summed up the case, giving it as his opinion that the several issues were on the whole well founded, and that the remarks complained of were of a libellous description, particularly those relating to the case of Wilson and Turner; in which view, he was supported by his learned brothers on the bench; but stating, that as his Lordship had, brought the action for the purpose of vindicating his character from the aspersions that had been thrown upon it, and had no vindictive feeling, he conceived they would regard the question of damages as one of very little consequence. His Lordship having concluded, the Jury retired for about half an hour, and, on their return, gave in their verdict by the mouth of Sir Robert Keith Dick, their Chancellor, unanimously finding for the pursuer on all the issues. -Damages, One shilling. N. B. As a verdict of one shilling in name of damages does not necessarily carry costs, this question came afterwards to be argued, when the Court, after hearing counsel on both sides, unanimously found the pursuer entitled to his full expenses. PROFESSOR JOHN LESLIE AGAINST BURGH MAGAZINE." Jury Court, Edinburgh, July 22. This day came on the cause of John Leslie, Esq. Professor of Natural Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh, against Mr William Blackwood, bookseller in Edinburgh, for certain defamatory and libellous articles, which had appeared in different numbers of a certain periodical work called " Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine." This cause was founded upon the following issues: It being admitted that the pursuer is Professor of Natural Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh, and that the defender is proprietor and publisher of a certain periodical work, called "Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine;" and it being admitted, that the 35th number of the said work, published by the defender at Edinburgh, on or about the month of February 1820, contains the following words and figures, viz. "LESLIE versus HEBREW, Dublin, Jan. 20. 1820. Mr Editor,-In a trifling composition 1 sent you some time ago, it was asserted that Professor Leslie had thought proper to pass a heavy censure on the Hebrew language, in his Philosophy of Arithmetic, though, as I added, it could be proved from his own writings, nay, from the very passage that contained the charge, that he is ignorant even of the alphabet of the language on which he thus presumed to offer an animadversion. The professional dictum alluded to is this: 'The Oriental nations appear generally to have represented the numbers as far as one thousand, by dividing their alphabet into three distinct classes; but the Hebrew, the rudest and poorest of all written languages, having only twenty-two letters, could advance no farther than 400; and to exhibit 500, 600, 700, 800, and 900, it had recourse to the clumsy expedient of addition, by joining 400 and 100, and 400 and 200, 400 and 300, 400 and 400, and 400 with 400 and 100."-Philosophy of Arithmetic, p. 218. The rudest and poorest of all written languages! By my troth, Mr John Leslie, these be bitter words; but the latter part of the sentence, by displaying the utter ignorance of the Professor, happily renders the railing of the former perfectly innocent. Indeed, so much ignorance and impertinence combined, will hardly be found in so short a compass, in the works of any other writer, of the smallest literary character. The merest smatterer in Hebrew-any one who had read the first page of the Grammar, could have informed Mr Leslie, that the Hebrews had not recourse to the clumsy expedient of which he accuses them, and that their alphabet supplied them with characters sufficient for expressing numbers as far as one thousand. It is clear, that the Professor was totally unacquainted with the letters of the language he was criticising, or he would have known, that the five finals, (technically called Camnephatz,) are used to express the five last hundreds; and, therefore, that the glory of inventing the expedient, which he describes with such imposing minuteness of detail, is due entirely to himself. So much for his qualifications to decide on the merits of Hebrew. But it appears to me, that he has a particular pique against the language; that his censure arises as much from spleen as ignorance; for the Roman method of notation is still more clumsy than his fancied Hebrew system.' And the following words, viz. "They may be Arabic also; but to enter into the controversy respecting the comparative superiority of Hebrew and Arabic, for the edification of Professor Leslie, would be as profitable as to set about demonstrating the Seventeenth Proposition of Euclid's Twelfth Book, to a person who did not know a right line from a curve, much less a polyhedron from a sphere."-And the following words, viz. "We must look, therefore, for some other reason; and perhaps we may find it in the unhappy circumstances in which Hebrew is placed it is the language of the Old Testament the language, as a philosopher like Mr Hume, or a partisan of Mr Hume's would say, dedicated to superstition, and is, therefore, like every thing else connected with such a cause, to be attacked by that tolerant and equitable sect per fas et nefas. But in doing so, I may be permitted to remark, there should be some little knowledge of the ground displayed. It is not good generalship to entrust even the details of a siege to a blundering gunner or a rash volunteer; and I must consider the Professor as a most unfortunate, though perhaps courageous enfant perdu, after this specimen of his skill, although he may be enlightened enough in other respects to be entitled to sneer at the credulity of Luther, the dreams of the Christian Fathers, and the fancies of St John," (p. 230.)And the following words, viz. "He may believe me when I tell him, that in the eyes of those who know any thing on the subject, he makes as awkward a figure as the most deficient digit he ever caused modify. He may also assure himself, that the rule, ne sutor ultra crepidam, is truly a golden one. He is perhaps a mighty respectable third or fourth rate mathematician, a refrigerator of any rate he pleases, and an arithmetician scarcely second to Cocker himself; but when, on the strength of these qualifications, he thinks fit to step into philosophy, or to invade the province of Critics and Scholars, nothing can be more pitiful. And yet, (p. 232.) he blames Joseph Scaliger (whose name as a man of learning is rather higher than Mr Leslie's as a mathematician) for quitting his usual studies to meddle with mathematics. So easy is it to perceive the presumptive dogmatism of another, and to overlook our own."