himself into awful and repeated inconsistencies. Let him but indulge this morbid tendency, and ere he 5, Queen Street.

knows it, he shall commit ominous outrage; he "shall begin to smite his fellow-servants." E.

"To the Convener and Committee on Scholarships.

"The object of the Scholarship Scheme is understood to be twofold, -to raise the standard of attainment, and to assist poor students. The former is the primary object; the latter, although an important, but a secondary one. The practical question then is, how can this twofold object be most easily and successfully secured? The present scheme which, in its essential features, corresponds with the Scholarship Scheme adopted by the Free Church, appears to us to be liable to the most serious objections, -objections more likely to be increased than diminished, and which we know are felt to be insuperable by ministers, whose own attainments in every department of scholarship, only make them the more solicitous to see introduced into our church an effective plan for the accomplishment of those objects which we all ought to have at heart.

"The present scheme is liable to several objections as to its principle and working.

"In the first place, as to its primary object, it endeavours to create excellence by offering money, a thing doubtful in its principle in a Divinity Hall, and, in the opinion of not a few, vitiating in its tendency. At all events, it has a vulgar aspect, and does not address itself to the higher and nobler feelings of the student.

"In the second place, the assistance of poor students, which is of vital importance, though a secondary object,

is an object so mixed up with the other in carrying out the scheme, that both objects are but imperfectly accomplished,-they interfere with one another, and, instead of co-operating successfully and without collision, defeat to a great extent, and neutralize each other.

"To remedy these evils, which will only more strongly develope themselves the more vigorously the scheme in its present shape is wrought, the following plan is respectfully submitted to the Committee:

"1. Let the two objects, the primary and the secondary, be kept perfectly distinot.

2. Let the primary object be associated with what should be designated the Scholarship Scheme, and the secondary object with what should be termed the Bursary Scheme.

"3. Let no money be given in connexion with the Scholarship Scheme; but let the examinations be universal, not partial, imperative not voluntary.

66

4. Let the examinators keep a regular and accurate record of the examinations, marking every student's progress and attainments in the different departments of study.

"5. Let a classification be made of the students after examination, dividing them into first, second, third scholarships, and so on; and let this be published, read, or simply kept recorded by the examinators, as may be thought best to stimulate or gain the ends contemplated.

"6. Let the money now given for Scholarships be reserved for Bursaries.

"7. Let these be applied for to the

"8. Let the Committee have a twofold reference in their distribution of money to need and talent, giving bursaries in amount proportioned to the talents and need of the students.

9. Let the question of need be determined by the facts stated in the application for a bursary, and the question of talent and attainments by the record of the examinators, kept among other things for this purpose.

"10. Let these bursaries be withdrawable and renewable, the Committee determining annually whether they should be withdrawn or renewed.

"By adopting the above plan, the matter is not only simplified, but the two great objects contemplated are gained at the least expense, and with the most effect; objections to principle and tendency are removed, and the longer it works the more successful will it become. On this plan excellence will not be created by what may be thought a vulgar and unworthy bribe; none will get money who do not need it, and none may want money that deserve it. The Hall, too, will be affected not partially and feebly, but universally and powerfully; in fact, without adopting some such plan, the present scheme, it appears to us in common with others, will not only meet but merit failure.

"There are a few things as to the bearings of the submitted plan on university students, on which we are prepared to make such statements as may be necessary, but these can be considered afterwards.

"We trust the Committee will not deem us presuming in submitting to them this communication; and as objections are apt to arise to a new scheme from not revolving the subject in one's mind in all its aspects, we have simply to request, that if the plan

suggested fails to approve itself to the Committee, that they will do us the kindness and the favour of making us aware of the nature of the objections, if any, that may be felt, as in the case of these objections demonstrating the undesirableness or impracticableness of what is suggested being adopted, we shall not only cease to oppose the present scheme (if an attempt to render it successful can be called opposition), but shall give it our most hearty and zealous support. I am yours, &c.

"ANDREW ROBERTSON."

Stow, June 8, 1848.. In answer to the above the following has been received:―

Glasgow, 7th August 1848. "DEAR SIR,-I read your letter of 8th June to the Committee on Scholarships, at their first meeting last week. After a somewhat lengthened conversation on the subject to which it has reference, the Committee, on the motion of Dr Harper, adopted the following resolution:

'Read a letter from Mr Robertson of Stow, submitting certain alterations with regard to the Scholarship Scheme. The Committee agreed to state, that while prepared to consider any suggestions of improvement in reference to the scheme, they did not feel at liberty to adopt and recommend Mr Robertson's views, inasmuch as the effect of them would be to supersede, both in its principles and details, the present plan, which has been sanctioned by the Synod.'

"As an individual I may express my opinion, that your proposals are liable to these three objections

"1. The compulsory examination you recommend, associated with records of the results, classification of the students, &c., would be very offensive to the students; and any attempt to enforce it would reduce, I have no doubt, the attendance on the Hall.

"2. Money given to students, expressly on the ground of need, would

be unhappy in its influences, and painful to their feelings. One of the most distinguished of them says, in writing to me, 'I say it candidly, that I could scarcely conceive the circumstances that would induce me to accept any such assistance, were it offered in the shape of a charitable donation, in consideration of poverty. It would be crushing to the feelings of the recipient to have a bounty given on such grounds, and I should hope that there are few of our students who would not choose rather to struggle on through all their difficulties, than have the degrading reflection that they were receiving the church's aid, not because they are deserving, but because they are unfortunately poor students.' In regard to the Synod's scheme, the same student says 'I may be allowed humbly to testify how gratifying it is that you assumed the position you did assume as to the principle on which the scholarships are to be awarded.'

