never heard a dissentient voice, either at home or abroad. It was about the year 1811, that the knowledge of this experiment of Mr Leslie's was known in London; it was repeatedly tried and failed, even in his own (Dr M.'s) hands; which was caused by defective knowledge in some particulars. The experiment was first successfully performed in London by Mr Leslie himself, before some of the members of the Royal Society, and others. Dr Marcet believes that Sir Humphry Davy tried the experiment, when first mentioned, without success.

Dr Thomas Thomson, Regius Professor of Chemistry in the University of Glasgow, and Dr Henry Dewar, Physician in Edinburgh, both perfectly confirmed Dr Marcet's opinion as to the originality of Mr Leslie's discovery, which neither had ever heard so much as doubted.

Robert Cadell, Esq. of the firm of Constable and Co. stated that their house published the first edition of Mr Leslie's Philosophy of Arithmetic, of which 1500 copies were printed, which he considered a large impression for a work of science. The terms were, that, at the end of two years, what copies remained unsold were to be returned to the author. In the course of that time, 900 copies were sold, and the remainder returned to Mr Leslie, who offered them as a second edition; but they did not agree, as Mr Leslie's terms were too high. In the second edition there is an additional table, and some new matter at the end of the book: from page 238 to the end, consisting of 20 pages, is reprinted as additional matter, and there is also a paragraph to the preface reprinted. The last paragraph to the preface contains a true account of the alterations and improvements made upon the work, and the additional price was decidedly not an imposition on the public.

Mr Charles Tait, bookseller, corroborated this evidence.

Mr Samuel Aitken had been a partner for twelve years in the house of Bell and Bradfute. Witness was acquainted with the fact of there having been a second edition of Mr Leslie's book on Arithmetic, which he thinks was properly so called, and for which the additional price (9s. instead of 8s.) was fair. He knew of no other way of informing the public that this additional shilling's worth of new matter was added to the work. The house with which he was connected had done the same thing. They had published Ross's Lectures. After a number of copies had been sold, an index and appendix were added to the remaining copies, which, with these additions, were sold as a new edition. This was in strict conformity to the practice of the trade. Mr Blackwood (the defender) had done the same thing in the case of Condorcet's Arithmetic, translated by Johnston. The book was originally printed and published by Mr Goldie. At his sale, the copies remaining on hand unsold were purchased by Mr Blackwood, by whom they were published with a new titlepage, and sold as a second edition.

Mr Robert Miller, bookseller, has seen Mr Leslie's Philosophy of Arithmetic, which he understood contained a few additional sheets; and he would have no hesitation in saying that he considered himself entitled to call it a new edition. He knew of no other way of expressing to the public the improvements that had been made, and thought the words on the title-page" Second Edition, improved and enlarged," a correct description of the book.

By Mr More. The public would understand it to be a new edition altogether. In one instance, in his recollection, Manners and Miller had done the same thing. They published a work of the late Mrs Hamilton's, en

titied," Popular Essays," of which 2000 copies were printed as the first edition. The sale becoming rather slow, (after 1,500 copies were disposed of,) it was proposed to the author that if she would add some new matter, they would print a new title page for the remaining copies, and republish the work as a second edition. To this she at once agreed, furnished a new preface, and the book was republished and sold as a second edition.

By Mr Jeffrey. The public would be nothing the worse for this, which he considered no imposition upon

them.

Here the evidence for the pursuer closed.

Mr Forsyth began by regretting that it had fallen to his lot to address the Jury, in the room of a gentleman of great professional knowledge (Mr John Hope) who had studied and prepared himself for this case, and whose departure for England was occasioned by a circumstance pretty generally known, but who would have attended had a few days longer time been given. Mr Leslie had been celebrated for his literary talents, and had been loaded with medals and compliments, and had been elected a member of the French National Institute. What he had written, however, had called forth animadversion, which had been characterised as malicious; but he should rebut that statement, by reading the context, which the learned gentleman proceeded to do, and also the article from the Magazine. The question was, had Mr Leslie proved the article not to be fair and lawful criticism? Had he (Mr Leslie) gone out of his way to attack the Bible, or do I go out of mine (said Mr Forsyth) in defending it? Why had he not kept to his units and his tens? The article was lawful criticism, and protected by the liberty of the press. If a man place himself in a particular situation by any thing

