SMELLIE, William, a learned and ingenious printer, was born at Edinburgh in the year 1740. His father, Alexander Smellie, who followed the occupation of a master-builder, is said to have been a classical scholar, and a writer of Latin verses. He belonged to the sect of reformed Presbyterians, more commonly described as Cameronians. He left two sons and three daughters. John, the elder son, followed his father’s employment, and married a sister of the late James Ferrier, Esq. clerk of session. Two of his daughters were likewise married. Residing in the suburban street called the Pleasance, he sent his younger son to Duddingstone school, which is scarcely a mile distant. William Smellie was there initiated in the ordinary branches of education, including the Latin language; but he left school at the early age of twelve, and was destined to follow some mechanical employment. It was his father’s original intention to bind him an apprentice to a staymaker, but some difference occurred as to the terms of the indenture; “and the young scholar was preserved from the mortifying drudgery of scraping whalebone, and stitching coats of armour to force the female form into every shape save that of natural elegance.” On the first of October 1752, he was bound an apprentice, for six years and a half, to Hamilton, Balfour, and Neill, printers to the university.

To this occupation he applied himself with great assiduity, and he soon became conspicuous for the rapidity, as well as the correctness, with which he dispatched his work. With equal assiduity he devoted his evenings to the acquisition of knowledge. Two years before the expiration of his apprenticeship, his masters appointed him a corrector of the press, with a weekly allowance of ten shillings, which at that period was no despicable remuneration. His father was now dead, and two of his sisters were materially indebted to him for their support. During his apprenticeship, he was permitted to attend some of the academical lectures. The printing-office was within the precincts of the university buildings; “and he generally continued at work till he heard the bell ring for lecture, when he immediately laid down his composing-stick, shifted his coat, ran off with his note-book under his arm, and returned to his work immediately after lecture.” The Edinburgh Philosophical Society having offered a silver medal for the most accurate edition of a Latin classic, Smellie set and corrected an edition of Terence, which obtained this prize for his employers. His edition, which bears the date of 1758, but was actually printed during the preceding year, has been described as immaculate; but of the literal accuracy of this description, we entertain some doubt. It is very elegantly printed, and is in all respects creditable to the Edinburgh press of that period. His apprenticeship was completed on the first of April 1759; and in the ensuing month of September, he agreed to transfer his services to the office of Murray and Cochrane. Here he was not only to perform the ordinary work of a corrector, but was likewise to collect articles for the Scots Magazine, and to make abstracts, extracts, or transcripts of such pieces as his employers should direct. He was moreover to lend his aid “in writing accounts, and, in cases of hurry in printing, in composing or case-work and in return for these various services, he was to receive a weekly salary of sixteen shillings.

It was one advantage of his new situation, that his employers allowed him three hours a-day for the prosecution of his academical studies; and thus, under peculiar circumstances, he was enabled to obtain a regular education. He not only studied the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, but likewise mathematics, logic, rhetoric, moral, and natural philosophy. He besides attended all the medical courses, including the lectures on chemistry and botany. The Hebrew class he attended in the year 1758, with the immediate view of preparing himself to superintend the printing of Dr. Robertson’s Hebrew Grammar. His course of study had thus been so regular and complete, that he was in a state of mature preparation for more than one of the learned professions. Some of his friends recommended the study of divinity; Dr. Buchan urged him to betake himself to the practice of physic; but the hazard of relinquishing a certain though small income for a very uncertain experiment, must have served to mancipate him to his original avocation. An early marriage fixed him more completely in the printing-office. His wife, Jane Robertson, was the daughter of an army-agent in London, who had once been opulent, but who finally left his family in indigent circumstances. Her mother was the cousin of Mrs. Oswald of Dunikier, and there were other family connexions described as genteel, but they do not appear to have rendered any service to Smellie or his children. The marriage took place in 1763, when he had only attained the twenty-third year of his age.

