spring out of each other, without a reference to that first cause by whom all is guided in that manner which fulfils His omniscient views. The Christian who meditates attentively upon those matters which are peculiar to his own destiny, and upon those which are the general portion of humanity, connects by faith all the links of the chain of events, and believes it to be attached to the pillars of Omnipotence. Such is the temper of mind by which we may, not indeed scrutinize the ways of Providence, but judge according to our limited powers, unbiassed by presumptuous theories.

The combinations which characterize the works of God in the physical as in the moral world, present a multitude of proofs of this profound and complicated arrangement. Fatal is the error of the politician who expects the prosperity of his country to spring from the ruins of another; the individual who expects the enjoyment of that wealth which is wrung from the tears of his fellow-creature. The immutable law of the Creator has decreed that all which is in itself iniquitous shall also prove to be impolitic, and that chastisement shall inevitably follow crime. The guilty man does not always meet in this world the punishment he has drawn upon himself; and why? Because, in the words of Saint Augustin, God has eternity wherein to punish. It is not thus with respect to nations, since, in their collective capacity, forming one body, they are not reserved for a future state; they have in this world their reward, as among the Romans, for some human virtues,* or are punished as many nations have been, for national crimes by national calamities. The judgment seems to us to fall alike upon the innocent individuals as upon the guilty mass; but piety teaches us to believe, that Eternal Justice bestows in compensation blessings beyond the reach of our intelligence to conceive.

The calamities which the sins of the people call down upon countries, form a frequent topic in the discourses addressed from the pulpit by English divines.† It is not given to us to trace with precision the purport of these popular inflictions; but an assertion, supported by so many and such remarkable facts, may be looked upon to have attained moral certainty.

The slave-trade has been the foul and crying sin of several European nations throughout three centuries.

Who shall fix a limit to the expiatory scourge which many now groan under, and others in the two worlds may soon feel in their turn! I shall perhaps be accused by worldly men, of speaking the language of fanaticism; be it so: such censure is a small evil which I have long since acquired the habit of meeting with resignation. ‡

* See Saint Augustin, 'de Civitate Dei,' i, 3.

+See 'Europe Chastised and Africa Avenged:' by Mr. Stephen. In 8vo. London, 1817; and the review of this work in the Chronique Religieuse.' In 8vo. Harris, 1819, T. iv. p. 121, and the following.

See De la traite et de l'esclavage des Noirs et des Blancs,' par un ami des hommes de toutes les couleurs.' In 8vo. Paris, 1815, p. 36, and the following.

THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL VIEW OF THE LAW OF LIbel in ENGLAND AND IN INDIA.

No. XIII.

Practical View of the Law of Libel in England.

THE case of Mr. Leslie, in 1805, is one of the most interesting and instructive which ever occurred. Some cases are aggravated by the enormity of the punishment; some by the exaggerated importance ascribed to sallies of petulance or despicable ribaldry; and some by the total want of foundation, or colourable excuse for the superstructure which, by the help of inadmissible hypothesis and violently distorted inferences, is reared upon the harmless words of the accused. Among these last, the case of Mr. Leslie stands pre-eminent. An unfounded charge of Atheism was brought against him, in words so blundering, that, according to the most rational construction that could be given to them, they implied atheistic principles in his accusers, and it was then attempted first to prevent his election to the mathematical chair, in the University of Edinburgh, and afterwards to procure his deprivation and expulsion.

On the death of Dr. John Robison, Professor of Natural Philosophy, January 30, 1805, and the succession of Dr. Playfair to that Professorship, the Professorship of Mathematics became vacant, the patronage being with the Town Council. One of the ministers of Edinburgh, Mr. Macknight, became a candidate, on the condition that he should not be required to relinquish his office in the church. The union of duties and studies so dissimilar, as to be incompatible with eminence, or even usefulness in either department, alarmed those Professors who were most anxious to preserve, as they had most contributed to uphold and increase, the honour and reputation of the University; and their opposition to the election of Mr. Macknight, or any other clerical pluralist, was rendered successful by the appearance among the candidates of Mr. Leslie, whose proofs and testimonials of scientific acquirements were incomparably superior to those which could be produced by his competitors. To defeat the election of Mr. Leslie, was, therefore, the most urgent consideration with that part of the 'moderate' clergy, who wished to oblige their friend, Mr. Macknight, and to establish a convenient precedent for the interests of their body. For this purpose they fastened on the following note, on a passage in the text of his 'Experimental Inquiry into the Nature and Propagation of Heat,' viz.:

