and formality, was scarcely tolerable; especially to a man who felt that there was that within him, the letting forth of which would arouse many a lifeless soul, but who was in a position which rendered any public effort on his part impossible. In a little while he began to fear that even his own fiery energy was in danger of catching the infection of the general torpidity. The influence of sound Christian literature, the study of the works of spiritually-minded authors, and the tuition of a Sabbath school, established in his house, were means, in his case, found highly influential in withstanding the withering influences to which he was exposed. Ere long his position was rendered less torpid, but certainly not more agreeable, by the occurrence of differences between his fellow professors and himself respecting the appropriation of the university revenues. A certain surplus income, which it was contended ought to have been employed in keeping the university buildings in repair, was shared annually by the professors amongst themselves, whilst the buildings were falling to decay. Chalmers refused to participate in the spoil which was thus divided. His conduct seems to have been open and manly, and may be recommended to the consideration of all functionaries in our own country who may chance to be in a similar position.

During his residence at St. Andrew's, Chalmers published the third volume of his "Christian and Civic Economy of Large Towns," a valuable work, which greatly contributed to the repeal of that provision in our old poor laws by which poor rates were applied in aid of defective wages. Within the same period were also comprised several incidents of great personal interest; the death of a sister and of his aged mother, with a journey to Ireland, all receive illustration from the work before us, and all called forth the peculiarities of Chalmers's character-his piety, simplicity, firmness, clearness of judgment, and willingness to be pleased.

In September, 1827, the Marquess of Lansdowne offered him, on the part of the crown, the church of St. Cuthbert in Edinburgh, vacant by the death of Sir Henry Moncrieff;-one of the GENT. MAG. VOL. XXXVII.

most desirable livings in the church of Scotland. Considering the unpleasantness in many respects of his position at St. Andrew's, one is surprised to learn that Chalmers, much to his honour, declined the offer, from a conviction of his superior usefulness in his position of a Professor. He had scarcely done so, when the chair of of Divinity in the university of Edinburgh suddenly became vacant. On the 31st October, the town council and magistrates of Edinburgh, without any solicitation on his part, unanimously elected him to what is in Scotland"the most honourable and influential position" which any minister of the church can occupy. He was not to enter upon his new professorial duties until November 1828, therefore he had a full year for preparation.

Seldom has such a scene been presented at the university of Edinburgh as on the morning of Monday the 10th November 1828, when Chalmers was announced to deliver his lecture introductory to his first course of theology. Snow and hail swept through the college courts, but the crowd which besieged the outer door was one which cared little for the pelting of a pitiless storm. Two hours before the announced period of commencement the concourse was so great that a body of police found it difficult to secure any thing like order. The first rush filled the hall, not with students merely, but with citizens of Edinburgh, who, having listened with delight to Chalmers's mighty words as a preacher, "scarcely knew what to expect from him as an academic expounder and disciplinarian in the science of theology."

"I well remember," remarks one who was present, "his look as he first came from the vestry into the passage leading to the desk. He had an air of extreme abstraction, and at the same time of full presence of mind. Ascending the steps in his familiar resolute manner, he almost immediately engaged in his opening prayer. That was most startling, and yet deeply solemnizing.

In closest union with a

simple forcible antithesis of intellectual

conception, clothed in still more antithetical expression, there was the deep vital consciousness of the glory of the Divine presence. The power of the dialectician restrained and elevated by the prayerful reverence, as of some prophet in

E

ancient Israel, imparted a most remarkable peculiarity of aspect to his first devotional utterances."

The estimation in which his first course of lectures at Edinburgh was held be judged from one circumstance. The emoluments of his chair

may

amounted to £200 per annum. But he had "an audience altogether unique within the walls of a university, embracing, in addition to his own regular students, distinguished members of the various professions, and many of the most intelligent citizens of Edinburgh." When the session drew to a close these voluntary attendants held a meeting. It was presided over by the Rev. Robert Morehead, then an episcopal clergyman at Edinburgh. A resolution was agreed to that a very mo derate class fee should be contributed by each of them, and the amount paid to a banker's for the acceptance of Dr. Chalmers. The sum thus contributed by the grateful volunteers reached £202. A cheque for that sum was remitted to Dr. Chalmers by Mr. Morehead, with an explanatory letter, which is a true Testimonial, and one of the most eloquent and honourable that could have been devised.

Nor was this his only triumph in the course of that memorable year. It was during 1829, as every body knows, that the Roman Catholics were admitted to political power; when that position of equality as citizens was given to them which they, with a perfidious ingratitude which will make them memorable in all time to come, are striving to convert into a position of offence and superiority. Chalmers, although terming himself a Tory, was in this matter entirely liberal. When the citizens of Edinburgh assembled to agree to a petition in favour of the bill, Chalmers attended and advocated the proposed petition. Of his speech on that occasion the Very Rev. E. B. Ramsay has declared,

"I heard our most distinguished Scottish critic (Lord Jeffrey), who was present on the occasion, give it as his deliberate opinion that never had eloquence produced a greater effect upon a popular assembly, and that he could not believe more had ever been done by the oratory of Demosthenes, Cicero, Burke, or Sheridan."

