Rector owed a title of literary distinction which was very gratifying, and which unquestionably had a share in contributing to his future elevation. At a convivial meeting, where Dr Robertson and he were present, some conversation occurred respecting the Latin grammar; and a gentleman remarked, that the authour should have been entitled, like Mr Ruddiman, to affix M. A. to his name. Dr Robertson observed, that such a title was not sufficiently respectable for the Rector of the High School, but LL. D. would, in his opinion, be more appropriate. Adam modestly replied, that, before accepting such an honour, he would be obliged to consult his friends, and to do away those scruples which existed in his mind, on account of the small service which he had done for literature. Dr Robertson was of a different opinion; and, in consulting the interests of the University of Edinburgh, of which he was Principal, he saw it was expedient to confer

Mr

on the Rector the degree of Doctor of Laws. At his recommendation, therefore, a diploma was issued, and dated " Edinburgi, anno salutis humanæ 1780, Nonis Augusti." Dr Adam must have felt, that the value of his degree (which was at that time rarely given in Scotland) was much enhanced in coming from such a source; and the members of the college were, doubtless, convinced that he had merited such a testimonial.

At the High School, the former spirit of insubordination now manifested itself in the most distressing altercations. So high did these disputes run, and so busy had some individuals been in reporting them to those in authority, that, on the 2d of February 1785, the Lord Provost recommended to the Council to submit the matters in dispute to Dr Robertson, Principal of the University of Edinburgh, and to the Greek and Latin Professors, Dalzell and Hill. In October of the same year, these learned persons gave in their re

port on the various matters submitted to them. Their wishes seem, from the tenour of the recommendations made, to have been very properly directed to the great object of conciliation; an object which was now become peculiarly desirable, in order to save the distracted seminary from utter disgrace. They recommended that the masters should select, upon mature consultation, from Ruddiman's grammar, such rules as they thought most proper to be taught. The same rules were to be adopted by the Rector, who was to have power to add such of his own rules as he might deem most essential in connecting the study of English with Latin grammar.* This really appears to have been a wise suggestion. It proceeded upon the principle of allaying discord in the mean time, by shewing no undue bias to the grammar of Ruddiman, in holding it forward as a standard of excellence, nor any

Appendix, No. II.

F

preference for the Rector, by a depreciation of the book which his own was formed to supersede. But these well-meant advices, and the calm determination of Dr Adam to hold forth his grammar till it should stand or fall by its intrinsic qualities, seem to have been contemned. The refractory masters presented a counter-representation and petition to the Magistrates of Edinburgh, in November 1785,* praying that Ruddiman's book might alone be taught in the High School. Council gave no decision till the 23d of August 1786, when (after they had, doubtless, bestowed their best consideration on the subject) an order was issued, directing that Ruddiman's Grammar should be the text-book for the Rector and masters, and that " no other

The

grammar should be used." Dr Adam continued firm to his purpose, and took the trouble of addressing a letter to his patrons, in which,

*Appendix, No. III.

by his usual clear and argumentative mode of statement, he endeavoured to convince these learned men, that reason alone induced him to introduce his own work, and that experience compelled him to continue in the exercise of his own judgment. On the 29th of November 1785 the former order was renewed,* and penalties were annexed to disobedience. Here a few remarks occur, which it is but fair to state, not as arguments in justification of the line of conduct pursued by the Rector, which will effectually justify itself, but as conveying facts which ought to be kept in view. In the first place, the unprejudiced reader, who takes the trouble to peruse the reasonings of the schoolmasters, which appear in the appendix, must perceive that they are, in their structure, radically wrong. In them there is no question fairly stated, nor are any specific facts brought out to guide a decision. They only contain

* Appendix, No. IV.