-Whether the whole or any part of the said words, are of and concerning the pursuer ? And whether the pursuer is therein falsely, maliciously, and injuriously represented, and held up to ridicule and contempt, as ignorant of the Hebrew language, and even of the Hebrew alphabet, or as being guilty of impertinence, or of disliking the Hebrew language, merely because it is the lan guage of the Old Testament, and to be attacked, per fas et nefas, or as being an enfant perdu, to the injury and damage of the said pursuer? It being also admitted that the fortieth number of the said Magazine, published by the defender at Edinburgh, on or about the month of July 1820, contains the following words, viz. "The King of the Cockneys knows no more of Greek than Professor Johnny Leslie does of Hebrew. By the way, on looking over the last number of Dr Watt's Bibliotheca Britannica, I have discovered, with amazement, that that celebrated personage was a poet in his youth-why don't you review his Phoenix Park, Killarney, &c.? I have copies of both classical productions at your service. Why, finally, did you allow Dr Brewster to have the merit of pointing out Leslie's monstrous plagiarism of his theory of heat, from an old volume of the Philosophical Transactions? For shame. Yours affectionately-O. P." -Whether the whole, or any part of the said words are of and concerning the pursuer, and falsely, maliciously, and injuriously represent and hold up the pursuer to ridicule and contempt, as being a plagiary, to the injury and damage of the said pursuer? It being also admitted, that the forty-fourth number of the said work, published by the defender at Edinburgh, on or about the month of November 1820, contains the following words, viz. "In a work of his, treating on arithmetic, that celebrated' man thought proper to go out of his way to revile, in a most dogmatic and insulting manner, the Hebrew language. I asserted that he did not know even a letter of the tongue he had the impudence to pretend to criticise, and I proved my assertion. I leave the decision of the question to any Hebraistto any man of common sense in the land. I proved that he was actuated by a hos tility to the language of revelation, simply because it was so; and I defy any one to refute me. This unfortunate cockney, who is lamenting over my hard treatment of the Professor, of course cannot be supposed to know any thing about the matter in dispute; but what I am saying, is not the less true on that account. As I am on the subject, I may remark, that I was at first a little surprised to find, that in the second edition of the Philosophy of Arithmetic, which was announced since I had pointed out Leslie's mistake, he had not retracted the unlucky note which convicted him of ignorance. But on inspection of the work, my wonder ceased, for I perceived that the new edition was nothing more than the old one with a fresh lying title-page, and a few additional leaves; in short, only a collusion between an honest bookseller and a doubly honest Professor, to impose on the public, and get rid of the remaining copies of an unsaleable work. Here, then, is the vile offence against decency as committed by me. What reason have I to respect Mr Leslie? His Essay on Heat! The matter of that work is no great affair, and the manner is so bad, that even a brother reviewer pronounces it to be execrable and 'drossy.' His mathematics! There is not an original mathematical fact of the smallest value in all his book; and his barbarous style and vile arrangement have done a great deal to obscure the merit of what he has purloined. I do not intend, for it would not be the proper place, to go into any detailed remarks on his geometry, but every mathematician has laughed at his droll proof of the doctrine of parallel lines-at his doctrine of ratios at his failure in proving his very first proposition, the foundation of his system, and a thousand other such bêtises. Am I to bow to him because he is an Edinburgh Reviewer? I question the inspiration of that worthy oracle. And as to the Professor's own part in its lucubrations, why, his impudent puffings of himself, and ignorant sneerings at others, have often made me liken Leslie the reviewer to some enormous over-fed pet of the parrot species, stuck up at a garret window, and occupied all day with saying, Pretty poll, pretty poll,' to itself; Foul witch, foul witch,' to every passer by. Look now, I beseech you, at his article on the north-west passage !!! What other claims to respect he possesses I know not, except his having made some neat second-rate chemical experiments, and invented some handy little instruments; but even if his claims were ten times as weighty, they should not have deterred me from speaking as I thought. A man who would go out of his path, on an inquiry on the nature of heat, to recommend an impious work-and in a treatise on arithmetic, to cast an ignorant sarcasm on the language of the Bible, or to sneer at the fancies of one of the Apostles, must ever be an object of suspicion to those who hold the Scriptures in honour, and impiety in detestation. We have no assurance that he may not digress as culpably hereafter; and if he does so, it is only fair to give him warning that I shall take care to point it out."