In the mean time, his love of learning suffered no abatement. In the year 1760 he had become a member of the Newtonian Society, a literary association chiefly composed of young men educated in the university. They held their weekly meetings in one of the class-rooms. At each meeting an essay was read by one of the members; and a subject, previously assigned, was discussed in due form. The essays were restricted to subjects of natural science, but the debates extended to a wider range. The list of members included various names which were afterwards conspicuously known; and among others, we find that of Robert Blair, the late president of the court of session. To this association likewise belonged Thomas Blacklock, Robert Hamilton, Alexander Adam, Henry Hunter, Samuel Charters, and William Buchan. After the interruption of their regular meetings as a society, some of the members continued for several years to hold a weekly meeting in a tavern, where they partook of a sober repast, and spent their evenings in literary and social conversation. With two very estimable members of this club, Dr. Hamilton of Aberdeen, and Dr. Charters of Wilton, Smellie always retained a friendly connexion. A new association, of which he acted as secretary, was formed in the year 1778, under the denomination of the Newtonian Club. Most of the other members were connected with the medical profession, and five of them either then were or afterwards became medical professors in the university. In the list of these associates we find the names of Dugald Stewart and James Gregory. No person was eligible unless he was a member of the Philosophical Society; and the meetings of the club were appointed to take place immediately after the close of each meeting of the society. The number of members was not to exceed twenty; and a single black ball was to exclude any candidate. The last of their regulations stands thus: “As this club consists entirely of philosophers, it would therefore be ridiculous to make any laws for its internal police.”

For the different branches of natural history Smellie had evinced an early predilection. To the study of botany he devoted so much attention, that in 1765 his Dissertation on the Sexes of Plants gained the gold medal given by Dr. Hope. In this dissertation, which was inserted in the first edition of the Encyclopaedia, he strenuously opposed the[7:20:401] doctrines of Linnaeus.^[1. Smellie’s Philosophy of Natural History, vol. i. p. 245. ] The substance of it was incorporated in his Philosophy of Natural History; and his opinions were then controverted by Dr. Rotheram, afterwards professor of natural philosophy at St. Andrews. Of his proficiency in these studies we find a more conspicuous proof. While he was attending the botanical class, the professor sprained his leg so severely that for a considerable interval he was unable to meet his students; and on this occasion he selected Smellie to continue the course of lectures. In a botanic garden, lectures cannot be servilely read from papers, either written by the lecturer himself, or supplied by others.

On the 25th of March 1765 he commenced business as a printer, in conjunction with two brothers named Robert and William Auld, the former of whom was a solicitor. His private resources were obviously scanty; and two of his friends, Dr. Robertson, professor of oriental languages, and Dr Hope, professor of botany, advanced to him the sum of seventy pounds, which we reckon equivalent to two hundred in our present currency. This copartnery was dissolved within the space of less than two years, by the retirement of Robert Auld; but a new company, consisting of Baltbur, W. Auld, and Smellie, commenced business on the 22d of December 1766. John Balfour, who was likewise a bookseller, had been apartner in the house of Hamilton, Balfour, and Neill. The new house published the Journal, a newspaper supposed to have been unprofitable. Their connexion only continued till the month of November 1771; and the modified firm of Balfour and Smellie continued the business from the twelfth of that month. Beside his share of the profits, the junior partner was to receive ninety pounds a-year, and he was bound to conduct the entire business of the office. His average income amounted to about L.200. After an interval of more than two years, he easily obtained from Lord Kames the favour of his becoming surety to the Royal Bank for a cash-account to the extent of two or three hundred pounds. Their acquaintance had arisen from a series of anonymous strictures which he communicated to his lordship when the Elements of Criticism were passing through the press of Murray and Cochrane. The author requested the acquaintance of his nameless critic, and afterwards honoured him with various marks of his friendly attention. He incidentally mentions his supping with Lord Kames, in company with Hume and other guests. He was likewise a guest at the learned suppers of Lord Monboddo; and he reckoned Lord Hailes, as well as Lord Gardenstone, among the number of his friends and well-wishers.

