the colonies, from England, and from their foreign stations? These took from them twelve or fifteen per annum, and why were they constantly kept out of view? Everybody knew that the prospects for theological training in England were not very encouraging, and that there was no prospect of any diminution of the demand for preachers from that quarter. Of the two hundred students in the hall, Dr Cunningham had also told them that there were a few who ought never to have been there, -not, of course, because the number was too great, but because they ought to have chosen some other profession. Now, if all these matters were taken into account, he (Mr Gray) did not see how even the fifty would be made out. His friend Dr Buchanan had said that the halls in the provinces were a drain upon the central institution, and not feeders. But it did not follow from that that they were not feeders to the Church. He had asked his friend Mr M'Laggan how many of the thirty-one students at Aberdeen would go to Edinburgh if the hall at Aberdeen was discontinued, and he had replied, not more than one-half. It seemed that at Glasgow there were thirteen students, and scarcely one of these would have been studying but for the provision made for them there; and yet Dr Cunningham required thirty-one Aberdeen, and thirteen Glasgow students, in order to make out fifty licentiates in the year. Now, as to the effect of these halls, he was free to say, that but for their existence, many a minister of the Word of God would never have occupied the position he does. In his own case, if there had been no hall at Aberdeen, he must have followed some other profession; and he believed he might say the same of not a few of his compeers who studied at that hall. He doubted not, indeed, that there were some present who had been educated at provincial halls who could bear similar testimony. (Hear, hear.) This system of centralisation was a new thing in the history of the Church. He had looked a little at the history of the Protestant Church in France, and he found that there they had six universities, and a theological school connected with each. It was true that a consolidation had been proposed in England, but this was not a consolidation of independent halls, but of four halls in London. And he believed that had the Free Church two halls in Edinburgh, the question would very speedily be raised as to the propriety of consolidating them. With the greatest acknowledgment to the house for their patience, he begged to make this parting remark. Dr Cunningham's motion, if adopted, would have an effect in Aberdeen, of which, perhaps, few were aware. At present, as they all knew, the students educated at Aberdeen come up to Edinburgh for one year. That told to a considerable extent upon their numbers. But for this arrangement they might expect to have at least forty-one students there, if not a number of a larger extent. But it was proposed that henceforth the students should remain at Aberdeen only two years, and come to Edinburgh two sessions. This arrangement could not fail to deprive the Church of a still greater number of Aberdeen students next year. Immediately on the introduction of the new rule they would be in the descending scale, and to use Professor M'Laggan's own emphatic expression in Aberdeen, they would be left as with a halter about their necks, undergoing a process of gradual strangulation and extinction.

A Member said, this appeared to be a subject of greater importance than some of the members had anticipated, and if it was consistent with the rules of the House, he should move that the discussion be postponed.

Mr GIBSON. I have no intention of making a speech under the present impatience of the House. (Cries of "Go on.") I request leave only to state a fact or two; and the first fact to which I call the attention of the House is, that I understand there are only 300 Free Church students attending the New College of Edinburgh. Am I right in this? [Dr Cunningham said, Not exactly.] (A laugh.) Then, Sir, may I ask, What is the number? for I thought something like that is the number stated in the College Report. [The Report being handed to Mr Gibson he read as follows:- "The number of students who matriculated at the New College during the last session was 300, but this does not indicate the whole number of students attending the classes, as it has not been thought expedient to enforce matriculation upon the students attending the classes of Logic, Moral Philosophy, and Natural Science."] Sir, I take this to be at least the ascertained number, as the exception is only those who are not compelled to matriculate. But, at all events, I request you to notice the following facts as most material to determine the relative importance of Edinburgh

