Mr Prescott, though generally warm and eloquent in the commendation of his hero, is ready to allow that there are passages in his history which his most zealous admirers would find it impossible to defend. We shall not dissent positively from his authority. But we must in justice add, that with the single exception of the death of Guatemozin, we are unable to recall any important act of his public life which we think would deserve strong reprehension-we will not say in a Spanish adventurer three hundred years ago--but in a British officer at the present day. We have already stated our opinion, that the massacre of Cholula, and the seizure of Montezuma, were justifiable acts of severity-as being well deserved by those upon whom they were inflicted, and absolutely necessary for the safety of those who inflicted them. The miserable ruin of the great city of Mexico, together with the inflexible heroism and dreadful sufferings of its defenders, have afforded a fruitful theme for accusations of cruelty against Cortes. No doubt these terrible disasters would have fearfully aggravated the guilt of an unjust invader. Nor do we refuse our admiration -nay, our warmest and most compassionate sympathy-to the patriotic self-devotion of the unhappy Aztecs. They were ignorant savages; and may be excused for thinking, as wiser tyrants have often thought, that their fellow-creatures were created to be tormented at their pleasure. We are willing to respect them as intrepid martyrs, though not as martyrs in a good cause. But if these men were, in point of fact, robbers and murderers, fighting in defence of their title to rob and murder-if the rights for which they laid down their lives consisted in the privilege of fattening on the spoils, and decimating the youth, of the surrounding tribes-surely it would be as unjust to make Cortes answerable for their sufferings, as to blame the commander of a lawful cruiser for the death of a pirate who sinks with his colours flying. It is possible that we may have overlooked the precise transactions which have chiefly induced Mr Prescott to censure the conqueror of Mexico; but there can be no doubt, that in the morality and humanity of his ordinary conduct as a soldier, Cortes was little behind the present age, and greatly before his own. In good faith, in forbearance, and in enlightened policy, he was far superior to his contemporaries-far superior to our own countrymen who colonised New England a hundred and fifty years after him. He repressed license and rapacity with just and exemplary vigour--he did all in his power to prevent unnecessary slaughter in the field-he persevered to the last in pressing his offers of life and liberty upon enemies, who constantly murdered every Spaniard on whom they could lay hands. It is true that we have only his own authority, or that of his

companions, for these facts. But what Spanish Captain of the sixteenth century, who did not really possess such feelings of humanity, would have thought it worth his while to affect them?

Respecting the high intellectual qualities of Cortes, there can scarcely be any great difference of opinion; though we certainly are inclined to think that common estimation has scarcely done him full justice. To us he appears to have possessed, in an eminent degree, many of the greatest qualities of a great Captain. In the scientific combinations of modern strategy, he may have possessed no great skill. But he knew how to form a handful of adventurers into an army, and an army into a state. He knew how to cement confederacies, and how to reconcile the bitterest and most threatening enmities. Above all, he possessed, and in a remarkable degree-that singular faculty of fascinating the imagination, and guiding the resolves, of common men, which is perhaps the surest test of extraordinary natural powers; and which so strongly marks the distinction between the man intended for command by nature, and the man fitted for it by education. Unlike most of the celebrated leaders who have flourished since war became a science, he possessed all the dazzling personal qualities which are necessary to the vulgar idea of a great soldier. Without them, it is probable that all his powers of mind would have failed to achieve the conquest of Mexico. His wild followers would have felt little respect for a chief, however brave and invincible, who travelled in a coach-and-four on the march, shut himself up in his tent with charts and diagrams at the halt, and gave orders through his aides-de-camp on the day of battle. Such men could not appreciate the profound policy which discerned at a glance the weak points of the Aztec Empire. But their rude imaginations were filled with enthusiasm for the best Lance and the boldest and handsomest Champion of the army; and their hearts glowed with ardent affection to the leader who was ever ready to risk his own life to save that of a companion in arms,-to the kind and cheerful comrade, whose affability and cordiality enlivened alike the march and the bivouac. All those who had fought under his command continued to the last his devoted admirers; and regarded with bitter contempt the efforts of his enemies to depreciate his reputation and to vilify his character. "It was perhaps intended'-such was the devout conclusion of one of the bravest and most single-hearted of his followers—' that he 'should receive his recompense in a better world; for he was a good Cavalier, most true in his devotions to the Virgin, to the Apostle St Peter, and to all the other Saints.'

* Prescott, iii. 323.

ART. VI.-1. A Plea for the Liberties of the Scottish Universities. By JOHN STUART BLACKIE, Professor of Humanity in Marischal College, Aberdeen. 1843.

2. Resolutions agreed to by the Senatus of the University of Glasgow, of University and King's College, and of Marischal College, Aberdeen, in favour of the Abolition of Religious Tests in the Universities of Scotland. 1844.