Balfour and Smellie were appointed printers to the university. The chief advantage which attended this appointment was the profit of printing the dissertations written by candidates for medical degrees. Smellie likewise printed the theses written by candidates for admission to the Faculty of Advocates; and his knowledge of the Latin language was in both cases found very serviceable to the writers. He rendered material assistance to his friend Dr. Buchan, in the composition of a work which attained to very extensive popularity. This work, entitled “Domestic Medicine, or, a Treatise on the Cure and Prevention of Diseases,” was published at Edinburgh in the year 1770. In the course of forty years, it is said to have passed through twenty editions, each consisting of 6000 copies, besides many pirated editions in Ireland and America, and some even in Britain. Of this treatise, Smellie was sometimes represented as the sole author; but it appears with sufficient evidence that the manuscript was placed in his hands, and that in preparing it for the press, he made many essential alterations in its form and style. It was so diffuse and redundant, that a single chapter, as originally written, would nearly have equalled the size of the entire book, as at first printed. These services were compensated with a bill for one hundred pounds.

Of Smellie’s life, we have now arrived at an era which recommends him to the more particular regard of the writers and readers of the present work. The first edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica consisted of only three volumes, which began to be printed in the year 1771. The principal articles were written, compiled, or devised by him, and he prepared and superintended the entire publication. “As you have informed me,” says a letter of Andrew Bell, the chief proprietor, “that there are fifteen capital sciences which you will undertake for, and write up the subdivisions and detached parts, conform[ably] to your plan, and likewise to prepare the whole work for the press, &c. &c., we hereby agree to allow you L.200 for your trouble.” If his capital sciences had not exceeded the old number of seven, this remuncration could scarcely have been considered as extravagant. One of his original articles, contributed to this edition, was that on Aether, which attracted a considerable degree of attention, and gave no small offence to Dr. Cullen, whose theory was there exposed, though without any mention of his name. From internal evidence, he was convinced that the article must have been written by his colleague Dr. John Gregory. He at length ascertained the real author; and this discovery, says the late Dr. Gregory, “gave occasion to the complete alteration and softening of the article Aether in the second and all the subsequent editions of the Encyclopaedia; so that nothing of it was allowed to remain that could give offence to Dr. Cullen.”^[2. Gregory’s Additional Memorial to the Managers of the Royal Infirmary, p. 188. ]

Of the second edition of this work Smellie was offered a share, apparently a third, conjoined with the charge of editorship. This offer he unfortunately declined, and thus lost the only golden opportunity that fortune ever presented to him. “At the death of Mr. Macfarquhar, printer, in April 1793, the whole work became the property of Mr. Bell. It is well known that Mr. Macfarquhar left a handsome fortune to his family, all or mostly derived from the profits of the Encyclopaedia; and that Mr. Bell died in great affluence, besides possessing the entire property of that vast work; every shilling of which may be fairly stated as having grown from the labours of Mr. Smellie in the original fabrication of the work, which is confessedly superior, and all of which he and his family might have shared in equally with Mr. Bell and the other proprietor, if he had not been too fastidious in his notions, and perhaps too timid in his views of the risk which might have been incurred in the mercantile part of the speculation.”^[3. • Kerr’« Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Correspondence of William Smellie, F.R.S. & F. A.S., vol. i. p. 363. Edinb. 1811, 2 vols. 8vo. ] His chief objection is stated, not with much probability, to have arisen from a difference of opinion as to the general plan: “because the other persons concerned, it has been said upon the suggestion of a very distinguished nobleman of the highest rank and most princely fortune, insisted upon the introduction of a system of general biography; which Mr. Smellie objected to, as by no means consistent with the title." If this statement is accurate, we consider the nobleman as decidedly right, and Smellie as decidedly wrong; inasmuch as the historical and biographical part of the work has recommended it to many readers, who do not feel an equal degree of interest in the arts and sciences. The perfection of such a work is to render it agreeable as well as instructive to the greatest possible number of readers. The second edition, consisting of 1500 copies, began to be published in 1776. The third, extending to no fewer than 10,000 copies of eighteen vo-[7:20:402] lumes, commenced in 1786. By this edition, we are informed, the two proprietors “are said to have cleared a net profit of L.42,000, besides being each paid for their respective work in the conduct of the publication as tradesmen; Mr. Bell as engraver of all the plates, and Mr. Macfarquhar as sole printer.”

