Dr. Macgill was privy to it. I believe that in most of the university elections such things as jobbing, and private interest, and low partizanship are not unfrequent, and surprise is therefore very generally felt when an election chances to be made on principles of a purer and nobler kind. This was exactly the case with regard to Dr. Macgill. Whatever may have been in the minds of individual electors, certain it is that never was any man chosen to a particular station in a way more honourable to himself, or on principles more completely free of all personal and party bias. It could not, therefore, but vex his honourable mind, when, in 1823, it was publicly averred in certain quarters, that the proceedings of 1814, on the death of Dr. Findlay, had a prospective reference to ulterior arrangements for behoof of individuals, rather than to the real interests of theological learning and the respectability and usefulness of the university. He laid the matter before his revered friend professor Jardine, and a complete refutation of the injurious charges was afterwards laid before the public. Mr. Jardine's letter on the subject is now before me; and the following, which are the entire passages regarding the matter, will place beyond doubt the honourable and independent spirit by which Dr. Macgill and his friends were actuated in the whole proceedings.

"I shall on all occasions openly avow the only conversation we had upon the subject to which you refer.

My motives had no connexion with any future conduct or opinion of yours; and they were;

because I thought you better qualified than any other who were, or were likely to become candidates; and you know that we have always since acted upon the principles with which we set out, and, I trust, shall always do so-giving our opinions to each other in confidence, but without interfering whatever with our respective ultimate judgments. Such conversation as is said to have come from

is altogether contemptible, and does not even deserve one moment's notice from you, far less should it give you any uneasiness. Keep your righteous spirit in good trim for matters better suited to it, and let none of it be sacrificed to such dastardly, causeless, misrepresentations. I do not think you should think them worthy of notice to any body, or even to explain your connexion with Sir Henry or Mr. Thomson.*"

The allusion to Sir Henry Moncreiff and Mr. Andrew Thomson, in the close of the above letter, cannot be allowed to pass without our adverting to the deep interest which these eminent individuals took in the election of Dr. Macgill to the chair.

* In remarkable corroboration of Mr. Jardine's sentiments, there is now before me a letter of Professor Richardson to Mr. Jardine, dated 23d August, 1814, a few weeks prior to the election, in which the following passage occurs:

"My concurrence with you in supporting Dr. Macgill is because I think him fitter for the charge than any of the rest who have been named; and that I am sincerely desirous of acting with you and Mr. Young, not only on this occasion, but in general in all important college business. My reason is, briefly, that in the present state of our affairs, I think our joint endeavours are necessary for the welfare of the university."

That they should have taken such an interest in it, is exactly what might have been expected from their known character and principles. To what extent, or in what direction their influence may have told in his favour, it is impossible for us, perhaps, at this distance of time to ascertain. Mr. Thomson was then but a young man, and in the very dawn of his bright career; and his influence on public opinion and on the minds of university men could not have been very great. But Sir Henry Moncreiff was always a powerful man, and at this time he was in the zenith of his influence and fame. That he did every thing in his power to help on the election of Dr. Macgill, is certain. His intimacy with Dr. Macgill began with the period when the latter was tutor in the family of the Honourable Henry Erskine, and his impressions of his talents and worth deepened with years. There was a complete accordance betwixt them in religious views, and a general harmony in political opinion. The politics of Sir Henry, however, were more marked and definite than those of his friend; while the character of his lofty mind, and the station he was every way entitled to hold, brought him necessarily forward on the public arena in a manner altogether different from any other clergyman of the Church of Scotland. Through life, Dr. Macgill cherished a singularly high veneration for Sir Henry Moncreiff. He scarcely ever took a step in regard to any public matter without consulting him; and he never asked an opinion or advice F

without feeling that he had secured to himself and the object in view a singular advantage. Perhaps the best proof that can be given of the deep interest which Sir Henry Moncreiff took in the election to the chair may be found in the following characteristic letter, which he addressed to Dr. Macgill immediately on his nomination to the distinguished office. The enlightened views of its author regarding the proper study of theology deserve all attention from the lovers of theological literature; while the deep-felt anxiety that the duties of the chair should be properly discharged by his muchesteemed friend, is highly honourable to his heart.

"Tullibole, 22d Sept. 1814.

“ My Dear Sir,—You are fully aware how much I must have been gratified by your election, every way so honourable to you, and, in my apprehension, so important to the best interests of religion in this country. The University have done honour to themselves, by their firmness and their unanimity; and to do them justice, even the politicians there, have for once preferred the interests of the college to their private views.

can say

little which can be useful to you in arranging your plan of teaching. The great object certainly is, to give the young men such a general view of the whole subject within a reasonable compass, as shall be sufficient to direct their studies, so as to render them most efficient and complete. My observations must be very general.

"1. I think the business of the professor is rather to give the students an exact view of the opinions and arguments of other men, than to lay down dogmatically his own opinions; on each head of divinity to represent the substance of the opinions of Arians, Socinians, Arminians, Calvinists, &c., with the rise and progress of the controversies on the subject; mentioning at last, the doctrine asserted in the Confessions of different churches, and concluding with that laid down in the Articles of England and the Confession of Scotland.

"2. I think that instead of a detailed or minute discussion of any one subject, his real business is to give merely the outline of each head of divinity, and of each controversy; and to direct the students to the best selection of books on the subject, on different sides of the question, with such a view of each of them as can be given in a short compass.

"3. I think the chief object of the Divinity Chair is to teach Christianity, and to prepare others for teaching it. It has therefore always appeared to me a deviation from the chief business of the professor, to spend a great proportion even of one session on the doctrines of Natural Religion, which should really belong to another class. Certainly there ought to be given an outline of that subject, chiefly with a view to show, 1st. what the real foundations of Natural Religion are; and, 2d. how inefficient Natural Religion has ever been, where there has been no positive revelation. Even on these points the field is so wide, that it would