ON

N the recent disruption of the Scottish Establishment, a number, both of the Teachers in the Parochial Schools and of the Professors and Office-bearers in the Universities, seceded from the communion of the Established Church. The former have already been summarily expelled from their offices, and a vigorous effort is now making by the Church Courts to subject the latter to similar treatment. Among others who seceded is Sir David Brewster, Principal of the United College, St Andrews. This distinguished philosopher having come to the conclusion that the Bill of Lord Aberdeen, and the Decisions of the Courts of Law, have essentially changed the constitution of the Established Church, considered himself bound to abandon its communion. For entertaining this opinion, and acting upon it, he has been considered unworthy of holding the office of Principal of the United College-his colleagues have memorialized the government to remove him-and the Presbytery of St Andrews have taken measures with a view to his expulsion. In justification of this attempt, it is pleaded that the law requires every Officebearer and Teacher in the Universities and Colleges of Scotland to conform to the Established Church; and that a due regard for the welfare both of Religion and of the Establishment imperatively demands that it should be strictly enforced. As the subject is one of very great importance to all classes of the community, we propose examining at some length how far the maintenance of the existing religious tests in our Universities and Colleges is calculated to promote the interests either of education or religion; but, owing to the aspect which the question has assumed in this country, it will be necessary, at the same time, to enquire into the nature of the connexion which exists between the Courts of the Established Church and the Academical Institutions of the country.

To enter into a detailed examination of the nature and extent of the power which the Church Judicatories exercised over the Universities previous to the Revolution, would be alike tedious and superfluous. The most strenuous advocate of clerical supre

macy would scarcely, we apprehend, attempt to support the claims of the Church by a reference to the unsettled period of the Protectorate; or to ground its powers on statutes which, whatever may be their import, have been long ago repealed. When Presbyterianism was established at the Revolution, its adherents manifested a natural anxiety to improve their victory, and to secure themselves against the future assaults of their fallen adversaries. And as care had been taken during the brief reign of Episcopacy, that all the office-bearers in the Universities and Schools should 'submit to and own the government of the Church by archbishops * and bishops;'* so now it was determined, as a security against the danger which was apprehended from the adherents of Prelacy, that they should, in their turn, be rigidly excluded from the seminaries of education; and none but sound Whigs and Presbyterians allowed to hold office in these institutions. Accordingly, in 1690, an Act was passed declaring, that no persons should be ' either admitted or allowed to continue in the exercise' of any office in the Universities or Schools, but such as do acknowledge and profess, and shall subscribe to the Confession of Faith, and also swear and subscribe the oath of allegiance.' But this statute conferred no powers on the Church, nor were the Clergy recognised in any way as the parties who were empowered to carry it into execution. On the contrary, the Act explicitly asserts it to be their Majesties' undoubted right and preroga'tive to name visiters for the Universities and Schools;' and appoints a Commission for the express purpose of removing from these institutions all the teachers and office-bearers who were disaffected to the constitution in Church or State-in other words, all who were Episcopalians and Jacobites. The nomination of this Commission, consisting for the most part of laymen, as well as the silence of the Legislature respecting any powers of superintendence or control possessed by the Church, show clearly that no such powers were recognised by it as then existing. This is further confirmed by an Act passed three years later, while the Commission was still in operation,-subjecting all 'schoolmasters, and teachers of youth in schools,' to the jurisdiction of the Presbytery, while no mention whatever is made of Universities and Colleges. The power of superintendence over schools, as well as academical institutions, had always been the undoubted prerogative of the Crown; but by the statute referred to, the control of these inferior seminaries was delegated to the Presbyteries; while the silence of the Legislature respecting Universities, renders

* Scots Acts. Folio edit. Vol. viii. p. 379.

it evident that the superintendence of these institutions was reserved for Parliament and the Sovereign. In corroboration of this view we may mention the fact, that only three days later another Act was passed for the regulation of the Commission, showing, by implication, both the continued recognition of the rights referred to in the Crown, and the limited nature of the powers conferred upon the Church Courts.

The Act of 1690 rendered subscription to the Confession of Faith imperative on all teachers and office-bearers in the Universities; but made no provision respecting the mode in which, or the persons by whom, it was to be received. This was provided for by the famous Statute of 1707,-the latest Act of the Legislature on this subject, which declared that subscription was to be given before the respective Presbyteries of the bounds.' The Act of 1707 seems to have been at no time rigidly enforced. At all events, it very soon became at least partially obsolete. It may be doubted whether subscription was ever required from some of the most influential office-bearers in the Universities. This much at least is certain, that the office of Chancellor was at a very early period held by distinguished individuals connected with the Episcopal Church-the members of which, more than those of any other communion, are excluded both by the letter and spirit of the law.* The religious test has thus in many instances been either tacitly dispensed with, or very materially modified. During the period that has elapsed since the Union, a very considerable number of Professors have been admitted into the Universities, by whom no declaration of conformity to the Established Church was given, and from whom it was never asked; and not a few whose well-known opinions would have rendered such a declaration an utter mockery. The law has never been strictly observed in any University, and has never, since its enactment in 1707, been put in force against a single individual. In the University of Edinburgh the statute has been in desuetude for nearly a century; and no small number of the most illustrious men who have adorned its annals during that period, must have been excluded had these tests been enforced. In the Univerities of Glasgow and Aberdeen, though

* In 1724, only seventeen years after the passing of the Act of Security, the Duke of Chandos, an Episcopalian, was unanimously elected Chancellor of the University of St Andrews; and at his Grace's death in 1744, the Duke of Cumberland, also an Episcopalian, was appointed to the vacant office; so little was the regard paid even in these times either to the Act of Security, or to the recommendations of the General Assembly.