Smellie afterwards embarked in a speculation which did not prove so lucrative. This was “The Edinburgh Magazine and Review,” of which the first number appeared in the month of October 1773. The editor was Dr. Stuart, whose temper and discretion were not equal to his talents and learning. Smellie was one of five partners, including the editor; and besides printing the work at the ordinary rates, he “was regularly to compile the last half-sheet of every number, to consist of foreign and domestic occurrences, or the news-department, and other articles; to keep the accounts of the concern; to answer all letters relative to the concern; and to review certain articles, as should be agreed upon between him and Dr. Stuart.” The work only extended to five volumes, closing with the number for August 1776. It was conducted with so much ability, that it might have run a more prosperous career, if the personalities of the editor, displayed within so narrow a field, had not excited a degree of hostility with which it was hopeless to contend. But the history of this work will be resumed in our notice of Gilbert Stuart.

Of the Society of Antiquaries, instituted at Edinburgh in 1780, Smellie was an original member. In 1781 he was elected Superintendent of the Museum of Natural History, which they proposed adding to their antiquarian cabinet. He afterwards published an “Account of the Institution and Progress of the Society of the Antiquaries of Scotland.” Edinb. 1782, 4to. To this account he added a second part in 1784. He was elected to the office of secretary in 1793. This new institution excited the jealousy of some other learned bodies. The senate of the university presented a memorial to the lord advocate, remonstrating against the grant of a royal charter to the Society of Antiquaries, on the allegation that Scotland was too limited a country for two literary Societies; and proposing, that instead of granting such a charter, the king should incorporate a society under the designation of the Royal Society of Scotland. They further suggested “that the Society of Antiquaries would intercept the communication of many specimens and objects of natural history, which would otherwise be deposited in the museum of the university, and of many documents tending to illustrate the history, antiquities, and laws of Scotland, from being deposited in the library of the Faculty of Advocates. They likewise noticed that the possession of a museum of natural history might enable and induce the Society of Antiquaries to institute a lectureship of natural history, in opposition to the professorship in the university.” Nor did the curators of the Advocates Library remain inactive. They represented to the lord advocate that the grant of a charter to the Antiquaries “might prove injurious to that magnificent library, by intercepting ancient manuscripts and monuments illustrative of the history and antiquities of Scotland, which would be more useful when collected into one repository than in a state of division.” To all these representations the Society returned an elaborate answer, in the form of a memorial addressed to the lord advocate; and the royal charter was finally ratified in the month of May 1783. It is scarcely necessary to add, that few or none of the multifarious evils which had thus been predicted, were found to result from the incorporation of this Society, which has proved almost as harmless as any institution in the kingdom. The Royal Society of Edinburgh soon afterwards obtained its charter; and as a member of the Philosophical Society, Smellie was incorporated on the 23d of June 1783.

At the request of the Society of Antiquaries, he had in 1781 digested the plan of a statistical account of all tl>e parishes of Scotland. The circulation of this plan did not excite much industry; but, at no distant period, it was followed by an extensive and important work. As superintendent of the museum, he was authorized to deliver in their hall a course of lectures on natural history. “His object was to deliver lectures on the philosophy of natural history, which is a subject totally different from what a public professor is obliged to teach. A professor must instruct his students in the technical and elementary part of the science; but the private lecturer was to confine himself to general views of the economy of nature.”^[4. Smellie’s Account of the Society of Antiquaries, part ii. p. 21. ] The professor of natural history, who certainly had reason to fear such a rival, was alarmed at what he considered as an encroachment on his province, und this plan of lectures was reluctantly abandoned. On the death of Dr. Ramsay in the year 1775, Smellie had offered himself as a candidate for the professorship; but his claims were disregarded, and it was bestowed upon Dr. Walker, at that time minister of Moffat, and afterwards of Colinton.