'Mr. Hume is the first, as far as I know, who has treated of causation in a truly philosophic manner. His "Essay on Necessary Connection" seems a model of clear and accurate reasoning. But it was only wanted

to dispel the cloud of mystery which had so long darkened that important subject. The unsophisticated sentiments of mankind are in perfect unison with the deductions of logic, and imply nothing more at bottom, in the relation of cause and effect, than a constant and valuable sequence. This will distinctly appear from a critical examination of language, that great and durable monument of human thought,' &c.—Note xvi. p. 521.

- In the above passage, and in others by which it is surrounded, it is manifest that Mr. Leslie merely denied the agency of invisible ethers, or other intermedia, in the production of physical phenomena; a supposition to which (though it is as unsatisfactory as the elephant and tortoise theory of the world) Atheists have often had recourse. Mr. Leslie, however, having been informed of the proceedings of the ministers, addressed a letter to the Rev. Dr. Hunter, Professor of Divinity, in which he not only explained the meaning of the controverted passage, but disavowed the objectional inferences which had been drawn from it. This letter was laid before the Reverend Presbytery, but, as almost invariably happens, where the accusers are judges, they considered it an aggravation of the original offence! They prepared a remonstrance and protest to be laid before the magistrates, in which they suppressed all mention of the letter to Dr. Hunter, and in which, after quoting the note, they proceed:

From which words, it is evident that Mr. Leslie, having, along with Mr. Hume, denied all such necessary connection between cause and effect, as implies an operating principle in the cause, has, of course, laid a foundation for rejecting all the argument that is derived from the works of God, to prove either his being or attributes,' &c.

Their right to present this protest against the validity of an election in the face of their remonstrance,' was grounded on a clause of the charter of James IV., by which the patronage of the University, vested in the Town Council, was to be exercised with the advice of their ministers, (cum avisamento tamen eorum ministrorum ;') a clause which implied no invalidity in elections made without or against their advice. In this paper they also expressed their willingness to receive and attend to any explanation of Mr. Leslie's principles that may in this case be offered:' though it appeared from their rejection of his letter, and from subsequent declarations, that no explanation could reconcile them to the passage, which they insisted must be withdrawn.'

Their charge against Mr. Leslie was, that he denies all such necessary connection between cause and effect as implies an operating principle in the cause.' Upon which Mr. Dugald Stewart observed. In what sense, then, are we to understand the word cause in the conclusion of the sentence? and to what species of cause is the operating principle to be ascribed? It cannot, I should think, be to the Supreme Being; for the connection is stated to be necessary, and as such, independent of his will.' The only supposition, then, that remains, is, that the operating principle is to be understood to belong

to the physical cause itself, connecting it necessarily with the effect, or, in other words, that physical and efficient causes are one and the same;' which amounted exactly to Spinoza's modification of Atheism. Both these constructions, however, attributed more meaning to the proposition than it possessed, for, by substituting the synonymes warranted by their explanations of it, Dr. Thomas Brown reduced their charge to an imputation of Atheism, because Mr. Leslie denies such efficiency of efficient causes as implies efficiency in efficient causes.

Dr. Brown subjected their proposition to a variety of tests suggested by their own apologies, and by the principles of the science of which he was so great a master, and found that, under every form it could be made to assume, either it was nonsense or Atheism, or not far removed from it.

