I4 .OLD AND NEW EDINBURGH. [University.
marks Arnot, ? that these Parliamentary visitors
proceeded with great violence and injustice.?
Before the autumn of 1690 the professors who
were faithful to the House of Stuart were expelled
by a royal commission. Proclamation was made
at the Cross, and an edict fixed to it and the
college gates, and at Stirling, Haddington, and
elsewhere, warning the principal and professors,
and all schoolmasters in Edinburgh and the adjacent
counties, to appear before the Committee of
Visitors on the 20th of August, to answer upon
the points contained in the .Act of Parliament.
? ?AZso summoning and warning aZZ the &gees who
haw anything to oyect against the said pinc$aZ,
professors, &c., to appear befare the said Cammittee,
the said day and $ace, to giw in olyedions,
Erc.? After an edict which bespoke that the
country, although it had been subjected to a revolution,
had not acquired a system of liberty nor
the iudiments of justice: after an invitation so
publicly thrown out by the Commissioners of
Parliament in a nation disturbed by religious a d
political factions, it is not to be supposed that
informers would be wanting.? (Ibid.)
Sir John Hall, Knight, the Lord Provost, sat as
president of this inquisition, which met on the day
appointed ; and after adjourning his trial-for such
it was-for eight days, they brought before them
Alexander Monro, who had succeeded Cant as
principal in 1685, and Sir John Hall, addressing
him, bade him answer to the various articles of
his indictment, and commanded the clerk to read
them aloud.
To the first two articles (one of which was that
he had renounced the Protestant faith) the principal
replied extempore. But when he discpvered that the
clerk was about to read from a list, bringing forward
he knew not what charges, ?( he complained of proceedings
so unjust and illegal, desired to know his
accusers, and be allowed? time to prepare his defences.?
Thereupon he was furnished with an unsigned
copy of the informations lodged against him, and
had a few days given him to prepare replies.
Having sent in these, containing an acknowledgment
of certain matters of small moment, and a
denial of the rest, he was asked by the commissioners
if he was prepared to take all the tests, religious
and political, imposed by the new laws of the
Revolution.
To this he replied in the negative, on which a
sentence of deprivation was passed upon him, in
which his acknowledgment of certain charges made
against him and his refusal to embrace the new
formulas were mingled as grounds for the said
sentence. (Presbyterian Inquisition, as quoted by
Arnot.)
Dr. John Strachan,? Professor of Divinity since
1683, was next brought before these commkioners.
Like the principal, he was served with an unsigned
indictment. His case and the proceedings thereon
were identical with those of the principal, and he
too was expelled from his chair; but it does not
appear that any more than these two were served
thus.
Gilbert Rule, the new principal, held his chair
till 1703, and was famous for nothing but seeing
?a ghost ? on one or two occasions, as we learn
from Wodrow?s ?Analecta.?
In the year 1692 the professors of the university
seem to have held several conferences with their
patrons, the Town Council and magistrates, as to
the expediency of restoring, or perhaps establishing
permanently, the oftices of rector and chancellor,
which, owing to civil war and tumult, had fallen into
disuse or been permitted to pass away; and now the
time had come when a spirit of improvement was
developing itself among men of literary tastes in
Scotland, and more particularly among the regents
of her universities generally.
In a memorial drawn up and prepared by the
principal, Gilbert Rule, the professors urged, ?That
in obedience to the commands of the honourable
patrons, they have considered the rise and establishment
of the university; and they find from
authentic documents that she has been in the
exercise of these powers, and for a considerable
time governed in that manner, wherein consists
the distinguishing character of a university from
the lesser seminaries of learning. She continues
in the possession of giving degrees to all the learned
sciences; but her government by a rector has
now, for some considerable time, gone into disuse.
To what causes the sinking the useful office of
rector is most likely to have been owing, they are
unwilling to explore, lest the scrutiny should lead
them into the view of some unhappy differences,
whereof, in their humble opinion, the memory
should not be recalled. It is plain, however, the
university in former times was more in the exercise
of certain rights and privileges, and in certain
respects carried more the outward face of a
iiniversity than she has done for some time past.?
Whether the Lord Provost, Sir John Hall, and
the Council, were hostile to these wishes we know
not, but the memorialists failed to achieve their
end.
In 1694 we hear of an advance in medical education
in Edinburgh, eleven years before the first
professor of anatomy was appointed. In the latter
