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

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?
Whether the pursuer is falsely, maliciously, and injuriously
held out and represented 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 da-
mage of the said pursuer ?
The damages were laid at 5,000/.
Mr. JAMES IVIONCRIEFF opened the case to the Jury
for the pursuer. He said he addressed them in behalf,of a
man who would be respected 'wherever genius was valued.
He added to the fame of the University, and of the country
at large. He had complained of a number of most injurious
libels—libels which affected in the nearest manner his cha-
racter and reputation—particularly that one which charged
him with perverting the youth who attended him. He hoped
it would appear that these_ libels proceeded from no Motive but
determined malice ; because Mr. Leslie contributed largely to
a work which affected the sale of a similar publication, sold by
Mr. Blackwood. The ground of the remarks in that number,
which charged the pursuer as ignorant of Hebrew, was founded
on the publication of a book, entitled The Philosophy of Arte-
metic ; in the preface of which work, he makes a remark on
the Hebrew tongue, which is, that the Hebrew, having only
22 letters, they were reduced to a clumsy expedient of express-
ing numbers beyond 400. Now, in this, remark, he referred
only to the ancient Hebrew, as appeared by an observation in
another part of that work; the remark was Also limited to the
powers of numeration. But it mattered not whether the pur-
suer was right or wrong in this point—the libel ascribed that
remark not only to ignorance, but to a desire to throw obloquy
on the language of the Old Testament, because it was the lan-
guage of the Old Testament, which he (the pursuer) conceived
the language of superstition. It mattered not, therefore,
whether Mr. Leslie was erroneous or not in his statement re-
garding the Hebrew. No Jury would consider the libellous
matter founded upon it as at justifiable. But Mr. Leslie was
right in that statement. [Here the Learned Gentleman read a
number of authorities, to prove that the ancient Hebrew or
Samaritan, to which Mr. Leslie alluded, had only 22 letters,
and that the expedient adopted for numeration beyond 400
was as he had stated.] If Mr. Leslie had said the very reverse,
that the language consisted of 27.1etters or lied said nothing
of the language at all in such a work, the libeller would have
found a much greater scope for his obloquy. No course could
have prevented him from being calumniated. They accused
Mr. Leslie, also, on the ground that he had stated that the
Hebrew was the rudest and poorest of all written languages.
But Mr. Leslie here spoke of its rudeness and poverty merely
in reference to its power of numerical expressions, as appeared
from various passages in his work. The injustice of the as
sumption that Mr. Leslie speaks thus of the Hebrew out of
contempt for the Scriptures, must appear when it is considered
that in the same work he praised highly the Greek language,
in which also part of Scripture is written. The Learned Gen-
tleman then proceeded to state that part of the libellous charge
against Mr. Leslie which accused him of being a plagiarist in
regard to his theory of heat. Mr. Leslie's discoveries in heat
had spread his name over all Europe, and had acquired him
high honours from the most learned societies. It certainly did
not appear very likely in this case that they could have been
mere impositions. [Here the Learned Gentleman entered into
a description and explanation of some of these discoveries.] All
idea of plagiarism was done away by this circumstance, that the
result of some of his experiments were different from what
he expected. Mr. Leslie sent an account of these to the
French Institute, and they were soon after performed through-
out France, Italy, and different parts of America, with great
applause. In this case it seemed strange that ten years after
an individual should start up and declare these discoveries to be
monstrous plagiarisms. The gtound of this assertion is the pre-
tence that Mr. Leslie's experiments were performed long be-
fore by a Mr. Nairne, but the principles of Mr. Leslie's disco-
veries were knewn long before ; the learned world was indebted
to him only for the combination of those principles. Every
common reader must have inferred from this charge against
Mr. Leslie, that he had been actually guilty of a fraudulent
imposition. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to that
part of the libellous articles which charged Mr. Leslie as hold-
ing out the second edition. of his Philosophy opirithinetic as
an enlarged and improvededition, from a dishonest attempt to
impose upon the public, as the only enlargement of it was that
it had a few additional leaves. Now, how could Mr. Leslie
be said to design imposing upon the public, when he specifies
in his preface to that edition all the improvements he had intro-
duced into it ? The Learned Gentleman then alluded to that
part of the libellous matter which compared Mr. Leslie to an
over-fed parrot, for puffing himself and condemning others.