-Whether the whole, or any part of the said words, are of and concerning the pursuer, and falsely, maliciously, and injuriously represent and hold up the pursuer to public ripursuer to public ridicule and contempt, by representing him to be, or asserting that he is, an insolent dogmatist, or that he has the impudence to criticise that of which he is ignorant, or that he is actuated by hostility to the language of revelation, simply because it is the language of revelation, or as being lying, dishonest, or joining with a bookseller to impose upon the public by dishonesty, or as having purloined from other authors, or as having been guilty of a thousand bêtises, or as resembling a parrot, or as an object of suspicion to those who hold the Scriptures in honour, and impiety in detestation, or as going out of his way to recommend an impious work, or as having cast an ignorant sarcasm on the language of the Bible, or as sneering at the fancies of one of the Apostles; to the injury and damage of the said pursuer? It being also admitted, that the said forty-fourth number of the said Magazine contains the following words, viz. -"With grief I have perceived, that many of the young men who go from this country to Edinburgh, to pursue their medical studies, come back with their religious principles perverted, and their reverence for holy things sneered away. It would be very unjust to accuse any individual of this weighty charge, but the fact is undeniable. I rejoice, therefore, whenever it is in my power, even in the most trivial degree, to shew that the lights of the famous Northern Sect are not infallible ;— that under affected knowledge, gross ignorance may lurk-and that considerable intolerance may sometimes be the characteristic feature of philosophic liberality. I rejoice, also, but much more sincerely, to learn that a better spirit is arising in your famous University; and in spite of its levity, its humour, its follies, nay, even its transgressions, I think your magazine has been instrumental in this good work." -Whether the whole, or any part of the said words, are of and concerning the pursuer; and falsely, maliciously. and injuriously hold out and represent the pursuer, as being one of the public teachers, by whom young men, who come as students to the University of Edinburgh, have their religious principles perverted, and their reverence for holy things sneered away, to the injury and damage of the said pursuer? Or whether the pursuer held himself forth as the author of certain discoveries in regard to freezing or artificial congelation, by means of evaporation under an exhausted receiver, he, the pursuer, knowing or being aware that the same or similar discoveries were previously pointed out or described, in a paper in the sixtyseventh volume of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, entitled, "An Account of some Experiments made with an AirPump, on Mr Smeaton's principle; together with some experiments with a Common Air-Pump: By Mr Edward Nairne, F. R. S." It being admitted, that a book entitled the Philosophy of Arithmetic, was published by the pursuer in the year 1820, and is described in the titlepage as a second edition improved and enlarged, meaning thereby, that the said book described as a second edition was enlarged and improved in comparison with the first edition of the said book:-Whether the pursuer, with the bookseller, in holding out to the public the book first aforesaid as a second edition enlarged and improved, was guilty of a dishonest attempt to impose upon the public? Or whether the pursuer did write and compose certain words contained in the eleventh article of the eighth number of the Edinburgh Review, which are specifically condescended on, and which contain statements connected with, and defensive of the pursuer's discoveries in physics? And whether the defender, in stating that he had often likened the pursuer to a parrot, meant and intended to allude to, and characterise, and did allude to and characterise, the pursuer, solely as the author of the said passages? The damages were laid at L. 5000. After several challenges, a jury were sworn to try the above issues, which being read by the clerk, Mr Moncrieff rose, and addressed the jury as follows: Gentlemen of the Jury, I have the honour to address you on this occasion in behalf of the pursuer, Mr John Leslie, Professor of Natural Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh-a name, of which I may be permitted to say, that it cannot be pronounced in any society of learned men in Europe, without those sentiments of respect which never fail to await great and unquestioned genius. Mr Leslie is in the honourable situation of an instructor of youth in the University of Edinburgh. All men know that he is diligent in the duties entrusted to him, and zealous in his endeavours to exalt the honour of the University, and the country to which he belongs. His living and patrimonial interest depend on his activity and exertions in the prosecution of scientific researches. On the other side, you have the defender, Mr William Blackwood, who is a bookseller, and a publisher of some consideration, and who, in the present cause, appears before you in the character of the publisher in a periodical work,—a miscellaneous magazine, the general character of which is not unknown,—with which, however, we have here no further concern, than as it appears in the facts disclosed by the issues lying before you, and which you are now to try. The pursuer, Mr Leslie, complains of a series of false, malicious, and injurious libels, published to his prejudice in the work of the defender; of a series of libels, touching at once his character as a man of principle and honesty-his qualifications as a Professor, -and his reputation as a man of science, which hold out all his studies - |