Smellie however continued to prosecute his favourite study, and he published “Natural History, general and particular, by the Count de Button: translated into English. Illustrated with above 200 copper-plates, and occasional notes and observations by the Translator.” Edinb. 1781, 8 vols. 8vo. “Much the greater portion of this extensive work,” says Mr. Kerr, “was executed in a small correcting room or closet connected with his printing-office, where he was continually liable to interruption, from the introduction of proof-sheets for correction, and revises for comparison, and to the almost perpetual calls of customers, authors, and idle acquaintances: yet such was his accuracy of self-possession, that, as usual with almost every thing he wrote, he gave it out page by page, as fast as written, to his compositors, and hardly ever found it necessary to alter a single word after the types were set up from his first uncorrected manuscript. Although, to have enabled him to execute this translation in the excellent manner in which it is done, Mr. Smellie must necessarily have possessed a very thorough knowledge of the French language, it appears that he had acquired this entirely by means of his own private study, and without the assistance of any teacher; for we have been assured by those who knew him very intimately, that he was quite unacquainted with the pronunciation of French.” A second edition of his translation, in nine volumes, followed in the year 1785. Other three editions, all of them extensive, were afterwards published; so that the work may be considered as having been eminently successful. The translator’s notes were allowed to have added no inconsiderable value to the text; and the chief fault imputed to him was the use of provincial idioms. He was honoured with the correspondence of Buffon, and likewise of Pennant.

The firm of Balfour and Smellie having been dissolved, that of Creech and Smellie began business on the 14th of September 1782, and continued it till the close of the year 1789- Creech, well-known as a bookseller, was in all cases difficult to bring to a settlement of accompts, when he had any reason to believe the balance to be on the wrong side. The affairs of this copartnery, being somewhat intricate, were submitted to arbitration, and a balance was ultimately found due to Smellie; but the decision was so long deferred, that it was not pronounced till some time after his death. After the termination of these different partnerships, he continued the business on his own account. Lord Kames died in the year 1782; and he was now indebted to the kindness of Lord Gardenstone, who became his surety to the banking-house of Sir W. Forbes and Co.[7:20:403] His next publication was “An Address to the People of Scotland, on the Nature, Powers, and Privileges of Juries. By a Juryman.” Edinb. 1784, 8vo. This tract is entitled to particular notice, because it contains a clear and judicious exposition of legal principles, very important in themselves, and at that period very little understood. “It is,” he remarks, “a common notion that jurymen are judges of the fact only, and not of the law. This absurd, and often fatal prejudice is much more prevalent than might be expected, in a city like this, where general knowledge ought to be pretty widely diffused. It has perhaps been too much fostered by the injunctions of judges and magistrates. It is exceedingly natural that plain simple jurymen should look up with veneration to the high rank, and superior abilities of those men who are appointed by their sovereign to dispense justice over the nation. For this reason it is, that the English judges are so extremely solicitous not to inculcate their own opinions on the minds of jurymen, but to leave their determinations solely to the dictates of their own consciences. But from whatever source this prejudice may have derived its origin, I shall endeavour to shew that it has neither law nor common sense for its support.” A further specimen may very satisfactorily be produced. “I know it to be the opinion of many jurymen, that after the court admits a relevancy, they are bound by their oaths to find the libel either proved or not proved. But these gentlemen should consider, that their business is to give a verdict of a very different kind. They are to judge both of the criminality of the culprit, and of his exculpatory evidence. The words proved or nor proved should be for ever banished from the verdicts of juries. A relevancy may be found, when the jurymen, who hear the indictment impugned, are of an opposite opinion from the court. A crime may be libelled, when the facts related in the indictment, though completely proved, do not constitute the essence of the crime charged. Hence, whenever the minds of jurymen are convinced that a relevancy has been improperly found, their verdict, however the proof may stand, should be Not guilty. Indeed, the expressions, Guilty or Not guilty ought alone to be employed in verdicts.” This tract excited a considerable degree of attention; and it was quoted with much approbation by Lord Erskine, in his famous speech in defence of Dr. Shipley, dean of St. Asaph. He published several other pamphlets, which chiefly related to local politics.