This comparison, he maintained, was meant for the purpose of
holding up Mr. Leslie's person to contempt, and was therefore
libellous, as he endeavoured to show by quotations from libels
of a similar nature. Mr. Moncrieff then proceeded to the last
part of the charge against the defender, which was, that Mr.
Leslie was accused of perverting the religious principles of the
youth attending the University. These words are a continua-
tion of calumnious assertions against Mr. Leslie, contained in
the 44th Number of the Magazine, and the plea of the defender
was, that the charge was not meant to apply to Mr. Leslie. To
attempt to get off was as mean as it was malicious.' The ques-
tion for them to try was, whether or not, upon their oaths, they
could say that they had any doubt that this assertion was point-
ed at Mr. Leslie ? Ile should like to know, however, if Mr.
Leslie was not meant, who was ? Were the religious princi-
pies of the medical youth sneered away by any of the other
Professors ? If such a defence of the last and most weighty ar-
ticle be attempted, it will convince them that the defender was
offered boldly to adhere to their assertion. He denied the as-
sertion that the religious principles of the youth attending the
University were
,corrupted ; but if it were the case, libels like
these would never have the effect of remedying the evil ; —the
libel was introduced out of mere spite and rancour. This was
a most grave charge. It grievously affected the interests of Mr.
Leslie as well as of the University. The Gentleman then al-
luded to damages. The pursuer did not seek profit by this
suit, but this he thought—that they would show, by the dama-
ges they would give, the sense they had of the enormity of the
libels, and that the effect of their verdict would be to put down
that system of libellous attack which all sober men must de-
precate.

- The pursuer then proceeded to call evidence.
The Rev. Mr. David Dickson, one of the ministers of the
West Church, was called to state his opinion regarding the
Hebrew language. The Samaritan character consisted of only
22 letters; this was the ancient Hebrew language. The Rev.
Gentleman then explained the Samaritan mode of expressing
numbers beyond 400. Mr. Leslie's account of the method of
numeration in his Philosophy of Arithmetic was correct. Even
the modern HebreW at one time had only 22 characters. It is
the opinion of Bishop Hermicot, as well as his own, that the
final letters were not introduced earlier than about 200 years
before Christ. He (Mr. Dickson) would have inferred from
Mr. Leslie using the word Hebrew, that he meant the ancient
Hebrew.
Cross-examined for the defender—The Pentateuch is the
only books he knows of as written in the Samaritan. It is the
Chaldaic. character, in which the rest of the Scriptures are writ.
ten. This character is what is called Hebrew—the mode of
rotation in this is the same as in ancient Hebrew till the figures
reach 400, after which only one letter is used to express the ad-
ditional amount of hundreds. Does not conceive Hebrew to be
the rudest and poorest of languages.
By a Juryman—A person might have an excellent know-
ledge of the Hebrew lano.ruage, although he declared that it was
the rudest and poorest of languages.
Dr. Scott, of Corstorphine, corroborated the statements of
Mr. Dickson. The note in Mr. Leslie's work indicated a
knowledge of the ancient Samaritan language ; nor is there any
part of it which displays ignorance of the Hebrew.
Cross-examined for the defender.—Theological students are
examined in the Chaldaic, not the Samaritan character. It was
not necessary for the Samaritans to have recourse to the redu-
plicating method alluded to by Mr. Leslie.
Mr. JEFFREY then stated that they had adduced all the
evidence they intended for the first issue, and now proceed-
ed to lead proof upon the second, relating to the charge of
plagiarism.
Dr. Alexander Marcet, Fellow of the Royal Society of Lon-
don, and Lecturer on Chemistry, formerly was of opinion, and
still is, that Mr. Leslie's method of freezing water in vacuo was
an original discovery. Some of the facts on which the process
is founded were known to chemists long before Mr. Leslie's
time, but the process itself was totally new. The discovery of
Mr. Leslie is analogous to all other discoveries in chemistry.
Has read Mr. Nairne's experiment, and knows it to be different
from Mr. Leslie's. Did not conceive Mr. Leslie's experiment
to be at all a plagiarism from Mr. Nairne's. The combination
made by Mr. Leslie, never appears to have been in Mr. Nairne's