abounded in the works of many eminent men who had written on mental philosophy. Mr D. observed, that although all the candidates who had been named were men of high literary attainments, he would only direct attention to three of them. First, Mr Combe. No one could deny Mr Combe's abilities and great scientific attainments; but he was the teacher of a new philosophy of mind, which, even were it true in theory, had not been satisfactorily tested by experience; and while the great majority of learned men are opposed to the doctrine, it would be great presumption in this Council of thirty-three, and indeed a gross dereliction of duty, were they to suppose that by joining the minority they could turn the scale of opinion, and thereby establish Phrenology. In this view of the subject, he (Mr Deuchar) was saved the necessity of giving any opinion on the merits of Mr Combe's celebrated work on the Constitution of Man; but he could not help expressing his decided opinion that many of the doctrines therein promulgated tended to subvert revelation, and were consequently injurious to the best interest of man. Second, Sir William Hamilton. He at once admitted that this gentleman's testimonials were of the first order, and Mr D.'s only surprise was, that a man so eminent for talent, so full of mental power, and so acute as a philosopher, had not made greater efforts to supply a text-book on logic, or to favour the public with an enlarged or connected system of mental philosophy. He might write well for the few, and that was admitted; but he had not written for the many, which would be the duty of the logic professor. On the point of religion Mr D. was bound to say a few words. What were Sir William's sentiments? He might be a religious man. Mr Sinclair's testimony was only a statement of vague belief that he was. however, was given, and the Council was entitled to have the fullest evidence on this subject. Mr D. next adverted to Mr Taylor, who, he said, by his able and valuable works, had gained a name in the literary world which would, if he were elected, shed a lustre on our University.

No direct testimony,

Mr Jameson said, he was about to vote for Mr Taylor, a gentleman whom he considered the superior man, especially on religious grounds. On this subject he wished to speak with reverence; he wished he was more under its influence; but he trusted that all the Council recognised its importance. They would not forget the fervent and pious sentiments in the prayer of the eloquent clergyman (Dr Muir) who had opened their meeting, that they would remember they were in the presence of God discharging a most important duty-a prayer which had touched his heart, as he trusted it had done the hearts of his brother Councillors. It had been said that there was a constellation of talent competing for this chair. He suspected that a

good deal of the refulgence which struck gentlemen so forcibly, was in consequence of the nearness of some of the objects, and that what was distant was not so brilliant. Mr J. then referred to the obscurity of Sir W. Hamilton's style of writing as an objection; and added, that had the splendid abilities for which in his testimonials he got credit been available, they would have exhibited themselves in his present Chair. But, instead of this, Sir W. Hamilton, he contended, was not known except from his connection with the Edinburgh Review, and it was well known that the theological philosophy of that journal was not in high repute; that its religious principles were generally regarded with suspicion. (Mr Black, "trash.") Perhaps any thing he (Mr J.) could say on the subject of religion, would seem trash in the eyes of some people-(here there was considerable impatience manifested in the Council.)

The Lord Provost called Mr Jameson to order. Such language could not be permitted.

Mr Johnston contended that when candidates came forward, their whole character was before the public; and that Mr Jameson was quite in order in discussing Sir W. Hamilton's religious qualifications.

Mr Bruce put it to Mr Jameson whether the fact of having written a few articles for the Edinburgh Review made Sir W. Hamilton responsible for the religious opinions of that journal.

Mr Jameson, after a pause, again proceeded to address the meeting, and concluded by again expressing himself decidedly in favour of Mr Taylor.

Treasurer Black said, that before Mr Jameson spoke, he did not see any necessity for further speaking on the subject; but there was one part of that most extraordinary speech which he could not but notice. It was one of the unpleasant signs of the times that they found men, whenever they had an object to carry, making a stalking-horse of religion (hear, hear). Whatever matter was under discussion, one party was sure to raise the cry of heresy against the other-a cry which has done more mischief, since first it was raised to the present moment, than any thing else in the world. He believed there had been men who had joined the holy office of the Inquisition, and burned their fellow-creatures, thinking they did God service; and that there were many persons in modern times who carried their principles to the extreme, under the idea that they were promoting God's glory. But there was another class of men, who, while they were in the constant habit of taking the name of God in vain, while they took no active interest in the promotion of real religion in the world, did yet come forward with hypocritical, canting, whining speeches on religion when they had a point to carry (Hear). When he (Mr B.) met with such men, he was filled

with infinite disgust. He could excuse those who through their whole life had manifested strong and ardent zeal in promoting their own religious principles, and who, in their ordinary conduct, were apt to carry their zeal too far; but when individuals who had never shewn themselves to be influenced by religious zeal, and who yet came forward under the semblance of it to carry their point-who could help feeling the utmost disgust? (Mr Howden "To be sure.") He (Mr Black) thought the last speech had let out a great deal of the influence which had been used against Sir W. Hamilton. He had no doubt that there had been much talking about the German philosophy being contrary to sound theology. They did not perhaps say that Sir William was an infidel; they dared not do that; but in a calm, quiet, serpent-like, creeping way, insinuated and left the inference to be deduced that he was an infidel. But how was it argued that he was not favourable to religion? Why, because he had written some articles in the Edinburgh Review. Was it then to be said that the religious opinions of all who had written in the Edinburgh Review were to be suspected? Dr Chalmers, it was well known, had written in the Edinburgh Review, and in that case it would follow that he was not favourable to religion (Hear). He (Mr B.) had taken as much interest in promoting religious societies as most of those gentlemen who opposed Sir W. Hamilton on religious grounds; but he had not found those who were so eloquent on the fear of religion being injured by Sir W. Hamilton, take the same interest in promoting religion, but had stood aloof, leaving it to others.