and Aberdeen and Glasgow. There are at Aberdeen from 140 to 150 attending in the faculties of arts, and thirty-one students attending divinity under Professor M'Laggan. Here are 180 students. In Glasgow there were 200 Free Church students last session. (A member: That is in the university.) Most certainly; but that is the very point to be noticed. Besides these, there were thirteen students in Divinity under the superintendence of the Presbytery, which numbers, added to those of Aberdeen, make, I may say, in round numbers, four hundred students,-a number greatly beyond those attending at Edinburgh. Sir, I have to ask by what process are you to compel Free Church parents to send them under Edinburgh influence and training? By what compulsory system are you to marshal them to Edinburgh? Are we to have a Prussian system of compulsion, and, under this Prussian system, to have them put upon a Procrustes' bed, and shaped into the proper dimensions of forties, fifties, or hundreds, to suit the proper numbers of the Rev. Professor Buchanan? And, Sir, though you could, I am doubtful if it be necessary to have any large numbers for the real benefit of theological instruction. Notwithstanding the lectures of the eminent Principal (Cunningham), which I understand to be admirable, I am certain the students will confess that his examinations are not less so. (Cheers from the students.) Well, then, to make these examinations thoroughly available, and to keep up the interest of the students, and to induce suitable incidental remarks, which, in the hands of a competent professor, are the most interesting of all, it is not necessary to have a very large number; on the contrary, it is better they be limited. A great deal has been said about raising the standard of exegetical theology. I take leave to state, what I am entitled to call another fact -and that fact is, that we all know that the real cause of any deficiency in this respect in our Church hitherto is, that so soon as our students are licensed to preach the gospel, and ordained to the ministry, they are so engaged in its active labours, that, generally speaking, they have very little time to devote to the literature of their profession. This is the real cause-and we all know how much this was lamented by Dr Chalmers. But what, Sir, is the remedy? Is it five months' study under the most eminent professor of exegetical theology? That will go very little way indeed. The remedy, in reality, is that very extension of theological education for which we contend. What is it that gives to Germany its superiority in this respect and a superiority which it has turned to very bad account-(hear, hear)— but the number of its professors? It is not its ministers of parishes or congregations, but its professors of colleges; and you will never raise the standard in this country in any other way, nor ought you; and as to doing this, I tell our friends they will find they have no power, and this Assembly has no power, to enforce their Prussian system, and compel the parents of the west of Scotland and the Highlands of Scotland to send their children to Edinburgh. (Hear, hear.) Besides, let me hint to them, they will find it tell on their pecuniary system also. If I am not mistaken, they are indebted to the west of Scotland for the larger share of the funds for erecting a splendid college in Edinburgh; but if the people in the west begin to find that the religious instruction of their children attending Glasgow University is overlooked, and no provision made for connecting their studies with theology or religion, and the influences of a theological training, they may perhaps let our friends know they will not consent to send their money to Edinburgh, merely to deprive their own children in Glasgow of such benefits. (Hear, hear, and cries of " Vote, vote.")

Mr BURNS of Kilsyth hoped that a little patience would be exercised, in order that the subject might be fully discussed. He was persuaded that the people in the west country would readily contribute to the support of provincial halls.

Dr CUNNINGHAM said,-We have three motions before the House, and I should like to know whether the three are to be pressed to a vote.

Dr BROWN withdrew his motion in favour of Dr Candlish's.

Dr CUNNINGHAM, in reply to Mr Hutcheson of Johnstone, said, his motion did not amount to anything more than the general approbation of a full standard of theological education. I conceive, notwithstanding the adoption of my motion, that the e are various particulars embodied in the curriculum requiring further consideration, such as the studying of Hebrew by the students before entering the hall, their preliminary examinations before entering the hall, and the precise number of professors. These are points which I conceive to be reserved for further consideration. I think

it is needful, if we have time and opportunity, that the consideration of these matters should be again resumed. I think that these propositions, so far as they innovate upon existing laws, should be taken into consideration by the House, and embodied in a distinct proposition, and, after being adopted by the General Assembly, converted into the form of an overture, and sent down to Presbyteries for approbation. But with regard to these points, which some view with such apprehension, I may take this opportunity of saying, that we do not propose, in the Report, so far as the staff of professors is concerned, one whit more than was proposed by Dr Chalmers in the Report given in two years ago, and which was generally approved of in two successive Assemblies, as well as by a majority of the Presbyteries. There was an equal number of professors recommended and urged at that time, and there is not a single addition to the number of professors proposed now, although there is a somewhat different distribution of labour. There is this addition, that the students shall have Hebrew before they enter the Hall; and there is a somewhat different distribution of the labours of the five professors than was recommended by Dr Chalmers. That is the sum and substance of the difference. There is, in fact, no real difference at all, except a mere provision for the teaching the students Hebrew before entering the hall that is the only addition; and that addition is no more settled conclusively by the adoption of my motion than it was settled conclusively by the same general approbation given twice over to the Report of Dr Chalmers in reference to the professors. (Hear, hear.) Now, I feel unwilling to trespass long upon the attention of the House. I fear that my friend Mr Gray meant to insinuate something to the effect that it was not a becoming thing that a person holding the situation which I do should take a prominent part, and speak with confidence in the discussion of a question like this. That may be so. I am not altogether insensible to the delicacy of the circumstances, and the exposure, in consequence, to such a charge as this. Mr GRAY disclaimed entirely the idea of insinuating that there was anything unbecoming in Dr Cunningham discussing this question.