The Town Council elected Mr. Leslie to the vacant professorship in the end of March. In April and May the Presbytery met, and agreed by a small majority to refer the whole matter to the Synod of Lothian and Tweedale; and the Synod agreed to refer it to the General Assemby. At each step information was transmitted to Mr. Leslie, that further proceedings should be stayed in the event of his consenting to withdraw the offensive part of his publication, either by cancelling the leaves of the book which contain the note referred to, or by any other means equally effectual that may be agreeable to himself.' But Mr. Leslie was careful not to acknowledge their jurisdiction, or a consciousness of doubt as to his own innocence, by making any reply to their absurd but persecuting communications. At each step, too, the minority, headed by Sir H. M. Wellwood and Dr. Hunter, entered their dissent, and took instruments.'.

In the meantime, the moderate prosecutors of Mr. Leslie sent out two appeals, one to the world, which appeared in the 'Courant' newspaper of May 2d, the other to their friends, and clandestinely circulated amongst them. In the first, they displayed not only gross ignorance of the doctrines of Locke, Hume, Reid, &c., but an unblushing want of candour and good faith in criticising Mr. Leslie's note, and re-inforcing their objections to it. Yet, in the course of this manifesto, they say, "There is not in the passage here quoted, (Mr. Leslie's note,) a single ambiguous expression, and they may be allowed to have some degree of confidence in their own judgment, for comprehending the obvious import or meaning of words.' In the memorial sent to various members of the approaching General Assembly, the two following passages are most remarkable: As a disciple of Mr. Hume, he (Mr. Leslie) has taken higher ground than was ever ventured on by his master.' 'And looking to the publication of this doctrine in connection with the circumstances of the times, when there appears an infidel party arraying itself with increasing confidence against the religion of the country, they cannot but consider the appointment of Mr. Leslie to be a professor and

a teacher of youth as a measure of very unfriendly aspect to the Christian faith, and our Church establishment for its support.' And ' in the mean time they are disposed, if they shall err, to take their chance of erring on the side of lenity and forbearance, rather than on that of severity and rigour and upon this principle they have resolved, that if Mr. Leslie shall consent to withdraw what is offensive in his publication, either by cancelling, &c., they will in that event cease their proceedings, as far as concerns him individually, and content themselves with following out the necessary measures against the Town Council, for establishing their right of avisamentum in future cases.' So that if Mr. Leslie had consented to withdraw the passage, they would have been satisfied with that ambiguous optes operatum, and without further evidence of the soundness of his principles, would have admitted him to be an unexceptionable professor and teacher of youth.

When the case was heard and debated in the General Assembly, on the 22d and 23d of May 1805, the question was, whether to sustain the complaint of the dissenting minority of the Synod, and consequently reject the reference, or to dismiss the complaint, which would lead to the reception of the reference. The numbers were as follows: Sustain, 96-Dismiss, 84-Majority for sustaining the complaint, 12.

Sir H. M. Wellwood appeared at the bar, and took instruments, and craved an extract of the decision.

Upon the vote being announced, a shout of applause resounded from the galleries; in consequence of which, an order was instantly issued that strangers in future should not be admitted without tickets.

It appears, then, that in an assembly of 180, no fewer than 84, or seven-fifteenths, were for persevering in these erroneous or unjust proceedings; and that the Church of Scotland narrowly escaped being involved in a transaction which would have impressed on it a deep stain of cruelty and reproach.

In 1806, Lieutenant-Colonel Edward Alured Draper was tried on an information, for having written and published a pamphlet, entitled, "An address to the British Public on the Case of Brigadier-General Picton, late Governor and Captain General of the Island of Trinidad, with observations on the conduct of William Fullarton, Esq., F.R.S., and the Right Hon. John Sullivan." The charge against Mr. Sullivan was, that he had sent out private instructions to Colonel Fullarton to investigate the conduct of Governor Picton, with a view to his removal from his government. Dr. Lynch made affidavit, that Mr. Sullivan had, in conversation with him, made a declaration to that effect; and Mr. Sullivan denied it in a counter-affidavit. The Duke of York, and several noblemen and gentlemen bore testimony to the character of Colonel Draper, and said that they believed