But the most elaborate of his works is “The Philosophy of Natural History.” Edinb. 1790, 4to. This is an ingenious book, written in a very pleasing style, and it accordingly experienced a favourable reception. It was reprinted at Dublin and Philadelphia. Lichtenstein published a German translation, to which some notes were added by C. A. W. Zimmermann. For the original volume, Charles Elliot agreed to pay one thousand guineas, at six, twelve, and eighteen months, as well as a certain sum for every edition after the first. This enterprising bookseller died before the work was ready for publication; but the agreement was honourably fulfilled by his trustees, though the benefit accrued, not to the author himself, but to his family. “This,” says Mr. Kerr, “was probably the largest sum that had ever been given, at least in Edinburgh, for the literary property of a single quarto volume, and evinced both the liberality of the bookseller, and the high estimation in which he very justly held the fame and talents of the author.”

His plan however was not yet completed, and he immediately applied himself to the preparation of a second volume. He lived to bring it to a conclusion, though not to make any arrangement for its publication. During the last years of his life, his health appears to have been infirm and precarious. In June 1793, he stated to his friend Dr. Hutton, that he had for several months been distressed with a debility in his limbs, accompanied with a want of appetite; and to another medical friend, Dr. Gardiner, we find him stating very unfavourable symptoms in the course of the following year. After a long illness, he died on the 24th of June 1795, at the age of sixty-five. He left a widow, with four sons and four daughters; two sons and three daughters having died before their father. His eldest daughter was married to Mr. George Watson, an eminent portrait-painter in Edinburgh. Smellie had never been in affluent circumstances, but he left to his family the means of prosperity; and the printing business has been more successfully conducted by his son Mr. Alexander Smellie.

Of his Philosophy of Natural History, the second volume was published by this son in the year 1799. Another posthumous work speedily followed: “Literary and characteristical Lives of John Gregory, M.D., Henry Home, Lord Kames, David Hume, Esq., and Adam Smith, LL.D. To which are added a Dissertation on Public Spirit, and three Essays.” Edinb. 1800, 8vo. His original plan comprehended the lives of other twenty-five men of literary eminence, with whom he was personally acquainted. One of these was his friend Dr. Stuart, with whose private history he was sufficiently familiar, and of which he could have supplied very curious, though perhaps not very edifying details. It is not however a subject of much regret that his plan was never completed. In the specimen with which we have thus been presented, there is too little biography, and too much discussion. This remark is more particularly applicable to the life of Dr. Gregory, which extends to 118 pages, but is almost entirely occupied with an account, not of the writer, but of his writings. The other lives are of less extent. In his account of Hume, he relates, without any symptom of disapprobation, the indecent levity with which he sported on the verge of another world; and in the same manner he likewise repeats the declaration of Dr. Smith as to the character of that philosopher, “I have always considered him, both in his lifetime and since his death, as approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man, as perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit.” This ingenious printer may himself have been somewhat too anxious to be classed among philosophers.

Smellie appears to have been a man of excellent talents, and of extensive knowledge. His disposition was social, his habits were convivial, and he was distinguished by a sarcastic vein of wit and humour. According to the description of his biographer, he “was about the middle size, and had been in his youth well-looked and active; but when rather past the middle of life, he had acquired from almost constantly stooping at his desk to write or correct, a rather lounging gait and appearance; and from a long-continued series of difficulties in his affairs, and much disappointment in matters of affectionate moment, he had become careless and rather slovenly in his dress and appearance; wearing his hair long and bushy, his ordinary black and wide-made clothes ill brushed, and well sprinkled with snuff, and his usual old-fashioned cocked hat for the most part rusty.” Burns describes him as “a man positively of the first abilities and greatest strength of mind, as well as one of the best hearts and keenest wits, that he had ever met with.” And in the following lines, which allude to a club called the Crochallan Fencibles, he has exhibited a graphic delineation of Smellie:

To Crochallan came

The old cock’d hat, the brown surtout the same;

His bristling beard just rising in its might,

'Twas four long days and nights to shaving-night; His uncomb’d grizzly locks, wild staring, thatch'd A head for thought profound and clear unmatch’d; And though bis caustic wit was biting, rude, His heart was warm, benevolent, and good. (x.)