I presume, draw forth the prompt and emphatic response that our highest services to the Poet remain unfulfilled-that is to say, if our love for Burns is a genuine passion, and not a piece of theatricality and self-glorification.

As you already know, the sum we require is a mere bagatelle-only £5000 -which 100 of our clubs could procure by inducing their members and friends to subscribe £50 in shillings or other convenient sums, great or

6

small. My profound personal regret is that I cannot myself pour out the whole sum in a gentle stream of sovereigns. The position last year was that the people having heartily responded to the call for subscriptions to the patriotic funds in connection with the war in South Africa, could hardly be expected to lend us any particular assistance. Now, sir, what of the present year? I regret to say that my report is not of a too cheering order. Last year, as you may remember, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was compelled to increase certain forms of taxation. He found it necessary to raise the income tax, the duty on the 'national nectar,' and the price of the divine weed.' I am very sorry-no doubt we are all sorrythat the Chancellor should this year find himself in a worse predicament. But the Government needs money, the Chancellor is bound to procure it, and the country is bound to supply it. For that purpose a further rise on the income tax was inevitable; but as we are all patriots we shall pay the extra call with a genial grin, and bear it. (Laughter.) Personally, I sincerely lament that I have not a hundred times more to pay than my present share, for that would mean, as I may elegantly say, an income according.' Then there is the sugar duty, which is likely to make the babies cry out, make the mothers moan, and the fathers blast somebody or something. Last year, as you will remember, there was a coal crisis which, while pressing execrably hard upon consumers, put vast sums into the treasuries of the coal owners. This year there is also a coal crisis of a different kind, which has produced a mighty lot of noise of not a very dignified order. Now, gentlemen, don't imagine that these things are not pat to the occasion. I have mentioned them for the purpose of warning you that our scheme will probably have to wait a little longer than most of us had anticipated. Even passionate lovers of Burns cannot well afford to contribute a succession of sums in times of national trouble, and little did our Poet himself imagine that his name would come to be mixed up with the stringency of British taxation 105 years after his death. But although our most earnest desires may be baffled for a time, the purpose we have in view is the issue of a living idea, and is bound to conquer in the long-run, by the aid of whatever men or means. It surely cannot be thought for a moment that the proper treatment of Scottish language and literature, and of Scottish history can be much longer neglected in Scottish Universities. The whole question is ripening towards fruition. In December last the Dundee Advertiser wrote heartily in support of the Federation's plan of campaign in urging upon the clubs their grandest and perhaps final form of duty in crowning the memory of the National Bard. But the Advertiser did more. It addressed three comprehensive questions to a number of Professors and others, whose replies form a singularly interesting body of learned opinion, approving the institution of Scottish Lectureships or Chairs, and indicating in what manner the various subjects might be treated in the Universities. It is not necessary that I should give an analysis of the letters, but I may express the hope that Mr. M‘Naught, our editor, will be able to reproduce them in the number of the Burns Chronicle for 25th January, 1902. I should like to recall a curious forecast which was made by a writer in the Glasgow Herald last year, and to which

I referred in my statement at the last annual meeting of the Federation. That forecast was to the effect that Mr. Carnegie meant to do something solid and permanent for Scottish literature and history.' Nobody then knew anything about Mr. Carnegie's real intentions, so that the recent announcement of his magnificent donation of £2,000,000 to the Scottish Universities came upon us with a pleasing shock of surprise. The annual income from these millions will be something over £100,000. How this income is to be utilised has not, of course, been finally determined. It appears, however, that one half will be expended in strengthening the Scottish Universities in the Faculties of Science and Medicine, in History, Modern Languages, and Literature, until they shall be as strong as the Universities of Germany and the United States. Then, as to the other half, the probability is that it will be at least partly expended in the paying of ordinary class fees of Scottish students, female as well as male. But there is a third purpose. In the event of there being any surplus income, it may be used for the purpose of extending lectureships, if not also evening classes outside the Universities. Again, last year, as you will remember, I remarked, partly, of course, in jest, that as we had a number of millionaires in Scotland, it might not be a bad thing to get up a competition amongst them for the honour of contributing the few harmless necessary pounds we require.' Does it not look as if Mr. Carnegie had read the Chronicle's report, and, in the downright American style, at once resolved to anticipate all competitors? (Applause.) At all events, he has done it ; so that our home-made millionaires have lost the chance of winning the one incomparable honour of their lives. It is the old story. Near dwellers are not always far-seers-they are rather short-sighted. Here, for instance, is a University built upon a hill-Gilmorehill I call it—which like Scottish Universities has been starving for a little money, and the millionaires down in the City don't see it. But quietly hither comes a man from a distance of 3000 miles, and without fuss lays down upon the counter, so to speak, a cheque for £2,000,000, and says, 'There you are; let me see what you can do with that little sum for your academic redemption.' (Applause.) Well, sir, we shall see. My own belief is that Mr. Carnegie's plan includes the very scheme of the Burns Federation for the institution of Lectureships, if not even Chairs, to deal with Scottish Language, Literature, and History. I sincerely hope it does. But I hope, on the other hand, that we shall not relax our efforts to persuade the Burns Clubs that it is their duty to institute at least one Lectureship in the name of the Poet whom they profess to love and adore." (Applause.)