The aspect of our times renders this speech not merely of peculiar interest at the present day, but even of singular importance. Indignation at the shameless aggression of the emancipated Romanists is leading many Protestants to look back with regret upon the doings of 1829. No feeling can be more entirely mistaken or more utterly inconsistent with our principles as Protestants and as lovers of free

dom. The Act of Emancipation was one of that class which men are bound to perform,—it was an act of justice; and it will yet yield those fruits which always follow in the wake of a course of right. It was right to release the Roman Catholics from those pains and penalties which the mistaken feelings of a past age thought necessary for the defence of truth. It was right to place them upon an equality with ourselves in all respects before the law. It was right not to leave them even the shadow of a grievance either as citizens or as subjects. All this we have done. And now, if, upon the mandate of a bigoted foreign court, they urge on a contest for the supremacy of their intolerant faith, we can meet them with a consciousness that we have done towards them every thing that it became us to do.

Chalmers's view of the matter was not the political but the religious one -one which is operating and will continue to operate in spite of Pope and priest, so long as we leave the Romanists no pretence of suffering or oppression for conscience sake. In the following magnificent passage of his Edinburgh speech Chalmers summed up his argument with great ability. Its delivery produced an effect which was accounted "sublime." It was with difficulty that the enthusiasm of those present could be sufficiently calmed down to allow him to proceed.

"It is not," he said, "because I hold Popery to be innocent that I want the removal of these disabilities; but because I hold, that if these were taken out of the way she would be tenfold more assailable. It is not because I am indifferent to the good of Protestantism that I want to displace these artificial crutches from under her; but because I want that, freed from every symptom of decrepitude and decay,

she should stand forth in her own native strength, and make manifest to all men how firm a support she has on the goodness of her cause, and on the basis of her orderly and well-laid arguments. It is because I count so much-and will any Protestant here present say that I count too much?―on her Bible, and her evidences, and the blessing of God upon her churches, and the force of her resistless appeals to the conscience and the understandings of men; it is because of her strength and sufficiency in these that I would disclaim the aids of the statute-book, and own no dependence or obligation whatever on a system of intolerance. These were enough for her in the days of her suffering, and should be more than enough for her in the days of her comparative safety. It is not by our fears and our false alarms that we do honour to Protestantism. A far more befitting honour to the great cause is the homage of our confidence; for what Sheridan said of the liberty of the press admits of most emphatic application to this religion of truth and liberty. Give,' says that great orator, give to ministers a corrupt House of Commons; give them a pliant and a servile House of Lords; give them the keys of the Treasury and the patronage of the Crown; and give me the liberty of the press, and with this mighty engine I will overthrow the fabric of corruption, and establish upon its ruins the rights and privileges of the people.' In like manner, give the Catholics of Ireland their emancipation; give them a seat in the parliament of their country; give them a free and equal participation in the politics of the realm; give them a place at the right ear of majesty, and a voice in his counsels; and give me the circulation of the Bible, and with this mighty engine I will overthrow the tyranny of Antichrist, and establish the fair and original form of Christianity on its ruins."

In 1830 Dr. Chalmers was twice in London: first, during the sitting of parliament, to give evidence before a committee on the state of the Irish poor; and secondly, with a deputation of the Church of Scotland, to deliver an address of congratulation to King William and Queen Adelaide on their accession. On the former occasion he fell in with Mr. Joseph John Gurney, the celebrated Quaker, who has printed, but not published, some admirable notes of what he saw of the Scotch divine. The following excellent comparison between Wilberforce and Chal

mers is extracted by Dr. Hanna from Mr. Gurney's notes.

"Chalmers is stout and erect, with a broad countenance-Wilberforce minute, and singularly twisted; Chalmers, both in body and mind, moves with a deliberate advanced years, flies about with astonishstep-Wilberforce, infirm as he is in his ing activity, and while, with nimble finger, he seizes on everything that adorns or object to object with unceasing versatility. diversifies his path, his mind flits from about with them an analogy to particular I often think that particular men bear animals: Chalmers is like a good-tempered lion-Wilberforce is like a bee: Chalmers can say a pleasant thing now and then, and laugh when he has said it, and he has a strong touch of humour in his countenance, but in general he is grave, his thoughts grow to a great size before they are uttered; Wilberforce sparkles with life and wit, and the characteristic of his mind is rapid productiveness.' A man might be in Chalmers's company for an hour, especially in a party, without knowing who or what he was, though in the end he would be sure to be detected by some unexpected display of powerful originality. Wilberforce, except when fairly asleep, is never latent. Chalmers knows how to veil himself in a decent cloud-Wilberforce is always in sunshine. Seldom, I believe, has any mind been more strung to a perpetual tune of love and praise. Yet these persons, distinguished as they are from the world at large, and from each other, present some admirable points of resemblance. Both of them are broad thinkers, and liberal feelers: both of them are arrayed in humility, meekness, and charity: both appear to hold self in little reputation: above all, both love the Lord Jesus Christ, and reverently acknowledge him to be their only Saviour."

Of Chalmers's second visit to London in 1830 there are many interesting memorials extracted from his letters to his family. His fussy and minute account of the presentation of himself and the other members of the Scotish deputation to the king and queen, with full particulars of all the troubles of the clerical courtiers in procuring regulation three-cornered hats, and their perplexities touching how and when and where they were to bow when in the presence of royalty, are very amusing, but too long to extract.

The years 1831 and 1832 were sig