The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-27 00:00:00

SATURDAY, JULY 27, 1822.

•
mind. It is the universal opinion of the scientific world that
the discovery is original. Attempted to perform Mr. Leslie's
experiment, but did not succeed ; nor does he think any per-
son succeeded in performing it, till Mr. Leslie himself came to
London.

Cross-examined for the defender.—lt is not impossible that
a man of profound genius might have drawn the inference Mr.
Leslie diew from the facts stated by Mr. Nairne, but Mr.
Leslie's discovery certainly displayed great inductive and in-
ventive genius.
Dr. Thomas Thomson had repeated Mr. Leslie's discovery
on heat about a hundred times. Never conceived, nor at pre-
sent conceives, the discovery to be a plagiarism. Has no doubt
that L's so far as relates to Mr. Nairne, the discovery of
Mr. Leslie is original. Never heard a doubt regarding its
originality.
Dr. Dewar corroborated the statements of Drs. Marcet and
Thomson:
Here closed the evidence for the second issue.

Mr. Caddel is partner to Mr. Constable, the bookseller.
Published the first edition of Mr. Leslie's Philosophy of Arith-
metic. The second was published by Mr. Tait, the booksel.:
ler. In the second edition there is the addition of twenty pages
and a table. Conceives this to be an enlarged and improved edi-
tion. To sell this edition at a shilling of higher price than the
former was decidedly not an imposition on the public. Mr.
Tait, bookseller, published a second edition of Mr. Leslie's
Philosophy of Arithmetic : could not express- this any other
way than by calling it a second..eclition.
Cross-examined for the defender.—lt would not have in-
formed the public what was done in the second edition, by stat-
ing the number of pages and improvements made in the tables.
There may be a second edition of a publication formed of the
unsold original copies of a work.
Mr. Aitken, bookseller, has been 12 years a partner with
Bell and Bradfute. Thought the publisher of the second edi-
tion of Mr. Leslie's Philosophy of Arithmetic, entitled to call
it a new edition. Being shewn Condorcet's Arithmetic, stated
it as his persuasion that this book was published by Mr. Black-
wood as a second edition of the original copies.
Cross-examined for the Defender.—Did not know of any
author publishing as a second edition the original copies of a
work.

By the Couit.T.—ln consequence of the addition made to the
second volume of Mr. Leslie's work, would have =ilea it a se-
cond edition.

Mr. Miller, bookseller, expressed the same opinion with the
former witnesses.