Dr CUNNINGHAM.-I feel somewhat strongly the importance of this question, and I am not in the least disposed to doubt, indeed I entirely concur in the general truth of Mr Gray's statement, that persons in the situation of Professors are perhaps liable to look at this question through a somewhat distorted medium. This is perfectly true. We would be more than men if we were not somewhat influenced by our position; and although I may have spoken with overweening confidence, I am not altogether without something of the feeling that the Church must regard anything I say in this matter somewhat in the light of the pleading of a party, and will just give to my statements no more weight than their intrinsic truth and accuracy seem to entitle them to. (Cheers.) I do not know that I have spoken or acted in this matter in any way that might imply that I expected anything else than this on the part of the House. (Hear, hear.) The House will observe that, in virtue of the substitution of Dr Candlish's motion for Dr Brown's, there has been a considerable change introduced into the real nature and bearing of the question now before us-and especially a very material change introduced upon the question as it has for some months been subjected to the consideration of the Church. I think I can appeal to the general sense of the House whether or not the question which for some months past has practically occupied the attention of the Church is whether this present General Assembly ought to establish a full theological hall at Aberdeen? (Hear, hear.) I suppose the general sentiment of men upon this question, and the topics they may have selected in their own minds pro and con for deciding this case, and the way in which it should be argued and discussed, have been a good deal influenced by this view of the question to be decided. That accounts to some extent for the way in which the question has been argued since the change has been introduced into the whole aspect and bearings of the question. Some attempts have been made to represent the mode of arguing the question, entered into on the former supposition, as somewhat irrelevant and out of place. For instance, Mr Gray attempted to show that a good deal of irrelevant remarks had been introduced. One of these was as to the question of expense, as if we were pleading largely upon that ground. Now, I am not fond of dealing largely upon that questiou. But it will be admitted that there was a general apprehension throughout the Church that the question to be settled by the General Assembly was the establishment of a full theological hall at Aberdeen;

and both Mr Gray and Dr Candlish, having within a brief period before the sittings of the Assembly, declared that the time was now come when it was indispensable that we should establish a full theological hall at Aberdeen, it is easily seen that this of necessity was a point forced into the discussion. (Hear, hear.) And with regard to the relevancy, which was very strongly pressed by my friend Mr Gray, —and, I think, with something like a feeling of indignation, as if we were introducing a somewhat lower and secular element into the matter,-I might take the liberty of reminding him, that the fullest and most elaborate exposition of the question of expense which has ever yet been submitted to the Church on that matter came from my friend Mr Gray himself in the Presbytery of Perth, when this question was largely discussed, and when calculations were made as to the way, and manner, and expense of establishing halls at Aberdeen and Glasgow. (Laughter and cheers.) Both of them were certainly to be established by this General Assembly, and statements were made as to the way and the mode in which the expense was to be defrayed. Therefore, I do not think that we have made anything more than a fair and reasonable use of the question of expense; and I suppose that, in virtue of the change in the motion now before the house, it is to be held as universally admitted, that on the score of expense the Church cannot at present make any addition to her scheme of theological education, either in the way of improving its excellence here, or in the way of extending its operation farther. I presume that the concluding part of Dr Candlish's motion assumes this, for while it declares the general propriety of having a theological hall at Aberdeen and also at Glasgow, it remits to a Committee to consider and report to a subsequent diet of this Assembly, with a view to deciding what addition shall be made to the present theological institution, and, of course, how the expense of the addition shall be provided for; which just means nothing whatever; which just amounts to a plain and distinct admission that really and truly it is universally felt that for this Assembly to make any addition, involving a permanent annual expenditure to our existing means of theological education, is altogether out of the question. (Hear, hear.) This being the case, we now are in the position of being called on to decide between these two points. The motion which . I have taken the liberty of submitting asserts what Dr Candlish's does, the Church's sense of the importance of keeping up a high standard of theological education. My motion farther approves generally of the Report on the curriculum, in the sense in which I explained it, and in the sense substantially approved of by two preceding Assemblies; and then it farther goes on to say, that the Church is of opinion that she is not called upon at present to make any provision for extending the means of theological education, by providing another full divinity hall. That is the sum and substance of the proposition which I ask the Church to aequiesce in, by adopting the motion which I took the liberty of submitting. No man, of course, can pretend to say that the time may not come when the condition of the Church may require that some additional provision of the means of theological education should be provided. We do not see at present any great likelihood of that occurring at an early period; but no man will tie himself up to any full and permanent judgment on that point. The only thing to which any man is committed by my motion is, that the Church is not called upon at present to extend its theological education by providing another full divinity hall. (Hear, hear.) If men are satisfied that this is a fair and accurate deliverance in the existing state of things upon the present duty of the Church, as brought before this Assembly of 1848, with the whole existing state of things as they now stand, then they are not only warranted, but called upon, as the expression of their simple convictions, to support the motion which I have made. (Cheers.) Now, let us briefly advert to the opposite proposition. It is a general declaration that an important object connected with the welfare of the Free Church of Scotland cannot be effected, unless in due time divinity halls be established at Aberdeen and Glasgow. Now, I ask, is the Church called upon, at this moment, on this question, to adopt any such general deliverance without the least practical result, for it is quite manifest that any immediate practical result of a general declaration of this sort is out of the question,-is the Church prepared to take the responsibility, in opposition to the declaration in my motion, of committing themselves to any large and general proposition such as this? (Hear, hear.) If men, after fully deliberating on this matter, and after weighing what Dr Candlish and

