[17 ]Followed by ‘the’ crossed out.

[18 ]Followed by ‘If you [?] please’ crossed out.

[19 ]Followed by ‘that I know of’ crossed out.

[20 ]In April 1751 Craigie was permitted to cease teaching and go to the country for health reasons (Coutts, History of the University of Glasgow, p. 221).

[21 ]Last words of the incomplete draft at the foot of the fifth page of the MS. No letter based on this draft and received by Smith has been traced.