he may have written, although a Professor in the University, he was then in the hands of the public, and became a fair subject for criticism, as much as Mr Pitt, now no more, or the Marquis of Londonderry, no observations being made on private life, but only on public measures. In like manner a writer was subject to criticism, even though he were an instructor of the people; but this he need not tell a British Jury. Mr Blackwood's correspondent had attributed erroneous opinions to Mr Leslie; he had publicly done so. He had said he was ignorant of the Hebrew alphabet, which the witnesses on that point had proved to a demonstration. In the second edition, in order to bolster up the matter, he spoke of the Samaritan language; but his learned friend had not attempted to defend Mr Leslie's knowledge. Saying it was the Samaritan, was holding a cloak over his head, for the Scriptures were not all written in Samaritan, but only the five books of Moses. They had learned witnesses before them that day, one of whom had spoken of a majority and a minority; but if Mr Leslie had not meddled with Hebrew, his client (Mr Blackwood) would not that day have been before the jury, he (Mr Forsyth) would not have had to address them, and they would not have had the trouble of attending. Mr Leslie had distinctly written against the Hebrew, and was an attempt to refute him not to be made? Professor Leslie told them Hebrew was the rudest and poorest of all languages; he abused it for a bad reason-because it was Hebrew, and he disliked it. No man hates a book he knows nothing about, or speaks ill of a language he was ignorant of. The Bible is the only book that has come down to us in the original language of the earliest time, and no one else had said it was the rudest and poorest language. A language is poor when

it cannot express itself; but it is false to say that Hebrew is poor. If Mr Leslie had looked into his vernacular tongue, he must have discovered its beauty; in the first chapter of Genesis, "God said let there be light and there was light." There was abundance of proof of its excellence. Had the cultivated Greek any thing more beautiful than the history of Joseph-the prayer at the consecration of the Temple-and the pastoral of Ruth? In the Hebrew we had the law of Moses (part of which rules us at this day,) and the Proverbs of Solomon. The markets of Tyre are finely described in the 27th of Ezekiel, with their precious stones, embroidery, ships, and trade. The poetry of the Psalms was sublime, and there was every reason to believe more books must have been written in this rich language, possessing, as it did, such power of style. And this is the language Professor Leslie is pleased to say is rude and poor. In doing this, he must have been guided by prejudice, or influenced by malice. The opinion of Mr Leslie would discourage young persons from studying the language; he had attacked the Scriptures, I (said Mr Forsyth) defend them, and for that his client was there that day. The learned gentleman then went into the charge of plagiarism, a subject upon which he said there had been much dispute. There had been many claims to inventions in science; but who ever heard of before bringing them into a court of law? Sir H. Davy claimed the invention of the safety lamp, to prevent the smothering of colliers; he believed him to be the inventor; a contest had taken place, but no prosecution. A claim was made by Mr Leslie for L.5000 of damages; but Sir H. Davy's discovery was L. 5000 to a farthing before the contrivance to make a handful of ice, though it might be very acceptable if he were then present

with his apparatus to cool them. The kaleidoscope, the theory of the circulation of the blood, the writers of Ossian and the Gentle Shepherd, were disputed; but this was the first instance of an action on such grounds, and he hoped it would be the last. Dr Brewster had denied the originality of the discovery of the method of producing cold. The learned gentlemen did not see why they should be glad of such a discovery; foreigners say we have nine months of frost and snow, and three of cold weather; many thousands have been expended on a canal to bring coals to warm us, which proved that it was not to us a vaÎuable discovery, but merely a pleasing philosophical curiosity. The learned gentleman next proceeded to that charge of joining with a bookseller to impose on the public, the head and front of which was stating, that the remaining copies of Mr Leslie's work were republished with a lying title-page, and a few additional leaves; this was the beginning, the middle, and the end of the case. One bookseller had stated a similar instance of the republication of the work of a lady, but she was unacquainted with such proceedings. But he would tell these gentlemen booksellers that it was an imposition, and had sunk Professor Leslie in his opinion. All might be guilty of wrong at some period of life, but he trusted they would not be found justifying it. Another ground of complaint was assimilating Mr Leslie to a parrot; this either the Jury or himself (Mr F.) might take as a compliment, for he never heard dislike expressed against that bird, except by the poor Scotsman, who called it a green goose, for calling him a false Scot. The learned gentleman then alluded to the prejudices that might be excited against the University by certain religious opinions, and contended, that Professor Leslie had no right to

come there and seek for damages for the University. He agreed with the author of the article libelled on, that a better spirit did now exist. The learned gentleman concluded a speech of great length, by observing, that the action had been brought against his client for standing up in defence of the sacred oracles of our holy religion; this was the whole of the case, the rest was trifling; and he trusted the Jury would not think it required any damages.