Mr Russell read extracts from the writings of Dr Chalmers, Dr Wardlaw, and Mr Buchanan of Leith, to shew that it was of great consequence to unite religion with the teaching of philosophy. He considered Mr Taylor best qualified to do this, and therefore he should vote for him.

Mr Johnston wished to have a guarantee that Sir William was sound in regard to religion; and he asked if it would be proper in the Council to elect a person to the Chair of Logic whose principles in that respect were not guaranteed even by his stoutest advocates. He (Mr J.) also wished for evidence of his qualities as a teacher.

Mr Gifford also contended for the superior claims of Mr Taylor in a religious point of view.

After a few remarks from Mr Whyte and Mr Laing, the latter of whom said the argument was all on his side,

Mr M'Laren said, that Mr Johnston had called particularly upon him for evidence of Sir W. Hamilton's Christianity, and said, that if he could assure him (Mr J.) of this, and quiet his conscience upon that point, he would be satisfied. It was, he said, a very unlikely thing that he (Mr M'Laren) would guar

VOL. X.-NO. XLIX.

antee the religion of Sir William Hamilton, a gentleman whom he had never seen, and whom he would not know if he were then present. He had never been asked to vote for Sir William Hamilton, except by an elder of the Church, who was now present, Dr Macaulay. It was ludicrous to call on him to guarantee Sir William Hamilton's religion. He would not guarantee the religion even of Mr Johnston (a laugh). He knew nothing of any man's religion except occasionally by his works, which was the best criterion that he knew to judge by. He knew several dissenting clergymen both in the town and country, who thought that Sir William Hamilton would be infinitely superior to Mr Taylor in the Chair of Logic, and he did not know one clergyman who held the reverse of this opinion. He knew many who looked with disgust upon the circumstance of religion being so frequently made a stalking-horse of in cases where it ought not to be introduced; and he must say that to-day he had heard no sneering against religion, but against its being used in this way.

Dr Macaulay said, it was quite true that he had asked Mr M'Laren to vote for Sir William Hamilton, that he had intended to do so himself up to Monday last, when he had learned, on returning from London, that Mr Taylor was positively a candidate. On reconsidering the question, he had since become satisfied in his mind, that, on the score of religion, Mr Taylor was the fittest of the two candidates; and in voting for him, as he intended to do, he was quite willing to take the responsibility attaching to his change of opinion.

Convener Dick said, while I cannot properly be called a phrenologist, I believe that the principles are founded in nature; and, as Mr Combe has proved himself a successful and a popular teacher, and a sound physiologist and logician, I shall, in the first place, vote for him.

Mr Duncan gave his reasons for preferring Sir William Hamilton.

The Council then proceeded to vote upon the whole list of candidates :

For Sir William Hamilton-The Lord Provost, Bailie Donaldson, Bailie Stodart, Treasurer Black, Councillors Watson, Howden M'Laren, Ponton, Baird, Duncan, Robertson, Grainger, Grant, and Bruce-14.

For Mr Taylor-Bailie Macfarlan, Bailie Sawers, Councillors Deuchar, Jameson, Russell, Gifford, Banks, Whyte, Laing, and Macaulay-10.

For Mr McDougall-Dean of Guild Lamond, Councillors Johnston, Mackay, Gillespie Graham, and Maclagan-5.

For Mr Combe-Convener Dick, Councillors Neil and Milne-3.

At the close of this vote, the proposers of the two last named

candidates agreed to withdraw them, when another vote was taken for Sir William Hamilton and Mr Taylor, and, in addition to those we have already named, there voted,

For Sir William Hamilton-The Dean of Guild, the Convenor, Councillors Gillespie Graham and Milne, giving a total number of 18.

For Mr Taylor-Councillors Johnston, Mackay, Maclagan, and Neill, total 14.

ARTICLE XV.

THE HARMONY OF PHRENOLOGY WITH SCRIPTURE: shewn in a Refutation of the Philosophical Errors contained in Mr COMBE'S "Constitution of Man." By WILLIAM SCOTT, Esq. Edinburgh: Fraser & Co.; Smith, Elder, & Co., London; Curry, Dublin. 1836. Post 8vo, pp. 332.

THIS book, as its title announces, is intended as a refutation of Mr Combe's "Constitution of Man." It contains a whole tissue of perversions and misrepresentations of the doctrines taught in that work, and declamations against it, with a very slender intermixture of reasoning. It is replete with inconsistencies, and so completely overshoots the mark, even on its own side, that we doubt much whether the party for whose gratification it is written will thank the author for his zeal. It is an example of the immolation of truth, reason, and philosophy, at the shrine of political and religious prejudice. We have not here space to enter into details; but we feel no regret in leaving to Mr Scott the full advantage of a free field, as every enlightened reader will regard any answer to it as a waste of paper and of words. Mr Combe's book has now attained such an extensive circulation, that it cannot suffer from misrepresentation; and if its merits be not sufficient to support it against attacks ten times more powerful than this, it deserves to

fall. forth. Str. 372, 374

ARTICLE XVI.

STATISTICS OF PHRENOLOGY: being a Sketch of the Progress and present State of that Science in the British Islands. By HEWETT C, WATSON. London: Longman & Co. 1836. 12mo, pp. 242.

. $4,400.

WE received this work after more than the full limits of the but it is so valuable a contribu

present number were filled up;