"3. You propose that the Committee on Bursaries have a twofold reference in the distribution of money to need and talent. I reply, in the words of our report, that the endcavour to ascertain who have the greatest need, would involve much delicacy and much difficulty; that more might depend on the zealous representation of interested parties than on the actual circumstances of students; and that, as the proportionate weight to be attached to talent and destitution respectively could never be fixed by any distinct principle or rule, it might in too many instances be determined by caprice. Trusting that you will find these considerations to have some force in them, I am, dear sir, yours very sincerely,

"DAVID KING."

The above has rather disappointed us. Having, in moving last Synod the adoption of the Report on Scholarships, taken occasion to throw out the suggestions embodied in the com

munication to the Committee, we were given to understand that the Committee were prepared for taking any such suggestions that might be offered into consideration, the scheme being confessedly imperfect. Had it been hinted that our suggestions pointed to a plan which the Committee had no power to consider, approve, or condemn, we would at once have submitted our proposals to the Synod; but that Committee, it was conceived, was invested, not with power, it might be, to adopt the suggestions, but with power to consider them, and give the Synod the benefit of their advice. We are now, therefore, shut up either to drop pressing the suggestions on the church, or bring them regularly before it. We purpose the latter, and on this account send you the above, that the subject may receive that attention and thought to which it is entitled.

As to the objections stated by Dr King, other opportunities will occur of noticing them. We would simply remark, as to his first objection, that examinations, not for Scholarships, but for admission into the Hall, are universal; that the students are already classified into first and second Scholarships, or receivers of L.10 and L.15 Scholarships, &c.-those who get nothing being classified either as unsuccessful or non-competing students-the non-competing students being liable to be taken for incapable students, whereas it is known that some of the best students refuse to compete. Then, again, as to the attendance on the Hall being reduced by making the examinations universal, this reflects both on the Hall and the Scholarship Scheme. It implies that there are at the Hall those who have not sufficient attainments to warrant their being there; and it proclaims the fact, that the present Scholarship Scheme is no remedy for this state of things.

As to the second objection, it proceeds on a misapprehension. No

8

money is given on the score simply of need. The object of the plan is to secure the reverse; but to secure it so as, while merit is rewarded, need only is supplied. On the present scheme there is much merit which is unrewarded, much need that is unrelieved, and much money that is thrown away. As to feelings of delicacy in the case of a meritorious student in need, applying for a bursary, there should be none,-less, at all events, than in the case of a student not in need, applying at present for a scholarship; and not more, in any case, than what aged ministers and ministers of small congregations

must encounter, who have not only entered the field of labour, but have long occupied it, and that, too, for the benefit of the church.

As to the third and last objection, as to determining the amount of need, the difficulties surely are not greater than in determining the amount of need in the cases to which we have already referred. But these things can be considered again. Our object is simply to put your readers in possession of our suggestions, that the matter may be fully and deliberately discussed.-I am yours, &c. ANDREW ROBERTSON.

Stow, 9th August 1848.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY-MARKS OF PROGRESS.

WHO that has watched the progress of the great principle of religious liberty, can doubt its final consummation? First it was developed in toleration, which was received as a boon; then it expanded, until toleration was regarded as a right; and now it has brought us to such a position, that we despise toleration as an insult. See the effects of the progress of this principle upon our Parliament:-at first it was a parliament of churchmen; then its basis was enlarged, and it became a parliament of Protestants; and now, they who will give to it some religious designation, are compelled to use the most comprehensive term, and call it a parliament of Christians. The advocates of Church and State begin to fear, that it will soon be impossible to describe it at all. Hierarchical pretensions, year by year, have reluctantly receded before the advancing wave of liberty, and never has intolerance been able to stay its progress.-J. H. Tillet.

THE CHURCH IN FETTERS.

THE government has as much power to elect a bishop as it has to appoint a general or an admiral. The church has no more power, of its own authority, to control its internal arrangements, than the army or navy has. The army can no more dispose of its barracks, than the navy of its ships, or the clergy of its churches. The church

is regulated by an Act to compel uniformity; the army and navy, by an Act to suppress mutiny. The prayers of the church are as much regulated by the state as the movements of the fleet. But, whilst submission and obedience are essential to the due administration of the public service in other departments of the state, independence and freedom of action are necessary to the efficiency of a christian church; and these are forfeited by its alliance with the state.-Ibid.

THE ENDOWMENT OF ALL RELIGIOUS SECTS.

SUPPOSE that the people could be so deluded, as to imagine that they were relieved by endowing any sect, or all sects,-what, then, would be the result? The destruc tion of voluntaryism! There would then be no one to look after religion but the statesman; who generally has no religion himself, and is not really anxious that it should be possessed by others. Certify to him that there are institutions which, ac cording to certain arrangements, have a claim on the state for an annual stipend, and he is ready at once to give it. But how is religion faring all this time? The people are not appealed to for its support, and know nothing of its value. They do not see it directly, but look at it through a false medium, which destroys both its beauty and its power. Religion is neglected, when the voluntary principle is abandoned; its