The Lord Chief-Commissioner summed up the evidence. His Lordship observed, that unquestionably no author was entitled to complain of a criticism of his works, however unjust or even ironical. But in stating the law, he was bound to say, that no critic was entitled to go out of the province of fair criticism, malignantly to attack the motives or the private character of the author. No judge or lawyer would say the law was otherwise, or that the privilege of criticism implied the right of personal defamation. With respect to the second issue, the defender had adduced no evidence to prove the truth of that matter which was charged as libellous; and this in law was considered to be a withdrawing of the justification. But the pursuer's case did not rest simply upon this inference of law; for he had clearly established, that the charge of plagiarism brought against him was entirely groundless. If, on these issues, the Jury were satisfied that the defender was actuated by a malignant motive, they were bound to find for the pursuer. As to the other issues, which referred to an article in the 44th number of the Magazine, there was a distinction to be observed; the first part of the article was ostensibly a criticism upon a certain remark which the pursuer in his book had made on the Hebrew language, and charged him with having been actuated, in making that re

mark, by hostility to the Sacred Scriptures. The criticism, if it was one, had certainly nothing classical about it. The language in which it was couched was most extraordinary; and such as, if not within the privilege of criticism, could leave no doubt that the writer of it had proceeded upon a malignant motive. Still, as literary criticism might have been his object, the Jury, before pronouncing it to be libellous, must be satisfied that malice was his only motive. It had been said, in justification, that the pursuer had attacked the Hebrew language because it was the language of Scripture. But the books composing the Old Testament only had been conceived in the Hebrew language; while the Greek, which the pursuer had extolled, was the language of those books which were composed by the Apostles, and are known by the name of the New Testament. It would be for the Jury, then, to judge whether the pursuer, in depreciating the Hebrew, when at the same time he extolled the Greek, was actuated by an hostility to religion. It had also been said, in justification, that the pursuer had imputed errors to the Fathers of the Church in entertaining ridiculous fancies with respect to certain mystical numbers. Now, the Fathers of the Church, pious and learned as they might have been, were certainly never accounted inspired men, and their opinions were at all times the subject of fair discussion. He doubted much how far John Calvin himself would have respected the authority of those Fathers. As no one could pretend to say they were infallible, so the pursuer was well entitled to impugn any one of their opinions. With respect to the last part of the article, they would judge, whether the word individual, printed in Italics, was meant to apply to the pursuer. If they were satisfied it was so meant, then they could have no doubt that the paragraph

in which that word was, was grossly libellous. It was his duty to tell them so; and farther, that, if they were so satisfied, they were bound to find for the pursuer. In judging of this, they would consider that this paragraph was part of an article which treated of the pursuer and his works; and whether the word individual, under all the circumstances, could apply to any but the pursuer. He had stated to the parties, in the course of a previous discussion, that, with respect to the first part of the article now under consideration, he would direct the Jury to find for the defender; and with respect to the latter part, to find for the pursuer. Before concluding, he had to impress upon the minds of the Jury, an observation made by Lord Mansfield, which had been sanctioned by other eminent judges, that it became juries, on questions of evidence, not to enter into refined disquisitions, but to adopt a broad, liberal, and common-sense view of the subject.

The Jury then retired, and remained inclosed for an hour and a half, when they returned and gave in the following verdict:

On the first issue, the Jury find for the defender to the words "We must look," in the seventh line of page third of the printed issue:"To the word may," in the twenty-first line, for the pursuer. And the remainder for the defender; on the second and third issues for the pursuer; on the fourth for the defender. Damages L. 100.

Mr Forsyth tendered a bill of exceptions on the ground of misdirection.

Counsel for the pursuer, Francis Jeffrey, James Moncrieff, and Henry Cockburn, Esqrs.; Agent, Eneas Macbean, W. S. For the defender, Robert Forsyth and John Shank More, Esqrs.; Agents, W. and A. G. Ellis, W. S.

This day came on for trial, before Mr Baron Wood and a Special Jury, the information filed by the direction of the Court of King's Bench against the defender, for a libel on the Clergy, contained in the Durham Chronicle of August 18. 1821.

The Jury having been sworn, and the nature of the information briefly stated by Mr Tindal, who opened the pleadings,

Mr Scarlett proceeded to address the Jury:

Gentlemen, The defendant is a printer, and I believe the proprietor of a newspaper which has been some time published in this city, called the Durham Chronicle. Whether, before he held that, he held any other situation, I know not; but if I may judge, from the contents of this libel, I should think he has probably imbibed, in his early education, some sectarian prejudices towards the Established Church, which the management of a newspaper enabled him to gratify. But whether that is so, or not, he was possessed of the opportunity of indulging in the propagation of such opinions and slander as I will undertake to say no Judge, and I trust no Jury, will say are innocent. He has thought himself justified in laying hold of an occasion to give a successful blow to the Established Clergy of the Church of England, and therefore very ingeniously determined to take the advantage of that high and irritated state of public feeling which existed last year with respect to the proceedings taken against the unhappy and illustrious Queen Caroline, and which excited so much compassion and feeling, for the purpose of conveying his slander, that it might be the more easily diffused when the minds