A committee was appointed to watch over the matter and take what steps might be deemed desirable in furtherance of the object in view.

The delegates afterwards partook of luncheon in the “ Windsor”—Provost Mackay presiding, and Capt. Sneddon officiating as croupier.

The following is the correspondence referred to by Mr. Freeland, which appeared in the Dundee Advertiser between January 14 and February 20, 1901 :

IMPORTANT LETTERS.

In furtherance of the proposal under consideration by the Burns Clubs to give the Scots Language and Literature a special place in the Universities, we have invited opinions from a number of gentlemen whose title to be heard will instantly be recognised.

The points suggested for consideration were :

1. Do the Scottish Language and Literature afford scope for academic treatment at the hands of a Professor or Lecturer ?

2. Should Scottish History and Antiquities be conjoined with the study of Scottish Language and Literature?

3. If a Lectureship were founded, should a regular Lecturer be appointed to deliver Lecturers and teach classes in one of our Universities? Or would it be well to establish a Lectureship which should be held by a different Lecturer each year?

From Professor SAINTSBURY, Chair of Rhetoric and English Literature, Edinburgh University.

66

The subject of your letter is of so much importance that, at this the very busiest time of the year, I hardly feel able to treat it as it deserves. I made some reference to it in the graduation address at this University three years ago, and since then I have often considered it. As to your three questions, there can be no doubt about the answer to the first. Scottish language and literature most certainly afford scope for academic treatment, and might well receive it more fully than they do at present, though in Edinburgh, at least, we by no means neglect them. To the second I should feel inclined to reply that, though History and Antiquities are inseparably connected with "Language and Literature," I do not think that they could be well treated together in a single course, or even, perhaps, by the same person. The third is a question not merely much more difficult to answer, but hardly admitting of any single reply without a good many conditions and provisos. If the arrangements of the Scottish Universities were like those of Oxford and Cambridge, where the Chairs, though they may assist, cannot possibly hamper the smooth running of the curriculum, there could be no difficulty in the matter. But as it is apparently an understood thing that every Scottish Chair has to be made directly subservient to graduation, the multiplication of Chairs and Courses

(the latter frequently optional) often introduces great difficulties in practical working, especially in reference to examinations. And, unfortunately, the system has been so recently re-arranged that there seems to be no immediate chances of adjusting it afresh.

I think it not impossible that in this particular instance a very desirable object could be attained without fatal entanglement : but, as I have said above, I cannot at present dwell at length on the means.

From Mr. G. W. PROTHERO, formerly Professor of History in the University of Edinburgh.

I think-1. That the Scottish Language and Literature afford, if treated both from the literary and the philological point of view, ample scope for academic treatment by a Professor or Lecturer.

2. That Scottish History and Antiquities should not be conjoined, at least not on equal terms, with Scottish Language and Literature; for either of these is enough to occupy the attention of one academic teacher. A Professor who attempts both will inevitably devote himself mainly to one subject, at the expense of the other. No one can properly study or teach the language and literature of any country without also studying its history and antiquities, but it does not follow that the latter should be recognised subjects of his Professorship. If you want to get the Language and Literature properly taught you had better not bind your Professor to teach also Scottish History and Antiquities, but leave him free to study the latter and to introduce them into his lectures so far as may be necessary and no more. By loading him with both subjects you will run a great risk of having neither subject properly dealt with. Therefore stick to one or the other.

3. The best results in academic teaching are, I believe, obtained by permanent appointments. Yearly appointments may produce brilliant occasional lectures, but inevitably lead to rather superficial results and unsystematic methods. No man who holds office for a year only can start or maintain a 'school," say, of literature or philology; he can at most give hints or suggest ideas, and it is impossible to make the teaching of a succession of teachers continuous or really effective. Nor can such a teacher be expected to take so much interest in his work as one who can look forward to a long period of work, in which he can develop himself and his methods together. On the other hand, there is, of course, the danger in life appointments that you may appoint an inferior man, or that a man who begins well may, from a variety of reasons, become lazy or ineffective. The best way, I believe, is to appoint for a term of years, say five or seven, with full power to terminate a Professor's tenure at the fixed time if he is or becomes inefficient, or to prolong it indefinitely if you find you have got hold of the right man.

From Professor LODGE, Chair of History, Edinburgh University. I am in favour of the multiplication of teachers in Scottish Universities, especially for the Honour students, for whom inadequate provision is now