Mr Gray have said, for I suppose many of the statements set before the brethren have been brought before them for the first time to-night,-if, after weighing things deliberately, they can come to the conclusion, that it is a desirable thing to establish a full divinity hall at Aberdeen, and another at Glasgow, they may, if they think proper, say that at next Assembly, and I daresay that will be time enough for giving any practical effect to the opinion thus declared. (A laugh.) I don't mean to enter into any consideration of the subject of the curriculum. Practically, the whole question now before us is the extension of theological education. And, in reference to the declaration that halls at Aberdeen and Glasgow are desirable, we can say that that declaration would seem more suitable when we had a nearer prospect of carrying it into effect. (Hear, hear.) Some attempts have been made to create doubts as to the expediency and propriety of the suggestion contained in the report in regard to the two Professors of exegetical theology. Now, I must just again remind the House that we propose no larger staff of professors than was proposed by Dr Chalmers, and approved of generally by the General Assembly. Without meaning to contrast the historical statements of some of my friends, I will take my stand upon the proposition which I am persuaded no man can contradict,— that it is a right and proper thing in any theological curriculum that there should be a much larger and fuller provision than has hitherto existed in our theological faculties, for securing the fuller opening up to the student of a large portion of the Word of God, and that the student should be respectably initiated in the study of the Scriptures in the original languages. (Hear, hear.) And, if possible, that he should leave the divinity hall with such a knowledge of the Scriptures in the original languages as would make it likely that ever thereafter he would spend some time in the study of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. (Cheers.) Surely that is an important object in theological education; and if by a perverted study of exegeses difficulties were thrown on the subject of the canon and inspiration,-if that prevails largely and extensively at the present day, surely there cannot be a stronger reason why the student should be made somewhat familiar with the Word of God in the original languages. (Cheers.) Now, I never contended that the subject of the curriculum was to be regulated exclusively by a regard to the quality, without regard to the number of the students. The Church might be in circumstances when the number would require to be very large; but I venture to think that in present circumstances we can secure by other means a sufficient number of students for all our wants, and for the discharge of all our duties, without lowering our curriculum. If it be possible for us to obtain a high curriculum, and secure an adequate number of students, that is all that is to be desired. There are several observations of our friends upon which I shall not enter fully, and which for the present may be disposed of in this way. What we have heard upon the points to which I refer have just been fragmentary and miscellaneous observations upon certain great general questions which the Church is now called upon to consider in their whole length and breadth. First of all we have the question, what ought the Church to do in order to procure as large a number of students as it may be deemed desirable to have? Now, that is a large general question, upon which Dr Candlish made some miscellaneous observations, and upon which Mr Gray also offered some miscellaneous observations (laughter)—but I venture to think that this large and wide question is of much greater importance than to be disposed of by any such observations, and that the Church is called upon to view the question more carefully in all its bearings. Then there is the question, what is the curriculum which ought to be provided for these students when you have them? That has already, in some measure, been brought out; and there has been no material objection made to the great outlines of the general provision. But I must take the liberty of saying, in regard to the propriety of having a fully equipped theological institution, that many things have been said in a miscellaneous way, both by Dr Candlish and Mr Gray, which, if they have any bearing on the matter on hand, seem to point to this conclusion, that there is no occasion whatever for having any one thoroughly-equipped theological institution. (Hear, hear.) Dr Cunningham proceeded to enumerate and comment upon the various topics which had been introduced in the speeches of Dr Candlish and Mr Gray, embracing the curriculum, bursaries, private teaching, &c., all of which, he submitted, were questions involving a great number of elements,