engagement were these two. In the first place, the only essay work he was in the habit of giving himself was the single annual prescription of the subject, "Acquired Perception ". I gave the same prescription, at the same place, and no other. He always asked to read the essays. Although I, of course, kept very close to his own views. and language, in expounding the topic, the students could not be prevented from wandering into other parts of the course, where my hand may have been more apparent. The other occasion when I might possibly have been censured was the examination at the close of the session. Here, too, he had always kept within a narrow compass of questions, and I gave a selection from those questions. After reading the answers myself and deciding their value, I left them with him for his perusal. I have no doubt that, from the first, he suspected me of departures from his line of teaching; but, so long as the class was conducted in a quiet and orderly fashion, he was prudent enough not to make his suspicions a ground of quarrel. At the close of the first session, he was quite cordial in wishing me to act in the session following; the invitation being repeated for a third time.

Of Dr. Glennie's lectures I am able to speak, from having had them all through my hands, however little able I was to adapt them, in teaching the class. I may mention that he became Beattie's assistant in 1793, and, of course, obtained Beattie's lectures to work upon. How he managed in this capacity, I have no means of knowing. Doubtless, he read the lectures as they were. I presume, however, that he had no such difficulty to encounter as I have described in my case; while Beattie's composition was probably more attractive than what of his own he put into my hands. This much I could gather from my examination of the course as I passed it in review. On his succeeding to the chair in 1796, when he would be free from any obligation to keep to Beattie's lines, he

GLENNIE'S LECTURES.

121

seemed to have begun the composition of an independent course of lectures. As he had a clerical duty along with his professorship, and was not a rapid worker, some considerable time may have elapsed before his achieving the end in view. In strict fact, he had not at the last replaced Beattie's entire course. On the subject of language, treated according to the philological method of the last century, there were materials for probably three or four weeks' lectures in Beattie's handwriting. Possibly, he did not think he could improve upon Beattie, and so retained this portion without change. The remainder of the course was in his own handwriting, and was tolerably brown with age; being, no doubt, composed in the early years of his professorship. There was, it appears, an attempt on his part to produce a second version of the course at a comparatively recent date. The first batch of MS. that came into my hands belonged to this revised version. It soon stopped short, however, and certainly would not occupy a fortnight of the session. There was one interesting excursus in the case of the deaf and dumb boy Mitchell, in which Dugald Stewart took especial interest, and induced Glennie to contribute by personal investigation of Mitchell on the spot. His results were imparted in a paper to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which paper he read in extenso to the class, and expected the assistant to do the same.

As to the sources and the quality of Glennie's lectures, a few indications are sufficient. His basis was mainly the Scotch School, as represented by Reid, Beattie, and Campbell; although he did not limit his studies to these. He was content, for the most part, to expound their views generally, but not always in his own language; by which I mean, that he made very large drafts upon his predecessors in the form of verbatim extracts. He was, however, perfectly lucid in his own composition, his style. being fashioned by help of our English literary classics.

If the material had been presented to the class in a better mechanical form, and free from the objectionable complications already mentioned, it might have gained their attention and interest-which, from the testimony of tradition, it never did. He gave a long dissertation, after Cicero, on the honestum and the utile-the Latin rendering of the Greek couple καθῆκον and κατόρθωμα,—of all which the students usually remembered only the leading terms, and not always that. It was, however, in connexion with the Active Powers that he made his most fatal exposure to the derision of the class. Under these, he borrowed whole chapters from Reid's Active Powers, without changing a word. Here was the students' opportunity Reid was duly brought into the class, and compared with the spoken lectures. This practice must have gone a considerable way back beyond the time of my contemporaries. I found a written passage in the lectures showing that Glennie had taken notice of the circumstance, and thought proper to apologize for it. The apology was somewhat curious, as I remember it. It went on to say that he had observed in the class that some of the students had brought with them printed works, from which he had been deriving portions of his lectures. He, however, was not ashamed to own that he did avail himself of the works of the best authorities on his subject, and made use of their expression instead of his own. He added that, when he was at College, the professor, on observing a student with a printed work in his hand, from which a lecture had been taken, would ask him to stand up and read the book, himself making his own remarks where he agreed or disagreed with it. No doubt, this practice of verbal copying, as well as the diting of notes, entered pretty largely into the professorial teaching of the earlier times.

I continued assisting Glennie for three sessions,―i.e., till April, 1844, and all this time was in the most amicable

MY RELATIONS WITH GLENNIE.

123

relations with him and with his family. I had grave doubts about continuing another year; partly because I thought my time was not sufficiently rewarded, unless I could look to be his successor, and partly also because I dreaded having in the class a grandson of his ownwhose notes he might ask to see, and thereby become more completely aware of my deviations from his lectures.

Summer Recess, 1842.

In the beginning of April, the winter session closed as usual, and I parted with Dr. Glennie on the best of terms. He expressed the wish that I should resume the assistantship in connexion with his class next winter, if I found no better engagement in the meantime.

After a short run in the country, I set out for Edinburgh, to spend a few days with Masson, on my way to London. I had friendly interviews with Candlish and Dunlop, and was invited to a dinner party by Dunlop in his bachelor establishment. It comprised Guthrie, Hugh Miller (now editor of the Witness), and Gibson, Inspector of Schools. There was abundant talk about Church matters; and I contrasted the genial easy-going views of Guthrie with the strict and severe attitude of Dunlop as regarded Church policy. I had a pleasant day's excursion with Masson and his friends, the two Russells and Ruffini, to the

Compensation Pond,-which was my first introduction to all the three. In after visits to Edinburgh, I kept up the friendly relations with each.

Leaving Edinburgh by steamer, on 23rd April, I reached London late on the evening of the 25th. Robertson had looked out a lodging for me in Mortimer Street, Cavendish Square; and, on the following day, he took me down to the India House to Mill. My first impressions and arrangements for meeting him are fully given in the Mill biography, to which I may have something to add, but which I need not repeat.

My next introduction was to Neil Arnott, with whom Robertson was on relations of intimate friendship, and who was always ready to receive and welcome young men from Aberdeen. My first call was during his consulting hours, when I could stay only a short time; but I was at once fascinated by the originality and suggestiveness of his conversation, and his broad views on a variety of subjects; having hitherto met no one that could compare with him in these peculiarities. I had long been familiar with his Physics, as well as his inventions; but I found his compass of thought still more extensive. His was one of my lasting friendships; and I ultimately became his executor and biographer. At his