Cross-examined for the defender.—The public
,would, no
doubt, conceive that the second edition was reprinted. Re-
members a case in which Manners and Miller published a se-
cond edition, as in this case, of a work, with the concurrence
of the author, without reprinting it.
Mr. JEFFREY then stated that they had now dosed the case
for the pursuer.
Mr. FoitavTif then addressed the Jury for the defender.—
He insisted first on the proof there was that the Hebrew lan-
guage was not reduced to the clumsy expedient of reduplica-
tion. He maintained the Roman mode of recitation was more
clumsy than the Hebrew, but yet there is no allusion made by
Mr. Leslie to their Clumsy expedient. The 'Greek, too, was
praised, though borrowed from the Hebrew. It would have
been surprising if an assertion like this regarding the lie,rew,
coming from such an eminent authority, had not called forth
animadversion. The question, then, was, whether Mr. Leslie
could establish that the assertion of his ignorance or prejudice
regarding the Hebrew is made out of malice to Mr. Leslie, or
must be viewed as reasonable criticism. His plea was, that
the criticism on Mr. Leslie's book, contained in the first issue,
was perfectly lawful. There was no attack made on the pri-
vate life or character of the pursuer in this issue, but merely on
what he had published, in which he made himself a public cha-
racter. It was no just ground of complaint to say that the in-
dividual thus criticised was held up to ridicule, or injured in his
literary reputation. Lord Ellenborough maintains that the
author of a book is a fair subject of criticism, however painful
that criticism might be to his private feelings.—[Here Mr.
Forsyth read a number of other law authorities in sup-
port of his opinion, and particularly alluded to the case
of Sir John Carr, who was ridiculed, as in the present Case,
on . account of certain publications, and where the anther
of the articles said to be libellous escaped, on the ground
that the ridicule was directed against the plaintiff in his lite-
rary capacity.] It was said the defender must be held guilty
of malice, because the pursuer's religious character was
attacked ; but here he was still only spoken of as an author.—
If Professor Leslie understood by the Hebrew what all not ac-
quainted with theological speculations understood by it, his
ignorance of it was demonstrated. A plea has been set up,
that by the Hebrew lie meant the Samaritan; but what was the
public or the Churches of England and Scotland to understand
by the term Hebrew?—surely the Hebrew of the day—Hebrew
which students learn and are examined on. If Mr. Leslie
meant the Samaritan, he should have said so. It was the same as
if a Frenchman should call the English the rudest and poorestlan-
guage, and if attacked, should offer as a plea that he did not mean
modern English, but that of King Alfred, or the Saxon Hep-
tarchy. He conceived the explanation made by the pursuer
the most miserable and crooked quibble that ever he heard in-
troduced into a court of law. It was charity to think that Mr.
Leslie was ignorant of the subject, when he said it was the rudest
and poorest of written languages; because if he was not, he was
misleading the public regarding the language of Scripture. In
imputing Mr. Leslie's remarks on the Hebrew language to his
hostility towards the Scripture, they were only ascribing a mo-
tive which seemed to have dictated such an absurd and revolt-
ing assertion, as that the sublime language of Scripture was the
rudest and poorest. What could tempt a man to make such a pre-
posterous statement, but an aversion to the sacred oracles ? Was
it to be tolerated that, in a Christian country, the language of
Scripture should be so sneered at and profaned, and yet that no
one should be allowed to lift up his voice against such an asser-
tion ? He would now proceed to the 2d issue, relating to the
charge of plagiarism. Disputes often occur with regard to the ori-
ginality of invention ; but he never heard of such being brought
into a court of law, especially when these are disputes regarding
inventions in philosophy. This was the first he had ever heard
of, and he hoped it would he the last. But the pursuer never
denied that Dr. Brewster had, in a public journal, affirmed Mr.
Leslie's discovery to be a plagarism. Now all the defender
affirms is, that Dr. Brewster said so; he does not make the
statement himself. This issue they would therefore conceive
to be irrelevant. From the similarity between Mr. Nalrne's
and Mr. Leslie's experiments, he contended that it was a most
natural inference to conclude that they were the same. The
Learned Gentleman then proceeded to the third issue, which
relates to the charge against Mr. Leslie, of entering into a coali-
tion with his bookseller to impose on the public by selling the
old copies of his work fora new edition. He would ask was
this not true ? Mr. Miller stated that the way of printing old
and original copies for a new edition was apt to deceive the
public, though it was a trick resorted to by the booksellers.
He was sorry to think that there were tricks in all trades but
theirs—(a laugh), and he was sorry to think that booksellers
have tricks as well as others. When a book would not sell,
they add a few leaves to it, and then profess it to be a fine new
and improved edition. This, he was of opinion, was dishonest,
and could not be justified. If the plan was not meant to im-
pose on the public, it would not be used. As to the appella-
tion of a parrot, which the defender applied to Mr. Leslie, it
was only a sorry jest, and he conceived the Jury would pass it
by as unworthy of their notice. The Gentleman then very
shortly dwelt on the last charge brought against the defender—
that of charging Mr. Leslie as corrupting the youth, maintain-
ing that there was nothing in the passage to lead the pursuer to
conclude that he was nieant as included in the charge.

The LORD CIIIEF COIVIISSIONEIt having summed up the
case, the Jury retired for about an hour and a half, and re-
turned the fullowing verdict :—Find in the first issue for the
defender to the words—" We must look" in the 7th line cf
page 3d of printed issues, to "he may" in 21st line, for the
pursuer ; and the remainder for the defender. The 2d and 3d
issues for the pursuer, and the 4th Issue for the defender. Da-
mages 1001.
The Court was crowed to excess to the conclusion of the trial,
which took place about 11 o'clock.

HUMILITY.--The celebrated Madame Viol.,
though by no means handsome, had a habit of continually fix-
ing her eyes on the glasses in any. apartment, where she hap-
pened to be. A lady of her acquaintance, offended with this
inconsistency, once resolved to reproach her with it in the com-
pany of several other persons. " There," said she, "is Ma-
dame Vint, for ever contemplating her, own image." " Yes it
true," replied she ; I. wish. to know, by experience, whether
it is possible to habtuate uneself to ugliness,"